PDA

View Full Version : Creation and Advaita !



nirotu
10 January 2007, 05:09 PM
Creation and Advaita:

It looks like an oxymoron to me. If Advaita is all there is, then there was no necessity of creation! If the starting point and ending point of a man�s life is the same (Advaita), I think that the process of creation itself takes on a new meaning that does overshadow Advaita. In light of this reality that creation indeed took place, where does Advaita address this reality? In my view Advaita truly limits its ability to address this point in a meaningful way!

Einstein�s famous quote �God does not play dice� is very meaningful in that it implies there is an intent and specific purpose to His creation, which certainly is not with any malicious intent. From an Advaitic standpoint this intent and purpose is lost completely when God created us!

Therefore, we cannot deny that Dvaita has come into being at the moment of creation. Let us exchange and explore the reason and meaning behind the drive to creation. In fact, this was my very first earnest post but, unfortunately it was hijacked to another extreme.

Blessings,

Znanna
10 January 2007, 05:43 PM
In my opinion, creation is without beginning or end, not a discrete event ... and by extension, the notion that time is linear is illusion, an artifact of language.

Hope that helps resolve your conundrum :)


Namaste,
ZN

nirotu
10 January 2007, 09:03 PM
In my opinion, creation is without beginning or end, not a discrete event ... and by extension, the notion that time is linear is illusion, an artifact of language.

Hope that helps resolve your conundrum :)


Namaste,
ZN

Dear Znanna:

Perhaps, you are confusing with definition of terms:

Creation: To cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve that is not made by ordinary processes: Material (Universe, man)

Uncreated: Not having been created: Immaterial (God)

Therefore, the creation has a beginning and perhaps, an end too!

I am talking about creation and not uncreated ! ! !

Blessings,

saidevo
10 January 2007, 10:19 PM
Namaste nirotu,

Good to note that you are approaching a subject in a generic, philosophical and spiritual way, rising above 'labels'.



It looks like an oxymoron to me. If Advaita is all there is, then there was no necessity of creation! ... I think that the process of creation itself takes on a new meaning that does overshadow Advaita. In light of this reality that creation indeed took place, where does Advaita address this reality? In my view Advaita truly limits its ability to address this point in a meaningful way!

Einstein’s famous quote “God does not play dice” is very meaningful in that it implies there is an intent and specific purpose to His creation, which certainly is not with any malicious intent. From an Advaitic standpoint this intent and purpose is lost completely when God created us!

Therefore, we cannot deny that Dvaita has come into being at the moment of creation. Let us exchange and explore the reason and meaning behind the drive to creation. In fact, this was my very first earnest post but, unfortunately it was hijacked to another extreme.


The answer to the purpose of creation, that is advaita becoming dvaita, thereby seeming to dilute or lose its identity, can only be inferred by man, from his day to day experiences and habitual acts.

First of all, who are you 'nirotu'? Are you your body? Your soul? Or both, perhaps? If you are a soul then why did you acquire a body? Do you know about the time you were just a pure soul (advaita) and then took a body (dvaita)? Do you know the personal history of your own soul?

Alright, these things are out of your hands, so you cannot possibly know your pre-birth, birth, death and post-mortem (curiously, the word pre-mortem is not found in the dictionary, maybe according to the Christian concept of one birth and one death). So let us examine the present you, you who are living now, with a body and soul.

What and who are you now in this birth? A man, son, brother, friend, youth, citizen, employee, boss or whatever else it is? I am not talking about the physical forms you take for these generic roles you have to play. I am referring to the mental makeup that goes with these physical forms. Of such differing personalitities, which is the real you? Do you know it? Can you know it? Have you tried to find the answers to these pertinent, personal questions before venturing on a generic question? If you did try, what did you find? If you did not, why not look at you to start with, before looking around or above?

Who are you when you are awake and experience this world? Why do you become (sometimes totally) a different person in your dreams? Who and what and where are you in your deep sleep? Why do you need to wake up at all and recreate all your world that was not there in your sleep?

Can you just be what you really are for a day? An hour? Or at least for some moments, without being anything else that is not the real you?

The answer to the reason and meaning behind the drive to creation, advaita becoming dvaita is that--keep your fingers crossed!--there is no answer!. No man knows it. No angel knows it. No archangel knows it. Even the Creator--Brahma in my label--does not know it! For he is just another poor God with a cycle of birth and death! Only Brahman knows it, such a secret it is! There is no use in probing it, before we probe our own self. At the time of Self-Realization, the Turiya state, perhaps we may have an idea, but there again you wouldn't be able to put it in words or thoughts what you actually realised!

All the best in what your are seeking. If and when you find the answer to your questions, don't forget to let me know. But then I would like to verify it with my own Self!

Sudarshan
11 January 2007, 12:49 AM
Creation and Adviata:

It looks like an oxymoron to me. If Advaita is all there is, then there was no necessity of creation! If the starting point and ending point of a man’s life is the same (Advaita), I think that the process of creation itself takes on a new meaning that does overshadow Advaita. In light of this reality that creation indeed took place, where does Advaita address this reality? In my view Advaita truly limits its ability to address this point in a meaningful way!


Advaita is all there is. But need not be undifferentiated consciousness. Scriptures give many accounts of creation (puruSa sUktam, nAsadiya sUktam etc), and in every case it is explained that Brahman 'desired' to become many. Consequently, there is no point in dismissing its reality. Those who uphold "non creation" turn a blind eye to 99.99% of the scripture and build a thesis out of the remaning 0.01%.



Einstein’s famous quote “God does not play dice” is very meaningful in that it implies there is an intent and specific purpose to His creation, which certainly is not with any malicious intent. From an Advaitic standpoint this intent and purpose is lost completely when God created us!

Therefore, we cannot deny that Dvaita has come into being at the moment of creation. Let us exchange and explore the reason and meaning behind the drive to creation. In fact, this was my very first earnest post but, unfortunately it was hijacked to another extreme.

Blessings,

Brahman, being free of desires himself, cannot create anything for himself, in dream or reality. His creation is for the welfare of others, who coexist eternally. For some mysterious reason, innumerable number of souls have become ignorant of their true nature. By creating this world, God has given us an opportunity to get rid of ignorance. Only in this world can one realize God. Of course, God can remove the ignorance of souls without such a complex means, but to pass judgement on that, you need to know how or why you became ignorant. As Sai mentioned, certain things about creation are mysterious, not even Brahma knows fully.

Sudarshan
11 January 2007, 03:53 AM
In the second part of the mANDUkya Upanishad, creation theories are discussed:

I-7. Those who think of creation hold it as the manifestation of God's power; while others fancy that (wrongly imagine) creation as same as dream and illusion.

I-8. Creation is the mere will of the Lord, say those who thought out well the process of creation, but those who rely upon time hold that the birth of beings is from time.

I-9. Some others hold that creation is for the enjoyment of God, yet others say that it is for His sport. But it(creation) is the very nature of the resplendent Being, for what desire can he have whose desire is all fulfilled?

1-7 rules out creation resulting from God vainly exercising his power, or creation being an illusion or a dream.

1-8 suggests that God willed creation ( note "who thought out well the process of creation"), and consequently creation becomes an actively driven event. This is well supported by all creation accounts given by scripture. ( that God willed creation)

1-9 rejects notions such as creation being for the pleasure of God, or sport being direct causes. It is additionally mentioned that God has no desires for himself. Yet (1-8) imples God willed creation. If not for oneself, the desire is obviously for those different from him. God makes others happy through his creation by providing the sufficient tools and resources to overcome the ignorance that veils the true nature of the soul. It is the supreme being's uncaused mercy towards others that made him create. It is sometimes called a 'sport' because one wonders if God needed so much paraphernalia to give enlightenment to the souls. The soul has wrongly imagined that "I am independent of God" and so on, and this ignorance is removed only by some lessons learnt here.

atanu
11 January 2007, 07:11 AM
Namaste nirotu,

-------
The answer to the reason and meaning behind the drive to creation, advaita becoming dvaita is that--keep your fingers crossed!--------- Only Brahman knows it, such a secret it is! There is no use in probing it, before we probe our own self. --------


Nicely said.

atanu
11 January 2007, 07:32 AM
Creation and Adviata:

-------

Einstein’s famous quote “God does not play dice” is very meaningful in that it implies there is an intent and specific purpose to His creation, which certainly is not with any malicious intent. From an Advaitic standpoint this intent and purpose is lost completely when God created us!

-------

Blessings,


Namaste,

Though, Saidevo ji has praised you, I do not see anything to praise you about. Everytime, it seems that you have made up your mind, since you alone had a direct talk with God about his intent.

And your writing above is a just short of implying as if Advaita ascribes malicious intent to the creation. Just short.


Nice Shri Nirotu.

satay
11 January 2007, 10:19 AM
Ignoring the 'intent' of the OP for a moment, I do not understand how 'GOD' can 'will'.

Willing a creation implies that he/she has desires. If he as GOD still has desires, we got ourselves a big problem as this GOD is no better than you and me then. Perhaps if he himself has desires he should meditate and redisover the SELF.

What's the original sanskrit word that is translated to mean 'will'?

Sudarshan
11 January 2007, 10:45 AM
Usually iccha or kAma is used for desire in the original sanskrit verses.

Taiitiryopanishad says this: - so-akAmayata | bahusyAm prajAyeyeti|

nAsadIya sukta explicitly says kAmaH or desire involved in the creation.

Desire of God is not to satisfy his - but yours! Imagine yourself to be in the hospital ready to undergo a surgery, and just apply the situation if God had no will to act. Unless God had a will and listens to you, his worship gets reduced to nothing. ( an equivalent of bouddham)

satay
11 January 2007, 10:52 AM
Usually iccha or kAma is used for desire in the original sanskrit verses.

Taiitiryopanishad says this: - so-akAmayata | bahusyAm prajAyeyeti|

nAsadIya sukta explicitly says kAmaH or desire involved in the creation.

Desire of God is not to satisfy his - but yours! Imagine yourself to be in the hospital ready to undergo a surgery, and just apply the situation if God had no will to act. Unless God had a will and listens to you, his worship gets reduced to nothing. ( an equivalent of bouddham)

Something doesn't feel right here. If GOD has desires...then why must I shun mine?

satay
11 January 2007, 11:11 AM
Lord explains this nicely in 4.14

na mam karmani limpanti
na me karma-phale sprha
iti mam yo 'bhijanati
karmabhir na sa badhyate

In the previous shloka to this he is 'akartaram'.

I understand from these verses that as rain supports the production of fruits and leaves so does the LORD support the creation.

Does rain have will?

I would say that GOD does not will the creation. This creation is just an 'expansion' of his creative energy.

Since I am also Shiva bhakta...I have another point of view. This 'creation' is not a creation at all! It is the 'dance' of the dancer.

Does 'dance' exist ? Can 'dance' be created? Can we separate the 'dance' from the dancer?

The dance exists until the dancer is dancing...the dancer is dancing so we exist!

:)

Agnideva
11 January 2007, 11:19 AM
Something doesn't feel right here. If GOD has desires...then why must I shun mine?
I know where you're coming from. I guess the question goes back to asking why did creation come to be? The idea that desire (iccha) arose is one sort of explanation, and I've heard this many a time. So, in turn it can be asked, how can there be desire in Him that is considered the fulfillment of all desires? I really would like to hear alternative explanations as well.

Regards,
A.

Agnideva
11 January 2007, 11:27 AM
I would say that GOD does not will the creation. This creation is just an 'expansion' of his creative energy.

Since I am also Shiva bhakta...I have another point of view. This 'creation' is not a creation at all! It is the 'dance' of the dancer.

Does 'dance' exist ? Can 'dance' be created? Can we separate the 'dance' from the dancer?

The dance exists until the dancer is dancing...the dancer is dancing so we exist!

:)

And if you believe the dance is eternal/transcending time, there is no creation, no original cause, no beginning, no end, no middle.

"Just as the roots themselves have no roots, so the cause of all things is itself causeless" - this is from the Sankhya Sutra, I think.

Sudarshan
11 January 2007, 12:09 PM
Something doesn't feel right here. If GOD has desires...then why must I shun mine?

Do you think God must abandon his desires tuned to your welfare, just because some people think his desires are fulfilled? Without that, why might you even need that God concept?

God is not selfish to remain content with his eternal bliss. His desires are for others.

Sudarshan
11 January 2007, 12:24 PM
And if you believe the dance is eternal/transcending time, there is no creation, no original cause, no beginning, no end, no middle.

"Just as the roots themselves have no roots, so the cause of all things is itself causeless" - this is from the Sankhya Sutra, I think.

Creation has no beginning or end. But this creation always refer to one of kalpas or cycles. Assiging no cause or no creation would mean one treating scriptural accounts as a fairy tale or imagination. Every bit of vedas talk about Brahman and various devas who have emanated from this creation and their roles in leading us to Brahman, thus effectively shunting out the whole scripture. Extending this principle it invalidates all purANas, itihAsas, the gIta and so on. Ultimately it means you are worshipping dieties who never existed, dont exist or will never exist...none of these have any meaning without according reality to them. Why would bhagavAn incarnate in a world that was never created or existed- so invalidate them as well. So what are we finally left with? :)

satay
11 January 2007, 12:35 PM
Do you think God must abandon his desires tuned to your welfare, just because some people think his desires are fulfilled? Without that, why might you even need that God concept?

God is not selfish to remain content with his eternal bliss. His desires are for others.

I see your point, however, the problem I have is with the word 'will' and 'creation'.

Creation implies that there is a separate creator sitting somewhere outside of his creation. Also, it implies that he/she used some material to create his creation. Then the question becomes, where did that material come from? Who created that material? What's the source of that mateiral that was used in this creation by GOD?

Second, why 'will' it? Why? why? why will it at all? I know what the christian answer it and I will not make a comment on that right now. I want to know what is the reason that GOD 'wills' creation? Is he bored out of his mind?

The fact is that that creation and the creator are not separate. GOD is all prevading and thus his omnipotence. He can not be separate from 'this' (creation).
The answer in my mind is:

'This' just 'is'! There is no separatedness, there is no will to 'create'. there just 'is'.

Mundaka Upanishad says

Yathornaabhih Srajate granhate cha yatha
Tathaaksharaat sambhavatiha viswam

"As the spider creates the web out of itself and withdraws unto itself from the imperishable comes out the universe".

This implies that the creator and the creation are one and the same i.e. the matter and energy are not different from each other. What we know as 'creation' is just LORD's creative energy i.e. Shakti which is all prevading.
Shakti and Lord are not two separate entities.


Lord explains about this shakti well in Ch. 13 shloka 13 onwards. His vishvaroopam is all pervading.

13.14
sarvatah pani-padam tat
sarvato 'ksi-siro-mukham
sarvatah srutimal loke
sarvam avrtya tisthati

This is my understanding and opinion and obviously if it doesn't match with the main stream hindu or vaishnava teaching, I am not bothered by it.

As our christian friend nirotu encourages, I am trying to rise above the label here. :)

Sudarshan
11 January 2007, 12:46 PM
This implies that the creator and the creation are one and the same i.e. the matter and energy are not different from each other. What we know as 'creation' is just LORD's creative energy i.e. Shakti which is all prevading.
Shakti and Lord are not two separate entities.



Most admit the universe to have sprung from God( Shakti is not a bad word) , not external. But yet, they are not the same( is it the Lord who created the hells to put 'himself' there?). Gita itself supports the creation idea, read ch 8:17-19. Unless Bhagavan was teaching Arjuna some falsehood, this has to be taken as real. Was Arjuna taught falsehood because he was ineligible? No!! He was blessed with his vision the millions cannot even dream of and Arjuna's ineligibility is a lame excuse, as anyone reading 11:53 and 54 know Arjuna was the most exalted of devotees. 16.19-20 must reveal the seriousness in this creation of God showing it is as more than a joke or mere play. ( a God that displays his Shakti to put throw himself into long terms hells!).

Sudarshan
11 January 2007, 12:51 PM
Creation implies that there is a separate creator sitting somewhere outside of his creation. Also, it implies that he/she used some material to create his creation. Then the question becomes, where did that material come from? Who created that material? What's the source of that mateiral that was used in this creation by GOD?


The common answers are vivartA and pariNAma.

satay
11 January 2007, 01:54 PM
Most admit the universe to have sprung from God( Shakti is not a bad word) , not external. But yet, they are not the same( is it the Lord who created the hells to put 'himself' there?). Gita itself supports the creation idea, read ch 8:17-19. Unless Bhagavan was teaching Arjuna some falsehood, this has to be taken as real. Was Arjuna taught falsehood because he was ineligible? No!! He was blessed with his vision the millions cannot even dream of and Arjuna's ineligibility is a lame excuse, as anyone reading 11:53 and 54 know Arjuna was the most exalted of devotees. 16.19-20 must reveal the seriousness in this creation of God showing it is as more than a joke or mere play. ( a God that displays his Shakti to put throw himself into long terms hells!).

I am not saying that the world doesn't exist, I am saying that it exists not as a separate creation. It IS GOD himself or in other words, GOD himself is 'this' material world + whatever other things he is that we don't know.

If there is such a material place known as 'hell' then GOD MUST be there as well because otherwise, he is not Omnipotent!

Are you saying that he is not all prevading and thus not omnipotent?

also, where did GOD get the material to create this and other worlds? What is the source of the 'material' used?

nirotu
11 January 2007, 05:09 PM
The answer to the purpose of creation, that is advaita becoming dvaita, thereby seeming to dilute or lose its identity, can only be inferred by man, from his day to day experiences and habitual acts.

First of all, who are you 'nirotu'? Are you your body? Your soul? Or both, perhaps? If you are a soul then why did you acquire a body? Do you know about the time you were just a pure soul (advaita) and then took a body (dvaita)? Do you know the personal history of your own soul?



Dear Saidevo:

I have said this before and let me reiterate. While reality is “holistic”, in a discussion forum like ours we have to focus on a single viewpoint at a time. While I am addressing the intent and purpose behind creation, the nature of question you are raising (“who are you?”) falls under the guise of “Atma Vichara” or “Self-Probing”. While your reply is extremely profound and thought-provoking and noble path in itself, it is not the part of my discussion. While both represent the realities of the Universe they are from different point of view. You are mixing the two: the inward journey with creation.

Granted, they represent the same reality in their ultimate sense, for now let us stick to the aspect I am posing. It is like “light” that can be described in Physics either having “wave nature” or “Particle nature”. While both represent the light, I am addressing one aspect, say particle nature. Let us not jump around but stick to particle aspect. On the other hand, if you want to shift to “Atma Vichara” or “Self-Probing”, let us agree on it first.

Let us explore the intent and purpose behind creation and perhaps, one could have insight into this that may eventually lead to “Atma Vichara”. I think one does not have to self-realize to know the creation. Although, these are two different approaches to reality, atma-vichara, in my view, relates discovering higher self in you and not outside of you: creation. Ultimately, it may lead you to a state of advaita but that does not answer the question of dvaita. Rather than pre-impose “self-realization” as a pre-condition to the knowledge of creation, I would submit that if I understand the intent and purpose, I will then know myself.


Blessings,

nirotu
11 January 2007, 05:11 PM
His creation is for the welfare of others, who coexist eternally. For some mysterious reason, innumerable number of souls have become ignorant of their true nature. By creating this world, God has given us an opportunity to get rid of ignorance.


Dear Sudarshan:

You seem to present creation as an after thought in God’s experiment. I have hard time understanding that. This kind of thinking leads to a deadly cathch-22.

Your view is that God somehow assumed there were mistakes or defects that needed rectification. What came first: creation or mistakes? Your view assumes defects already existed in God’s mind. I view it differently. The intent and purpose far precedes the maya or ignorance came into being. We are looking into that intent and purpose and not what happened after perfect creation as in case of Adam and Eve.


Let us look toward slightly higher intent and purpose (befitting of God) that might have been the drive behind creation.

Blessings,

nirotu
11 January 2007, 05:14 PM
. . . since you alone had a direct talk with God about his intent.



Dear Atanu:

I wish you were right on the button on this statement that “I have had this direct talk with God.” Just remember my friend that if have had the talk with “God”, I would not be spending so much time on this discussion forum as I would be repository of all answers.


And your writing above is a just short of implying as if Advaita ascribes malicious intent to the creation. Just short.

I am sorry that you implied it as an attack on Advaita! Not at all !! All I was meaning to say is: regardless the intent the creation is always good because God is good. I am sorry if it was implied any other way.

Once again, all I am looking to is an open minded, honest exchange of thoughts and ideas on a clearly defined topic of spiritual nature.

Blessings,

Sudarshan
12 January 2007, 12:30 AM
Dear nirotu,




You seem to present creation as an after thought in God’s experiment. I have hard time understanding that. This kind of thinking leads to a deadly cathch-22.


You seem to be missing the point that almost every Hindu school do not admit a principle independent of God. Creation is not considered an one time event - but as an eternal cycle of creation and destruction.



Your view is that God somehow assumed there were mistakes or defects that needed rectification. What came first: creation or mistakes? Your view assumes defects already existed in God’s mind. I view it differently. The intent and purpose far precedes the maya or ignorance came into being. We are looking into that intent and purpose and not what happened after perfect creation as in case of Adam and Eve.


When we say that both creation and 'misktakes' are beginningless, there is no way you can ascribe a good reason. Hinduism does not say God created anything external to himself. The universe is a 'transformation' of God himself. Soul was also never created by God - it is beginningless. When you say beginningless, it can be taken to be beyond notions of time or as minus infinity. The soul is not considered to be separate from God( except by very few Hindus). So the reason for 'mistake' is unknown. Didn't you notice that almost every one said it is mysterious. It is not even known to the creator Brahma. But the mistake is there and glaringly frightening - we need to 'work' to resolve it or else you would remain caught in the 'mistake'. Since God cannot be responsible for the mistakes, the mistake is obviously in the soul. But this situation cannot come about in perfect Advaita, but only in a dual/non-dual framework.





Let us look toward slightly higher intent and purpose (befitting of God) that might have been the drive behind creation.

Blessings,

God, as understood by everyone has no desires for himself ( because he has infinite bliss) and would have no intent whatsoever. Since creation happened and we exist to be discussing it, let us grant that God indeed created. So what would be the only reason? It is to rectify the 'mistakes' of others, where no personal desire of God is involved. It is the nobility of God and his causeless mercy that has caused creation, without which you would have no scope to rectify your mistakes and return back.( without creation you would be stranded in the avyakta(unmanifested) as during praLaya for ever). The mistake of the soul is of course its seeking independence and assuming itself to be apart from God - which every man continues to do, to this day.

Any other reason like God wanting love, obedience and worship of creation, or wanting to enjoy his powers or wanting slaves etc, fall flat on the face, and it questions the very perfected nature of God.

Sudarshan
12 January 2007, 12:56 AM
I am not saying that the world doesn't exist, I am saying that it exists not as a separate creation. It IS GOD himself or in other words, GOD himself is 'this' material world + whatever other things he is that we don't know.

If there is such a material place known as 'hell' then GOD MUST be there as well because otherwise, he is not Omnipotent!

Are you saying that he is not all prevading and thus not omnipotent?

also, where did GOD get the material to create this and other worlds? What is the source of the 'material' used?

That the world and Brahman cant be identical is easily proved, as doing so attributes all the pitfalls to God. That is why, the world has to be considered as either separate or as a dharma ( not svarUpa). Dvaitins take the former view, while VAs take the latter. God is much beyond the world, this is a microscopic part of him. It is customary to say the universe is one fourth of God while his three fourths are beyond - same view upheld in the Gita, Purusa suktam etc.

The relation between God and the universe is like man's soul and his body. A living man has an indwelling soul, whose nature is divine. But his body is not 'so much' and consequently undergoes death and decay. But the soul is not affected by the body. Similarly, God has this universe for his body, but Atma is unaffected as in the above case.

saidevo
12 January 2007, 08:18 AM
Namaste nirotu,

Alright, let me try to do some generic, abstract thinking on the subject of Creation and Advaita and learn in the process of discussions. When atma vicara is easier than atma sadhana, why shun it?!

My impressions on your points, one by one:



It looks like an oxymoron to me. If Advaita is all there is, then there was no necessity of creation!


Advaita will always be there, because it is the be-all and the end-all. In spite of its existence, creation happened, but this creation is not at all different from Advaita, because Advaita lurks behind all creation. It is the point of return for all creation.



If the starting point and ending point of a man’s life is the same (Advaita), I think that the process of creation itself takes on a new meaning that does overshadow Advaita.


1. Does creation overshadow Advaita? The question has the answer in itself.

Yes, creation does overshadow Advaita, not in the sense that it is more important and powerful than Advaita, but in the literal meaning that it casts a shadow, darkens, obscures Advaita.

2. 'Creation itself takes on a new meaning.'

Does it? What is its meaning? That the created should suffer under the yokes of karma? If the manifested life is better than the unmanifest, then there is no need to get beyond the cycle of rebirths, whereas in reality every human soul wants absolute freedom, which is its real nature! Not just the human soul, everything that lives has this upward evolution to its point of return, as its earmark.

3. 'The starting point and the ending point of human life is the same.'

The great saint and poet TiruvaLLuvar said: "Death is like sleeping; and birth like waking up." We have our own little periods of Turiya in deep sleep everyday and get back to the state of Advaita, which is our natural state. But then we wake up everyday, to be born again for that day, you know why? It is because of the inherent tRSNA or thirst for living, which is not a desire, but an impetus born out of five kleshas: avidya or ignorance, asmita or the I-ness, ragha or the attraction, dvesha or the aversion, and abhinivesha - or fear or resistance to loss.

Among the five kleshas, avidya is the main cause for the vrittis. Because of avidya we mistake the unblemished bliss and peace of deep sleep or Turiya to be a loss of identity, and, impelled by tRSNA we wake up to the charms of the daily life, however dissatisfied we would become when the day closes. It is the same with the cycle of rebirths.

In the Advaitic view, it is actually the opposite. Turiya is the real state and nature of a human soul and this wakeful life is a dream.

Even though deep sleep has an element of Turiya in it, both cannot be equated. Turiya is state of bliss obtained without a break in consciousness whereas in deep sleep there is a break in consciousness. My comparison of these two states here is just to enunciate a point.



In light of this reality that creation indeed took place, where does Advaita address this reality?


Advaita addresses creation as Maya. Since Brahman is both prakruti and purusha, Maya is the inherent force of Purusha with which he impregnates Prakruti and starts the process of creation as an emanation from himself. Maya is not an eternal unreality (adyanta asat) but a conditional reality. Thus creation as Maya is only a conditional reality, whereas Brahman who is behind it is the eternal reality.



In my view Advaita truly limits its ability to address this point in a meaningful way!


The view that Advaita limits its ability or shirks to address the reality of creation is flawed. As I said above, Advaita does address creation as Maya, which in no way limits its ability. Advaita is the be-ness and May is the be-ing.



Einstein’s famous quote "God does not play dice" is very meaningful in that it implies there is an intent and specific purpose to His creation, which certainly is not with any malicious intent. From an Advaitic standpoint this intent and purpose is lost completely when God created us!


1. 'Creation implies there is an intent and specific purpose.'

As to the intent and specific purpose of creation, let us quote here William Shakespeare, the great poet, who looked beyond the dogma of his own days and grasped the sense of Advaita.

Shakespeare sings in As You Like It (II, vii, 139-143):


All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.


And he sings in The Tempest, 4.1.148:


Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.


God may not play dice, but he does stage a play, a play of story and dance, of vision, sound and music and enacts with parts of himself as actors and settings. This is the dance of Shiva. Certainly, there can't be any malicious intent or purpose to this play of creation! It is just a lila, a sport of God. If the actors think that their stage life is the real life, forgetting their actual selves, it is only their ignorance and mistake, not God's.

In Advaita, this would mean that Brahman through the sparks of life he emanates as jivatmas is the eternal enactor, actor and watcher of the play of creation. The play is only a massive dream, the collection of individual dreams of jivatmas that they lead a separate life from their source. This is the reason that sadhakas are advised to live their present moment to the full in a way that advances them spiritually, but to otherwise simply sit and watch without any thoughts of partaking the play of life.

Our karmas and sufferings will lessen and burn out, the moment we start realizing that our wakeful life is only a dream and that our real nature and life is what is obtained in Turiya.



Therefore, we cannot deny that Dvaita has come into being at the moment of creation.


Yes, Dvaita comes into being with creation, but only as Maya, the conditional reality. It only manifests and does not negate Advaita. So long as a jivatma wants a role to play, forgetting that it is only an actor, there will be Dvaita. When an actor realizes that it is only play but he needs must go on playing the roles assigned, he would rise above the sufferings destined in the script. And when he has really finished his life of roles, he would sit with the audience and just watch the play. Here again, the actor, the stage, the audience all are parts of Brahman in Advaita, different only their states, seatings and settings.

atanu
12 January 2007, 08:45 AM
Dear Atanu:

-------
I am sorry that you implied it as an attack on Advaita! Not at all !! -----Blessings,


Dear NIrotu Namaste,

This is what you said:


------- there is an intent and specific purpose to His creation, which certainly is not with any malicious intent. From an Advaitic standpoint this intent and purpose is lost completely when God created us!

I said that your statement is just short of meaning that as if Advaitins ascribe mailcious intent to gods creation.

As per my understanding, your sentence simply should have read "---there is auspiciuos intent in creation, which seems to get lost in advaitic perspective".


And now you say the following:


I am sorry that you implied it as an attack on Advaita!


Nirotu what do you mean? "Atanu implied" or "Atanu perceived"?

Either there is some problem with language or you take most of us as naive.

You have asked me to be honest and I expect you to be honest. Tell me whether these are expression problems (which most non-english people are prone to have, including me).

Or tell us what you actually meant?


If there is a problem with language and perception then where is advaita and where is Dvaita. Nirotu, be honest.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivayya

nirotu
12 January 2007, 10:31 AM
My Dear Atanu:

I am deeply sorry if the statement is misconstrued by you. Honestly, I did not mean what you perceive it to be. I wanted to say was “God’s purpose, whatever may be, is always good and not malicious”. Perhaps, it should have been correctly presented as you have shown. When language (especially English) is used as a tool to communicate our feelings and thoughts, sometimes it backfires due to misinterpretation, may it be my lack of skills. Again, somehow extrapolating to mean totally different is not fair, when in fact I am apologizing for that misunderstanding.

Notwithstanding my apology you seem to drag it to a different conclusion that is disheartening to say the least. Again, sincerely all I can do is to apologize.

Now that my intent is clear, perhaps we can spend time to explore God’s intent!

Blessings,

Sudarshan
12 January 2007, 10:53 AM
Now that my intent is clear, perhaps we can spend time to explore God’s intent!


Why dont you start with your view? Let us keep the unknowables to a minimum ( that is, using terminologies like mystery) and try to see through God's intent. Hope you have seen my quotations from mANDUkya that rules out creation being a dream, a sport without cause, an illusion, a drama and so forth. Essentially, start with God willed creation, that is the universe exists merely due to the will of God. Now, what would be the role of will for a perfect being to create?

atanu
12 January 2007, 11:56 AM
My Dear Atanu:

I am deeply sorry if the statement is misconstrued by you. Honestly, I did not mean what you perceive it to be. I wanted to say was “God’s purpose, whatever may be, is always good and not malicious”. Perhaps, it should have been correctly presented as you have shown. When language (especially English) is used as a tool to communicate our feelings and thoughts, sometimes it backfires due to misinterpretation, may it be my lack of skills. Again, somehow extrapolating to mean totally different is not fair, when in fact I am apologizing for that misunderstanding.

Notwithstanding my apology you seem to drag it to a different conclusion that is disheartening to say the least. Again, sincerely all I can do is to apologize.

Now that my intent is clear, perhaps we can spend time to explore God’s intent!

Blessings,


Dear Nirotu,

Now that I have got the thing clarified, I would say that it was not your fault at being wrongly perceived and it was certainly not my fault at wrongly perceiving. Your 'deep sorry' is not required. And neither I am dragging the matter. That again is your perception.

If I dragged, it was just to show what perceptions are. Just give a little time to this.


Now examine again. You said this:


------ which certainly is not with any malicious intent. From an Advaitic standpoint this intent and purpose is lost completely when God created us!


Note the certainty with which you decide about Advaita. Is it not a definitive statement?

Next you said:


I wish you were right on the button on this statement that “I have had this direct talk with God.” Just remember my friend that if have had the talk with “God”, I would not be spending so much time on this discussion forum as I would be repository of all answers. .


Now again, be honest as you have requested me to be. Be honest and compare your knowing with certainty that 'advaita is absolutely wrong on the knowledge of intent of creation' on one hand and 'your wish to have direct talk with God and be a repository of all answers' on the other.

Are these two compatible? Be honest, Nirotu Ji. God loves honesty. Who has told you with such certainty that advaita is absolutely wrong on the intent of creation? Do you know the intent of creation that you can be so certain?. I feel that only God can tell about his intention. We may all guess, may be?


With respect and regards. I expect your honest answer.


I assure you that I am not dragging the matter. I am driving to some enquiry. Being honest will benefit both of us and all readers. Enquiry of Brahman is Auspicious.

Om. Let the enquiry be auspicious.

Om Namah Shivayya

nirotu
13 January 2007, 02:15 PM
Dear Atanu:
Oh! My, my, my……You seem to take my statement in bits and pieces to personify yours/mine perception. Perhaps, by taking it as a whole in proper context you will understand the intent behind my intent. There was absolutely no malicious intent on any one’s part here. If so, it is purely unintentional and again, I am sorry!!!!!!!

Honestly, I do not know the intent of God in creation and my desire is to know His intent. However, the creation in light of advaita, which happens to be the intent of this post. Yes, in the end we may not know but we can at least strive to know. Perhaps, in our struggle the answer may pop out. Rather than resign to our ignorance, we can at least attempt to know the mind of God (perhaps, in our own way!). There is an old adage that goes like this: “If we were meant to fly, God would have given us wings.” If that’s the attitude we had taken and resigned to ourselves, we would never have invented airplanes!

My OP is not related to the intent of creation by itself but in light of Advaita. Alternatively, how does Advaita views Dvaita in creation. It is the vehement denial of dvaita in your discussion is what bothers me and has prompted me to start this post.

I must say, Saidevo, Sudarshan and Satay have been putting forth some very compelling arguments in presenting their views. There is lot to learn and benefit from each other.


Now again, be honest as you have requested me to be. Be honest and compare your knowing with certainty that 'advaita is absolutely wrong on the knowledge of intent of creation' on one hand and 'your wish to have direct talk with God and be a repository of all answers' on the other.

Are you not the one who proclaimed with certainty that “If Jesus was not an advaitin then he surely did not know God.” The word “surely” does show you certainty!! And yes, you are right, Let us be honest! To that effect, I think, I made the first move already by apologizing!

I had started once before this post earnestly (Science and Religion section) but that was hijacked, perhaps unintentionally, with unintended consequences. Let us hope that does not happen here again. Let us all put all this behind and continue nice dialogue that is already going on with Saidevo, Sudarshan and Satay.

Blessings,

satay
13 January 2007, 02:23 PM
Trying to find God's intent for creation (?) is a tall order.

ps: just stating the obvious.

Enjoy the dance!

saidevo
13 January 2007, 07:31 PM
The irony is that we are not able to be clear about the intent and purpose of our own thoughts and words, and still we dare to try and decode the intent and purpose of God!

The gap between the mind and the hand is always large. And tricky.

God's signature, I think, can be found on the mundane as well as on the exotic. He has made man and the world in His own image, for He is there in everything.

yata bhAva tata bhavati!

atanu
14 January 2007, 12:59 AM
Dear Atanu:
Oh! My, my, my……You seem to take my statement in bits and pieces to personify yours/mine perception. Perhaps, by taking it as a whole in proper context you will understand the intent behind my intent. There was absolutely no malicious intent on any one’s part here. If so, it is purely unintentional and again, I am sorry!!!!!!!


Dear Nirotu,

Namaskar,

I do not say that I am ego less and I do not commit mistake. Far from it. And I do not ascribe any malice to you either. Who are You? In enquiry, one does not bring in emotions though one has to use piercing as if with knife.

Now please come away from the "Sorry" part. No "Sorry" is required in Brahman Jigyasa (If you truly wish it).



Honestly, I do not know the intent of God in creation and my desire is to know His intent. However, the creation in light of advaita, which happens to be the intent of this post. Yes, in the end we may not know but we can at least strive to know. Perhaps, in our struggle the answer may pop out. Rather than resign to our ignorance, we can at least attempt to know the mind of God (perhaps, in our own way!). There is an old adage that goes like this: “If we were meant to fly, God would have given us wings.” If that’s the attitude we had taken and resigned to ourselves, we would never have invented airplanes!



Regarding, stiving to know:

If you consider yourself a created being then how will you know? Does a report know its writer? Does a building know its architect? See, it will depend on what you call creation. If the material change or something new coming up is required by the definition, then Advaita says that no such thing happens.

Its all merely the dance --- the "nature" of Brahman continuosly unfolding its glories. (But personally, I don't know. There has never been a chance to know).

---------



Are you not the one who proclaimed with certainty that “If Jesus was not an advaitin then he surely did not know God.” The word “surely” does show you certainty!! And yes, you are right, Let us be honest! To that effect, I think, I made the first move already by apologizing!


No apology was requested Nirotu Ji. I wanted to know the exact meaning of your statements. Why bring in sorry and apology?

I still maintain it with certainty If Jesus was not an advaitin then he surely did not know God, based on Hindu scripture (and also the Bible). If you asked the reasons, I would clarify.

You accepted right in the beginning that Turiya is the highest attainement, we all are striving for. Well, if that is the common ground then lets see what happens.

Turiya itself is said to be Advaita. And it is also enjoined upon us to know it.

A simple point is how will one know the Advaita being a second to it?




----- Let us all put all this behind and continue nice dialogue that is already going on with Saidevo, Sudarshan and Satay.

Blessings,




So, do you wish me out of this discussion? Why are you not direct and forthcoming? (Though even if you were direct, I would reserve my right, if mods do not ban me).

I thought you wished it to be open? You wish it open, but you dislike piercing questions? Nirotu ji, please realise that the questions are not personal. They are about your and my views.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivayya

Sudarshan
14 January 2007, 06:30 AM
Trying to find God's intent for creation (?) is a tall order.

ps: just stating the obvious.

Enjoy the dance!

Is everyone enjoying the dance? Ask everyone in the world - I would say that I am displeased with his dance that creates innumerable hardships to people, which he still dances unconcerned.

To say that this is mere sport or entertainment( sport alone) is oversimplification. Brihadaranyaka and Isavasya( and others) say that this samsAra is dreadful( and it is, that is why sages virtually plead towards others to turn to God) and akin to walking on a razor.( a mis-step is very costly).

Mystery it certainly is, but more than entertainment.

Sudarshan
14 January 2007, 06:48 AM
Are you not the one who proclaimed with certainty that “If Jesus was not an advaitin then he surely did not know God.” The word “surely” does show you certainty!! And yes, you are right, Let us be honest! To that effect, I think, I made the first move already by apologizing!

Shankara's commentary on Mundaka Upanishad (3.1.4)


The knower , one who knows his own Self as the Self of all beings , does not speak anything else. For, knowing that all this is indeed nothing but the Self , what will he talk of? Only one who sees an object distinct from himself will have something to talk about. The knower sees nothing other than the Self , hears nothing else , knows nothing else.


If Jesus were really an advaitin, he could never have taught anything he did. It is a self contradiction. The same logic applies to any of the jIvanmuktAs. If he did talk and preach others and claims "I realized advaita" it is an experience of seeing something apart from the Self and such words are not authoritative as they are not paramArtika. According to Advaita, a jnanin does not percieve ajnanins, so there is nobody other than himself. Other opinions by neo Advaita clearly contradict the words of Shankara in many places. In particular the claim "I am an advaitin by realization" is blatantly false.

saidevo
14 January 2007, 10:32 AM
A step by step first exposure to advaita Through a dialogue of 1008 entries by Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

Here is a booklet that gives a wonderful and most enlightening dialogue between a guru and his sishya about Advaita. It is a must-read booklet that can be download as a pdf file at:
http://www.advaitin.net/advaitadialogue.pdf

The beauty of the dialogue is that it nicely ties up Advaita and Dvaita, Brahman with Atman and Jiva, and Jnana with Bhakti and Karma, and establishes how Advaita is the substratum behind all these paths.

Here is a sample from the flow of the dialog, but please read the booklet in its entirety. It does not get exhausted like a novel, though. You would surely be coming back to it repeatedly in your nidhidhyAsanA. Blessed soul, who could give such a lofty expression of a difficult darshana! You will also consider yourself blessed to have come by the work. I think Atanu would love it!



1. Shishhya: Om namo gurubhyaH (Prostrations to The Guru)
2. Guru : JnAna-vairAgya-siddhir-astu (May you achieve Wisdom and Dispassion)
3. S: I wish the painfulness in the world were unreal.
4. G: What makes you wish so?
5. S: Because I feel the pain.
6. G: Who is this that feels the pain?
7. S: I, myself.
8. G: Did you say ‘yourself’ or ‘your self’?
9. S: What is the difference?
10.G: There is a lot of difference. But please answer my question.

40.G: I am referring to the Self or the Atman that is permanently within you – not the body, mind or intellect.

56.G: That is the point of the teaching. See Atman everywhere.
57.S: How do I see it? Nobody seems to be seeing it?
58.G: This is where the subject of Vedanta comes in.
59.S: So is it the contention of Vedanta that Atman is everywhere?
60.G: It is not just a contention. It is the Truth, the Reality.

61.S: How can it be proved to be the Truth?
62.G: What kind of proof are you looking for?
63.S: Of course, a rational, scientific proof.
64.G: But rationality and science are only products of the mind.
65.S: What is wrong with it?
66.G: Nothing is wrong; but the Truth of the Self is beyond the mind.
67.S: On what authority are you saying this?
68.G: On the authority of the Vedas and Upanishads.
69.S: OK. Let the Truth be beyond the mind; how then do we ever know the Truth of the Self?
70.G: By experiencing it.

74.G: Yes. The perishable mind has to be used to seek the Imperishable Self.
75.S. There seems to be a logical fallacy here – Perishable thing seeking the Imperishable!
76.G. ‘Seems to be’ – that is right; the logical fallacy vanishes when you go deeper.
77.S: I don’t understand.
78.G: The Perishable perishes in the Imperishable.
79.S: Looks like a conundrum.
80.G: Yes, scriptural statements will look like conundrums. We have to meditate on them.

83.S: Then please explain to me how ‘The Perishable perishes in the Imperishable’.
84.G: Like salt in water.
85.S: Then there would be no more salt. So does the Perishable vanish? Does only the Imperishable remain?
86.G: You got the point. The mind seeking to know the Truth, effaces itself, and ..
87.S: Becomes the Truth!
88.G: I like students who can comprehend so quickly!
89.S: But the whole thing looks like a made-up mathematical puzzle.
90.G: Puzzle certainly it is. It is the Grand puzzle of Life.

91.S: But I don’t see where all this leads to, in real life.
92.G: Say ‘in the reality of life’.
93.S: In the reality of life, I see pain and suffering all around.
94.G: Also some happiness.
95.S: Yes, happiness also; but happiness is so few and far between that it never surfaces.
96.G: Let us analyse this little happiness before we go to the ‘suffering’
part.

134. G: The Self has no wants and is always full of happiness or bliss.
135. S: You are asserting it without ascribing any reason.
136. G: Because the definition of the Self according to the scriptures implies that.
137. S: What is the definition?
138. G: The Self is Consciousness. The Self is Bliss.
139. S. This does not make any sense to me.
140. G: That is why we are going through this dialogue.

141. S: If the Self is Bliss, then I should not have any suffering.
142. G: True. You have no suffering.
143. S: Guruji, it is not enough for you to say so. I must be able to say I have no suffering.
144. G: Who feels the suffering?
145. S: I, certainly.
146. G: Not so fast. In order to understand, let us take a simple example of a suffering.
147. S: Alright. Suppose somebody pinches me. I feel the pinch. Don’t I?
148. G: Wait. Somebody pinches you. Strictly speaking, it is the body that is pinched.
149. S: But I feel it, because my mind recognises the pinching of my body.
150. G: So it is your mind that should suffer, not you.
151. S: But my mind is mine.
152. G: That is the point. Your mind is yours, it is not you.
153. S: Are you not just hairsplitting?
154. G: No, the entire Vedanta depends on this. Your mind is not you.
155. S: But when my mind suffers, I suffer with it.
156. G: Vedanta says: Let the mind suffer or experience. Don’t suffer or experience with it.
157. S: It is a tall order.
158. G: Who said it is not? The tall order is to bring your happiness back.
159. S: So Vedanta does not seem to remove my suffering; it allows my suffering to stay.
160. G: Vedanta intends to insulate you from your suffering.

171. S: According to Vedanta, then who is the experiencer?
172. G: The experiencer is the one who has identified with his body, mind, intellect (BMI).
173. S: Who is that one?
174. G: If there is one such.
175. S: It is not clear to me what you are saying.
176. G: If you don’t identify yourself with your BMI, you are not the experiencer.
177. S: Who is this ‘you’ that is being talked about now?
178. G: That is a good question. We have to start afresh now.
179. S: Where do you want to start?
180. G: From the BMI. The BMI is your outer personality.
181. S: I see where you are going. The inner personality is the Self. Right?
182. G. Yes. But the Gita says there are two such selves (Purushhas).
183. S: What? I thought I was only one person. How can there be two selves for me?
184. G: There is only one Self. But we make the mistake of thinking that our BMI is the Self.
185. S: Earlier we said that the BMI is not the Self.
186. G: That is right. But almost all of us all the time make the mistake.
187. S: Make the mistake of what?
188. G: Of thinking that our BMI is the Self.
189. S: So what?
190. G: And that mistake originates a false self for us. This false self is the other Self.
191. S: In other words, we ourselves create a false self for each of us.
192. G: Yes. That false self, is termed the Perishable Self.
193. S: Then the real Self is the Imperishable Self.
194. G: Thus there are two, the kshhara purushha (perishable self) and the akshhara purushha (imperishable Self).
195. S: So the kshhara purushha is the result of identification with BMI.
196. G: And the akshhara-purushha is the Self, that is Consciousness, Bliss.
197. S: Now tell me who is the experiencer.
198. G: The kshhara purushha is the experiencer. Incidentally the kshhara-purushha is also known by the term jIva.
199. S: In other words, he who has identified with BMI is the experiencer.
200. G: Perfectly. Vedanta says: You are not the experiencer.
201. S: I see the reason now. It is because the real Self has no identification with BMI
202. G: So You, when you are not identified with the BMI, are no more the experiencer.
203. S: Shall we translate all this to the happiness-suffering syndrome?
204. G: Yes. It is the identification with the BMI that brings you an experience either way.
205. S: If there is no such identification?
206. G: There is no experience of happiness or suffering. You are what you are.
207. S: If there is no experience of happiness, then how do you say my Self is Bliss.
208. G: Experience is by the mind; it goes from one state to another.
209. S: In the Self there is no mind to experience. Is that the reason?
210. G:Yes. The Self is Bliss. That is what all scriptures say.

211. S: But what does it mean to say that the Self is Bliss?
212. G: Bliss is our natural state.
213. S: If I go and tell this to an ordinary man, he will not believe it.
214. G: What is the natural characteristic of water?
215. S: Coolness and liquidity.
216. G: If water is hot, you will ask why it is hot. Won’t you?
217. S: Yes, I will. But I don’t see how it is relevant now.
218. G: The very fact that the hotness of water is questioned shows that hotness is not the natural characteristic of water.
219. S: In fact the hotness disappears after a little time. To get the heat back one has to apply external force.
220. G: When a fish is taken out of water it struggles to go back to its natural state of a watery atmosphere.
221. S: All this means that the unnatural state raises questions and implies struggle.
222. G: Good analysis. When you are unhappy every one asks why you are unhappy.

228. G: I shall take you to a situation where you are yourself nothing but bliss.
229. S: I am looking forward to it.
230. G: Do you usually sleep well?
231. S: Oh yes, I do. I sleep like a log.
232. G: Were you happy then?
233. S: It is a blissful experience.
234. G: But to register the experience, mind should be there. Was your mind active when you were sleeping?
235. S: Certainly not, unless I was dreaming.
236. G: Were you dreaming?
237. S: We were talking of the situation when I was sleeping like a log.
238. G: Good. So then how do you know you were happy then?
239. S: Well, it is only a memory after the event.
240. G: In order that it may be a memory, it has to be an experience by the mind, to be recalled after the event has passed.
241. S: What are you driving at? I am confused. The mind was not active then.
242. G: That inactive mind, brings back a memory of happiness, when it wakes up.
243. S: That is the riddle.
244. G: Scriptures say: The jIva which was one with the BMI, now goes back to the Self, during the sleep of the BMI.
245. S: But the Self is Bliss.
246. G: So the jIva is one with that reservoir of bliss, during the sleep of the BMI.
247. S: Interesting!
248. G: When the BMI wakes up, the jIva resumes its usual mistake of identification with BMI.
249. S: It sounds like a thriller now!
250. G: And the mind, with which the jIva is one now, borrows that taste of bliss with which the jIva was in contact.
251. S: You mean now the mind talks of happiness as if it were its own experience!
252. G: Wonderful. Shall we resume now the topic of the BMI and the Atman, the Self?

276. G. Atman is Consciousness. There is no second object for it to be conscious of.
277. S. First my question is: What is Consciousness without the concept of ‘being conscious of’?
278. G. Let me try an analogy. Have you seen light, without any object that is lighted?
279. S. Do you mean light per se, without any object that is lighted?
280. G. Exactly. Whenever you say there is light, you mean only that objects are lighted.
281. S: But light produces a visual sensation alright.
282. G: Our problem here is whether objects have to be there or not for the presence of light.
283. S. Coming to think of it, yes, you are right. Light is independent of the lighted objects.
284. G: So do you accept that there can be light without any lighted objects?
285. S. Yes, if it is just a question of existence of light.
286. G. So also Consciousness exists without the necessity of objects to be conscious of.
287. S. Guruji, You have really given me a profound truth.
288. G. And Consciousness, say the upanishads, is Atman!
289. S: Earlier we concluded that Atman, the Self is Bliss.
290. G: Thus it is both: Consciousness and Bliss.

291. S: You also said there is no second object in the context of Atman. What is the idea?
292. G. Yes. Atman is one and one only, without any second. This is a statement from the Upanishads.
293. S: Does ‘one’ mean, it cannot have parts?
294. G: Right. Also, ‘Without any second’ means there is no object other than Atman.
295. S: What does ‘one only’ mean?
296. G: It means there is no second Atman.
297. S. What about the Atman in you and the other Atmans in the other bodies?
298. G: Your problem is because you are considering Atman as a finite package sitting in the body.
299. S. No. I understand Atman is pervading the entire body. But there may be other Atmans also.
300. G. Here is where you have to go back to the declaration: Consciousness is Atman.
301. S: Why can’t there be two Consciousness entities?
302. G: Consciousness has no boundaries of space or time.
303. S: So the Consciousness within me and the Consciousness within you are the same?
304. G: That is the point. Let the mind in me and the mind in you be not confused. It may lead to absurd conclusions.
305. S. Does it mean then that theAtman in all bodies is the same?
306. G: In all animate bodies, yes.
307. S: What about the inanimate? What about the universe of matter?
308. G: They are all Atman.
309. S: What! Is matter also Consciousness? That cannot be.
310. G: You are able to see, now, that advaita is not just a dinner conversation matter!
311. S. In fact earlier you said BMI is not Atman and now you are saying all matter is Atman.
312. G. Very smart. Now I have to extend your horizon of knowledge before I answer this.
313. S: I thought we are coming to the end of the discussion.
314. G: We are just beginning. Let us look at the universe around us.

340. G: Good. We postulate therefore a basic entity that exists all the time and everywhere.
341. S: It is only a postulate.
342. G: No. The Vedas and Upanishads cry from the housetops that it is the Truth.
343. S: Either way it does not matter to me.
344. G: My dear, you cannot slight the Vedas like that.
345. S: Pardon me, Guruji. Then let us come back to that postulated basic entity.
346. G: Shall we give a name to that entity, for purposes of communication?
347. S: I have no objection.
348. G: Let us call it ‘It’ or ‘That’.
349. S: May I submit that you may think of a more descriptive name?
350. G: The Upanishads speak of it as ‘It’ and ‘That’. But they also call it ‘Brahman’.

380. G: So Brahman is like the ocean and everything else is a wave on the ocean.
381. S: But the ocean itself has a base, the surface of the earth.
382. G: That is why, analogies have to be used carefully. No analogy should be extended unwisely.
383. S: So is the ocean-wave analogy as also the screen-picture analogy only to tell me what supports what?
384. G: Yes. Brahman is the substraturm which never changes while everything else changes.
385. S: Like the movie screen which is the base for all the drama enacted on it.
386. G: That is a beautiful example. Hold on to it. We shall use it later.
387. S: Can we give a better analogy?
388. G: Brahman is beyond all analogies. It cannot even be imagined.
389. S: Is it because there is nothing else other than Brahman?
390. G: It is because it is beyond space.
391. S: I get the idea, but still I would appreciate an explanation.
392. G: Imagine space without earth, without water, without fire and without air. Can you?
393. S: Certainly, I can.
394. G: Now can you imagine something outside of space?
395. S: That is pretty difficult.
396. G: That is what I meant. Earth to water, to fire, to air, to space is a passage from the grossest to the subtlest.
397. S: The negation of each grosser entity is possible within the framework of the more subtle one.
398. G: Certainly. But once we reach AkAsha, space, the negation of that cannot be done by the finite mind.
399. S: And AkAsha is to be merged in something more subtle, that is, Brahman?
400. G: The Vedas only declare the existence of this entity and call it ‘sat’, that is, Existence!

401. S: Shall we therefore say that Brahman is the commonality of everything there is?
402. G: Now go back to the Atman, the Consciousness in all that is animate.
403. S: I see where you are leading me. You are going to connect this Atman with that Brahman?
404. G: You have just missed the mark. Not just ‘connect’; I am going to say They are the same.
405. S: What! Atman and Brahman are the same?
406. G: Exactly. This is the fundamental conclusion of the Upanishads.
407. S: It is too much!
408. G: What is your reservation?
409. S: Atman is our inner essence. Brahman is what is everywhere. How can they be the same?
410. G: What is everywhere can be in your core also!
411. S: That doesn’t seem to be enough logic for me.
412. G: That is why our elders resort to the authority of the Upanishads for this.
413. S: But the concept of Brahman is then again unclear.
414. G: Well, you cannot hope to understand Brahman purely by your intellect.
415. S: How else do I understand it?
416. G. Brahman is not an object of knowledge.
417. S: Then what is it?
418. G: It is itself pure knowledge.
419. S: You are only playing with words.

423. S: Is it then just a void?
424. G: Not at all, because it is a bundle of consciousness.
425. S: Then how are we supposed to become familiar with it?
426. G: Why familiarity? You are It.
427. S: You mean I am Brahman?
428. G: Of course. But you have to qualify that ‘I’.
429. S: In what way?
430. G: The ‘I’ has been covered and camouflaged by so many other things.
431. S: Earlier you said there are two selves, namely the outer (BMI) and the Inner.
432. G: The Inner Self is the Atman. It witnesses all your actions but is never involved in any of them.
433. S: Is that the one which is the same as Brahman?
434. G: Yes. We shall discuss that point later in more detail.
435. S: Now that you have mentioned ‘actions’, I have several questions.

442. G: Thoughts and actions leave their vAsanAs in your mind.
443. S: What are vAsanAs?
444. G: VAsanAs are imprints of earlier tastes and tendencies. They form the cause of future birth.
445. S: And the state of no future birth is supposed to be moksha!
446. G: Moksha, release from births, cannot be attained until vAsanAs are exhausted.
447. S: How do I exhaust all my vAsanAs?
448. G: It is a good question. But let us do some organization of our discussion.
449. S: I am ready.
450. G: As you exhaust earlier vAsanAs you also acquire newer vAsanAs.
451. S: That is unavoidable.
452. G: But there is a strategy to avoid this acquisition.
453. S: I thought Vedanta is far from being a game of strategies!
454. G: But Lord Krishna is a strategist. He tells you how to avoid future vAsanAs sticking to you.
455. S: You mean in His Gita?
456. G: Yes. He says: Do your actions with detachment.
457. S: I have heard this word very often in religious expositions. Please tell me about it, Guruji.

467. S: Shall I try to reason it out?
468. G: Go ahead, that is what I like.
469. S: Vedanta says that there are two selves in me: the perishable BMI and the imperishable Atman.
470. G: You have begun well.
471. S: The Atman is changeless, so does not do any action.
472. G: All action is done by the BMI.
473. S: But it is the Self that motivates the action.
474. G: No, the Self does not motivate the action. In the presence of the Self action takes place.
475. S: So who is responsible for the action: the Self or BMI?
476. G: BMI cannot act; it is inert.
477. S: Then it is the Self that is responsible.
478. G: That is where you miss a subtle point. There are two selves.
479. S: A self which identifies with BMI and a self which does not.
480. G: You be the Self which does not so identify.
481. S: But then who acts?
482. G: Action happens in the presence of You, namely the Self which does not identify with BMI.
483. S: But then I will become responsible.
484. G: No, You are only a witness, a silent non-participating, nonattached witness!
485. S: You mean: Let my mind think, Let my hand act ... Still should I remain just a witness?
486. G: Yes. That is the meaning of your identifying with the Inner Self.
487. S: This is walking on razor’s edge!
488. G: That is why a Krishna had to explain that strategy!
489. S: Looks like we are cheating ourselves!

491. S: In any case the doer is I myself, right?
492. G: No. You are not the doer. Your attitude is ‘na ahaM kartA’. “I am not the doer”.
493. S: But with this posture, I can go and kill somebody and say “I have not killed”!
494. G: First of all it is not a posture. But tell me, why would you kill somebody?

510. G. No, you are missing the most important point about the state of the mind.
511. S: What is it?
512. G: There should be no hate, no attachment. Then the sin or otherwise of the action does not devolve on you.
513. S: Is this what is known as Karma yoga?
514. G: Karma Yoga builds up on this idea and gives you a methodology to act up to this.
515. S: What is that methodology?
516. G: It is known as ‘yajna’.
517. S: I have no clear idea what it is. But I have heard the word.

528. G: Yes. Gita says every action should be done with a yajna spirit.
529. S: Easier said than done.
530. G: As usual Krishna tells you how. Dedicate all your actions to God.
531. S: I can certainly dedicate all my actions to God, but still be doing wrong things.
532. G: Dedication means you do only that type of work which your God of dedication would like you to do.
533. S: And avoid that kind of work which that God would not want me to do – I can see the game.
534. G: Perfectly right. Dedication means voluntary acceptance of discipline for the sake of your object of dedication.
535. S: The concept of yajna is really great!
536. G: Not just great. It is the greatest contribution of Hinduism to the ways of living for the whole world.
537. S: But what is the point of all this, except to say it is good?
538. G: The bottom line is this. By doing every work as a yajna, you avoid the vAsanA of the work sticking to you.
539. S: Where did ‘vAsanA’ come here in this picture?

551. S: What is so great about worship? Why worship? Why God?
552. G: Are you taking me into a discussion of God?
553. S: I was only waiting for this opportunity.
554. G: Articulate your doubts.
555. S: Earlier we concluded that Brahman is the Ultimate and it is nameless and formless.
556. G: Certainly. So what?
557. S: Then why do we worship several Gods and Goddesses with different names and forms?
558. G: Brahman is infinite in existence, infinite in knowledge and infinite in Bliss.
559. S: If Brahman were infinite in Bliss and is also all-pervading, then Bliss should be all-pervading.
560. G: Of course it is.
561. S: Don’t tell me that, Guruji. We have only to look at the tragedies in the world.

578. G: In fact, in order to absorb advaita, there are four prerequisite qualifications prescribed by Shankara.
579. S: I would like to know them, certainly.
580. G: First, a capacity to discriminate between what is permanent and what is ephemeral.
581. S: Even the beginning seems tough!
582. G: Secondly, a dispassion towards desire for acquisitions, here or in the world hereafter.
583. S: I see why you played down my academic curiosity!
584. G: The third one is an intense anguish for obtaining release from the cycle of births and deaths.
585. S: It is easy to agree with this, but it is the intensity of feeling that is in question .
586. G: And a conglomerate of six qualities: Equanimity, Selfcontrol, Self-withdrawal, Endurance, Tranquillity and Faith.
587. S: Blessed are those indeed, who have all these!
588. G: Let us now come back to the topic of transcendence of transience.
589. S: You mean whatever is transient must be transcended?
590. G: Good. The scriptures have a beautiful way of saying this.
591. S: I would like to hear that.
592. G: All that is transient is called mAyA, in Vedanta.
593. S: I thought mAyA meant Illusion.

600. G: mAyA simply means whatever is transient, that is, comes and goes.
601. S: What about a dream?
602. G: Yes, dream is mAyA. Our scriptures say that the whole universe of creation is a mAyA.
603. S: Does it mean then that we are all living in mAyA?
604. G: Don’t ask that as if you are surprised. Your surprise is because you are still thinking that mAyA is falsity.
605. S: If mAyA is not falsity, then is it real?
606. G: I told you whatever is transient is mAyA. Our life comes and goes. Happiness and suffering come and go.
607. S: Then in that case the world is also a mAyA; because it comes and goes.
608. G: Therefore the transience of the mAyA has to be transcended.
609. S: How is that possible?
610. G: How did mAyA originate?
611. S: I know my dream originates from me.
612. G: But the origin of the Cosmic mAyA by which the world came into existence, is not known.
613. S: Don’t the Vedas say something about it?
614. G: They say it is the work of Ishvara, God.
615. S: Where did this Ishvara come from now?
616. G: Ishvara is man’s conception of Brahman.
617. S: I don’t get you.
618. G: Now comes the punchline of advaita!
619. S: I am all alert!
620. G: Brahman is attributeless. In particular, nameless and formless. It is never the object of perception or thought. But man’s mind finds it difficult to grasp that impersonality. Anytime he thinks of Brahman, he has already made it an object of thought. Either he gives it an anthropomorphic form or he gives it a name. Either way what he is doing is he is thinking of a Brahman with attributes. It is called saguNa Brahman, commonly known as Ishvara – equivalent to the Almighty God of all religions. The attributeless Brahman is known as nirguNa-Brahman.

621. S: But in reality, what is the contention of advaita? Is Brahman nirguNa or saguNa?
622. G. Brahman is nirguNa.
623. S: Then why do we at all need a saguNa Brahman?
624. G: We cannot but. You saw that just now.
625. S: Still this impersonal Brahman along with a personal substitute bothers me.
626. G: What would you have?
627. S: Only the impersonality.
628. G: Then you cannot even talk about it. The definition of Brahman would not allow any duality.
629. S: Are you saying that Ishvara concept comes only in the case of duality?
630. G: How else would Ishvara arise?
631. S: Then advaita, which means non-duality, should not have any concept of Ishvara.
632. G: Other than Ishvara there is no guide for us to reach Brahman or to grasp the basic non-duality.
633. S: But a worship of Ishvara would mean we are coming down to duality.
634. G: “na anyaH panthA ayanAya vidyate”. There is no other road to Moksha.

643. S: Yes. If Ishvara arises in the way you have described, then He is also coming and going. Is that also mAyA?
644. G: Yes, but with a difference. In the case of God He controls His mAyA. Whereas we are in mAyA’s control.
645. S: Can mAyA be considered as God’s Potential?
646. G: In a sense, yes. In fact, two facets of Energy (shakti) are associated by us with Brahman.
647. S: Is this what is called PrakRti?
648. G: Yes. There is a parA-prakRti and there is an aparA-prakRti. ‘parA’ is supreme and ‘aparA’ is not-so-supreme.
649. S: I have heard them talked about as parA-shakti and aparAshakti.
650. G: You are right. It is aparA-prakRti that corresponds to mAyA.
651. S: Is it the source, origin of all matter and the universe?
652. G: In Vedanta cosmology, it is the qualitative guNa or svabhAva from which all matter arises.
653. S: Whereas, in Physics, it is the quantitative matter, their weight, substance and constituents, that are fundamental.
654. G: These guNas are inherent in aparA-prakRti (Cosmic Energy). It is what gives matter its substance.
655. S: In other words, Energy is self-existent and Matter is the product of this omni-present Energy.
656. G: Whereas, in Physics, it is the other way.
657. S: I see now, in Vedanta, PrakRti is the source of all matter in the universe.
658. G: For that reason, PrakRti is also called PradhAnaM, the Fundamental.
659. S: But it is very subtle, isn’t it?
660. G: Yes, it is the unmanifest thing that manifests into everything. Therefore it is also called avyaktaM (unmanifest).
661. S: But it is not manifest all the time.
662. G: It alternates between manifestation and unmanifestation. So gets the name of kshhara, the Perishable.
663. S: Is this then the Perishable purushha (kshhara-purushha) in us, that you referred to earlier.
664. G: No. Wait. The spiritual undercurrent vibrating in all beings, called jIva, is under a matter envelopment.

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

688. G: Ishvara Himself is another fragment of that Cit-shakti. He is Brahman conditioned by our intellect (cit).
689. S: Is Ishvara then the base for all the beings in the universe?
690. G: Yes. All beings are in Him, says Krishna in the 7th chapter of the Gita.
691. S: But I have heard that He immediately appears to contradict Himself.
692. G: True. You seem to be very familiar with all controversial things.!
693. S: Krishna says in the very next shloka: “Beings are not in Me”. Guruji, You have to clarify this for me!
694. G: Are you familiar with the snake-rope analogy?

721. S: Is mAyA real or unreal?
722. G: You have asked the most difficult question first. mAyA is neither real nor unreal.
723. S: How can that be?
724. G: It is real because we see the effects of PrakRti existing before us.
725. S: It is also not real because, ...
726. G: Being of the nature of transience, it vanishes in due time.
727. S: If something vanishes after a certain time, is it not taken to be real?
728. G: The word ‘real’ has to be carefully handled. On one side there is the absolute reality of Brahman.
729. S: Because it is ever there and its presence can never be negated or denied.
730. G: Yes. On the other extreme there is an absolute unreality like, say, a hare’s horn, or, the son of a barren woman.
731. S: Actually they don’t exist at all.
732. G: That is why it is called absolute unreality. The Sanskrit term is “asat”. It is absolute non-existence.
733. S: Then ‘sat’ means reality?
734. G: In advaita ‘sat’ means absolute reality, the Sanskrit being “pAramArthika satyaM”.
735. S: What about the reality of the world?
736. G: It comes between ‘sat’ and ‘asat’. It is neither ‘sat’ nor ‘asat’. ‘vyAvahArika satyaM’ operational reality.
737. S: What about dream reality?
738. G: Dream is real only to the dreamer and during the dream only. It is subjective reality, “prAtibhAsika satyaM”.
739. S: So there are four kinds of reality?
740. G: All that come in between ‘sat’ and ‘asat’ are bunched under the term ‘mithyA’.
741. S: So ‘mithyA’ includes both operational reality of the world and the subjective reality of the dream. Is that right?
742. G: Yes, mAyA belongs to the order of reality called ‘mithyA’. It is neither ‘sat’ nor ‘asat’.
743. S: The way you have described it implies that the world belongs to the ‘mithyA’ type of reality.
744. G: Yes. That is why Shankara’s famous quote says: “brahma satyaM, jagat mithyA”.

747. S: Can you elaborate this further?
748. G: In all cases of ‘mithyA’, the ‘is-ness’ is not questionable. But the understanding of ‘what it is’ is wrong.
749. S: But I think there are still some loose ends.
750. G: Like?
751. S: Is creation by Ishvara real or not?
752. G: Creation also belongs to the ‘mithyA’ category, neither absolutely real nor absolutely unreal.
753. S: But within the mithyA category, there seem to be several shades of difference in reality.
754. G. In fact, everything that is made up from something else, has a lesser permanence than what it is made of.
755. S: Yes, clay is more permanent than a clay-pot.
756. G: If you keep pursuing this idea of permanence relentlessly, you will find all except the Absolute is impermanent.
757. S: But I was referring to the shades of difference in reality, for instance, the reflection in a mirror.
758. G: It belongs to the category of subjective reality, within all impermanence, that is, mithyA.

776. G: Ignorance of two things: “I am the Atman” and “Atman is Brahman”.
777. S: I would like to think about these two statements more carefully.
778. G: To help you think and contemplate, the Vedas have given them in four ‘mahAvAkyas’.
779. S: I would love to understand them.
780. G: Each of the mahAvAkyas, incorporate both of the above two statements of which man, by nature, is ignorant.

788. G: There are two powers of mAyA that do havoc. One veils the Truth. Another projects what is other than Truth.
789. S: The veiling of Truth by mAyA is understandable. But it is the projection that is more puzzling.
790. G: Let us go to the different analogies for this relationless relationship of the projected Universe and Brahman.
791. S: I know already four: Snake on a rope; Dream; Reflection in a mirror; Movie on a screen.
792. G:There are some more: Water in a mirage; Silver in the mother-of-pearl; Beads strung together on a string.
793. S: The last one seems to be the easiest.
794. G: But it helps the understanding of a delicate principle called “anvaya and vyatireka”.
795. S: I have not heard of this.
796. G: “anvaya” is inclusion: The beads together cannot hold unless you conceive the substratum of the string.
797. S: And what is “vyatireka”?
798. G: The string can hold by itself without the beads. This is the ‘exclusion’ of the beads.
799. S: I don’t see clearly the connection of this with Brahman and the universe.
800. G: The Self is the string in which every non-Self is strung like beads. The fact that the Self is the continuity or connection part of the string in all that is non-self is “anvaya”. The non-self is dependent on the Self for their appearance as non-self, just as the beads are dependent on the string for their appearance in a line. The fact that the Self itself is still separate from the non-self is “vyatireka”. The Self is independent of the non-self, just as the string is independent of the beads. Again, the existence of the Self in deep sleep while the BMI is dormant is anvaya (accordance). That the Self is conscious independently of the BMI, as in deep sleep, is vyatireka (divergence).
801. S: My praNAms to those seers who saw all this.!
802. G: Let us get on with our analogies. Water in mirage and Silver in mother of pearl are both of one kind.

807. S: Rope appears as a snake. Better lighting shows it as only rope.
808. G: So also Brahman appears as the universe. A Guru gives the better light by pointing out the Truth.
809. S: OK. After you have told me the Truth and I have understood it, still I see only the universe, not Brahman. Why?
810. G: To see this you have to go to the analogy of the water in the mirage or the silver in mother-of-pearl.
811. S: I see. In both cases even after knowing the Truth, the same wrong appearance stares me in the face.
812. G: But even here there is an objection. You can’t use either the water in the mirage or the silver in the mother-of-pearl.
813. S: You mean the water will not quench my thirst and the silver will not get me any money?
814. G: Yes. But the water in the universe quenches my thirst. And the silver in the universe gets me money.
815. S: Well, that means the analogies are not perfect.
816. G: In fact there is no perfect analogy. Still let us continue our study. Now go to the dream analogy.
817. S: What about it?
818. G: In the dream, there is (dream) water which will quench your (dream) thirst.
819. S: I think I am missing something.
820. G: If the universe, which is only an appearance, satisfies many of your needs, the dream also is of the same kind. Whatever thirst you have within the dream, there is water in the dream that quenches your thirst. The silver in the dream gets you money in the dream. So the dream analogy is a fairly close analogy to the reality or unreality of the world-appearance.
821. S: Is it why there is so much talk about the operational world being just a dream from an absolute point of view?
822. G: You said it right. From the absolute point of view.
823. S: Are there other features of the dream analogy?
824. G: There is something unique. That the dream is not real dawns on us when we wake up from the dream. The dreamer, when he dreams, takes it to be totally real. There is no guru coming in the dream and telling you that it is all only a dream and that you should better wake up from the dream into the outside world. On the other hand, in the operational world of reality, though we take the universe to be real and existing. we have our guru telling us that this is a dream from the absolute point of view and we have to wake up from this ‘dream’ of a world! He himself lives beyond the dream-of-the-world’ stage, yet he comes ‘down’ from his absolute level into our ‘dream’ and talks to us in this ‘dream’ of ours about the Truth that is beyond this ‘dream’! Without the dream analogy in our culture, it would be almost impossible to comprehend the Guru’s teaching that the Truth is beyond this visible operational world of reality!
825. S: Fantastic! There is so much about the dream analogy!
826. G: Now we are ready to go to the mahAvAkyas.

854. G: But mind is nothing but thought-flow into several channels according to the strength of our vAsanAs.
855. S: Some of the channels must be good and some of them must be bad.
856. G: Our ancients have classified two of them to be good and thirteen to be bad.
857. S: What are the two good ones?
858. G: ShraddhA and Bhakti. ShraddhA is Faith in the divine content of Man.
859. S: And of course Bhakti is Dedication and Devotion to that divine content.
860. G: But because of our bad vAsanAs the thoughts usually tend to flow into one or more of the thirteen channels.
861. S: What are the thirteen? I guess one of them is the ego.
862. G: Actually it is the most important. It is the captain of the gang of thirteen.
863. S: And the other twelve of the gang are ...
864. G: Can’t you guess?
865. S: I have heard about KAma, Krodha, Lobha, Moha, Mada and MAtsarya.
866. G: Yes. Lust or Desire, Anger, Greed, Delusion, Arrogance and Jealousy. These are well-known.
867. S: What are the other six?
868. G: rAga, dveshha, IrshhyA, asUyA, dambha and garva.
869. S: rAga is Attachment and dveshha is Hate. What do the others denote?
870. G: IrshhyA is the uncomfortable awkward feeling that ‘all these
miseries are happening only to me!’
871. S: The word ‘asUyA’ – is it not the same thing as mAtsarya?
872. G: No. asUyA is what downplays the legitimate positives of the other person, and enjoys that downplaying.
873. S: But then what is jealousy, mAtsarya?
874. G: It simply cannot brook the rise of the other person.
875. S: Then there is garva, which is pride. But I am not so clear about dambha.
876. G: It is show of importance and projection of oneself by assuming an explicit credit role even when it is not due.
877. S: What is the role of Ego in all this?
878. G: It is always in the background but is the motivator and agent of every thought-flow of the mind.
879. S: Well, that does’nt seem to be terrifically wrong.
880. G: It is wrong because it is what makes you think you are the doer of everything.

892. G: Yes, for this eradication, an internal war has to be waged through spiritual disciplines.
893. S: Are you referring to disciplines like ‘yoga’?
894. G: I am referring to what is called ‘yoga-sAdhanA’ which means ‘control of the senses by spiritual regimen’.
895. S: Does Meditation come under this? You remember we postponed this discussion earlier.
896. G: Yes, dhyAna (Meditation) is the internal face of this yogasAdhanA.
897. S: What is the external face?
898. G: It is tapas, consisting of austerity of speech, of body and of mind.
899. S: I remember to have seen them defined by Krishna in chapter 17 of the Gita. Shall we talk about Meditation?.
900. G: Meditation is the art of stilling the mind so that it is motionless like a lamp placed in a windless spot.

933. S: But I have heard it said that the culmination of meditation is samAdhi.
934. G: Don’t worry about it. When your mind is still, you are already enjoying the bliss of the Atman.
935. S: Where does this bliss come from?
936. G: It comes from the Infinite reservoir of Bliss which is the Atman.
937. S: This is the Bliss that great seers like Ramana talk about?
938. G: For such sages like Ramana or a Sadashiva-Brahmendra, they are naturally in that state ever.
939. S: Great souls!
940. G: They are called jIvan-muktas -- (Liberated even while living).
941. S: So advaita envisages liberation even before the demise of the body?
942. G: It does. That is one of the distinguishing marks of advaita.
943. S: But then by what reason do such people also suffer?
944. G: That is because of the remnant of prArabdha that is yet to be experienced.
945. S: But I thought jIvan-muktas have no experience that the BMI usually has.
946. G: You are right. Whatever experience they seem to go through is only by their BMI.
947. S: Oh Yes, they must be already in identification with their Inner Self.
948. G: So in that sense they may be said to have no experience of prArabdha.
949. S: What about their experience of this universe?
950. G: For them what they see is all Brahman. They see the screen, not the movie!

951. S: But Sages like Ramana have talked to individuals in their individual capacity.
952. G: This only means that if they want, they can hold back their Brahma-bhAva and descend down to our plane.
953. S: What is this Brahma-bhAva (being in Brahman)?
954. G: I can tell you only what such sages have said about it. “It is a divine perception of equanimity – an equanimous view of every being in the world as the same self as the one that dwells in them. It is a blissful experience, called Brahma-Ananda. Therein there is no more knowledge, no more ignorance, no perceiver, nothing perceived, no perception. It is something devoid of the triple – knower, knowledge and the known. Such enlightened persons do not see this world, they do not see anything. All they see is the godliness of Infinite Love and the loveliness of Omnipresent God. In their world, there is no self, no non-self; everywhere only grace and love. They have no limitations of time, none of action, no merit, no demerit, no happiness, no sorrow, no darkness. It is a permanent unalloyed illumination. It is the massive Light of Consciousness. No up, no down, no high, no low, no peak, no valley. It is a state transcending all speech and thought.” – Quote from a lecture by Shri Kripananda Varrier, in Tamil.
955. S: Oh God, what an elevating experience just to hear about it!
956. G: Now let us come down to terra firma and start winding up.
957. S: One loose end still. You have not said anything about those two good channels: ShraddhA and Bhakti.

965. S: Which means, without bhakti, we’ll never see the end of samsAra?
966. G: Certainly. It is by bhakti, says the Lord, you come to know Me as I am, what I am and Who I am.
967. S: Yes, I know how it ends: And knowing Me in real terms, you straightaway enter into Me.
968. G:Yes. However one may contemplate into His mystery, His greatness and true nature are known only by His Grace.
969. S: But then, there is this great debate about what is the correct route – Bhakti or jnAna?
970. G: That is not the great debate about. The debate is about whether the path of jnAna admits or needs bhakti.
971. S: I don’t see the point of the debate. How can a divine goal admit of a path which denies faith in that divinity?
972. G: You have understood rightly. Nor can faith in that divinity deny a path that seeks a knowledge of the goal.
973. S: In other words, whether it is the Bhakti path or the jnAna path, both needs the other.
974. G: The debate arises because Shankara has said many times: Moksha is only by Realisation of the Ultimate.
975. S: Shankara himself was a great devotee, with temple worship, stotras and all!
976. G: Great advaita preceptors like Madhusudana Saraswati and Appayya Dikshidar have also been ardent devotees.
977. S: There is not a single propagator of advaita who is not also a strong devotee of God.
978. G: So let us wind up now with a famous shAnti-mantra. “saha nau avatu” - Let us be protected together.

982. G: Well, remember the last shloka of the 11th chapter of the Gita?
983. S: The Lord says there: Be engaged in works for Me, Have Me as your refuge and so on; then you shall reach Me.
984. G: Why not say the rest : “mad-bhaktas-sanga-varjitaH; nirvairas-sarva-bhUteshhu ...”
985. S: Be My devotee; Be clear of all attachments; Have no hate of any being.
986. G: I reminded you of this shloka because this one shloka is the summum bonum of all spiritual teaching.
987. S: And therefore of the entire Gita. Right?
988. G: Yes. There are five advices here. Each is a major teaching of the Gita. And they exhaust the Gita.
989. S: I understand four of them. But how does the “No hate” advice get classified as a major teaching of the Gita?
990. G: Because total absence of hate can come only by an equanimous view of things.
991. S: And is that the brahma-bhAva of the Gita?
992. G: Yes, of course.
993. S: Why did you bring this up when we were on the “sahanAvavatu” shAnti mantra?
994. G: Good question. There are five sentences in that shAntimantra also. And there is a beautiful correspondence!
...

and Guruji proceeds the connection between the Gita shloka and the shanti mantra...

atanu
14 January 2007, 10:45 AM
Shankara's commentary on Mundaka Upanishad (3.1.4)


The knower , one who knows his own Self as the Self of all beings , does not speak anything else. For, knowing that all this is indeed nothing but the Self , what will he talk of? Only one who sees an object distinct from himself will have something to talk about. The knower sees nothing other than the Self , hears nothing else , knows nothing else.



Namaste Sudarshan,

Unfortunately, then Shankara did not know the Self (as per you).


The meaning is not that. The knower of Self hears Self, sees Self, while being aware of all, he does not abide in objects but abides in Self --one with the seer, objects being part of the Self.




If Jesus were really an advaitin, he could never have taught anything he did. It is a self contradiction. The same logic applies to any of the jIvanmuktAs. If he did talk and preach others and claims "I realized advaita" it is an experience of seeing something apart from the Self and such words are not authoritative as they are not paramArtika. According to Advaita, a jnanin does not percieve ajnanins, so there is nobody other than himself. Other opinions by neo Advaita clearly contradict the words of Shankara in many places. In particular the claim "I am an advaitin by realization" is blatantly false.


Then Three other feet of Turiya would not exist. Similarly, Lord Krishna could not have taught. But He says that I appear using my maya.

A knower of Self can do anything while not doing anything. Atma na lipayate. Karma does not touch.


I just found this in the post of Saidevo ji:

951. S: But Sages like Ramana have talked to individuals in their individual capacity.
952. G: This only means that if they want, they can hold back their Brahma-bhAva and descend down to our plane.


It is surprising to me that it is assumed that a knower of Self would have less degree of freedom than Atanu or Sudarshan? Is Knowing the Self prescribed by Lord Krishna for attaining liberation or not?


Regards,

Om

Sudarshan
14 January 2007, 10:55 AM
Namaste,

Unfortunately, then Shankara did not know the Self (as per you).


The meaning is not that. The knower of Self hears Self, sees Self, while being aware of all, he does not abide in objects but abides in Self --one with the seer, objects being part of the Self.

Om

Self is totally partless according to you. remember? If he sees parts in himself( of any kind), then your theory is flawed( because that is exactly VA). Please note the words carefully - he does not speak to anyone either.( not even to his 'part').

Sudarshan
14 January 2007, 11:05 AM
I doubt if you ever understand the significance. In Avaita the Atman is partless and all 'parts' are mere illusions that exist due to the mAyA( only when mind exists). For a jnanin freed from mAyA, there can be no parts and no perception of these.

What you have said, that is, the world percieved as a part of the Atman is exactly a tenet of VA. If a jnAnin percieves the world it must be eternal. As I have mentioned, all neo advaitin versions of Advaita are nothing but pseudo VA. Shankara's is a more rigorous one.

atanu
14 January 2007, 11:45 AM
I doubt if you ever understand the significance. In Avaita the Atman is partless and all 'parts' are mere illusions that exist due to the mAyA( only when mind exists). For a jnanin freed from mAyA, there can be no parts and no perception of these.

What you have said, that is, the world percieved as a part of the Atman is exactly a tenet of VA. If a jnAnin percieves the world it must be eternal. As I have mentioned, all neo advaitin versions of Advaita are nothing but pseudo VA. Shankara's is a more rigorous one.


Sudarshan,

I assume this post is for me.

I-12. Prajna knows neither himself nor others, neither truth nor untruth. But that Turiya is ever the all seer.

I-13. The non-cognition of duality is common to both Prajna and Turiya. Prajna is possessed of sleep of the nature of cause, whereas that sleep does not exist in Turiya.


I have posted these (Karika) in another post.


I may not comprehend anything, but you have extreme wrong conception of Maya of Advaita.


In Avaita the Atman is partless and all 'parts' are mere illusions that exist due to the mAyA( only when mind exists)


This is not what advaita says. Maya as a separate entity is non-existent in advaita. The ignorance is that "these objects are apart from me." and it is the nature of thoughts, which come out of Pragnya. The truth is that the objects are also of the nature of consciousness existing in consciousness, since nothing can exist outside it and be known. That is the definition of Pragnya.

Once the flow of thoughts is stopped then only this can be realised. And for a realised one (who is stabilised), there is no rule that he cannot come take a path of Taijassa/Vaisvanaro to avert a mistake or do some good (to his own consciousness). Agni Deva is that only, he keeps the highest station clean.


Anyway, all this will sound very theoretical to one who has not have a glimpse of Self, and especially also to one who by faith is not attuned (at least at present time).


I-12. Prajna knows neither himself nor others, neither truth nor untruth. But that Turiya is ever the all seer.



Om

Sudarshan
14 January 2007, 12:37 PM
This is not what advaita says. Maya as a separate entity is non-existent in advaita. Om

This is not Shankara's Advaita. Please read Shankara's or say Madhusudhana's works. The world has been categorically denied any existance from the paramArtika. ( infact is non existant, and how can any jnAni deal with it?). For one who is in paramArtika , Brahman and Maya are identical, so how can the universe which itself exists due to the notions of difference between Brahman and Maya be percieved in any way? You must still be under the influence of Maya to be able to interact with the world. Do you know why Krishna has been referred to as SB in his Gita Bhashya, and not as NB?

Infact, your glorious perception of the Self and parts is true only for Ishvara ( not NB) which is vyavahAra perspective. If the world is percieved as undifferentiated consciousness ( which is NB) then no plurality persists.

Realizing Maya as Brahman is only a stage of a sage in Shankara's Advaita, which you are assuming to be the final one. Beyond that, in paramArtika, it is entirely non existant.

Do you know Advaita's notions of realities? In a reply to a question in his Advaita Siddhi, Madhusudhana Sarswathy clarifies that the universe has no existance whatsoever.( snake on a rope) One must be still under some illusion( seeing the snake) to be able to interact with it. I guess your views are based on some works of modern advaitins who do not stick to the classical one. Perhaps your own views are similar to the Paradvaita presented by Arjuna, but it is certainly somewhat different from vedantins. That by itself is not a problem but Shankara would not held it as the highest doctrine. Infact Paradvaita goes on to criticize some of the doctrines of Advaita ( esp those regarding Maya), and you can find the posts by Arjuna somewhere on this forum.

Even amongst the followers of Shankara, two distinct systems exist who view Maya differently. One schools views Maya as Brahman's intrinsic potency, while the other views it as an independent entity.

satay
14 January 2007, 04:05 PM
namaste bhiya,


Is everyone enjoying the dance?


I knew you will get me on this point! I am not surprised at your question but at the same time I am...the great irony of this existence!

First, I am not surprised because you and I both know each personally and so at least the both of us know that at the very least we both are not enjoying the dance!

Second, the reason why I am surprised is because your question is not valid! By asking this question you are implying that you have no understanding of the karmic cycle(s). I know that you are just trying to prove a point by asking this question but please do not simplify things so much. We must understand the karmic cycles at play in this dance. Isn't it?



Ask everyone in the world - I would say that I am displeased with his dance that creates innumerable hardships to people, which he still dances unconcerned.

Yes, I know! But you know the reasons why at least, I on the other hand...



To say that this is mere sport or entertainment( sport alone) is oversimplification. Brihadaranyaka and Isavasya( and others) say that this samsAra is dreadful( and it is, that is why sages virtually plead towards others to turn to God) and akin to walking on a razor.( a mis-step is very costly).

Mystery it certainly is, but more than entertainment.

I will ponder on these statements more...but for now, I do not believe this mrityuloka is dreadful. I believe this is the place where we can actually turn to 'HIM'! Your and my case in point...

nirotu
14 January 2007, 04:11 PM
Dear Saidevo:

Thank you for your well described thoughts. Your answers are quite revealing of your sincerity in attempting to recognize the role of Advaita in creation.


Advaita addresses creation as Maya. Since Brahman is both prakruti and purusha, Maya is the inherent force of Purusha with which he impregnates Prakruti and starts the process of creation as an emanation from himself. Maya is not an eternal unreality (adyanta asat) but a conditional reality. Thus creation as Maya is only a conditional reality, whereas Brahman who is behind it is the eternal reality.

As I see, there is no basis for any conception of the unreality of the world (as Maya) in the hymns of RgVeda. If you consider world as an evolution of God then it cannot be a purposeless phantasm regardless whether it is conditional or not. Absolute reality which is at the back of the whole world cannot be characterized by us as either existent or non-existent. It is only that because, the phrase, “ko veda?” (“who knows?”) brings out the mystery of creation, which has led later thinkers to call it “Maya”.

Here is a quote from S.Radhakrishnan:

“Wherever the word Maya occurs, it is used only to signify the might or the power: Indra takes many shapes quickly by his maya” Yet many times Maya and its derivatives, mayin, mayavant are employed to signify the will of the demons, and we also find the word used in the sense of illusion or show. The main tendency of Rg Veda is a naïve realism”………Indian Philosophy Vol 1, 9th Ed, Page 104


Yes, creation does overshadow Advaita, not in the sense that it is more important and powerful than Advaita, but in the literal meaning that it casts a shadow, darkens, obscures Advaita.

I am of the opinion that through creation the Advaita has disappeared or sidelined so to speak. It is like a tree that sprung up a seed. The tree can only wish for seed to become like one of its own and seed can only aspire to become like tree as its ultimate goal. However, the process of growth has nothing to do with the tree but seed itself. Thus, Dvaita (seed) in its being through creation shows the need to become like Advaita (Tree). Therefore, Advaita can be viewed as a goal and not the journey. Our life is a journey. Just as the seed faces up to the elements, we do have to go through trials as well. While, the end always points to Advaita, one must not undermine the role of Dvaita in one’s entire journey!

Coming back to Advaita, I do agree with the need of Dvaita to become Advaita once the creation takes place. Therefore, in the creation where Advaita turns itself into Dvaita, there is no denying the wantonness of Dvaita to become Advaita. If Dvaita is a reality of creation that defines our journey through it, then, it seems to me, advaitins address that in a very insignificant way when in fact; Dvaita doesn’t just overshadow but dominate!

Coming back to OP: Precisely, what is the impetus behind God’s divine blueprint for creation, if any? Furthermore, if God was happy being in a state of “Advaita”, what prompted God to play out this divine scheme of creation, which brought out “Dvaita” in to being! What is the force behind “Spanda”? Just like the God of the Bible said, “Let there be light and there it was”. What was the intent behind the utterance of these words?

The hymn (Nasadiya Hymn) tells us the how of creation, not the whence. It is only an explanation of the fact of creation. Therefore, our speculations are based on incomplete knowledge and will remain only as mere theory. Yet, curious as we are, we may want to know the hidden mystery!

This is my personal opinion and I am not trying to be arrogant in any way. Upon looking carefully, this is what I find:

“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:” (Colossians 1:16, KJV)

The above verse says that it was created for Him and His pleasure. Therefore, when one looks at this, I find in God there is a yearning desire to have that pleasure.

It looks like desire is the seed of existence. Therefore, Prajapati “desires” and therefore, creates. What is that desire (pleasure)? I believe it is the desire to have someone in His image, stand in awe of His sovereignty, desire to know and worship Him for His glory, which might have prompted God to say, “ Let us create man in our likeness”. Therefore, I venture to speculate that the intent and the yearning desire for creation, which is to have oneness with Him in all respects!

On the other hand, “For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor?” (Romans 11:34,KJV) tells me that the mind of God is incomprehensible. Therefore, I like to hang my hat on “mystery” that is beyond, at least, my comprehension.

That is why I was trying to be specific on topic. As the topic gets subtler in nature, we have to be in complete agreement of exact nature of question for any meaningful exchange to occur.

Blessings,

nirotu
14 January 2007, 04:29 PM
If you consider yourself a created being then how will you know?

Dear Atanu:
If God said in scriptures, “ I am the creator and sustainer”, that’s enough for me know that I am created being. God does reveal His nature through scriptures for me.

I still maintain it with certainty If Jesus was not an advaitin then he surely did not know God, based on Hindu scripture (and also the Bible). If you asked the reasons, I would clarify.
We have been through this before and yet your stubborness is astounding. Your statement places more saints and sages in a category of those who did not know God. I gave an example of Ramakrishna Paramahansa and you were silent on that. To support my point, Sudarshan argued his point across and you seem to passionately disagree. Perhaps, you can show me scripture in the Bible to support your claim.

Turiya itself is said to be Advaita. And it is also enjoined upon us to know it.
Atanu, knowing about Turiya is one thing and undertaking the journey to attain it is entirely a different thing. Remember, even in Turiya state the experiences of lots sages and saints have not been Advaita.

Paramahansa Yogananda says, “I am only a wave in the vast ocean.”

Mother Teresa says, “ I am only the pen, an instrument in His hand”

Even Jesus Christ says, “ I am the son of my father”

All the saints whom you revere have said, “ I am the part of that and I am not that”. The duality is maintained through and through.

The Turiya state serves to know the quality of the nature of self but you also realize that you are part of that. The atman-brahman relationship is sustained and experienced in Turiya state also, therefore, it is bordered on “dvaita”. It is only in “Turiyatta” that is far-far-far beyond Turiya, one may experience that dissolution into one where material and spiritual plane at once become one. For now it is not all energy but matter also. The relationship is maintained throughout and in Turiya.

So, do you wish me out of this discussion? Why are you not direct and forthcoming? (Though even if you were direct, I would reserve my right, if mods do not ban me).

I thought you wished it to be open? You wish it open, but you dislike piercing questions? Nirotu ji, please realise that the questions are not personal. They are about your and my views.

You are doing exactly the same by accusing me and taking it personally. I am the one who had stressed a long time ago that our exchange be a vehicle for our spiritual growth. You want to stress the same and serve the same purpose, which I know but such a remark defeats that purpose.


Blessings,

Znanna
14 January 2007, 04:57 PM
All the saints whom you revere have said, “ I am the part of that and I am not that”. The duality is maintained through and through.


Well, they wouldn't be saying that were it not true :D

It is a quantum thing, in that being and knowing of being sometimes don't happen at the same time. Saying implies yet another level of nonparticipation or meta-analysis or whatever, hehe.

The way of neutralizing the contra-diction is only found in meditation, IMO, not in analytical discourse.



Namaste,
ZN

Sudarshan
15 January 2007, 12:33 AM
Paramahansa Yogananda says, “I am only a wave in the vast ocean.”

Mother Teresa says, “ I am only the pen, an instrument in His hand”

Even Jesus Christ says, “ I am the son of my father”


Even Shankaracharya says something like this:

O Lord! Even though there is no difference between us (I am a part of You), I belong to You and not vice-versa. Just like the ocean is made of waves but the waves are not made up of ocean. { vishnu shatpadi.3)

There is a great similarity and equality between man and God ~ but they are not equal in all respects. Their 'material' (image) is the same (chidAnandamaya). The equality is qualitative, but not quantitative. It is entirely possible for a man to say "I am God" when he gets enlightened because even man is an immense reservoir with Self knowledge. But he should progress to know that even this is still only part of something far superior. That alone is full knowledge of God. Full knowledge of God is in a way attaining complete equality with God - because God is a 'servant' of his devotees. One who knows this has all his wishes fulfilled, when the Lord is ever there to fulfill them.

Sudarshan
15 January 2007, 12:49 AM
“[/FONT]For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:” (Colossians 1:16, KJV)

The above verse says that it was created for Him and His pleasure. Therefore, when one looks at this, I find in God there is a yearning desire to have that pleasure.

It looks like desire is the seed of existence. Therefore, Prajapati “desires” and therefore, creates. What is that desire (pleasure)? I believe it is the desire to have someone in His image, stand in awe of His sovereignty, desire to know and worship Him for His glory, which might have prompted God to say, “ Let us create man in our likeness”. Therefore, I venture to speculate that the intent and the yearning desire for creation, which is to have oneness with Him in all respects!

On the other hand, “For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor?” (Romans 11:34,KJV) tells me that the mind of God is incomprehensible. Therefore, I like to hang my hat on “mystery” that is beyond, at least, my comprehension.

That is why I was trying to be specific on topic. As the topic gets subtler in nature, we have to be in complete agreement of exact nature of question for any meaningful exchange to occur.

Blessings,

FYI, nirotu, vedanta does not admit that man(soul) was created by God. The material universe may be taken to be a form of God which happened by some desire. However, soul created in God's image is not accepted.

The soul is considered as beginningless. The point to consider is:- what is the soul's relationship with God? What is its true nature? Why is it ignorant while God is not? Why does it need the help of God to overcome this ignorance? What happens to the soul upon the removal of ignorance?

Sudarshan
15 January 2007, 01:04 AM
Well, they wouldn't be saying that were it not true :D

It is a quantum thing, in that being and knowing of being sometimes don't happen at the same time. Saying implies yet another level of nonparticipation or meta-analysis or whatever, hehe.

The way of neutralizing the contra-diction is only found in meditation, IMO, not in analytical discourse.



Namaste,
ZN

Maybe, but Krishna does not feel he is a part anywhere in his message to Arjuna. Infact, he declares all the vedas talk only about him (15.15) { vedaiSca sarvairahameva vedyo). That is the hall mark of God - he does not need to be in meditation or trance to know this.

Which is that person in the world who has the guts to claim that he is the primary objective of the vedas, and also prove it? He is God.

atanu
15 January 2007, 01:11 AM
------
---Do you know Advaita's notions of realities? In a reply to a question in his Advaita Siddhi, Madhusudhana Sarswathy clarifies that the universe has no existance whatsoever.( snake on a rope) -----

Shankara is very clear and I think I follow Shankara without any doubt.

Brahman Jagat.
Brahman Jagat

Upanishad after upanishad proclaims "The Divine Purusha is World".

Sudarshan, I harbour no doubt.

Regards.

atanu
15 January 2007, 03:55 AM
We have been through this before and yet your stubborness is astounding.


Personal ephitets? hehe.




Originally Posted by Atanu Banerjee
So, do you wish me out of this discussion? Why are you not direct and forthcoming? (Though even if you were direct, I would reserve my right, if mods do not ban me).

I thought you wished it to be open? You wish it open, but you dislike piercing questions? Nirotu ji, please realise that the questions are not personal. They are about your and my views.

Nirotu said:
You are doing exactly the same by accusing me and taking it personally. I am the one who had stressed a long time ago that our exchange be a vehicle for our spiritual growth. You want to stress the same and serve the same purpose, which I know but such a remark defeats that purpose.



Just read what you wrote earlier about your preferences (which of course changes often) and judge whether my comments were factual or not? If not found factual, then I am guilty.





Originally Posted by Atanu Banerjee
If you consider yourself a created being then how will you know?

Dear Atanu:
If God said in scriptures, “ I am the creator and sustainer”, that’s enough for me know that I am created being. God does reveal His nature through scriptures for me.



1.If that is enough then why you are not content? Why you want to know more or why you want to find fault with advaita?

2.You have not answered as to how a report (a created thing) will know the creator (the writer).

3. Scriptures also say that Atma, appearing to be the doer is not the doer. It is not the creator. Atma remains eternally same. What is created and from where?

4. If God is the creator then He is bound by his karma --- for thousands raped, killed, maimed, tortured, since as per you He is the original source of a flawed creation.




Your statement places more saints and sages in a category of those who did not know God. I gave an example of Ramakrishna Paramahansa and you were silent on that. To support my point, Sudarshan argued his point across and you seem to passionately disagree. Perhaps, you can show me scripture in the Bible to support your claim.



Not at all. Ramakrishna is a god to me as Jesus is. They are Advaita themselves. So are Ramanuja and Madhava. They are not different from the Advaita. Ramakrishna said so to Vivekananda. Jesus said: “I and my father are one”. Madhva also said while describing Turiya of Mandukya Upanishad: "This is the end of Dvaita". When he teaches to people, who consider the body as self, he has to say that this self (body) and God are two different things.

Advaita also does this.



Originally Posted by Atanu Banerjee
Turiya itself is said to be Advaita. And it is also enjoined upon us to know it.
---------------------------------------

Atanu, knowing about Turiya is one thing and undertaking the journey to attain it is entirely a different thing. Remember, even in Turiya state the experiences of lots sages and saints have not been Advaita.

Paramahansa Yogananda says, “I am only a wave in the vast ocean.”

Mother Teresa says, “ I am only the pen, an instrument in His hand”

Even Jesus Christ says, “ I am the son of my father”

All the saints whom you revere have said, “ I am the part of that and I am not that”. The duality is maintained through and through.



Dear Nirotu,

For a Hindu knowing does not mean theoretical book knowledge. Knowing is a greater word than attaining, since when Turiya is your base, how will you attain it? Is it somewhere else in heaven?

And please do not divert the issue and do not bring in others. They have said many other things.
And the citation --- Mother Teresa says, “ I am only the pen, an instrument in His hand”, goes against you. That’s what I asked you earlier. What are you? Whence your intelligence? Whence your ego? A mere pen has no personal identity.

This is dissolution of ego.

But all these are besides the point. I asked you: “Turiya itself is said to be Advaita. And it is also enjoined upon us to know it. How can one know Turiya being a second to it?” I am not asking you about the journey. I am asking whether what is advaita can be known by being a second to it or not? Answer just that.


With humility I say that I do not need your comments on any other thing. I am specifically asking your view on

shaantaM shivamadvaitaM chaturthaM manyante sa aatmaa sa viGYeyaH

How will one know the AATMA if one is a second to this ADVAITA being?

Blessings

Om Namah Shivayya

Sudarshan
15 January 2007, 06:20 AM
namaste,



I knew you will get me on this point! I am not surprised at your question but at the same time I am...the great irony of this existence!

First, I am not surprised because you and I both know each personally and so at least the both of us know that at the very least we both are not enjoying the dance!

Second, the reason why I am surprised is because your question is not valid! By asking this question you are implying that you have no understanding of the karmic cycle(s). I know that you are just trying to prove a point by asking this question but please do not simplify things so much. We must understand the karmic cycles at play in this dance. Isn't it?


But if you think deeply, does Karma theory offer a much better explanation than the "original sin"? We say that our present is in accordance with our past. But it does hit upon a dead end because there is no idea of how the whole business began. Is God or somebody else responsible? In Christianity, first sin came by disobedience. In our case, it is not apparent. We must naturally assume that we are to blame if we want to preserve the integrity of God. Now how could the divine soul be blamed for displaying ignorance?

If you think about it, at present you have an apparent freewill, with which you can do either good or bad. Some people choose the former and some the latter. This means we always had the choice, but keep making mistakes.





Yes, I know! But you know the reasons why at least, I on the other hand...



I will ponder on these statements more...but for now, I do not believe this mrityuloka is dreadful. I believe this is the place where we can actually turn to 'HIM'! Your and my case in point...

That is right,. The fact that one is in utter misery and has to turn to somebody else for protection shows the relative positions of the two entities isnt it?

atanu
15 January 2007, 06:51 AM
Suka Rahasya Upanishad


40-42. Senses has two ways: expressed and implied. In ‘Tattvam Asi’ the expressed meaning is the senses etc., which are elemental and the implied is, ‘He’ in ‘you’ (Tvam), in the word Tat the expressed sense is lordship etc., the implied is the supreme being which is Sat, Chit and Ananda. ‘Asi’ identifies these two. Tvam and Tad mean effect and cause respectively when this is the adjunct; otherwise both are the same Sat, Chit and Ananda – separating the space and time faites the identity is got, just as in the world, in the expression, ‘This is that Devadatta’.


The Jiva is having the effect-adjunct, Isa has cause-adjunct – when both are removed, only the full knowledge remains.



May no one forget Isha, the source of Jiva. He only showers the grace allowing Jiva access to the Self. We worship him.




Om

Znanna
15 January 2007, 08:52 AM
Maybe, but Krishna does not feel he is a part anywhere in his message to Arjuna. Infact, he declares all the vedas talk only about him (15.15) { vedaiSca sarvairahameva vedyo). That is the hall mark of God - he does not need to be in meditation or trance to know this.

Which is that person in the world who has the guts to claim that he is the primary objective of the vedas, and also prove it? He is God.


This reminds me of something Twin said:



I AM is the only fact that exists outside of the illusion.

The only experience outside of the illusion is I AM.

Inside the illusion are the facts that "water's wet ,rocks are hard,and buses will kill you if you get in their way."

The illusion is completely dependent upon agreement between us.

You and I create the illusion out of our intention.



I don't know if Twin is alive or dead; my experience of him is the same :)

However, it is I, not IAM who posts the quotes here, heh.






Namaste,
ZN

Sudarshan
15 January 2007, 10:25 AM
Suka Rahasya Upanishad


40-42. Senses has two ways: expressed and implied. In ‘Tattvam Asi’ the expressed meaning is the senses etc., which are elemental and the implied is, ‘He’ in ‘you’ (Tvam), in the word Tat the expressed sense is lordship etc., the implied is the supreme being which is Sat, Chit and Ananda. ‘Asi’ identifies these two. Tvam and Tad mean effect and cause respectively when this is the adjunct; otherwise both are the same Sat, Chit and Ananda – separating the space and time faites the identity is got, just as in the world, in the expression, ‘This is that Devadatta’.


The Jiva is having the effect-adjunct, Isa has cause-adjunct – when both are removed, only the full knowledge remains.



May no one forget Isha, the source of Jiva. He only showers the grace allowing Jiva access to the Self. We worship him.




Om

Yes, Shankara's commentary on Chandogya pulled up here and there, and passed on as 'Upanishad' probably created in the 19th century. The theory of 'adjuncts' (upAdhi) and all that are Shankara's own.(gauDapAda uses them in his kArikAs for the first time)

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=9408#post9408

nirotu
17 January 2007, 03:13 PM
Just read what you wrote earlier about your preferences (which of course changes often) and judge whether my comments were factual or not? If not found factual, then I am guilty.

Atanu, Dear!

Why do you waste so much time in misinterpreting a trivial point such as this? You have a great intellect and talent (I mean this very sincerely) that could have been put to a good use, I mean, that time could have been well spent on issues we are discussing. You seem to get ticked-off if I do not follow a strict protocol or respectfully address you regardless of what you say or do.

First, it is factual that I did not include your name. It is not because I did not like you but simply because there was no contribution from you that was related to the subject matter in this thread (Creation and “advaita”). Go back from the beginning to the point where you raise this question and tell me about a single post of yours that related to the topic at hand. If you want to keep your ego intact, I will once again apologize for not including your name!

Second, regardless, whether we agree on issues or not, I will admit this from the bottom of my heart that I have a great respect for your intellect and insightful thoughts. This I am sure, many on the forum will agree with me.

1. If that is enough then why you are not content? Why you want to know more or why you want to find fault with advaita?When a man (myself in this case) is so much seeped in secular life where there is no one to discuss spiritual needs at home or at work, who will he turn to? I cannot join any ashram at this stage in my life. Therefore, is there a better way to exchange ideas than with like minded people? I am not here to create an idle chit-chat or discontented seeking of any kind. It is more to create an atmosphere of like minded people to exchange ideas. However, it is your prerogative to either discard me or value my thoughts. Be it known that there is no malicious intent to discredit “advaita”. It is not “advaita” that is so much wrong as the “advaitins” interpreting it. This goes with Christians as well.


2. You have not answered as to how a report (a created thing) will know the creator (the writer).Honestly, there is no “how” involved in the sense you are looking at it! The only entity in human that can truly know the creator is the atman. The only place where “how” applies is through the journey an individual undertakes to reach that stage. Getting to the Atman or shifting in to it or raising consciousness in to it is indeed the essence of the “journey”. This is bypassed in all Advaitic discussions.


3. Scriptures also say that Atma, appearing to be the doer is not the doer. It is not the creator. Atma remains eternally same. I believe that the absolute reality is God (Brahman) who is behind all creation. The Atma (Jiv-atma) is distinct from Brahman (Param-Atma) and this distinction carried throughout the cycle of creation. If you are so convinced of you being Him (“advaita”), why do you refer yourself to atman and not param-atman? Even in Adviata that distinction is maintained. The “I am Brahman” is in the sense of unity of spirit and not in the sense of “monotheism”. Therefore, “atma” remains the same that is eternally distinct from “Param-Atma”.


What is created and from where?It is said that He created the world and then entered it. Sometimes the personal or created being is represented as himself proceeding from a material substratum. On the other occasion the primary substance of things represented as manifesting itself in the created existence. The Atma then pervades things as the salt which has dissolved in water pervades the water.

The supreme or the absolute reality becomes active purusha, “From the Purusa Virat was born, and from Virat again Purusa” Thus Purusa is thus the begetter as well as begotten. However, in Christianity, it is believed that the Christ is the begotten son of God. Since, what God begets is God and what man begets is man, it is concluded that Christ is God. It is like the scripture “word was with God and word was God”. Whatever there is belonging to the son belongs to the Father; whatever there is belonging to the Father belongs to the son.


4. If God is the creator then He is bound by his karma --- for thousands raped, killed, maimed, tortured, since as per you He is the original source of a flawed creation. I never said that. You are mistaking me for someone else! Creation was never flawed. When He created He said, “It is good”, then it indeed is good! This is exactly why we have been discussing the original intent of God! The original intent or purpose could not be flawed because it came from the one who is flawless! Original creation was perfect in the truest sense shown to us as in the “Garden of Eden.” As man de-evolved the sin or disobedience took hold where the flaw entered. You may want to call it a seed of karma that was planted. I believe, God’s plan was perfect and was executed perfectly! God neither played dice nor He ever got bored one Sunday watching football and decided to take up this new hobby of creation!


Not at all. Ramakrishna is a god to me as Jesus is. They are Advaita themselves. So are Ramanuja and Madhava. They are not different from the Advaita. Ramakrishna said so to Vivekananda. Jesus said: “I and my father are one”. Madhva also said while describing Turiya of Mandukya Upanishad: "This is the end of Dvaita". When he teaches to people, who consider the body as self, he has to say that this self (body) and God are two different things.

Advaita also does this.Here, I see you misinterpret Jesus again (I remember we talked about this before). Let me ask you one thing: when Jesus declares “I and my father are one”, does this “I” refer to His ego or His Atman? Besides, the very statement suggests the usage of “are” shows the plurality (I and Father). If He was an “all in all” Advaitin, why would He refer to Father all the time and not just Himself? Thus, even in Turiya Jesus shows the connectedness in the sense of Unity in nature and not in the sense they were joined at the hip (so to speak!).

You are quoting Ramakrishna Paramahansa out of context. When you read his encounter with Totapuri (devout Advaitin) you will know what Ramakrishna meant. Even after going through the entire process of advaitin experience as taught by Totapuri, Ramakrishna could only say “while in this body I have to experience Dvaita”. In his life he demonstrated “dvaita” by living it. He had the great awareness of his mother (ma) whom he worshipped till the end!

Even fathers of Adviata have shown beautifully the connectedness with the Father. Ramana Maharishi, for example, while not saying so overtly, his works, the beauty and majesty of his poems were breath taking and emotional. The tears of longing obviously demonstrates his connectedness with the source (Arunachalam).

I do agree that “Turiya” is “advaita” and there is no doubt it is a state beyond dreamless sleep. However, in our waking life (2/3 of entire life) we always imagine the opposition between subject and the object to be real. When it is said that duality is not all, that duality is not final, it does not mean that there is no duality at all, that there is no distinction. The existence of duality is the fact of our created existence. While we still live in other sates (waking , dreaming and possibly dreamless sleep at times) let us not agree to disagree the most important part that is the role of human journey in trying to attain it in the scheme of God’s creation, which is essentially “dvaita”.


For a Hindu knowing does not mean theoretical book knowledge. Knowing is a greater word than attaining, since when Turiya is your base, how will you attain it? Is it somewhere else in heaven?I have always separated knowing Turiya from trying to attain it. In my view, it is the latter part that is reflected in a journey, which we undertake in our lives. How we conduct ourselves in this life will determine which way we are going! Therefore, our life itself is a journey and the efforts we put in it are far greater than merely knowing it.

While, the knowledge (knowing) may be important but it is only the beginning. I may know lot more about my car that is parked in my garage as to its benefits of going places etc,. But, unless I actually sit in the car and drive, I may not fully realize whether I am benefiting from that knowledge or not. As the tree bears fruit, knowledge must realize itself in work!

And please do not divert the issue and do not bring in others. They have said many other things.


And the citation --- Mother Teresa says, “I am only the pen, an instrument in His hand”, goes against you. That’s what I asked you earlier. What are you? Whence your intelligence? Whence your ego? A mere pen has no personal identity.


This is dissolution of ego.Consider this, Atanu. Just as in “advaita”, there is “dvaita” of ego ridden person who calls out to God for help (through worship, prayer etc,). In that sense human feels isolated from God who is sitting somewhere in heaven. However, in between this ignorance ridden “dvaita” and “advaita” there is “atman-dvaita” where atma being actually incarnated that perceives and recognizes “advaita” connection with the Father. This middle ground is always bypassed in your discussion.


How will one know the AATMA if one is a second to this ADVAITA being?Atanu, in this creation where we exist, if everything is “advaita” to you, then “love” is evil just like “hate” is evil. Accordingly, if God is love then God is also evil. Relationship is meaningless! There is no “You and I” because we all are united into “one”. How can there be any distinction if you are claiming to be one (unity) with God? More importantly, the universal self (“advaita”) that you so proclaim, by its very nature cannot be perceived. As Shankara himself puts it, “The witness self illumines consciousness, but never itself is in consciousness.”

Blessings

Znanna
17 January 2007, 06:58 PM
Atanu, in this creation where we exist, if everything is “advaita” to you, then “love” is evil just like “hate” is evil. Accordingly, if God is love then God is also evil. Relationship is meaningless! There is no “You and I” because we all are united into “one”. How can there be any distinction if you are claiming to be one (unity) with God? More importantly, the universal self (“advaita”) that you so proclaim, by its very nature cannot be perceived. As Shankara himself puts it, “The witness self illumines consciousness, but never itself is in consciousness.”I think love is being at One with, and hate is the ego dividing from into separateness.But, neither can be without the reflection of the other, in analysis.Ultimately, the way to experience the Holy is to pray, in my opinion.Namaste,ZN/oblique :)

Sudarshan
18 January 2007, 10:11 AM
Dear nirotu,


Why do you waste so much time in misinterpreting a trivial point such as this? You have a great intellect and talent (I mean this very sincerely) that could have been put to a good use, I mean, that time could have been well spent on issues we are discussing. You seem to get ticked-off if I do not follow a strict protocol or respectfully address you regardless of what you say or do.


You have my support on this view so dont worry about resistance. I seem to be the odd man out on this forum.;)





[quote=nirotu]
I believe that the absolute reality is God (Brahman) who is behind all creation. The Atma (Jiv-atma) is distinct from Brahman (Param-Atma) and this distinction carried throughout the cycle of creation. If you are so convinced of you being Him (“advaita”), why do you refer yourself to atman and not param-atman? Even in Adviata that distinction is maintained. The “I am Brahman” is in the sense of unity of spirit and not in the sense of “monotheism”. Therefore, “atma” remains the same that is eternally distinct from “Param-Atma”.


Absolutely. All the advaitic looking stuff are indeed focussng on subtle difference. Do you know that the translation of "aham brahmAsmi" to "I am Brahman" is in violation of grammar (the sUtra "vartamAne laT") and yet passed on as an authentic translation? But who cares about grammar and sanskrit? All such passages speak of equality with God ( in certain respects) and dependency on God but dont preach any identity. All passages are absolutely sensible in this framework.




Here, I see you misinterpret Jesus again (I remember we talked about this before). Let me ask you one thing: when Jesus declares “I and my father are one”, does this “I” refer to His ego or His Atman? Besides, the very statement suggests the usage of “are” shows the plurality (I and Father). If He was an “all in all” Advaitin, why would He refer to Father all the time and not just Himself? Thus, even in Turiya Jesus shows the connectedness in the sense of Unity in nature and not in the sense they were joined at the hip (so to speak!).


Do the advaitins think of the "param padam" described in katha up as the state of deep sleep or turIya? To say that vaikuNTa vAsIs are in deep sleep ( this is the abode of Krishna, the puruSottama)and not in turIya would be gross misinterpretation of scripture.{ param padam=deep sleep!) If they are in turIya it proves multiplicity in moksha.

Sudarshan
18 January 2007, 11:34 AM
Shankara is very clear and I think I follow Shankara without any doubt.

Brahman Jagat.
Brahman Jagat

Upanishad after upanishad proclaims "The Divine Purusha is World".

Sudarshan, I harbour no doubt.

Regards.





Yes, you wont have any doubt. Do you know what is aKhaNDarta resorted to by Advaitins in their interpretation of scripture?

atanu
18 January 2007, 01:21 PM
Om

Dear Nirotu Namaste,


I note that you have avoided answering the question. "Whether Advaita Aatma can be attained (i use your terminology) by being a second to it or not? In YES/NO terms.

This is important, since scripture says that the Advaitam aatma must be known.

Just say YES or NO, if you wish to. Your silence or a long explanation will be taken as a No.


Om Namah Shivayya


The following you may go through if you are sure that you will not waste your time. Else just skip it.



Atanu, Dear!


Why do you waste so much time in misinterpreting a trivial point such as this? You have a great intellect and talent (I mean this very sincerely) that could have been put to a good use, I mean, that time could have been well spent on issues we are discussing. You seem to get ticked-off if I do not follow a strict protocol or respectfully address you regardless of what you say or do.

First, it is factual that I did not include your name. It is not because I did not like you but simply because there was no contribution from you that was related to the subject matter in this thread (Creation and “advaita”). Go back from the beginning to the point where you raise this question and tell me about a single post of yours that related to the topic at hand. If you want to keep your ego intact, I will once again apologize for not including your name!




Are you not dragging the issue?

Please go back and check, all my questions were related to your statement about Advaita missing the intent of creation. I do not want to spend any time on big explanations.

If you have a feeling of wasted time, why reply?





I believe that the absolute reality is God (Brahman) who is behind all creation. The Atma (Jiv-atma) is distinct from Brahman (Param-Atma) and this distinction carried throughout the cycle of creation.


First part is agreeable to all.

Your concept of 'God Brahman' is not mine. Atma can never be cut since it is spirit. So, the distinction between Atma and Param Atma is incorrect understanding.


Ayamatma Brahman.

Bg. 13. 23 Upadrashtaanumantaa cha bhartaa bhoktaa maheshwarah;
Paramaatmeti chaapyukto dehe’smin purushah parah.

23. The Supreme Soul in this body is also called the spectator, the permitter, the supporter, the enjoyer, the great Lord and the Supreme Self.


13. 28. Samam sarveshu bhooteshu tishthantam parameshwaram;
Vinashyatswavinashyantam yah pashyati sa pashyati.

13.28. He sees, who sees the Supreme Lord, existing equally in all beings, the unperishing within the perishing.


What we usually call soul, is Purusha immersed in Prakriti and not Aatma, which is one.




If you are so convinced of you being Him (“advaita”), why do you refer yourself to atman and not param-atman?

This is typical. Where this was said? I maintain that the only being who is intelligent is Atma and it is Advaita. One who sees the spirit everywhere, he has difficulty in saying “I am so and so” leave alone “I am Him”. Only, you and Sudarshan Bhaiya seem to be capable of such inferences in this forum.

“I am Him” is dvaita. Do you not understand it? You are totally confused as to what this ego (Atanu) considers as I. This repeated incorrect reference only makes me feel that you are not genuine .

I am sorry but I must say the truth.




I never said that. You are mistaking me for someone else! Creation was never flawed. When He created He said, “It is good”, then it indeed is good! ---


When did I say that you said you said creation was flawed? I said your concept (it is only a concept) is faulty, since if God is creator then He becomes karma bound for the ills of creation – if ills are there.

Why should He create to eventually give rise to ‘war mongers’ and other sinners (if your individual soul theory holds)?




“The witness self illumines consciousness, but never itself is in consciousness.”
Blessings


Witness is Shiva. He is beyond Pragnya. Savitar's Pragnya proceeds from Shiva. “He is never itself consciousness”. Do you understand it?

“Atman na lipayate”. The Aatman acts but does not act. He is the ultimate, still not the creator. The acts of creation, maintenance, destruction proceed from Him.


Om Namah Shivayya






Here, I see you misinterpret Jesus again (I remember we talked about this before). Let me ask you one thing: when Jesus declares “I and my father are one”, does this “I” refer to His ego or His Atman? Besides, the very statement suggests the usage of “are” shows the plurality (I and Father). ---------



My second name is Anup. So when I say: Atanu and Anup are one, it means Atanu and Anup are different since Atanu and Anup are differentiated by "are" .

hehe.




You are quoting Ramakrishna Paramahansa out of context. When you read his encounter with Totapuri (devout Advaitin) you will know what Ramakrishna meant. Even after going through the entire process of advaitin experience as taught by Totapuri, Ramakrishna could only say “while in this body I have to experience Dvaita”. In his life he demonstrated “dvaita” by living it. He had the great awareness of his mother (ma) whom he worshipped till the end!

Even fathers of Adviata have shown beautifully the connectedness with the Father. Ramana Maharishi, for example, while not saying so overtly, his works, the beauty and majesty of his poems were breath taking and emotional. The tears of longing obviously demonstrates his connectedness with the source (Arunachalam).



This is unnecessary. I do not know any Advaitin who denies worship of Ishwara; far from it. True ego less Bhakti can arise with samadrishti only. The body is solely for worship. But who worships? Did Ramana say “I worship Lord?”

That would be a sacrilege for Ramana Maharshi, who never knew an “I”, since age 18. Even if such sages say “I”, they know that there is no other doer other than Lord’s Shakti.

Most Dvaitins who are supposed to be Krishna lovers do not understand Lord’s teaching: “You are not the doer”. As Aatma one is not the doer. As body one is not the doer.

It is the ignorance that there is karma to be done by me. Who this “me” is but the ego? And where is the ego, if not in ignorance?




I do agree that “Turiya” is “advaita” and there is no doubt it is a state beyond dreamless sleep. However, in our waking life (2/3 of entire life) we always imagine the opposition between subject and the object to be real. When it is said that duality is not all, that duality is not final, it does not mean that there is no duality at all, that there is no distinction. The existence of duality is the fact of our created existence. While we still live in other sates (waking , dreaming and possibly dreamless sleep at times) let us not agree to disagree the most important part that is the role of human journey in trying to attain it in the scheme of God’s creation, which is essentially “dvaita”.



You are simply missing the point that this so-called human journey is based on 'our created existence" (as you put it so nicely). Aatma has no role in it. Aatma na Lipayate.

Waking life may be your 99.99 % but that would not invalidate a second’s intuitive flash gifted by Lord Indra.




Consider this, Atanu. Just as in “advaita”, there is “dvaita” of ego ridden person who calls out to God for help (through worship, prayer etc,). In that sense human feels isolated from God who is sitting somewhere in heaven. However, in between this ignorance ridden “dvaita” and “advaita” there is “atman-dvaita” where atma being actually incarnated that perceives and recognizes “advaita” connection with the Father. This middle ground is always bypassed in your discussion.



Nirotu ji, we have covered these several times. You are part of this discussion. So say "This middle ground is always bypassed in our discussion". Where is the middle ground? My premise is Mandukya Upanishad. For me only Self appears as ALL.

Gita says Aatma is uncuttable. Mandukya Upanishad says Self seated as Pragnya is Isha Sarvesvara. OM is the Self – the created and the uncreated, past, present, future and all. The waking stage is this Self (Advaita) residing as Agnivaisvanaro, appearing in diverse forms. But it is ONE Agni.

So, the waking life itself is ONE AGNI. So is Pragnya and so is Taijjassa.


To illustrate let me cite this.

When I saw my father expire, a few questions came up. One question was, “what had left the body that even if I spoon fed him with glucose – so called energy; he would not ever again move a finger?” The question kept needling me. Then Shri Ramana arrived.

When I search for the being that says “I” in me, the “I” is not found. Who/what can say I, certainly not the flesh? The dead body/dead brain will not say “Let me live”, while being carried to the funeral pyre. Then who says “I” now? The mind which is a conglomeration of thoughts cannot be the “I”. After enquiring for a few years now, it is my settled view that Lord only is the intelligence and the life in this so-called body. This has no contradiction to Mandukya and any other scripture.

When I looked back and enquired, “Well if I cannot find the ‘I’ in me, then who was my father? What was animating him? What was his cognition apparatus?” To me, my father dissolved and only Shiva-Shivani remained. To me, you are nothing but a form of Lord alone, and so is everyone, notwithstanding the false ego that tries to create a fleshy boundary. Lord is ONE and never gets divided, since He is spirit. There is no place where He is not there. There is no time when He is not there.

Where is the middle ground? Are we not creating a middle ground ourselves?

Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
18 January 2007, 01:26 PM
Yes, you wont have any doubt. Do you know what is aKhaNDarta resorted to by Advaitins in their interpretation of scripture?


No. I do not need to. I acknowledge that you are a repository of terms. The Self is not in these terms.

Sudarshan
19 January 2007, 03:28 AM
No. I do not need to. I acknowledge that you are a repository of terms. The Self is not in these terms.

How would you know that? After all you have relied on some books to reach some conclusion, and they are a repository of words. The word "Self" is a word. The word Brahman itself has a meaning, so why would you jump to the conclusion "The Self is not in these terms". The word Atman itself is explained in muNDaka. We understand every entity through some words - why else are you even reading the vedas? What useful information can they provide?

atanu
19 January 2007, 10:31 AM
How would you know that? After all you have relied on some books to reach some conclusion, and they are a repository of words. The word "Self" is a word. The word Brahman itself has a meaning, so why would you jump to the conclusion "The Self is not in these terms". The word Atman itself is explained in muNDaka. We understand every entity through some words - why else are you even reading the vedas? What useful information can they provide?

Namaste,

Since my Guru taught me so. Since Lord Krishna teaches so. Since akshara word is OM. My opinion.

BG 2. 53 Shrutivipratipannaa te yadaa sthaasyati nishchalaa;
Samaadhaavachalaa buddhistadaa yogam avaapsyasi.

BG 2.53. When thy intellect, perplexed by what thou hast heard, shall stand immovable and steady in the Self, then thou shalt attain Self-realisation.



Regards.

Om Namah Shivayya

Znanna
20 January 2007, 12:41 PM
Quote:
All the saints whom you revere have said, “ I am the part of that and I am not that”. The duality is maintained through and through.


Well, they wouldn't be saying that were it not true :D

It is a quantum thing, in that being and knowing of being sometimes don't happen at the same time. Saying implies yet another level of nonparticipation or meta-analysis or whatever, hehe.

The way of neutralizing the contra-diction is only found in meditation, IMO, not in analytical discourse.



Namaste,
ZN


(snip)

According to Albert Einstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein)'s theory of special relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity), instantaneous action-at-a-distance was seen to violate the relativistic upper limit on speed of propagation of information. If one of the interacting objects were suddenly displaced from its position, the other object would feel its influence instantaneously, meaning information had been transmitted faster than the speed of light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance_(physics)

See also, for more detail,


http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/bell.html

Spooky Action at a Distance


I've found, in meditation, that time and space become irrelevant and have used this state of balance as a means for being in more than one body simultaneously. It is a perverse duality, indeed. Along the way in my practice to get to where this was achieveable at will (and with HEr blessing), there were many occasions where there were mis-matches in real time, sort of akin to a "deja-vu" or "a priori" type of experience.

Bell's Theorum (see link above) and other notions of quantum physics (Schroedinger's Cat for example) are descriptive of these processes, too, in my opinion.

What I'm saying is that when it is said that "I am the part of that and I am not that", it is literally true.

YMMV


Namaste,
ZN

nirotu
22 January 2007, 01:37 PM
I note that you have avoided answering the question. "Whether Advaita Aatma can be attained (i use your terminology) by being a second to it or not? In YES/NO terms.

Just say YES or NO, if you wish to. Your silence or a long explanation will be taken as a No.


Dear Atanu:

The very use of the word by you, “Advaita Aatma”, is misleading! Advaita signifies the unmanifested Oneness alone. Atma is part of Adviata but manifested entity inside the matter. Therefore, the use of two terms together is wrong!

You may want to rephrase the question.

If, on the other hand, you are second to Atman then you are in ego, may be a higher state of ego but not Atman! Your own Atman must shift into higher self in order to know the real Brahman. Therefore, in this context the answer to your query is “No”.

Only Atman can know its relationship with the Brahman. If you are second to it you may know about it but you are not it (eventually!).


I believe that the absolute reality is God (Brahman) who is behind all creation. The Atma (Jiv-atma) is distinct from Brahman (Param-Atma) and this distinction carried throughout the cycle of creation.


First part is agreeable to all.


Your concept of 'God Brahman' is not mine. Atma can never be cut since it is spirit. So, the distinction between Atma and Param Atma is incorrect understanding.Atanu, how can the “manifest” be identical with the “unmanifest”? They may be identical in their ultimate sense, but they are different in manifested sense.

When you see a real nice fire burning (Havan, bon-fire) you will see sparks flying across the pyre. The sparks flying from fire, although, have the essential nature of fire but is no longer can be called the fire itself. The sparks are the product of fire and not the fire itself. Thus, in that sense, spark is “Atman” and the fire is “Brahman”. Again, I use the analogy using material nature of both. In fact, trying to equate “manifest” and “unmanifest” that is even more difficult, this is what you are claiming to do!

Only the purified “Atman” is Brahman. The finite self in the manifested creation or the embodied soul is the “Atman” coupled with senses and mind! Such “Atman” when reaches its highest state that is in its fourth state (Turiya), “atman” may realize it is “Brahman”. It may realize it is part of “it” but it is not “it”.

In the manifested ”Atman” we find a progressive development in the definition of “self” through four stages (Upanishad). 1- the bodily self, 2- the empirical self, 3- the transcendent self and, 4- the absolute self. This is a gradual evolution of the soul which eventually realizes itself (atman) as Brahman, though not initially. Only “Avatars” display such a realization right from the beginning! (S.Radhakrishnan Hindu Philosophy)

Your assertion, the “Atman” is “Brahman” puts the need for creation in question. It is to understand this (the role of Advaita in creation) I had posed the question in my original post. Making one’s “Atman” = “Brahman” right from the beginning makes the business of creation a moot point.

Bringing “maya” to define creation to be just an appearance of Brahman is nothing short of fiction when in fact the creation is truly an expression of the Absolute. It is an expression of His desire! Besides, if “maya” conceals the self shining Brahman there would be no way of knowing Brahman! Truly, it is the perception that is clouding us is the “maya” and whose result is the appearance. It is this ignorance that has led us in this journey where the “knower” wants to know the “known”. In that sense, man’s ignorance of “dvaita” is “maya”.

The “Atman” is divine in origin, though clogged with flesh. The natural divinity of “Atman” reasserts itself when freed from the tyranny of the flesh. The “Turiya” state brings out such a positive aspect of it, which is unseen, transcendent, inapprehensible, unthinkable, indescribable, ever present, all blissful, the one unit, this indeed is the “Atman” that can, in the heat of its ecstasy, knows its true connection with the “Brahman” (Modified from S.Radhakrishnan – Indian Philosophy).

Even in Turiya, the Atman in its true sense cannot proclaim to be Brahman. Atman does not have any authority to be calling itself Brahman even in the liberated state but do so only because there is no fine line dividing between the two (differentiated and undifferentiated) as they have transcended any difference that exists. Ataman in its ultimate reality knows its connection with Brahman. It is certainly is not be taken as its authority to claim to be Brahman!


What we usually call soul, is Purusha immersed in Prakriti and not Aatma, which is one.I view “purusha” and “prakriti” as of the nature of matter and “Atman” of the nature of “Brahman”.


This is typical. Where this was said? I maintain that the only being who is intelligent is Atma and it is Advaita. One who sees the spirit everywhere, he has difficulty in saying “I am so and so” leave alone “I am Him”. Only, you and Sudarshan Bhaiya seem to be capable of such inferences in this forum. I am not equating “I” (ego) with “Atman” but saying that “Atman” is manifested “Brahman” and, therefore, cannot be the same. My note above describing analogy with fire and sparks of fire might be helpful in understanding that point.


“I am Him” is dvaita. Do you not understand it? You are totally confused as to what this ego (Atanu) considers as I. This repeated incorrect reference only makes me feel that you are not genuine .
I am sorry but I must say the truth.How come, for someone who consistently claims Atman is Brahman, and, for whom the “self” appears as all “Brahman” all the time has a hard time transcending the sense of “feeling”?


When did I say that you said you said creation was flawed? I said your concept (it is only a concept) is faulty, since if God is creator then He becomes karma bound for the ills of creation – if ills are there.
Why should He create to eventually give rise to ‘war mongers’ and other sinners (if your individual soul theory holds)? Unless we come to understand about “Atman-Brahman” relationship, we cannot go any further. Because the drive behind creation truly addresses that point so vividly. Your point above only proves that creation never happened! If it did, then God must be responsible for evils. You must know that the so called flaw/karma entered long after creation. Therefore, to begin with creation was perfect in every sense!

In that context let me ask you here! What is the origin of “Karma”? and, what is the seat of “Avidya”?


My second name is Anup. So when I say: Atanu and Anup are one, it means Atanu and Anup are different since Atanu and Anup are differentiated by "are" .
Try to understand the “Atman-Brahman” relationship in the manifested creation of God. Every thing else will follow logically!!


Gita says Aatma is uncuttable. Mandukya Upanishad says Self seated as Pragnya is Isha Sarvesvara. OM is the Self – the created and the uncreated, past, present, future and all. The waking stage is this Self (Advaita) residing as Agnivaisvanaro, appearing in diverse forms. But it is ONE Agni.

Brahman-Atman relationship is constant and unchanging through the changing states of dreaming and waking and even liberated state. Given the benefit of the doubt, let me say in the “ultimate” sense Atman realizes Brahman. However, you must know that the operative word here is in the “ultimate”. The baby born, although a part of the father and mother, cannot be a parent itself immediately. There is a process of growth that ultimately leads it with a choice of becoming one such parent. However, the child-parent relationship of its own was never lost even after becoming him/her a parent.


When I saw my father expire, a few questions came up. One question was, “what had left the body that even if I spoon fed him with glucose – so called energy; he would not ever again move a finger?” The question kept needling me. Then Shri Ramana arrived......

When I search for the being that says “I” in me, the “I” is not found. Who/what can say I, certainly not the flesh? The dead body/dead brain will not say “Let me live”, while being carried to the funeral pyre. Then who says “I” now? The mind which is a conglomeration of thoughts cannot be the “I”. After enquiring for a few years now, it is my settled view that Lord only is the intelligence and the life in this so-called body. This has no contradiction to Mandukya and any other scripture.

When I looked back and enquired, “Well if I cannot find the ‘I’ in me, then who was my father? What was animating him? What was his cognition apparatus?” To me, my father dissolved and only Shiva-Shivani remained. To me, you are nothing but a form of Lord alone, and so is everyone, notwithstanding the false ego that tries to create a fleshy boundary. Lord is ONE and never gets divided, since He is spirit. There is no place where He is not there. There is no time when He is not there.

Where is the middle ground? Are we not creating a middle ground ourselves? Well said, Atanu. While I too empathize with your father’s passing (as I lost mine too), I still maintain that in the ultimate sense, possibly when knowledge that is complete, we both agree that “Brahman” is “Atman”. I am giving credibility to “Creation” that is being manifested. The spark that is functioning in your father, in that very instant, was different from “Brahman”. We may be splitting hair here. To see oneness from the beginning is to entirely miss the meaning of creation. It is to lose the meaning of intuition, desire and point of creation.

Blessings,

satay
22 January 2007, 03:12 PM
namaste all,
I would like to add something more and hopefully I won't contradict myself from my previous postings on this thread.

It seems that there are three 'things' at play here in 'creation'. Jiva, jagat and Ishvara.

Jiva in my understanding is the individual soul that keeps going through the wheel of life and birth due to karmic influences. Where did the first karmic influence come from (?)

Jagat is the universe. It seems to be a space provided by Ishvara or GOD for us or jivas to experience the fruits of past actions. Isn't this consitent with what GOD says in Gita (?)?

Ishvara or GOD is the sustainer of the universe. Does he provide the fuits of actions himself or does karmic cycle do it by itself. In my opinion, if GOD were handling all kinds of karmic accounts wouldn't get bored doing it (?) This accouting of karmic debt should be an automated process, one would think.

Doesn't it seem that GOD, jiva and jagat are dependent on each other? What if jiva disappears! i.e. all jivas just get eliminated, there would be no need for jagat and no need of GOD!!

So, what happens when jiva gets mukti...if and when jiva finds out its true nature which is self or pure conciousness, when this happens is it possible that jagat and ishvara disppear automatcially levaing behind one without the second!!

I am asking, well, obviously...

Agnideva
23 January 2007, 04:07 PM
Namaste Satay,



Jiva in my understanding is the individual soul that keeps going through the wheel of life and birth due to karmic influences. Where did the first karmic influence come from (?)
There is a belief in some of the Tantras (probably derived from Sankhya philosophy) that the present creation arose as the result of the mass of unresolved karmas that was left over upon the dissolution of the previous creation. In other words, as the mass of unresolved karma from the previous cycle comes into fruition, a new cycle issues forth. But the question is: if the mass of karmas can act as a force to issue forth a new cycle, does this violate the principle of oneness?


Jagat is the universe. It seems to be a space provided by Ishvara or GOD for us or jivas to experience the fruits of past actions. Or as some would say: we need to experience darkness, before we can know what light is.


Ishvara or GOD is the sustainer of the universe. Does he provide the fuits of actions himself or does karmic cycle do it by itself. In my opinion, if GOD were handling all kinds of karmic accounts wouldn't get bored doing it (?) This accouting of karmic debt should be an automated process, one would think. God the great accountant! :). In the Purva Mimamsa philosophy (which many say was initially atheistic like Sankhya), there was a belief that a force called Apurva was responsible for delivering fruits of karma. So, perform karma (then karma meant performing Vedic rituals of the karma kanda), and attain the fruit. It was completely automated.


Doesn't it seem that GOD, jiva and jagat are dependent on each other? What if jiva disappears! i.e. all jivas just get eliminated, there would be no need for jagat and no need of GOD!!
What Hindu dualists will tell you rather that only Ishvara is independent; jivas and jagat are dependent entities. From a dualistic perspective, all jivas cannot be eliminated, i.e. cannot get moksha. Only certain jivas are eligible for moksha according to Madhva. In Arya Samaj, which also follows dualism, jivas return from moksha!


So, what happens when jiva gets mukti...if and when jiva finds out its true nature which is self or pure conciousness, when this happens is it possible that jagat and ishvara disppear automatcially levaing behind one without the second!!
Or rather that separation between the experiencer, the experienced and the experience disappears. This is what is said of Nirvikalpa Samadhi.

Regards,
A.

Sudarshan
24 January 2007, 10:51 AM
Namaste nirotu,

Atman is always Brahman. The problem is referring to oneself as Atman, when Atman is said to be the creator and sustainer of the worlds.( are you?). Unless the context of a passage demands heavily otherwise, Atman is the Brahman.

The passage for eg: ayaM Atma brahma usually casually translated as "This Self is Brahman"

Atman always stands for Brahman unless a contexts demands it. Thus the above reads as ayaM brahma brahma which is plainly redundant. So we have to go for the word meaning of brahma which is full.

So ayam Atma brahman means This Brahman is full( perfect) and mistranslated as "This Self is Brahman".

Sudarshan
24 January 2007, 12:30 PM
My second name is Anup. So when I say: Atanu and Anup are one, it means Atanu and Anup are different since Atanu and Anup are differentiated by "are" .

hehe.


If Atanu and Anup are qualitatively identical, then they are one and the same regardless of the name. However, if one person is flawed and the other is perfect, they are not the same even if they have the same name.

nirotu
25 January 2007, 02:56 PM
Dear Sudarshan:

I respect your view but I don’t accept them. While we do not have any disagreement in the nature of “Atman”, you seem to take it to an extreme by equating the “Atman” with the “Brahman”. I believe, when you start off with a hypothesis hoisted on a false premise, any idea build upon it is prone to fall. I emphasize again, only the purified “Atman” is “Brahman”. I have reasoned why it is so in my note to Atanu.


Unless the context of a passage demands heavily otherwise, Atman is the Brahman.

Yes, but the context is creation! If “Atman” is “Brahman” then, in the context of creation it is difficult to visualize a creation of an imperfect world from an absolutely perfect Brahman! Given that it is the mask of the matter gives uniqueness to the Atman, if Atman is Brahman all along, there is no need to place it in a mortal body to go through the process of creation/dissolution. The whole purpose behind creation becomes meaningless.

Although, the “Atman” is eternal in nature, from Brahman’s perspective it has become a part of creation. The moment the “Atman” is masked under the veils of matter, it became the part of creation. From the perspective of the “Unmanifest” it became the “manifest”. There is no denial in that understanding.

If indeed they are one and the same, why do you label it as “atman”, why not call only Brahman? The moment you label it differently, you perceive, may be ever so subtly, them differently. They are identical in their very essence or nature; like waves and ocean, fire and sparks of fire, yet they are not identical in their function. The fact that one is “unmanifest” and the other is “manifest” is the reason enough to be different (not in character but in function).

If there is no difference then God is a redundant player where the creation has no meaning, purpose or desire. We know intuitively from Sages that there is a tremendous intent and purpose behind the whole point of creation. If there is purpose in creation, the only bond between created and creator is through the “Atman”. Even in the Bible it is said that the “spirit (Atman)” of man in communion with the “Holy-Spirit (Brahman)”. Because, the “Atman” is the animating force of the “Brahman” but is not “Brahman”! It is the same light of different intensity!


Atman is always Brahman. The problem is referring to oneself as Atman, when Atman is said to be the creator and sustainer of the worlds. ( are you?). Unless the context of a passage demands heavily otherwise, Atman is the Brahman.

Again, it is fallacious statement. Atman is not the creator and sustainer! Again, you are giving functional attributes of “Brahman” to “Atman” by superimposing one over the other. I believe that is wrong! They may be same structurally but they are different functionally. It is purely a theoretical conjecture without any practical value. When I teach my child about science, I am correct in saying water, Ice and steam are structurally the same (H2O), and however, practically they have different functional properties that make then unique in their definitions.

I have emphasized the word “ultimate” in my note to Atanu. Yes, ultimate reality is that “Advaita” is “Atman”, which is Brahman. Such a reality is in existence at the time before the creation but not passed on to creation. It cannot have been for the same reason that it is also difficult to conceive how Brahman could be supposed to be unchangeable in view of the changing conditions of his attributes, souls (Atman) and matter!

Therefore, I view the Atman as the spark of Brahman but not Brahman!! When Jesus says, “I and my Father are one”, one can see the identity of “I (Atman)” with the “Father (Brahman)”. However, Jesus further statement, “… yet not my will but thy will be done” is a clear admission of the distinction of “Atman” and “Brahman”. The duality is always maintained in the manifest creation!!!!

Since, in your case, equating both starts of with a false premise, the conclusion drawn is also wrong!

Blessings,

Sudarshan
25 January 2007, 11:58 PM
You have not understood what I said: The meaning of Atman is paramAtman by default and not jIvAtman. You seem to think Atman means jIvAtman.

nirotu
26 January 2007, 10:47 AM
You have not understood what I said: The meaning of Atman is paramAtman by default and not jIvAtman. You seem to think Atman means jIvAtman.

Perhaps, use of words needs clarification here. Please, explain Atman, Jiv Atman, ParamAtman in relation to Brahman.

Blessings,

atanu
27 January 2007, 05:37 AM
If Atanu and Anup are qualitatively identical, then they are one and the same regardless of the name. However, if one person is flawed and the other is perfect, they are not the same even if they have the same name.


Namaskar,

Atanu and Anup are one means they are identical but only the tags are different.

Regards

atanu
27 January 2007, 07:50 AM
Dear Atanu:

The very use of the word by you, “Advaita Aatma”, is misleading! Advaita signifies the unmanifested Oneness alone. Atma is part of Adviata but manifested entity inside the matter. Therefore, the use of two terms together is wrong!

You may want to rephrase the question.

-------


Namaskar Nirotu,

Advaita Aatma is scripture and not my invention. eS:v:m:¾òt:ö c:t:ØT:üø

The Turiya (which you said was the final goal) has been defined as advaita. Scripture also says that it is the essence of cognition of 3 states of waking, dreaming, and dream-less sleeping. It is the Seer and it is advaita -- though it is beyond cognition through senses because it is the originator of the mind and the senses.

The scripture exhorts us to know the Atma. Aatm:a s: ev:jW:ðy:H

How will it be known as advaita, if one wants to remain external and second to it?






Only the purified “Atman” is Brahman. The finite self in the manifested creation or the embodied soul is the “Atman” coupled with senses and mind! Such “Atman” when reaches its highest state that is in its fourth state (Turiya), “atman” may realize it is “Brahman”. It may realize it is part of “it” but it is not “it”.

In the manifested ”Atman” we find a progressive development in the definition of “self” through four stages (Upanishad). 1- the bodily self, 2- the empirical self, 3- the transcendent self and, 4- the absolute self. This is a gradual evolution of the soul which eventually realizes itself (atman) as Brahman, though not initially. Only “Avatars” display such a realization right from the beginning! (S.Radhakrishnan Hindu Philosophy)

------



There is some confusion. This confusion is there among many Hindus also. Brahman is known as "I am Brahman", whereas the Self is beyond even "I am". The Self is Brahman yoni. Scripture says: "Ayam Atma Brahma". This Atma is Brahman. Lord Krishna says: I am the Self and I am Brahma Yoni. The expanded infinite consciousness (Brahman) is later to the Self.

Those who have understood Atma as "I am This" will not comprehend this. Atma is not manifested. From Atma, the cognition, mind, senses are manifested (which create the middle ground). Sudarshan has already clarified that Atma is Param Atma, which can never be divided into numerous Atmas.


Advaita shows us the perspective from the 'ONE end' and other philosophies show us the way from the 'many end'. All of them unify and become one in the silence.

The notion that exists in the infinite consciousness is true, since the consciousness is true -- that is the power of consciousness.

So, when the notion is "I am Atanu", the I becomes a body of some dimension.

When the notion is "I am Brahman", I encompasses all.

When there is complete absence of notion, it is the Self --- pure and primordial.

The Self is true timelessly. The consciousness belonging to the Self becomes "I" first and then everything. This is what Guru Ramana teaches.

Regards

atanu
28 January 2007, 04:44 AM
Dear Atanu:


In that context let me ask you here! What is the origin of “Karma”? and, what is the seat of “Avidya”?

Blessings,


Many NamasteZ,

The arrow, the target, and the archer. Right Ho.

This was clarified to me by Sudarshan only a few days ago. As per VA, Karma is beginningless with unknown origin and as per Advaita ignorance is anivarchaniya (meaning approximately the same).

Lord Krishna says know that "You are not the doer" (neither the atma nor the body are the doers). So, that the feeling that one has karma is the ignorance --- anivarchaniya.

Then scriptures say: Knowing Brahman all will be known. Finally, advaita atma cannot be known as a second. Be that.

Be ye perfect as the Father in heaven is perfect. That alone should be moksha.


Right ho.

Om Namah Shivayya

Znanna
28 January 2007, 06:20 AM
Here's a chart which I came across, which perhaps puts terminology in context?

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/LHGWchart1.html



ZN

grames
02 September 2009, 02:15 AM
Very very nice attempt.....


Elaborate your line of thinking ...... with this one clarification...

Shakthi and Shakthimaan are one and but simultaneously different. Shakthimaan can utilize His Shakthi to do anything and everything he wants.... isint? But can Shakthi can do anything and everything to the ShakthiMaan?

Thats the foundation of at least three scools of Vedanta :)

atanu
03 September 2009, 05:15 AM
Very very nice attempt.....


Elaborate your line of thinking ...... with this one clarification...

Shakthi and Shakthimaan are one and but simultaneously different. Shakthimaan can utilize His Shakthi to do anything and everything he wants.... isint? But can Shakthi can do anything and everything to the ShakthiMaan?

Thats the foundation of at least three scools of Vedanta :)

Namaste grames and welcome.

I agree. A wave is not an ocean. But ocean's one song of joy, among many other such songs, is one wave which will rise and wane. But the water is same. In waking exprerience, i am a destructible limited insignificant wave which has indeed risen from the ocean called shushupti via the taijjassa. The essence of knowledge in jagrat-vaisvanaro, svapna-taijjassa, and shushupti-pragnya ghana-sarvesvara, however, is same.

Without knowing that one essence, the shakti and shaktiman are mere guesses. We have seen neither.

Regards

Om

grames
03 September 2009, 07:16 AM
Hi Satay,

I guess this forum if full of Advaitins only :) I am sure as you talk more and more with just advaitins they will convince you of their philosophy :)

""""
Doesn't it seem that GOD, jiva and jagat are dependent on each other? What if jiva disappears! i.e. all jivas just get eliminated, there would be no need for jagat and no need of GOD!!
"""""
It is just a wild imagination where you believe there will not be any Jiva. Even as per the classical Advaitin, Jiva never cease its existence but only start to experience the EkoAdvaitam.

But, there are shrutis which clearly states the contrary and also in Gita Lord says, there is no point of time you and I didn't exist and will cease to exist meaning the jiva and Lord will continue to exist independently as 'different' entities with one completely dependent on the other.

What is eternal will exist always..so why Dvaita stresses on the eternal differences and those differences are not due to their samsara alone.

grames
03 September 2009, 07:28 AM
Namaste grames and welcome.

Without knowing that one essence, the shakti and shaktiman are mere guesses. We have seen neither.



Thank you Atanu. Long time...

From my practical experience and science background along with little bit of rational mind, i can say that Shakthi is not a Guess. So., i can confidently declare i have seen the Shakthi. Everything in this world that exist is some form of energy or holding the energy in some form. It undeniable truth and the object which hold the energy varies from matter to all living beings and we witness is with different senses. So it is not a mere guess.

So what about ShakthiMaan?? When you see rays of Sun, you know that there exist a Sun. When you feel the breeze, you know there is a water source near by in the direction of wind. Like that, if Shakthi exists, there should be a source of Shakthi. It is the curiosity ladder where i am trying to climb one step every day or every life to find the Source of that Shakthi cos i believe, Energy though cannot be created or destroyed but definitely should have a Source and reservoir of all this Shakthi is what our Veda declare as ShakthiMaan.

A Fire spark gets this experience of Oneness only when it is associated with the original fire where the spark has its root.

A wave in the ocean is just an analogy and analogy alone will not prove a point :). I don't think i am a wave out of the Brahman Ocean but i believe i am a Fire Spark of the Brahman Fire.

atanu
03 September 2009, 09:31 AM
Thank you Atanu. Long time...

From my practical experience and science background along with little bit of rational mind, i can say that Shakthi is not a Guess. So., i can confidently declare i have seen the Shakthi.

Namaste grames,

That's very true. Where shakti is inferential, the i that has experienced the shakti is not so. It is more direct than seeing or inferring anything.

Om Namah Shivaya

bhaktajan
03 September 2009, 10:35 AM
I have had a most recent realisation:

Those who are of the mind set of a monist [vs 'monotheist'] ---are living a life of comfort.

The trevails of life actually informs the philosopher toward a mind set of 'a grander' purpose of life than just 'my salvation' or 'my elevation in the stratums of life'.

grames
04 September 2009, 03:31 AM
Namaste grames,

That's very true. Where shakti is inferential, the i that has experienced the shakti is not so. It is more direct than seeing or inferring anything.

Om Namah Shivaya


:) Good point and i am really surprised to see this reply from you. :)

Let me add a note to your point.... The "I" that you think have experienced the Shakthi, is itself a Shakthi.

atanu
04 September 2009, 04:08 AM
:) Good point and i am really surprised to see this reply from you.
Let me add a note to your point.... The "I" that you think have experienced the Shakthi, is itself a Shakthi.

Namaste grames,

Excellent. That is what we believe. Then who are you who is infering that the "I" is shakti and at the same time trashing advaitavAda?

The bad point is that you still are unclear of advaita teachings.

Om Namah Shivaya

grames
04 September 2009, 05:44 AM
Namaste grames,

Excellent. That is what we believe. Then who are you who is infering that the "I" is shakti and at the same time trashing advaitavAda?

The bad point is that you still are unclear of advaita teachings.

Om Namah Shivaya

Haa haa! :)

Do you know this secret??? In fact, non advaitins especially TattvaVadins know more about Advaita than the actual Advaitins :)

My faith is very clear and i already put it here few mesg above.

"I" is/am also the Shakthi and i am a Fire Spark of the Original Fire. :) I am a Jiva that belongs to the Brahman. In other words, yes i m His Shakthi, a part and parcel of Him but i am not Him and i will never become Him :)

Can you infer the difference???

Though it is easy to write, it is not possible to understand this 'acintya' or mystic relationship between Brahman and Atman with out His grace.

atanu
04 September 2009, 06:16 AM
Haa haa! :)

Do you know this secret??? In fact, non advaitins especially TattvaVadins know more about Advaita than the actual Advaitins :)

Namaste,

That is heartening to know.



"I" is/am also the Shakthi and i am a Fire Spark of the Original Fire. :) I am a Jiva that belongs to the Brahman. In other words, yes i m His Shakthi, a part and parcel of Him but i am not Him and i will never become Him :)Can you infer the difference???

Sparks of fire would not know each other without the connecting Pragnya. You talk of sparks of fire and that is agni vaisvanaro -- the waking state.

In dream the same sparks of fire are light within you, despite the absence of Sun.

In deep sleep, the rivers have joined the calm ocean called bliss, sarvesvara. Just as when the fire dies, the coal is known, similarly when the perturbation of desires is quitened in samdhi the atman is known.


To think that shakti is a second to advaita atman is contradiction to the very term advaita atman.

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

yes i m His Shakthi, a part and parcel of Him but i am not Him and i will never become Him

You seem to know the I? And you have decided its future. :) I find that very unlike a vaisnava. Why don't you:


Just leave these decisions and surrender completely; or
Know what is advaitaatman (as is prescribed in Upanishad); or
Know the indivisible Paramatma who situated in every heart appears divided in bodies but is indivisible (as taught by Shri Krishna in Gita).Om Namah Shivaya

grames
04 September 2009, 07:20 AM
Namaste,

That is heartening to know.
Unfortunately, thats the truth. Most advaitin or who claim themselves to have faith in Advaita in fact, do not know what classical Advaita is actually about. Neo Advaita is not Advaita itself!




To think that shakti is a second to advaita atman is contradiction to the very term advaita atman.


Its not a mere thinking but a fact and did you read my last note...its Mystic relationship and not easy to realize regardless of your Yogic Skills or so called Jnana. The highest progress or achievement is not even nirvikalpa but something even beyond that. :)

What will work in unconscious state of Taijasa and Turiya which is indescribable? Samadhi is not ultimate aim of the soul either. So wondering why Manduyka is utilized in this fashion. We dont even remember the experience we get in our deep sleep and why advocate wrongly that the Atman is going to remember certain states and the experience they get in such states?? Can you please give a thought about it?

Does Mandukya promises the remembrance of the experience or bliss that you get at sushupta Sthana? I am just wondering....

read some more here http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/upanishad.html#section_10

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



You seem to know the I? And you have decided its future. :) I find that very unlike a vaisnava.
That will be highly foolish of me to say or think like i have "realized" or "knoown" the I. Just how the idea of Brahman, Atman and also the available description of the nature of Brahman and Atman, it is just a description of the nature of the Atman alone.




Why don't you:
Just leave these decisions and surrender completely; or
Know what is advaitaatman (as is prescribed in Upanishad); or
Know the indivisible Paramatma who situated in every heart appears divided in bodies but is indivisible (as taught by Shri Krishna in Gita).Exactly.... my choice is just third one where the Paramatman is situated in every heart as, again energy consciousness but of that undivided Bagavan Lord Krshna. The aim of the Atman, individual soul is very clearly stated in Gita as to re-establish this eternal constitutional relationship of Fire -> Fire Spark or Part and Parcel of the Whole or the loving relationship of the Lord as eternal servants.

Hari Om!

atanu
04 September 2009, 12:03 PM
Its not a mere thinking but a fact and did you read my last note...its Mystic relationship and not easy to realize regardless of your Yogic Skills or so called Jnana. The highest progress or achievement is not even nirvikalpa but something even beyond that. :)

That will be highly foolish of me to say or think like i have "realized" or "knoown" the I.


Wow. End of reason. Whereas Shri Krishna says: The truth is known in samadhi.

You agree that you do not know the I. So, you cannot know what is that all attractive dark being, wherein one becomes one and loses the I. What to talk of the tamas parastat?

Mandukya exhorts us to know advaita atman. Lord Krishna exhorts us to know the indivisible Param Atman seated in every herat. Please do so. Achintyam is not attained by thoughts. Only a thought free state reveals it as advaita atman, which is defined as achintyam in Mandukya Upanishad.


Does Mandukya promises the remembrance of the experience or bliss that you get at sushupta Sthana? I am just wondering....

And I am wondering how without reading Mandukya you expose your ignorance. Mandukya indeed says the Atman situated in Shshupti is Pragnya Ghana (unparted Pragnya) and is pure bliss. Mandukya states the benefits of knowing the Shushupti. I am surprised that yo question this fundamental teaching.


Om Namah Shivaya

grames
06 September 2009, 05:07 AM
Haa haa!
So much of prejudice and what makes you think i haven't read or known what i talked about??

In fact, you are again pulling me in to an unending argument where u gonna repeat like a broken record as i know you very well.

Tell me, where or which shuruti gave you this simple verdict...




Wow. End of reason. Whereas Shri Krishna says: The truth is known in samadhi.

Rushing?? Give the evidence? Reasons haven't even been started shared...how come end of Reason? Personal conviction? Hold true but only for you.

Did you read the link i have just posted? Where "Advaitam" in fact cannot mean as how "Advaitin's believe it to be. In fact, better expose yourself more in to Dvaitin's forum to know why it is "refuted" for advaitic meanings. In fact, if you want to keep aside your personal faith and start to understand spiritual secrets from begining by reading the shurtis, you will realize that "misinterpretation" of just four statements and then taking those misinterpretations as "truth" then falling in to a situation where you have to forcefully invent new theories, idea for interpretation of the entire shrutis is in fact, unfortunate and foolish. I am writing this so that the new comers who really wants to know something about hinduism get some awareness about the unfortunate guidance provided by most of the "Advaitin" and their translations.


Just pure Bliss is an experience.. Manduyka talks abt every stage of consciousness and the pleasure potency and experience in each state but, alas, go back and dust ur texts and read again...is it talking about remembering of such bliss ? and if so for how long? :). Its not even a question but it is a wrong faith spread by Neos to support the idea of "Advaitam" as You Are One with God" or You are God Himself. A wrong idea is demonic and i am trying to just point it thats all.

With this wrong idea everything else which are so beautiful, divine bliss etc are all hijacked and there are Neos who even dare to say Lord Krishna was just another Human like us. What a loss and how unfortunate such seekers are?

Now the "creation" is under such a dispute and i am not sure anyone wrote the height of neo Advaitic theory on creation "Ajati" yet. So, lets go back to just creation topic :)

Sorry for the deviation.

atanu
06 September 2009, 09:47 AM
So much of prejudice and what makes you think i haven't read or known what i talked about??
In fact, you are again pulling me in to an unending argument where u gonna repeat like a broken record as i know you very well.
Tell me, where or which shuruti gave you this simple verdict...
Rushing?? Give the evidence? Reasons haven't even been started shared...how come end of Reason? Personal conviction? Hold true but only for you.




Namaste
BG 2. 53 Shrutivipratipannaa te yadaa sthaasyati nishchalaa; Samaadhaavachalaa buddhistadaa yogam avaapsyasi.
BG 2.53. When thy intelligence, which is bewildered by the what is heard, shall stand unshaken and stable (samadhi), then shalt thou attain to insight (yoga)..
Exactly.... my choice is just third one where the Paramatman is situated in every heart as, again energy consciousness but of that undivided Bagavan Lord Krshna. The aim of the Atman, individual soul is very clearly stated in Gita as to re-establish this eternal constitutional relationship of Fire -> Fire Spark or Part and Parcel of the Whole or the loving relationship of the Lord as eternal servants.
Your choice is my choice as well. Let us strive for the goal, keeping in mind the scripture.




Aksharam brahma paramam swabhaavo’dhyaatmamuchyate; Bhootabhaavodbhavakaro visargah karmasamjnitah.Brahman is the Supreme. Let us not denigrate the scripture. There is no question of something higher than Brahman. Nothing exists outside of Brahman, yet Brahman is partless. The Jnana, which burns away all karma and sin, is to know Brahman as such, as partless, indivisible, samAn, situated in every heart. Brahman is single and indivisible and must be known as indivisible whole.



Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami yajjnaatwaa’mritamashnute; Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate.
13.13. I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being.
Avibhaktam cha bhooteshu vibhaktamiva cha sthitam; Bhootabhartru cha tajjneyam grasishnu prabhavishnu cha.
13.17. And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings; He is to be known as the supporter of beings; He devours and He generates also.
Jyotishaamapi tajjyotistamasah paramuchyate; Jnaanam jneyam jnaanagamyam hridi sarvasya vishthitam.



13.18. That, the Light of all lights, is beyond darkness; it is said to be knowledge, the Knowable and the goal of knowledge, seated in the hearts of all.
How will one know this goal of knowledge, the Param Atma, who is samAn, indivisible and Atma? Will you know Param Atma as another? Will you know Param Atman as asamAn? Will you know this indivisible Param Atman as divided?




It is simply not possible to remain a second and a part and yet gain knowledge of indivisible atma. You have to lose your self (ego) to Self.
Svet. Upanishad
IV-18: When ignorance is dispelled, there is neither day nor night, neither being nor non-being. There is only that Auspicious One who is imperishable, and who is worthy of being adored by the creator. From Him has proceeded the ancient wisdom.Om Namah Shivaya
------------------------------

Just pure Bliss is an experience.. Manduyka talks abt every stage of consciousness and the pleasure potency and experience in each state but, alas, go back and dust ur texts and read again...is it talking about remembering of such bliss ? and if so for how long? :). Its not even a question but it is a wrong faith spread by Neos to support the idea of "Advaitam" as You Are One with God" or You are God Himself. A wrong idea is demonic and i am trying to just point it thats all.


Smart talk without substance. Mandukya Upanishad says the Shushupti is bliss. There is no reason to doubt that and that is all the reason to know it as bliss -- and not as a momentary thing. Also, one does not have to read Mandukya. One may try going without sleep for two days and decide.


Om Namah Shivaya

rkpande
06 September 2009, 02:44 PM
I really wonder at times about the idea of dream state and susupti. I don't even remember most of my dreams leave aside the suspti state, where i am supposed to enjoy the bliss, i am just sleeping that's it. most often i wake up with confused mind., not the bliss i am supposed to have enjoyed. And what is that Turiya , can any one stand up and say he has experienced it. Bookish knowledge. How long are we to remain in a frame work of borrowed knowledge, don't we experience ourselves, or we believe what Shri Sankara felt in his susupti or turiya state, so it must be true..

atanu
06 September 2009, 09:52 PM
I really wonder at times about the idea of dream state and susupti. I don't even remember most of my dreams leave aside the suspti state, where i am supposed to enjoy the bliss, i am just sleeping that's it. most often i wake up with confused mind., not the bliss i am supposed to have enjoyed. And what is that Turiya , can any one stand up and say he has experienced it. Bookish knowledge. How long are we to remain in a frame work of borrowed knowledge, don't we experience ourselves, or we believe what Shri Sankara felt in his susupti or turiya state, so it must be true..

Namaste Pande Ji,

I am a bit surprised really. It is like saying that there is a dark room and thus it is empty. Please take a candle and check.

It is not Shankara, but all Upanishads teach the value of knowing Prabhu/God/Atma in three states of waking, dreaming, and deep sleep and exhort us to further know advaita Prabhu as transcendental beyond the states. Gita also teaches us to know the knowable Param atma situated equally within and without.

You seem to be questioning the scripture.

Many materialistic men do not have any intuition of an intelligent spirit (Purusha) binding every state and every being. They take the fleshy body as 'Me'. They have not come yet to the question as to why a dead body containing all genes, liver, brain, heart etc etc. cannot assert "I". They have not come to the question yet as to how a material can become intelligent by itself? Do we say that their views are correct because their notions are in sync with their experience? It will be madness. People who look through keyholes are apt to get the idea that most things are keyhole shaped. Our sensual apparatus is a keyhole. Meditative knowledge only surpasses the limits imposed by the senses.

Scripture, right questions, grace of Guru, and meditation open the mind to intuitions. If you negate scripture from the beginning that also is OK, provided you are meditative like Buddha and sages of Vedas/Upanishad.

And yes, anyone who has experienced Samadhi, even a little, has experienced the bliss that is the continuity but which is broken up by karma calls -- in form of thoughts, desires, duties etc. But for stitha pragnya yogis the bliss must be Ghana (unbroken), else Mandukya would not have taught so. In Brihadaraynaka upanishad, Yajnavalkya teaches the mystery of deep sleep to Janaka as the key to moksha. I suggest you read that and contemplate. Further, everyone has experienced bliss at every cessation of a desire and before another desire took its place.

Another writer has put up a question of 'How Long the bliss?". The scripture points to timelessness, eternity and immortality. Turya is beyond time, which is from Turya. So, these are ignorant questions from ignorant people who are usually very vituperative. They have not seen Bhagwan but they imagine some localised form sitting over a throne or wielding a chakra as the ultimate, not unlike common christian thought. All their arguments contradict the very meaning of Vishnu -- the all pervading.

Finally:

People who look through keyholes are apt to get the idea that most things are keyhole shaped. Our sensual apparatus is a keyhole. Please have faith on meditative knowledge expounded by sages or be meditative yourself. Do not read purports by so-called gurus who never could meditate for a second and abused those who could meditate. Shri Krishna teaches: "Peace never comes to the unmeditative".

Start with a question: Can I do one day without sleep? Of what material are waking, dream and deep sleep made of? You may hit upon the illumination as to what is all attractive and dark.

The matter of the waking world, dream world, and the deep sleep is same called Pragnya. Only in deep sleep its ghana nature (unbroken by thoughts) is evident. Nothing else is known in deep sleep because nothing else is there to know. There is no other colour, no other sound, no other smell, no other taste, and no other touch. Being single undivided One, nothing else is known, as there is no surface of contrast. That is the true nature of everone -- pure pragnya, because from that pragnya only R K Pande (the object) arose. But the "I" is not the object R K Pande.

The fruit of settled experience and knowledge is as below:


Svet. Upanishad
IV-18: When ignorance is dispelled, there is neither day nor night, neither being nor non-being. There is only that Auspicious One who is imperishable, and who is worthy of being adored by the creator. From Him has proceeded the ancient wisdom.Om Namah Shivaya

nirotu
06 September 2009, 10:42 PM
This thread itself shows a missionary Anil Antony (Nirotu) being supported by Hindus.

Atanu Bondhu:

Could this be your subtle form of sarcasm with a feigned outrage aimed at maligning me with someone else?

Hmmmm!

devotee
06 September 2009, 10:47 PM
Excellent Post, Atanu !


Regards,

OM

atanu
06 September 2009, 10:49 PM
Atanu Bondhu:

Could this be your subtle form of sarcasm with a feigned outrage aimed at maligning me with someone else?

Hmmmm!

Namaste Dear Nirotu,

So you are there? I thought you had left disgusted. OK I will call you only Nirotu and not Anil. Is that OK? Pardon me if I am in mistake. I have removed the reference altogether.

I had seen, in a photo of yours that you posted on HDF, the tag of Anil Antony. That together with the similarity of views expressed, led me to believe that Anil is nirotu. I am sorry, if i were wrong in judgement.

Om Namah Shivaya

grames
07 September 2009, 02:10 AM
Wow.

Your pick is exactly what i expected :) BG 2.53

Not going to argue with you on that cos it is interpretation magic and i know i will not be able to convince you.



Brahman, called neither being nor non-being.


I think thats the mystic part i was talking about Earlier :)



Smart talk without substance. Mandukya Upanishad says the Shushupti is bliss.


Haa haaa. I can only laugh cos you are not answering to the objection i raised or question i asked but trying to see whether you can put me down by passing verbal judgments. I have no doubt about the Upanishad or what it is describing about but i asked u something else. I didn't deny like sleeping is not a Bliss or anything such. Read what i asked again if you want to really answer.

grames
07 September 2009, 02:25 AM
I really wonder at times about the idea of dream state and susupti. I don't even remember most of my dreams leave aside the suspti state, where i am supposed to enjoy the bliss, i am just sleeping that's it. most often i wake up with confused mind., not the bliss i am supposed to have enjoyed. And what is that Turiya , can any one stand up and say he has experienced it. Bookish knowledge. How long are we to remain in a frame work of borrowed knowledge, don't we experience ourselves, or we believe what Shri Sankara felt in his susupti or turiya state, so it must be true..


Very Good Question... Advaita has a different answer for this Question and i am sure for 99.9% of the world human population, the answer is ideal or not practical or the success rate of following what Advaita preaches is very minimal.

There are much practical answers and it is not actually very popular in the western world because of the "delusion" of Advaita. The reason is very simple. Most of the westerners give a look at the Sanatana Dharma for better materialistic living only. Practicing Yoga will give good health, pranayama is good for health etc. Why are they curious about "Yoga"? What is the real answer? Is it for any spiritual progress?

Am i doubting something very big and generalizing it?

atanu
07 September 2009, 05:27 AM
Wow.

Your pick is exactly what i expected :) BG 2.53

Not going to argue with you on that cos it is interpretation magic and i know i will not be able to convince you.

Namaste,

I did not invite the argument. But you are welcome.

I see Vishnu's three steps as complementary and one step leading to another, making the fullness. I do not think that vAdAs oppose and contradict. But you are welcome with your notions till your goal is same as mine -- to know the indivisible paramatman situated equally within and without.



Haa haaa. I can only laugh

Keep laughing. It is good for all.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
07 September 2009, 09:34 AM
Haa haa!So much of prejudice and what makes you think i haven't read or known what i talked about??



Namaste Grames,

Yes. I believe that you have not read properly. Your understanding is that Jiva and Atman are same and the Atman has to seek and find God-Bhagwan. You want to maintain a distinction this way. You wish to teach me Dvaita vAda, as below:



From grames
Does Mandukya promises the remembrance of the experience or bliss that you get at sushupta Sthana? I am just wondering....[/read some more here http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/upani...tml#section_10 (http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/upanishad.html#section_10)
Again, this is not to convince you but for Knowledge. :)

Most Vaisnavas and christians have this habit of ridiculing and teaching others; themselves being in pitch dark. Post after post, you allude to my ill knowledge but have you yourself studied the matter? You base your Dvaita philosophy on the premise that Atman and Bhagwan are different. Whereas, Dvaita Guru teaches that Atman, Brahman, God, Om are all one and same Brahman, which is distinct from Jiva.

I cite the relevant portion from Dvaita.org page.



ayaM AtmA brahma
------ The word AtmA does not refer to the individual souls, but to God who is immanent in them. akshara or Brahman conveyed by OM, and AtmA present in all as their inner controller is the same. ------The Upanishad also clearly explains the correct interpretation of the words OM, AtmA, Brahman, and akshara, all of which denote Brahman by describing Him with His special attributes. -----

It is clear that not atanu but you require more patient reading and less action (writing) based on hatred and bias. I take Madhavacharya's teaching that ayaM AtmA brahma, means "The inner controller Atman is same as Brahman but is distinctincly different from Jiva". I accept the above premise and examine further. Mandukya Upanishad teaches us that the Advaita Atman-Brahman must be known. The following examines the implications of coming to know the advaita atman.



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

It is unchanging, it is known as One, all phenomena come to ceasation, it is the Self -- not another one.
Self cannot be another one. It is unchanging, so number of other souls joining it as different entities is ruled out.
It is Advaita, "not two". Number of other souls joining it yet remaining separate entities is ruled out.
It is actionless. So, thoughts of serving it or actual tasks undertaken to serve it are not possible.
It is not conscious of the inner or the outer. So, the consciousness of me and another is impossible.
It not unconsciousness either. So, it is aware of itself without inner or outer perceptions.
It is the Self which is Brahman, whose third state is Lord Sarvesvara. So nothing exceeds it.Atman-Brahman must be known. But as per the scriptural definition, Atman-Brahman cannot be known as another, as a second different from oneself. There is no possibilty of Me and Them consciousness, as there cannot be any inner or outer cognition in Turya.

The knowing of Advaita Prabhu can only be Advaita. :)

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
07 September 2009, 11:09 AM
Namaste grames,

Do you comprehend the implications of assuming that Atman refers to individual soul? The Sarvesvara, the controller of all, is the third state of Atma. Thus you make Sarvesvara, Krishna-Rudra, as a state of individual self.

All these were discussed with anadi. Only if you read the existing posts a bit patiently.

Best Wishes and Regards

Jai Shri Krishna

bhargavsai
07 September 2009, 10:53 PM
Haa haa! :)

Do you know this secret??? In fact, non advaitins especially TattvaVadins know more about Advaita than the actual Advaitins :)

My faith is very clear and i already put it here few mesg above.

"I" is/am also the Shakthi and i am a Fire Spark of the Original Fire. :) I am a Jiva that belongs to the Brahman. In other words, yes i m His Shakthi, a part and parcel of Him but i am not Him and i will never become Him :)

Can you infer the difference???

Though it is easy to write, it is not possible to understand this 'acintya' or mystic relationship between Brahman and Atman with out His grace.

You talk as if you have seen the Brahman with your own eyes and then realized the difference that Brahman and I can never be the same, did you?

Why does Upanishad say "Aham Brahmasmi"?

When you blank your mind then the feeling one gets is same and universal for all. This is what is defined as God or Brahman. God is not a quantifiable body or entity who is made up of grand things, he is stated as awareness and that awareness part in us is called as Atman.

grames
08 September 2009, 07:38 AM
Dear bhargavasai



You talk as if you have seen the Brahman with your own eyes and then realized the difference that Brahman and I can never be the same, did you?


No i did not and but i think the situation is not different for you or anyone in this world? Then you may ask where from i am learning all these? Who taught me these? Or am i blabbering cos i am a mad man?

My sources are Vaishnava Acharyas and their teachings. So, what they have seen, experienced and expounded are the sources of Truth. Our Acharyas are the ones who masted the Shrutis and gave us the insights, darshana of the Vedic wisdom and we completely depend on them for anything. So, the ultimate source for all vedantins are Shrutis and nothing else.


Why does Upanishad say "Aham Brahmasmi"?This is a classical question and very well answered by all three schools of vedanta where Advaita holds one view and Vaishnava schools hold different view. What is the right one? Thats your choice.

I am giving just links to dvaita digests...

http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_15/msg00037.html
http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_15/msg00059.html
http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_15/msg00079.html

I am sure reading from the above links will give you a chance to read a different view.

atanu
08 September 2009, 07:51 PM
You talk as if you have seen the Brahman with your own eyes and then realized the difference that Brahman and I can never be the same, did you?

Why does Upanishad say "Aham Brahmasmi"?

When you blank your mind then the feeling one gets is same and universal for all. This is what is defined as God or Brahman. God is not a quantifiable body or entity who is made up of grand things, he is stated as awareness and that awareness part in us is called as Atman.

Namaste Bhargavsai,

A nice post. How can a rigid perspective that asserts apriori 'tattvavAdis know more advaita' want to know anything with open mind? The die is cast.

Om

bhargavsai
09 September 2009, 04:29 AM
You talk as if you have seen the Brahman with your own eyes and then realized the difference that Brahman and I can never be the same, did you?

Why does Upanishad say "Aham Brahmasmi"?

When you blank your mind then the feeling one gets is same and universal for all. This is what is defined as God or Brahman. God is not a quantifiable body or entity who is made up of grand things, he is stated as awareness and that awareness part in us is called as Atman.

Sir, firstly sorry for the rude post of mine. My sincere apologies.

Secondly, sir, Do you think that I do not accept or consider Vaishnava teachings correct? No sir!

I truly completely believe in Vaishnava philosophy. What a beautiful philosophy it is! I can easily remember just four years back when I had written my Eamcet exams and after it I visited the Tirumala, as I am from Andhra Pradesh, like every person of that state We(my family) are great devotees of Lord Venkateswara. The personal blessings which lord showered on me were very inspiring and unforgettable.

Vaishnavism as a philosophy is absolutely wonderful and I agree with what Vaishnavism says about Truth and God. I like that point of view also :D

Am I a Shaivite or Vaishnavite or Advaitin or Dwaita follower? I consider myself a follower of Sanatana Dharma, never in my life my parents said "you are so and so sect so worship only this God", actually the first time I came to know of the intense fighting between various sects was after watching "Dasavataram" movie ;)

But sir, Why can't Advaita be true too? Why don't people just accept that there are many paths to one God, and when we can reach that one God through any path then why fight over it?

Sri Krishna says "All the paths lead to me", does not that mean even Advaitam leads to him?

Truth appears differently to different minds, and this we have to respect.

Om Namo Narayanaya
I will certainly read the links what you sent sir.
Namaste Sir


Thanks for the appreciations Atanu ji, sir, your posts were excellent. But when I try to add reputation it says "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to atanu again." :D

grames
09 September 2009, 05:30 AM
Dear,

I am glad and appreciate that you want to read the links i have posted. :)
Also, i want to tell you one thing that, its not a fight and Vedantic discussions are not a fight unless someone put their personal faith as faith of everyone.



But sir, Why can't Advaita be true too? Why don't people just accept that there are many paths to one God, and when we can reach that one God through any path then why fight over it? Sri Krishna says "All the paths lead to me", does not that mean even Advaitam leads to him?


This is very disturbing political statement and the pesudo religions and people who want fast food Sp ritual enlightenment, invented this idea of "All Path leads to One God".


ye 'py anya-devata-bhakta
yajante sraddhayanvitah
te 'pi mam eva kaunteya
yajanty avidhi-purvakam
aham hi sarva-yajnanam
bhokta ca prabhur eva ca
na tu mam abhijananti
tattvenatas cyavanti te
yanti deva-vrata devan
pitrn yanti pitr-vratah
bhutani yanti bhutejya
yanti mad-yajino 'pi mam

BG - 9.23 - 25



Please read the above verses and let me know what Lord says. ( If you need English translations, please for once give a try at Vaishnava translations at
1. Shri Madhva http://www.dvaita.net/prerelease.html
2. Shri Ramanuja http://krishnascience.com/Vaisnava%20Library/Gita%20interpretations/RamGita/bgramanuja149.html ( Scans )
3. Shri Prabhupada www.asitis.com (http://www.asitis.com)



Truth appears differently to different minds, and this we have to respect. Very true but, what is Truth to you alone remain truth to you alone and that is also should be respected right sir? So, when you come in to a public place, express your idea under the label of Sanatana Dharma, it required verification to be accepted as Truth isint Sir. Can you go to a market and sell an aluminium Vessel as Gold Ornament? Don't you think it will be accepted as just you are absolutely believing that it is Gold.




I will certainly read the links what you sent sir. I will be very happy if you do this Sir as the process of the verification and then understanding the outcome of that process is called "nyaya" and these links are in fact explanation of that "Nyaya" process of why Advaita is certainly not the Truth. :)

But, after reading the links, Sir i still believe it is up to you to take it or forget what you read immediately sir.

Hare Krishna.

bhaktajan
09 September 2009, 09:56 AM
Master G wrote:
"what makes you think i haven't read or known what i talked about??"

Master Atanu wrote:
I believe that you have not read properly. Your understanding is that Jiva and Atman are same and the Atman has to seek and find God-Bhagwan.

Most Vaisnavas and christians have this habit of ridiculing and teaching others; themselves being in pitch dark. Post after post, you allude to my ill knowledge but have you yourself studied the matter? You base your Dvaita philosophy on the premise that Atman and Bhagwan are different.

Hinduism needs less of ego bickerings and more cohesiveness now. I hope you will agree here.

Shri Krishna teaches us to submit to the unlimited fullness, which in truth He is.

The word AtmA does not refer to the individual souls, but to God . . .

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
For Christ's sake why so many many many more terms/digressions/flowery words?

A journeyman Vaishnava knows advaita & dvaita & even asuric methodologies and philosophy and sentiments and hard-knocks.

All these activities should be performed without attachment or any expectation of result. They should be performed as a matter of duty. Prescribed duties must be performed with this mentality. One should act without attachment for the result; he should be disassociated from the modes of work.

The constitutional position of a living entity, represented by Arjuna, is that he has to act according to the order of the Supreme Lord. He [a living entity] is meant for self-discipline.

"There are two souls: the individual soul and the Supersoul."

I know the Gita message that ends:

"Because you are My very dear friend, I am speaking to you My supreme instruction, the most confidential knowledge of all."

{The Lord has given Arjuna knowledge that is confidential (knowledge of Brahman) and still more confidential (knowledge of the Supersoul within everyone’s heart), This essence is not understood by a common man, but by one who is actually very dear to Krishna. This is the most important instruction in all Vedic literature. What Krishna is saying in this connection is the most essential part of knowledge, and it should be carried out not only by Arjuna but by all living entities.}


"Under illusion you are now declining to act according to My direction. But, compelled by the work born of your own nature, you will act all the same, O son . . . "

"Thus I have explained to you knowledge still more confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do."



A universal statement(?):
Krishna teaches the universal principle, aka, an absolute truth:

"If you do not act according to My direction and do not 'PERFORM YOUR OWN DHARMA', then you will be falsely directed. By your nature, you will have to be engaged in 'YOUR OWN DHARMA'.

Hinduism needs more cohesiveness now. I hope you will agree here,
Bhaktajan

bhaktajan
09 September 2009, 10:01 AM
Nothingness and Something-ness both existed together and sustained each other since time-immemorial, together this is called the material manifestation or the Cosmos.

Something-ness may be found either conscious or in-animated.

The Self: Each conscious Individual, within the cosmos, has as its own address a "Vector Point" [X-Y-Z Axis Intersection]—which is indivisible, individual, eternal, and conscious.

An animated conscious individual may occupy a body [encasement].

This encasement allows the pursuit of its own gratification by way of:
1 Eating,
2 Sleeping,
3 Mating,
4 Defense (Physical, mental, ego).

After the temporal stages of birth, growth, old age and death the vector point retains only the spirit of 'direction toward a **goal'.

Thus by dint of prior cultivated interests, inherits a new body/encasement which accommodates another lifetime for the pursuit of gratification(s) along the same lines of interests that where cultivated during its last life. When this is repeated since time immemorial the sages call this 'samsara' [the cycle of birth and death].

[**the goal is often without guidance thus the 4 pursuits become the ultimate means and end of life's journey to nowhere except repeated gratification. Proper guidance allows us to reconcile, "What in the hell are we doing here?" during a lifetime].

The setting of the above pastimes [of every animated or inanimated individual point] is a large empty space of Nothingness [the sages call this empty space: 'brahman'].

The in-animated elements within the cosmos are of two kinds:
1 gross matter [earth, water, fire, air, either], and,
2 subtle [mind, intelligence, ego].

The mystery of life is the attainment of transcendence.
Some say the attainment of nirvana, or merging with the primordial 'Nothingness' is the goal.

The chain of succession of knowledge that comes to us from Vyasadeva shows us [through dissatisfaction with our own pursuits —life time after life times of gratification in countless species of life— in varying births of different status] that the goal of life is to seek the 'Absolute Truth' not relative truths.

The conclusion of the Vedas and thus the conclusion of Vedanta is the 'Absolute Truth' known as the personage known as Krishna. We know this 'Absolute Truth' in the same way we know who are real father is: from our mother [except for those who cultivated future disadvatages]. The Vedas are like our mother telling us who are father is etc, etc.

Brahman-Consciousness is the top most mystic yoga discipline:
Remembering the transcendental name, fame, form, personality, paraphernalia, entourage, and, pastimes of none other than the Supreme Personality of the Brahman-Godhead Bhagavan, source of Mahavisnu and Narayana, the original-original eternal, all-cognizant, all-blissful form of God in his Transcendent Heaven where every soul pursues reciprocal pastimes with Brahman face to face.

Yoga is to re-link with this 'Absolute Truth', thus remembering Brahman's form assists the minute living entity [conscious Individual Vector Point] at death so as to acquire a next birth that further cultivates Brahman-Conscousness till successful completion.

Remembering Brahman in the material world is prescribed thus [it is also the easiest]: Chant Brahman's names. Chant the Brahman Maha-Mantra. Read the Bhagavad-gita's Chapter 10 "The Opulence of the Absolute” to learn where to see Brahman's opulence spread through-out the cosmos.

atanu
14 September 2009, 05:35 AM
Nothingness and Something-ness both existed together and sustained each other since time-immemorial, together this is called the material manifestation or the Cosmos.
Na Asat is not nothingness.

The Self: Each conscious Individual, within the cosmos
, has as its own address a "Vector Point" [X-Y-Z Axis Intersection]—which is indivisible, individual, eternal, and conscious.
The intersection point is indivisible and Atma is then divisible??


The setting of the above pastimes [of every animated or inanimated individual point] is a large empty space of Nothingness [the sages call this empty space: 'brahman'].
Then the full paragraph in Mandukya Upanishad and other Upanishads would not be required. It would be sufficient to read what Guru Bhaktajan writes.


-------- the goal of life is to seek the 'Absolute Truth' not relative truths.
The conclusion of the Vedas and thus the conclusion of Vedanta is the 'Absolute Truth' known as the personage known as Krishna. ------Remembering the transcendental name, fame, form, personality, paraphernalia, entourage, and, pastimes of none other than the Supreme Personality of the Brahman-Godhead Bhagavan, source of Mahavisnu and Narayana,

Where is this absolute truth written in any of the Vedas? Can we see a shruti that remembering entourage of Supreme Personality is absolute truth? Can we see a shruti that says Maha Vishnu is sourced from Shri Krishna, Devika putra, instead of assertions and imaginations?

hey rAma

bhaktajan
14 September 2009, 10:54 AM
Atanu,

The Shruti [Rg veda, etc] is 95% not decipherable, not comprehendible —with out the Puranas (histories).

Why? Because all the dialogues in the Shruti —is parsed dialogues, where the references are spoken in abridged, fleeting remarks that are spoken atop more fleeting remarks.

The remarks are all absolute and retain sublime value to even once hearing them —but the purports and ramifications and references spoken of in the Shruti are fully fleshed out in the various Puranas —for it is in the Puranas (histories) where the entire panorama of the events in the Shruti are recorded entoto.

Just as one reads the accounts of different Ekadasi Fasts (26 total) each is found in different Puranas —so similarly the Shruti are concise excepts from different historical events and epochs among the Devas (Brahmas Kids) and Prajapatis.

Just as Sastra is incompletely retained on this Bhu-loka Stratum —so sastra [Shruti or smrti by any other name, is still an historical account] is known in its complete unabridged Volumes of Tomes in the Library of persons like Brhaspati (priest of the Devas) in the upper-lokas far above the north-stars' sphere of influence, in svarga-loka.

All different Sastra are all cross-linked and related to each other--just like Brahma, Narada, Sanat Kumaras, Shiva & Ganesh et al -- all cross-linked and related to each other-- akin to family relationships, ergo extensive texts (sastra) are required to retell pastimes from devata-antiquity, where some dialogues are confidential, exclusive and non-sequitors . . . until one is informed and well-read enough to "cross-linked and relate all the other PURANAS".

http://hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=32375&postcount=18 (http://hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=32375&postcount=18)


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Atanu, do not be a literal servant and refuse to just open your mind a bit and give a look. I know the Oriental rajasic indignation will not allow a simple acceptance that ISKCON translation is magnanimous --- or is SASTRA only for their own bonded Indian brahma-bandhus.

Stop for a few moments and see the words as they are. For a moment forget of the bondage.

http://hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=32385&postcount=20

satay
14 September 2009, 10:55 AM
namaskar grames,



http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_15/msg00037.html
http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_15/msg00059.html
http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_15/msg00079.html

I am sure reading from the above links will give you a chance to read a different view.

The above links ask for userid/password.

grames
14 September 2009, 11:32 AM
namaskar grames,



The above links ask for userid/password.

The login and password for the Dvaita List Archive (http://www.dvaita.org/list) on dvaita.org are `dvaita' and `dvaita' (no quote-marks).

ranjeetmore
23 November 2009, 03:24 PM
"Svechhopat pritha vapuh"
- Srimad Bhagavatam.

Sri Bhagavan's body is exactly according to His desire and is of His nature.




"Nishvasit masya Vedaha"

He BREATHED.

"Ahasya mahato bhutasya nichvatimetat rg vedo,yajur veda,sama vedotharva vedah.."

The Four vedas were manifested in His BREATH.

"Sa icchat" -Aitereya upanishad 1.1.

He THOUGHT.

***


"Sa Icchanchakre." - Prashnopanishad 6.3

"Tad Icchat." -Chadogya Upanishad 6.2.3.

"Sa aizcchat." - Brhadaranyako Upanishad.

"So Kaamayat" Taitereya upanishad 2.6

He had a DESIRE.

***

"Smitam" He smiled.


"Vikcchittam" He Observed.



***

"Dva dasha vadu bhaya vidho badarayano ta" Brahm Sutra 4.4.12

"Sa yada sa sharira tam sankalpa yati
tadasa shariro bhavati
yada tva shariratam
tada tva shariraha
satya sankalpatvat
sankalpa vyatyityacca"

- SHAANKAR Bhasya.


Meaning of Shaankar bhashya : Brahm is Formless as well as with an eternal Form.He mainfests these Two forms from beginningless time with His energy of "Satya Sankalpa".

Note that Satya Sankalpa is the energy manifested ONLY is Saguna,Sakar,Savishesh Brahm Sri Krsna.
Satya Sankalpa ...The possessor of this energy Immediately implies the Supreme Person.For Only a PERSONALITY exhibits the energy or working out of a 'sankalpa'/'desire'.

Thus Brahm is understood to be a PERSONALITY who has infinite energies.




"....The Divine Purusha with a thousand heads, eyes, feet and arms (Virat-purusha),
He entered Brahma Himself.He created seven mental sons – they created the seven pro-creators...."
1-6. Subala Upanishad.

***
....from that Great Purusha's forehead,was created Rudra (of anger)...

-Subala Upanishad.

***

"At the end, becoming Vaisvanara (fire), He destroys all creatures – earth enters into water, water into fire, fire into air, air into ether, ether into sense organs, they into subtle elements, they into Prakriti, Prakriti into Mahat, Mahat into Avyakta, Avyakta into Akshara, Akshara into Tamas,Tamas in that Primeval Godhead/Mahapurusha.This is the process of Mahapralaya ."

- Subala Upanishad


***


"The UNBORN, alone, immortal Being inside the body(inside everyone's body as paramatma different from aatma), whose body is the Earth,Who moves inside water, Who moves inside fire,Who moves inside Air,Who moves inside the Aakash,so also inside Mind, Intellect, Ego,Chitta, Avyakta (unmanifest), Akshara (imperishable), Death – He sits within everything,He is the Sinless One,He is the Supersoul,Divine Narayana."


-Subala Upanishad 4.1

***



Adityas, Rudras, Maruts, Vasus, Asvins, Rik, Yajus, Sama, Mantras, Agni, oblation – all originate from Him, Narayana.

Subala Upanishad 3.4

***



"All this exists from Purusha only – the past and the future – that high place of Vishnu – the sages look upon it always.The sages without mental conflict(CONTROL OVER MIND/complete purification of the mind) enhance its glory."-

- Subala Upanishad 3.7



This is the key to liberation according to the Vedas.

("One who knows the Three PURUSHA incarnations of Sri Bhagavan is eligible to cross Material Samsara"- Bhagvatam.

The bhagavatam extensively describes the creation process brought to effect by divine Mahavishnu,Who is unborn and is called MAha-viraat by the upanishads.)











This Paramatma is NOT ATTAINED by :
hundreds of expositions,
not by great learning,
nor by reliance on intellectual knowledge,
nor through memorising the Vedas,
sacrifices, austerities,
NOR THROUGH SANKHYA OR YOGA,
Ashramas/Varnaasramas,
elucidation,
laudation and exercises.

The knowers of Vedas achieve it, having become calm, restrained, withdrawn, tolerant.(CONTROL OVER MIND/Completely purified Mind).

- Subala Upanishad 4.16


Thus CONTROL OF MIND is NOT POSSIBLE by Sankhya/yoga/tapa/study of scriptures/JNYANA,etc.


Shudhyati naa antaraatma Krsna padaambhoj bhaktimriteh.
- Prabodha shudhakara of shankaracharya.

The mind cannot be purified unless you perform bhakti of the supreme lord.

ranjeetmore
23 November 2009, 03:34 PM
Usually iccha or kAma is used for desire in the original sanskrit verses.

Taiitiryopanishad says this: - so-akAmayata | bahusyAm prajAyeyeti|

nAsadIya sukta explicitly says kAmaH or desire involved in the creation.

Desire of God is not to satisfy his - but yours! Imagine yourself to be in the hospital ready to undergo a surgery, and just apply the situation if God had no will to act. Unless God had a will and listens to you, his worship gets reduced to nothing. ( an equivalent of bouddham)

Sudarshan,you've got it right,my friend.

God does have desires and all those desires are fulfilled with His infinitude of energies(mentioned in svetasvatara up.).

The 8 qualities of Brahm mentioned in the upanishads mention these two explicitly : Satyakaama and satyasankalpa.

God is Supremely Willful.His will is be all and end all.The fact that God has will can be accepted in the light of the Vaisnava doctrine,otherwise it falls flat and leads to many confusions.

atanu
24 November 2009, 11:14 PM
Sudarshan,you've got it right,my friend.
God does have desires and all those desires are fulfilled with His infinitude of energies(mentioned in svetasvatara up.).

The 8 qualities of Brahm mentioned in the upanishads mention these two explicitly : Satyakaama and satyasankalpa.

God is Supremely Willful.His will is be all and end all.The fact that God has will can be accepted in the light of the Vaisnava doctrine,otherwise it falls flat and leads to many confusions.

Namaste Ranjeet,

Similarly as I request to bandhu Sant not to take my posts as argument but just as a view for consideration, i request you too.

The understanding of God/Brahman as Supremely Willful is good and rightly you provide evidence for that. But this view is not yet complete since Brahman is also described as AptakAmamAtmakAmamakAmaM (whose desire is all fulfilled, who is desireless, whose desire pertains to Self only).


Brihadarayanaka
IV-iii-21: That is his form – beyond desires, free from evils and fearless. ----.

With only willfullness of God in mind we cannot explain the negativities of this world. Why an Omnipotent and Omniscient Lord create a universe full of vice?

Brahman is revealed in at least 4 stages. But I will talk only of two major stages: kAla and aKala. As kAla, Brahman is Death and is the spirit of the Sun (Purusha in Sun). From Sun begins the Time. Without Sun the Time will be understood as an artifice. Beyond Sun, or within the Heart of the Sun, is the immortal -- which is akAla -- the time is from That.

Upanishads speak of travelling through the path of Sun to Brahmloka, wherefrom a Purusha takes the sadhaka to the immortal. Another way is spoken as below:


IV-iv-6: -----But the man who does not desire (never transmigrates). Of him who is without desires, who is free from desires, the objects of whose desire have been attained, and to whom all objects of desire are but the Self – the organs do not depart. Being but Brahman, he is merged in Brahman.

In Maitraya Brahmaya upanishad, the latter path is spoken of as the ultimate path taught by Vishnu.
-----------------------------

Let me also explain it in microcosmic terms.

A person wakes, dreams or sleeps. The Turiyam, the Self, the Brahman is just across the Sleep, which is the bridge between kAla and the akAla.

Do you have any desire or will in deep sleep? But in dream and in waking state you have will and desires. Shri Krishna is the Purusha Sarvesvara of Deep Sleep. He says: I hurl back the hard hearted demons to lower and lower states. Everyone comes back from sleep to face the world as per one's desires. Negative desires pull one down and down. Positive desires eventually allow one to know Sarvesvara.

But Sarvesvara Himself has said: Those know who know ME UNBORN and AKSHARA. That is knowing Lord beyond the Sleep, as akAla, as unborn. None, however, knows Him since, there will be no one but Pragnya alone.

Om Namah Shivaya

Note: If you consult Sudarshana now, he might approve of my note. That has been my fruit of being in HDF.

Om

atanu
25 November 2009, 07:08 AM
As evidence for what has been said above:

Satapatha Brahmana

10:4:3:1. The Year, doubtless, is the same as Death; for he it is who, by means of day and night, destroys the life of mortal beings, and then they die: therefore the Year is the same as Death; and whosoever knows this Year (to be) Death, his life that (year) does not destroy, by day and night, before old age, and he attains his full (extent of) life.

10:5:2:3. And that man in yonder (sun's) orb is no other than Death; and that glowing light is that immortal element: therefore Death does not die, for he is within the immortal; and therefore he is not seen, for he is within the immortal.


10:5:1:4. Now, this speech is yonder sun, and this (Agni, the Fire-altar) is Death: hence whatsoever is on this side of the sun all that is field by Death; and he who builds it (the Fire-altar) on this side thereof, builds it as one held by Death, and he surrenders his own self unto Death; but he who builds it thereabove, conquers recurring Death, for by his knowledge that (altar) of his is built thereabove.
-----------------------

10:5:4:16. Regarding this there is this verse--'By knowledge they ascend that (state) where desires have vanished: sacrificial gifts go not thither, nor the fervid practisers of rites without knowledge;'--for, indeed, he who does not know this does not attain to that world either by sacrificial gifts or by devout practices, but only to those who know does that world belong.

Om Namah Shivaya

ranjeetmore
25 November 2009, 02:13 PM
Namaste Ranjeet,

Similarly as I request to bandhu Sant not to take my posts as argument but just as a view for consideration, i request you too.

Namaste atanu,I'm delighted to meet you.


The understanding of God/Brahman as Supremely Willful is good and rightly you provide evidence for that. But this view is not yet complete since Brahman is also described as AptakAmamAtmakAmamakAmaM (whose desire is all fulfilled, who is desireless, whose desire pertains to Self only).


Brihadarayanaka
IV-iii-21: That is his form – beyond desires, free from evils and fearless. ----.

Very true.He described in the vedic literature as Atmarama/Purnkaam/Nishkaam,etc. i.e. He has no desire becoz He is Bliss Himself.How can ananda have any desire ??? We want ananda and so we desire.
But :

Raso Vai saha - taittereya up.
He is Rasa/bliss/ananda.

Countless places we hear,"You are the embodiment of the highest bliss."

So why does Bhagavan desire ? Why does He will ? Why does Ananda itself desire something ?

It is for the welfare of the liberated souls.
"satyam gyanam anantam brahm" - Brahm has infinite paraphernalia.

Paraphernalia indicates some sort of desire of the owner of the paraphernalia-this is obvious.



many a times,we see that Sri Krsna desires something which may seem of no consequence to the conditioned souls,that is becoz the personal Form of God wonders on the sheer infinitude of His energies and the indescibable happiness that is saturated in His form.The desires related to His personal Form/Name/parshads and leelas are hardly material.Such desires cannot be vanquished either in the personal form of God neither can it be vanquished from the mind of the liberated devotee.There would be no point of a God with form then.

But yes,God is totally aloof as well as He is the centre of enjoyment of the spiritual world.THis is possible only due to His inconcievable energy.

The svtasvatara up states that "He can run without legs..."

How is this possible ???
The vedas answer - "Kartum akartum anyatha kartum samartha. "
The Supreme Lord is able to do any kind of a task,in any way He wishes.He can do the impossible possible.

so god can do seemingly contradictory things due to His energies.







With only willfullness of God in mind we cannot explain the negativities of this world. Why an Omnipotent and Omniscient Lord create a universe full of vice?



It's not a universe full of vice !

There is svarga loka for pious people.

The universe is a mere system to get the soul as close to God as possible.But since God is All will - this question arises :

Why doesn't god liberate us all if He is all will ?

Sri Maharajji addressed this as: "Bhagavan is Omnipotent and He is satya-sankalpa.He can do what He wants.Then why doesn't He make a sankalpa : "all the conditioned Jeevatmas become free from Maya.The Jeevatmas shall come to Golok." ?

this is a little snag.Bhagavan doesn't do this becoz He cannot.The Jeevatmas are chit-consious.The jeevatma has an independent will.Obviously,he doesn't have the energies to carry out that will.So the Jeevatma suffers only becoz of his desires and not becoz an omnipotent God makes him suffer.Infact,the Lord has set up a system into which He sends His messengers eveery single second.But the conditioned Jeevas do not want to come to the Lord.Their mind is attached to maya.Only complete change of mind on the part of the Jeeva will enable him to get out of samsara,otherwise,he suffers according to the attachment of his mind."




IV-iv-6: -----But the man who does not desire (never transmigrates). Of him who is without desires, who is free from desires, the objects of whose desire have been attained, and to whom all objects of desire are but the Self – the organs do not depart. Being but Brahman, he is merged in Brahman.

note that the underlined line signifies that the mind is under full control of the intelligence.
even in shankara's sampraday,the first four steps are : Shanto sant upratas thitikshu.

shant : the first step : means complete control over the mind.Since his mind is under full control,he is called desireless.This is a gyani we're talking about.

In this regard,Shanakra says in his bhakti scripture,"Shudhayati naa antaraatma Krsna padambhoj bhaktimriteh."
The mind cannot be purified/controlled unless we do bhakti.

This is the siddhanta of Vaishnavas.Purification of mind with bhakti.After that,bhagavan arranges for everything.




Let me also explain it in microcosmic terms.

A person wakes, dreams or sleeps. The Turiyam, the Self, the Brahman is just across the Sleep, which is the bridge between kAla and the akAla.

Do you have any desire or will in deep sleep? But in dream and in waking state you have will and desires. Shri Krishna is the Purusha Sarvesvara of Deep Sleep. He says: I hurl back the hard hearted demons to lower and lower states. Everyone comes back from sleep to face the world as per one's desires. Negative desires pull one down and down. Positive desires eventually allow one to know Sarvesvara.

But Sarvesvara Himself has said: Those know who know ME UNBORN and AKSHARA. That is knowing Lord beyond the Sleep, as akAla, as unborn. None, however, knows Him since, there will be no one but Pragnya alone.

Om


I frankly did not get the relation between sleep and Brahm.

radhe radhe. :)

atanu
25 November 2009, 11:13 PM
Namaste atanu,I'm delighted to meet you.


Namaste Ranjeet,

Thank you and I reciprocate.

[/quote]
I frankly did not get the relation between sleep and Brahm.

radhe radhe. :)[/quote]

Ranjeet that was the main point. The Brahman's Pragnya is the creation in this side of the deep sleep. This side consits of a dream world and a waking world. On the other side of the Deep Sleep is the Turiyam -Brahman.

Brahman as Pragnya Ghana is the deep sleep, the bridge, also called YogamAya. Lord is tamasaparastat, beyond slumber. You may read Mandukya Upanishad to first understand where Shri Krishna is.

Om

smaranam
09 December 2009, 02:25 PM
[COLOR=black][FONT=Arial][B]
The Self: Each conscious Individual, within the cosmos, has as its own address a "Vector Point" [X-Y-Z Axis Intersection]—which is indivisible, individual, eternal, and conscious.

An animated conscious individual may occupy a body [encasement].

.....

The in-animated elements within the cosmos are of two kinds:
1 gross matter [earth, water, fire, air, either], and,
2 subtle [mind, intelligence, ego].



Namaste Bhaktajan


Please explain the contents of jiva as a vector point on XYZ axes. Isn't the jiva beyond time and space really ? Or is it the Supreme Lord's energy in embodiment [while embodied that is] . So is this XYZ 3D space the location of energy vibration called 'a jiva' ?

You are the only one i have read , talking about this XYZ 'space'. Very interesting. I am trying to understand jivaness of the jiva as a pure pure spiritual entity with no traces of manas, buddhi ... or does it mean that
individual pure-mind and pure ID-ego are eternal ?

Vedanta Sutra 4.4.16 says there is no cognition after final release - soul entering the Self as Union of release, moksha (which is considered as impermanent dormancy in BrahmaJyoti by some)

How then does the liberated one "wish" for a spiritual body to serve the Lord ?
Because, today one can be in their own Swetadweep , have a manas-form that they fancy and many times , that the Lord fancies, and know it happens via the mind. That world is more real than this world outside.
But that is before liberation.

Dualism believes there is mind (pure) forever as part of the jiva , but the Vedanta Sutras do not define moksha as having the mind at all , pure or not - VS 4.4.16
http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sankara_38332.php

VS 4.4.22 - No return from BrahmaJyoti
http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sankara_38338.php

[Warning in the Bhagvatam : SB 10.2.32 - is talking about those who THINK they are liberated , not those who actually ARE. ]


I am trying to understand this , hence the long question.

Thank You.

smaranam
12 December 2009, 08:11 AM
I think i get what Bhaktajanji is saying - more or less ....

The XYZ axes represent the vector point conscious jiva's dham/Ishta Devta, rasa (relationship type), role (typre of service) etc. Then why limit the spiritual 'sky' to 3 dimensions ?

Folding in N dimensions bring more detail , and get closer to the far end of the Dvaita spectrum.

Reducing this to ONE dimension brings us to the far end of Advaita. That involves surrendering of that last final bit of individual ego and hence , Sayujja.

Brahman-Paramatma-Bhagvan is happy with both. There are numerous planes and realms of existence. He provides them owing to the varigatedness as inherent nature of His creation.

Is Prem and bhakti so weak that it is necessary for flavors of Dvaita to resort to bashing up Advaita and saying that Sayujja is temporary ?

With passage of time, poetic expressions and devotional sentiments of prema bhaktas (while praising their Ishta Devta) turn into doctrinal statements and worse - sometimes dogmas. We have to be careful not to get into this Maya. "Time I am" says Bhagvan Sri Krshna.

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

As a contribution to the main topic of this thread

Here are my 2 cents which i am sure are somewhere there already...

Asking God "why did You create " is like asking a living being "why do you breathe ?"

Creation, eternally is a phenomenon, and an inherent nature of Brahman.

Upanishadic statements like "He willed" and "He wished" are all figurative, poetic, is that not so ?

Jai Sri Krshna
Hari Om

atanu
12 December 2009, 11:13 AM
Is Prem and bhakti so weak that it is necessary for flavors of Dvaita to resort to bashing up Advaita and saying that Sayujja is temporary ?

With passage of time, poetic expressions and devotional sentiments of prema bhaktas (while praising their Ishta Devta) turn into doctrinal statements and worse - sometimes dogmas. We have to be careful not to get into this Maya. "Time I am" says Bhagvan Sri Krshna.

Jai Sri Krshna
Hari Om

namaste smaranam,

IMO, this is the most excellent point.

I have related a happening of Shri Ramana somewhere in this forum earlier that may add value here.

In Ramanashramam, a song is sung as praise of Ramana. On an occassion, devotees heard Ramana singing the song himself and were surprised as to how Ramana could sing his own glory. Shri Ramana then explained "You find it odd, since you consider Ramana to be embodied this."

"Time I am" says Bhagvan Sri Krshna. This is the most important point.

Thanks and Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
12 December 2009, 11:56 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

atanu offers,

This Paramatma is NOT ATTAINED by :
hundreds of expositions, not by great learning,
nor by reliance on intellectual knowledge,
nor through memorising the Vedas,
sacrifices, austerities, NOR THROUGH SANKHYA
OR YOGA, Ashramas/Varnaasramas, elucidation,
laudation and exercises.
The knowers of Vedas achieve it, having become calm, restrained, withdrawn, tolerant.(CONTROL OVER MIND/Completely purified Mind).
- Subala Upanishad 4.16


The kaṭhopaniṣad, 2nd adhyāya (chapter) 2 vallī, 23rd śloka , offers the following:

This ātman cannot ( is not ) attained by study of the ved, nor by intelligence ( intellectual power) nor by much hearing (~instruction~). He whom the Self chooses, by Him the Self can be gained. To him It-Self reveals it-Self wholly.


The muṇḍaka upaniṣad (3.2.3) confirms the wisdom:

This This ātman cannot ( is not ) attained by much study of the ved,
or intelligence or much learning. He whom the Self chooses, by him
the Self can be gained. To him this ātman reveals Its true nature.


What is one to do? The ṛṣi yajñavalkya-ji says this to his wife
maitreyi in the bṛhadaraṇyaka upaniṣad (5.5.6) :
O'maitreyi , this Self is to be properly heard of, to be properly cogitated on and to be realized in meditation.

What is he saying ? knowledge and experience is the path.
'Properly heard of ' tells us to listen to people in the know.
Yet the aspirant must also do something - think/ponder cogitate
connect the dots in one's mind.


praṇām

atanu
12 December 2009, 02:08 PM
hariḥ oṁ
He whom the Self chooses, by him
the Self can be gained. To him this ātman reveals Its true nature.

bṛhadaraṇyaka upaniṣad (5.5.6) :
O'maitreyi , this Self is to be properly heard of, to be properly cogitated on and to be realized in meditation.

What is he saying ? knowledge and experience is the path.
'Properly heard of ' tells us to listen to people in the know.
Yet the aspirant must also do something - think/ponder cogitate
connect the dots in one's mind.
praṇām

Namaste yajvanji,

Thank you for bringing this enigmatic: He whom the Self chooses, by him the Self can be gained. To him this ātman reveals Its true nature.

No one is devoid of self. So when oneself chooses to gain Self, then the job is done (or rather the auspicious beginning made). Yet, how the first spark of the need to choose the Self over all other attractions or the exact moment of the choosing arises? Where from the motivation? The ego self is not aware and not the controller here.

If the Self only chooses, then what is the role listening, pondering, and meditating by an individual? So, I say that this verse is enigmatic but packs within it the dyamite.

The Bible thus says: Be still and know ------. Meditation also, although it starts with effort of Dhyana, yields knowledge only when it attains effortless silence.

Self (Atman) is always realised but self (mind) is unaware owing to monkey like movements. We can hardly keep the mind with us. Desires continously make it vibrate and the firebrand appears as the ring of fire. We know the Ring of Fire but miss the Firebrand.

The following old post may complement here.
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=17423&postcount=3 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=17423&postcount=3)

Om Namah Shivaya

grames
12 December 2009, 11:56 PM
He whom the Self chooses, by Him the Self can be gained. To him It-Self reveals it-Self wholly.

How does this justifies Advaitic darshana? Self has something else to choose?? to reveal Itself?

As Atanu says, Atman ( at least in advaitic view ) is always in realized state but the miraculous and mystic 'self' is not bound under this state of realization and the big "Self" has to choose this small 'self' to reveal It-Self is really very complex same time confusing to comprehend.

Is it the only way of understanding this?? I am curious...

atanu
13 December 2009, 07:24 AM
How does this justifies Advaitic darshana? Self has something else to choose?? to reveal Itself?
As Atanu says, Atman ( at least in advaitic view ) is always in realized state but the miraculous and mystic 'self' is not bound under this state of realization and the big "Self" has to choose this small 'self' to reveal It-Self is really very complex same time confusing to comprehend.
Is it the only way of understanding this?? I am curious...


Namaste grames,

An excellent question but this has been discussed earlier. Ego or manas or buddhi is another, as if, because it considers itself another by ignorance and by wilfulness. Even then an ego is not apart from the underlying consciousness, which has no sense of "I am this", but which provdes the awareness of "I am" to the chidAbhasa ego-jiva. Ignorance that "I am jiva" and wilful clinging to separateness leads indeed to separate existence.



Maitrayana Brahmaya U. SIXTH PRAPATHAKA
30. Freedom from desires is, as it were, the highest prize to be taken from the best treasure (Brahman). For a man full of all desires, being possessed of will, imagination, and belief, is a slave; but he who is the opposite, is free.
-------
(call it guna, intellect, buddhi, manas, mind, ahankara, egotism, it is not the mind that acts, but) he sees by the mind (as his instrument), he hears by the mind; and all that we call desire, imagination, doubt, belief, unbelief, certainty, uncertainty, shame, thought, fear, all that is but mind (manas). Carried along by the waves of the qualities, darkened in his imaginations, unstable, fickle, crippled, full of desires, vacillating, he enters into belief, believing I am he, this is mine, and he binds his Self by his Self, as a bird with a net.

Therefore a man, being possessed of will, imagination, and belief, is a slave, but he who is the opposite is free. For this reason let a man stand free from will, imagination, and belief-this is the sign of liberty, this is the path that leads to Brahman, this is the opening of the door, and through it he will go to the other shore of darkness. All desires are there fulfilled. And for this they quote a verse:

"When the five instruments of knowledge stand still together with the mind, and when the intellect does not move, that is called the highest state."'


Further:



Maitrayana Brahmaya U. SIXTH PRAPATHAKA
34
(3) For thoughts alone cause the round of births; let a man strive to purify his thoughts. What a man thinks, that he is: this is the old secret.
(4) By the serenity of his thoughts a man blots out all actions, whether good or bad. Dwelling within his Self with serene thoughts, he obtains imperishable happiness.
(5) If the thoughts of a man were so fixed on Brahman as they are on the things of this world, who would not then be freed from bondage?
(6) The mind, it is said, is of two kinds, pure or impure; impure from the contact with lust, pure when free from lust.
(7) When a man, having freed his mind from sloth, distraction, and vacillation, becomes as it were delivered from his mind, that is the highest point.
(8) The mind must be restrained in the heart till it comes to an end;-that is knowledge, that is liberty: all the rest are extensions of the ties (which bind us to this life).
(9) That happiness which belongs to a mind which by deep meditation has been washed clean from all impurity and has entered within the Self, cannot be described here by words; it can be felt by the inward power only.
(10) Water in water, fire in fire, ether in ether, no one can distinguish them; likewise a man whose mind has entered (till it cannot be distinguished from the Self), attains liberty.

"For thoughts alone cause the round of births; let a man strive to purify his thoughts. What a man thinks, that he is: this is the old secret"

What can even Brahman do if such a mind clings wilfully to the concept of a separate identity?

All these questions against advaita darshana arise, despite numerous abedha vakyas in vedanta, because of solid perception of discreteness of all things and beings that Seer sees. Minds do not let go the conception that things and beings are discrete. But if a seer starts from the premise that it is one indivisible Atman, the whole situation is reversed immediately, since the boundaries are then known as apparent. Once this is realised, one will take all variety of manifestations as not discrete and independent.

For example, the Purusha is like an infinite animal -- dark and sleeping. When it rouses, unevenness takes place and finally visva emerges, which makes it appear that there is no single purusha. But those who know the single purusha, avoid saying that "I, atanu have this idea and grames has that opposing idea." A knower will on the other hand, say "Here the idea is this and there the idea is that". Because atanu and grames are two temporal places on one purusha.

Just contrast it with an ocean covered by many waves at some times and tranquil at other times. Or consider the folds on a piece of cloth. But unlike an aocean or a piece of cloth, in case of Atma-Purusha, there is no solid material that forms the lows and the highs. It is all subtle mind -- first as subtle light and shades (as in dreams) and then more gross (as in waking state).

So, all upanishads teach:

(10) Water in water, fire in fire, ether in ether, no one can distinguish them; likewise a man whose mind has entered (till it cannot be distinguished from the Self), attains liberty.

This brings us to creation. One Purusha under tamas is even, homogeneous. Nothing is known because there is no second. It is now known as Rudra. But then it stirs and becomes variegated. Like a sleeping supine animal wakes up and shakes its manes. It is now known as Vishnu. No creation has taken place. Neither has purusha changed. Internally it is the same akshara. The Self of the Purusha is the goal because that is the Self here and in sun also.



Maitrayana Brahmaya U.SEVENTH PRAPATHAKA
7. And he is indeed the Self, smaller (than small) within the heart, kindled like fire, endowed with all forms. Of him is all this food, within him all creatures are woven. That Self is free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, imagining nothing but what it ought to imagine, and desiring nothing but what it ought to desire. He is the highest lord, he is the supreme master of all beings, the guardian of all beings, a boundary keeping all things apart in their right places. He the Self, the lord, is indeed Sambhu, Bhava, Rudra, Pragapati, the creator of all, Hiranyagarbha, the true, breath, the swan, the ruler, the eternal, Vishnu, Narayana. And he who abides in the fire, and he who abides in the heart, and he who abides in the sun, they are one and the same. To thee who art this, endowed with all forms, settled in the true ether, be adoration!

Dvaita darshana is faultless.

Jiva can never be Brahman. Jivas are chidAbhasas and non-intelligent. Jiva becomes intelligent by the intelligence of Atman. Thus jivas can never be Brahman-Self. grames cannot become atanu or vice-versa. But stripping away the koshas, the common substratum is found. Most of the objections raised by minds to advaita darshana are actually obstacles to realisation of the Self, which is one and same everywhere. So, it seems that the Self does not not choose the wilful mind. Therefore a man, being possessed of a separate will, imagination, and belief, is a slave, but he who is the opposite is free. A separate will obtain a separate existence -- again and again. Even though this separate 'will' is a speck like wave on the infinite ocean, but it does not know.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
13 December 2009, 07:45 AM
Summary

Therefore a man, being possessed of will, imagination, and belief, is a slave, but he who is the opposite is free. For this reason let a man stand free from will, imagination, and belief-this is the sign of liberty,
---
"When the five instruments of knowledge stand still together with the mind, and when the intellect does not move, that is called the highest state."'
----
"For thoughts alone cause the round of births; let a man strive to purify his thoughts. What a man thinks, that he is: this is the old secret"
----
Water in water, fire in fire, ether in ether, no one can distinguish them; likewise a man whose mind has entered (till it cannot be distinguished from the Self), attains liberty.
----
And he is indeed the Self, smaller (than small) within the heart

Eastern Mind
13 December 2009, 08:11 AM
Is it the only way of understanding this?? I am curious...


Vanakkam Grames: From my understanding, Truly Understanding of the Self only happens via the experience itself. So at this level there is no way of understanding it. All you can do is sense its existence. People without the Great non-experience, as I've heard it called, can spout off about their understanding of it all they want. Regurgitation, intellectual knowledge, etc., is pure speculation. Even those who have experienced it say they can't explain it.

Aum Namasivaya

atanu
13 December 2009, 08:34 AM
Vanakkam Grames: From my understanding, Truly Understanding of the Self only happens via the experience itself. So at this level there is no way of understanding it. All you can do is sense its existence. People without the Great non-experience, as I've heard it called, can spout off about their understanding of it all they want. Regurgitation, intellectual knowledge, etc., is pure speculation. Even those who have experienced it say they can't explain it.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste EM and grames,

Has someone explained Brahman? Self itself is the abode, which being the Seer-Knower of whatever is and is not, cannot be Seen-Known. But the address of the abode (its nature) and the paths can be discussed (and should not be argued). Else the scriptures would not be there. Yes, people without experience of truth can spout all they want. One may wish therefore to be equipped atleast to be able to discriminate. It is also true that just as an equation expressing relation between energy and mass will be felt as absurd by some, the discussion of the warp and woofs of Brahman fabric consituting 'this' and 'that' may appear absurd. To me this is most profound: the warp and woofs of Brahman fabric consituting 'this' and 'that'. Understanding 'this and that' as 'here and there' changes many things for better.

EM is ultimately correct as he usually is, since shruti reads: "When the five instruments of knowledge stand still together with the mind, and when the intellect does not move, that is called the highest state". Through regurgitation we come to this understanding.

Meaning of Practicality varies. MMV.

Om Namah Shivaya

smaranam
13 December 2009, 09:26 AM
IMO, this is the most excellent point.


Thank you for your encouraging words



What is he saying ? knowledge and experience is the path.
'Properly heard of ' tells us to listen to people in the know.
Yet the aspirant must also do something - think/ponder cogitate
connect the dots in one's mind.




I hope to assimilate what is heard. As a Guru always says,
shravana [has to be followed by] manana, nidhidhyasana.


Many thanks to both of you for the educative posts.

(Hope i am not interrupting your thread links by adding this post in the midst)

Pranam
Hari Om

yajvan
13 December 2009, 11:05 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

grames writes,



How does this justifies Advaitic darshana? Self has something else to choose?? to reveal Itself?

... and many have responded with some good insights. Let me add just this.

ṛṣi Yajñavalkya-ji, Bṛhadaraṇyaka Upaniṣad informs us of the following:

idām brahma, idām kśatraṁ, ime lokaḥ, ime devaḥ, imani bhutani, idām sarvaṁ yad āyaṁ ātma.
'This Source of knowledge, this source of power, all these worlds, all these gods, all these beings; -- All this is just the Self.'


If we understand this in full, it is the Self pursuing the unfoldmenet of itSelf by itSelf. It is the source of knowledge to know, to pursue, to experience.


praṇām

saidevo
13 December 2009, 12:40 PM
Some thoughts about how and why the Self 'chooses' a self to reveal its nature:

The whole universe with its manifest life of creation is like an ocean. The Atman--Self, is the Sun that forms the ocean floor and shines up from there. The jIvAtmAs--human souls, are the rays of its light, riding and surfing the waves of material and mental creation, in their crests and troughs, ebbs and tides, undulating on the surface in all directions.

So there are trillions of such light rays--jIvAtmAs, firmly rooted to the ocean floor where the sun of Atman shines with its purest, whitest light of sat-chit-Ananda--existence-consciousness-bliss, at that level.

Each ray, although identical among themselves and to their source, has the mudrA--stamp, of Atman--Self, for distinct identification. During its journey of manifest lives to the surface, the ray of Atman sheathes itself with varying degrees of subtle and gross matter and becomes a jIvAtmA--living soul, thereby acquiring the antaHkaraNa--inner core, and the karma-jnAnedriyas--external senses of action and knowledge.

The sat of the Atman becomes the jIvAtmA's buddhi--intellect, the chit becomes the chita--memory, and the Ananda becomes the mind. The sum-total of all these is the AhaMkAra--the smaller self or ego of the jIvAtmA, which gives it a false identity that creates an impression of discrete, distinct existence, apart from the Self, its source.

The jIvAtmA revels in this avidyA--ignorance, of false identity and the mAyA--illusion, of the material, mental world around, with a strong tendency to be ever buoyant to the surface, riding the wave of life to the surface of the ocean. Because the rays of light have passed through matter and thereby picked up kleshas--the colors of the three guNas--tendencies, they are no longer pure-white, so can't reflect their source with its full intensity, unless they keep their guNas at perfect balance.

Thus at the ocean surface of life, the pure white and uniform light of the Atman at the bottom is reflected only as muddy and colored patches of waves and ripples and froth, that forever undulate. Although each ray of light is provided with the jnAna shakti of the buddhi, kriyA shakti of the chitta, and the ichChA shakti of the mind, most jIvAtmas just fritter away these shaktis in the material and mental currents of life.

The Self--Atman at the bottom, although it is only a witness to its distored reflection Self at the surface, is always sending its light upwards, recharging the jIvAtmas. Those jIvAtmas that have learned about the nature of avidyA and mAyA, no longer ride the wave of life, but sink their material existence to the bottom levels where there is more silence, and try to balance and harmonize their guNas in material and mental sheaths so they might know and better reflect their source. By dhyAna--meditation and vichAraNa--inquiry, a jIvAtma learns to get deeper and deeper in its levels of existence, tracking its source of light.

With such jIvAtmas, the Self eventually shines its brightest, uniform up to the surface, piercing all impediments like a ray of laser. Such jIvAtmas appear to the other rays of light as the 'chosen ones' to whom the Self reveals its true nature. And those jIvAtmas, having known and experienced the light of the Self, always remain still and calm, among the undulating other rays of light.

Most rays of light have acquired enough kleshas--colors of guNAs, and vAsanAs--impressions, to last many lives, so they can't let go their vAsanas in one life, and hence the Self cannot 'choose' them to reveal its nature.

smaranam
13 December 2009, 06:48 PM
Each ray, although identical among themselves and to their source, has the mudrA--stamp, of Atman--Self, for distinct identification. During its journey of manifest lives to the surface, the ray of Atman sheathes itself with varying degrees of subtle and gross matter and becomes a jIvAtmA--living soul, thereby acquiring the antaHkaraNa--inner core, and the karma-jnAnedriyas--external senses of action and knowledge.

The sat of the Atman becomes the jIvAtmA's buddhi--intellect, the chit becomes the chita--memory, and the Ananda becomes the mind. The sum-total of all these is the AhaMkAra--the smaller self or ego of the jIvAtmA, which gives it a false identity that creates an impression of discrete, distinct existence, apart from the Self, its source.



Namaste

This is what i have been searching for - this Murda Stamp. Of Course, the Supreme Lord (or Brahman if you will) can do anything, like keep a spiritual mudra stamp for each spec of jiva. Being in the material world, i tend to think in those terms, as an ID, code, like a fingerprint.


Can we safely say that each spec of Brahman (jiva)
has a pure , unique Mudra Stamp , before/prior to getting bound up in the
intellect(buddhi), mind(manas) and chitta(memory) , (which gives samskAr stamps) ?

Please note that the words 'before' and 'prior to' are not meant as sequential in time.

A while ago , i was wondering if jivas are like fingerprints. From what you are saying it looks like they are.

Is this mentioned somewhere in Vedanta, or Puranas, Agamas ?

Another theory that occured to me as a possibility a few days ago, and not directly learnt , was that the ID of the jiva is determined by their rasa-seva-svabhav in relation to Parameshwar. This seems to be Jiva Goswami's Tattva Sandarbha - though i have read only bits and pieces of it.

Then comes the qn - Is this ID such that it gives the jiva a different existential flavor by itself ? Or does the flavor/color come only from identification with the material - i.e. BMI , subtle body ?

In other words, it is perfectly understandable that the Supreme Lord knows each jiva distinctly. But hypothetically, can a pure jiva distinguish herself from others ?

(... One could argue that the last statement above, is controvertial in terms of Advaita : Since the jiva-spec is a part of Brahman, if Brahman knows His own specs, the qn "does the jiva know " is perhaps not applicable, as the spec is really Brahman in substance, and at which point, not really a jiva anymore )

But my question still remains , and i look forward gratefully to any inputs.

Thank You

Pranam

smaranam
06 January 2010, 11:36 AM
Some thoughts about how and why the Self 'chooses' a self to reveal its nature:

.....

Each ray, although identical among themselves and to their source, has the mudrA--stamp, of Atman--Self, for distinct identification. During its journey of manifest lives to the surface, the ray of Atman sheathes itself with varying degrees of subtle and gross matter and becomes a jIvAtmA--living soul, thereby acquiring the antaHkaraNa--inner core, and the karma-jnAnedriyas--external senses of action and knowledge.

.......

Thus at the ocean surface of life, the pure white and uniform light of the Atman at the bottom is reflected only as muddy and colored patches of waves and ripples and froth, that forever undulate. Although each ray of light is provided with the jnAna shakti of the buddhi, kriyA shakti of the chitta, and the ichChA shakti of the mind, most jIvAtmas just fritter away these shaktis in the material and mental currents of life.

The Self--Atman at the bottom, although it is only a witness to its distored reflection Self at the surface, is always sending its light upwards, recharging the jIvAtmas. Those jIvAtmas that have learned about the nature of avidyA and mAyA, no longer ride the wave of life, but sink their material existence to the bottom levels where there is more silence, and try to balance and harmonize their guNas in material and mental sheaths so they might know and better reflect their source. By dhyAna--meditation and vichAraNa--inquiry, a jIvAtma learns to get deeper and deeper in its levels of existence, tracking its source of light.......



PraNAm SaidevoJi

Your post #130 above does wonders in understanding the Self Realization process. Thank you very much.

My qns above, post #131 , raised on the 'Mudra-Stamp' were due to slight mis-reading of your words :

"Each ray, although identical among themselves and to their source, has the mudrA--stamp, of Atman--Self, for distinct identification. "

Now , reading again , it is clear that you meant the stamp is a stamp of Brahma-ness of that ray, to distinguish its own Brahma-ness from the material BMI, vasanas etc.
Totally opposite to what this mind of mine was thinking - that the stamp is like a fingerprint ! (As Dvaita philosophy claims)

The stamp is inherently on the ray , it is a svAbhAvic part of the ray, as it IS Brahman, of the nature of Brahman-AtmA-Self.

OK, I get it :)

brahman
07 January 2010, 12:38 AM
Creation and Adviata:

It looks like an oxymoron to me. If Advaita is all there is, then there was no necessity of creation! If the starting point and ending point of a man’s life is the same (Advaita), I think that the process of creation itself takes on a new meaning that does overshadow Advaita. In light of this reality that creation indeed took place, where does Advaita address this reality? In my view Advaita truly limits its ability to address this point in a meaningful way!

Einstein’s famous quote “God does not play dice” is very meaningful in that it implies there is an intent and specific purpose to His creation, which certainly is not with any malicious intent. From an Advaitic standpoint this intent and purpose is lost completely when God created us!

Therefore, we cannot deny that Dvaita has come into being at the moment of creation. Let us exchange and explore the reason and meaning behind the drive to creation. In fact, this was my very first earnest post but, unfortunately it was hijacked to another extreme.

Blessings,





Creation and Adviata:




It looks like an oxymoron to me. If Advaita is all there is, then there was no necessity of creation!

You are true Nirotu, nothing has been created, advaitha teaches us to experience THAT ONE.
Advaitha never teaches unification unlike other religions,
it continuously states the oneness,
it teaches us to get rid of that illusion(Maya, which makes it dual) to experience the oneness.


If the starting point and ending point of a man’s life is the same (Advaita), I think that the process of creation itself takes on a new meaning that does overshadow Advaita. In light of this reality that creation indeed took place, where does Advaita address this reality?

Where is life explained in advaitha? Sure the terminology JIVA and ATMAN has been introduced, to make the undeveloped minds understand the ‘advaitha vedantha’.


In my view Advaita truly limits its ability to address this point in a meaningful way!

Yes, there is a limit when it comes to knowledge ‘known with the senses’, but its real when it comes to an experience.


Einstein’s famous quote “God does not play dice” is very meaningful in that it implies there is an intent and specific purpose to His creation, which certainly is not with any malicious intent. From an Advaitic standpoint this intent and purpose is lost completely when God created us!

Nirotu, I repeat, nothing has been created.
Its like a magic alone,
we see pigeons flying out of hats,
meters of cloth coming out of magician’s mouth,
people cut in two,
sword being pierced in the neck
one ball turns several
are these true?
But, when we were kids we used to admire magicians, we used to wonder, we had surprise.
We desired to experience more and more of this magic
we grew old, we realized, those were just magic.



Therefore, we cannot deny that Dvaita has come into being at the moment of creation. Let us exchange and explore the reason and meaning behind the drive to creation. In fact, this was my very first earnest post but, unfortunately it was hijacked to another extreme.



As long as we are not grown, our intellect is not grown; we still experience this magic as kids and thus universe experienced in real.


But why magic?
Devotedly ask THAT magician; keep asking it until you experience it.


Advaitha is paradox when not pragmatic


Blessings,

Nirotu, My blessings to you too.




.

Onkara
07 January 2010, 10:31 AM
Namasté Smaranam and Brahman.
Stimulating posts! :)

What then becomes the point in creation? If the illusion is discarded and pure Brahman shines forth without any duality between object and knower, then why does ananda (bliss) need to exist, for example? Both consciousness (chit) and being (sat) do not necessarily require bliss (ananda) for their own existence to be known, couldn't there be existence consciousness without bliss? So what is the point of worship, meditation or any other act in life, other than to arrive at the ultimate goal. Once arrived does it not degrade the universe and all apparent activity as nothing less than completely pointless? Even worship seems silly when the impersonal Brahman is acknowledge as all that we are, so why bother with worhsip? So how not to slip into the void of nothingness and despair?

The answer I feel is through the fresh embracement of prarkiti as my-Self, now known to be also that which is Brahman, in both saguna and naguna. No longer deluded and under the influence of mAyA, there is no need to reject prakirit as one is beyond It whist still in It. We now embrace everything and love it all as we (should) love ourselves as ourSelves. We come to know ourSelves as pure sat-chit-ananda and further still with this realisation we come to know that we are also our rich experience of prakriti. This is where Vedanta adds much more and leaves solipsism and nihilism of other philosophers as mere stepping stones on the path to the Absolute.

The question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, is still satisfied by the Advaitin answer. Creation did not start as such, it is exactly as the Upanishads explain. It is a cycling illusion due to time and space without beginning due to Brahman being beginning-less. Time and space are both a part of prakriti and so also Brahman. Creator and creation are and never were separate, all is a part of the whole only when taken on the empirical level i.e. of that of Jiva and Ishvara. To attempt to find the first egg or the first chicken is too indentify yourself with the mind; the searcher for answers. The mind is limited by prakriti (mAyA) it it's very nature and in it igorance it continues the search for the first egg. The mind cannot be abandoned, as to attempt that too is a dualistic illusion, as it assumes the mind (or any thing) can exist separately from the whole (Brahman) which it cannot.

So what about the futility of it all? What is then the purpose of worship after this realisation is obtained? Could the purpose be self-love as bliss, the existence of ananda makes itself clear. It is the realisation that ananda is not seperable from sat and chit and that Prakriti is Brahman too. It is not narcisstic love, as there is no desire, because desirer and desired are undoubtedly one so ananda fits the state better. Desire has dissolved in the realisation that the desired was nothing more than that which arises when the mind is taken as being a separate self.

So I sing, I dance, I bow to a rose, a tulsi, or even the sun, and I know myself to be that timeless being gifted through my creation of time. Bounded in my boundless nature. Inseparable from knowing myself as being love with no reason to escape and every reason to remain living now and now and now in the many jivas as an experience of one emperical being.

devotee
07 January 2010, 10:18 PM
Snip, you may read my response in the thread, http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=5064 . I hope it helps. If it doesn't then we can discuss further.

OM

Onkara
08 January 2010, 04:06 AM
Thanks Devotee, I have replied on that link/thread.

brahman
08 January 2010, 05:45 AM
Namasté Smaranam and Brahman.
Stimulating posts! :)

What then becomes the point in creation? If the illusion is discarded and pure Brahman shines forth without any duality between object and knower, then why does ananda (bliss) need to exist, for example? Both consciousness (chit) and being (sat) do not necessarily require bliss (ananda) for their own existence to be known, couldn't there be existence consciousness without bliss? So what is the point of worship, meditation or any other act in life, other than to arrive at the ultimate goal. Once arrived does it not degrade the universe and all apparent activity as nothing less than completely pointless? Even worship seems silly when the impersonal Brahman is acknowledge as all that we are, so why bother with worhsip? So how not to slip into the void of nothingness and despair?

The answer I feel is through the fresh embracement of prarkiti as my-Self, now known to be also that which is Brahman, in both saguna and naguna. No longer deluded and under the influence of mAyA, there is no need to reject prakirit as one is beyond It whist still in It. We now embrace everything and love it all as we (should) love ourselves as ourSelves. We come to know ourSelves as pure sat-chit-ananda and further still with this realisation we come to know that we are also our rich experience of prakriti. This is where Vedanta adds much more and leaves solipsism and nihilism of other philosophers as mere stepping stones on the path to the Absolute.

The question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, is still satisfied by the Advaitin answer. Creation did not start as such, it is exactly as the Upanishads explain. It is a cycling illusion due to time and space without beginning due to Brahman being beginning-less. Time and space are both a part of prakriti and so also Brahman. Creator and creation are and never were separate, all is a part of the whole only when taken on the empirical level i.e. of that of Jiva and Ishvara. To attempt to find the first egg or the first chicken is too indentify yourself with the mind; the searcher for answers. The mind is limited by prakriti (mAyA) it it's very nature and in it igorance it continues the search for the first egg. The mind cannot be abandoned, as to attempt that too is a dualistic illusion, as it assumes the mind (or any thing) can exist separately from the whole (Brahman) which it cannot.

So what about the futility of it all? What is then the purpose of worship after this realisation is obtained? Could the purpose be self-love as bliss, the existence of ananda makes itself clear. It is the realisation that ananda is not seperable from sat and chit and that Prakriti is Brahman too. It is not narcisstic love, as there is no desire, because desirer and desired are undoubtedly one so ananda fits the state better. Desire has dissolved in the realisation that the desired was nothing more than that which arises when the mind is taken as being a separate self.

So I sing, I dance, I bow to a rose, a tulsi, or even the sun, and I know myself to be that timeless being gifted through my creation of time. Bounded in my boundless nature. Inseparable from knowing myself as being love with no reason to escape and every reason to remain living now and now and now in the many jivas as an experience of one emperical being.











Some look at ataman in great surprise, some speak of it in great wonder, some are amazed of hearing about it, even after all these practices one doesn’t experience atman completely.( Bg 2:29. )

But
Some live like kids, reflecting innocence, speaking love, singing harmony and thus experiencing reality

Some experiences unhearing and ultimate silence in loneliness, thus enjoy bliss

Some are instinctive and being one with IT completely.

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_-o2bsLf7TfE/S0cWGxFpdSI/AAAAAAAAAGE/zKdBak4PqII/s640/forum%20post.jpg


Hence it is a matter of experience alone, not knowledge (of atman) at all.


Snip: What is then the purpose of worship after this realization is obtained?

Realized are guidelines for the unrealized men; these men adhere to the principles of the realized ( Bg 3:21.)
Realized doesn’t ‘live’, instead they ‘leave’ a message and the unrealized follows it.

It is a matter of faith alone
Worship with faith,
perform rituals with faith,
learn sastras with faith,
chant mantras with faith,
do abhyasa with faith,
commit karma with faith
attain jnana with faith and thus succeed
Ignorant, faithless men, uncertain on the ONENESS never realize. Dubiousness (on the ONENESS) leads to unhappiness in both material and spiritual world.(Bg 4:40)

Faith on what?
Faith on reality! one should not even attempt to attain bliss.





.

smaranam
08 January 2010, 08:40 AM
PraNAm Brahman and Snip

Its all magic, Indeed ! What a nice way to look at it. Kids (who are in fact a part of that magic) , mistake this magic for real, as the Magician (and grownups) smile with love.
I am in kindergarten, by the way. The Lord doesn't expect a lot from me yet, and showers kindergartners with love and candy for little things.

"Why magic ?"
Because that's exactly what a Magician does :)
Living beings breathe. Pilots fly planes. Magicians perform magic. MAyin He is.
While at it, He relishes the opportunity to see those cute awe-struck , amazed faces of His kids - in the audience.


Brahman says :
"Faith on what?
Faith on reality! one should not even attempt to attain bliss."

PraNAm again

There is so much wisdom in that statement. One should not even attempt to attain bliss because bliss is inherently a part of me. I as Brahman am AtmArAm. Revelling in bliss of AtmA.

-------

Regarding Snip's reflections on embracing Prakrti, worship, loving 'another' and ananda - I thought the qns and answers were all a part of this reflective post :)

Only thing - I prefer the word love to worship as love is the superset, inclusive of worship. And this love is 'ahaituki' i.e. a = not, hetu = purpose.
Love unconditional, without cause, purpose or intent. Love as a phenomenon.

I think what Snip is trying to arrive at is this -

Some say this is a 5th state - TuryAtita (Turya + atita , beyond/after TuryA) . Like the sanskrit movie on Adi Shankaracharya and these nice pictures of Amma etc. show - while guiding others, these Jagad Gurus are AtmArAma.

Krshna Himself is AtmArAma. He is RAma , no surprise.

When I alone am , all around I see my own glories [OR VAsudeva alone IS, and i the jiva-BMI don't exist].

So then, am I not free to revel in love for MySelf in other forms - mountains, waterfalls , birds, flowers, babies , kids, jivas, and also Krshna/Vishnu, Shiva, Devi Maa, the adorable Lord Ganesh .... ? Also, at the same time , am I not free to just silently be ? I have a natural choice, but again its not a choice consciously made.
I can go into numerous states as I transcend time.

**This is not like achintya-bheda-abheda. There is a difference. I am not a jiva eternally and a tatastha shakti sitting on the fence between material and spiritual. I am the Whole. Its VAsudeva playing an N-player board-game alone, pretending to be N players. (Who says God doesn't play dice ? :) )
Like a little girl plays house or tea-party all by herself, sits in one chair as host, gets up and sits in another as guest1, guest2 and so on.


Hint from purAnas -

* Krshna and all Vishnu Avatars and Lord Shiva worship and adore each other.

* Sri RAm worshipped Lord Shiva.

* Rukmini who was Goddess Lakshmi, worshipped Gauri (PArvati) and prayed to Her that may Krshna be Her Husband, may the plan go smoothly.

* 'Unable to resist the temptation' (just a leela) , Lord Shiva disguised as an avdhoot visited Yashoda-Nanda's place to take a glimpse of baby Krshna and 'bless' the child.

* Gauri and Shiva MahAdev prayed to enter the RAs leela. Gauri got entry right away. Shivji was stopped at the 'entrance' by a gopi. He took a dip in the Yamuna to turn into a beautiful gopi, only then He was allowed :)

Jai Gopeshwar MahAdev !

Jai Shri Krshna

devotee
08 January 2010, 09:33 AM
Amazing post, Smaranam ! Drenched in both Bhakti & Gyaan !! :)

OM

smaranam
08 January 2010, 10:34 AM
Only with blessings from you and others, Devoteeji

PraNAm

brahman
09 January 2010, 12:01 AM
PraNAm Brahman and Snip

Its all magic, Indeed ! What a nice way to look at it. Kids (who are in fact a part of that magic) , mistake this magic for real, as the Magician (and grownups) smile with love.
I am in kindergarten, by the way. The Lord doesn't expect a lot from me yet, and showers kindergartners with love and candy for little things.

"Why magic ?"
Because that's exactly what a Magician does :)
Living beings breathe. Pilots fly planes. Magicians perform magic. MAyin He is.
While at it, He relishes the opportunity to see those cute awe-struck , amazed faces of His kids - in the audience.


Brahman says :
"Faith on what?
Faith on reality! one should not even attempt to attain bliss."

PraNAm again

There is so much wisdom in that statement. One should not even attempt to attain bliss because bliss is inherently a part of me. I as Brahman am AtmArAm. Revelling in bliss of AtmA.

-------

Regarding Snip's reflections on embracing Prakrti, worship, loving 'another' and ananda - I thought the qns and answers were all a part of this reflective post :)

Only thing - I prefer the word love to worship as love is the superset, inclusive of worship. And this love is 'ahaituki' i.e. a = not, hetu = purpose.
Love unconditional, without cause, purpose or intent. Love as a phenomenon.

I think what Snip is trying to arrive at is this -

Some say this is a 5th state - TuryAtita (Turya + atita , beyond/after TuryA) . Like the sanskrit movie on Adi Shankaracharya and these nice pictures of Amma etc. show - while guiding others, these Jagad Gurus are AtmArAma.

Krshna Himself is AtmArAma. He is RAma , no surprise.

When I alone am , all around I see my own glories [OR VAsudeva alone IS, and i the jiva-BMI don't exist].

So then, am I not free to revel in love for MySelf in other forms - mountains, waterfalls , birds, flowers, babies , kids, jivas, and also Krshna/Vishnu, Shiva, Devi Maa, the adorable Lord Ganesh .... ? Also, at the same time , am I not free to just silently be ? I have a natural choice, but again its not a choice consciously made.
I can go into numerous states as I transcend time.

**This is not like achintya-bheda-abheda. There is a difference. I am not a jiva eternally and a tatastha shakti sitting on the fence between material and spiritual. I am the Whole. Its VAsudeva playing an N-player board-game alone, pretending to be N players. (Who says God doesn't play dice ? :) )
Like a little girl plays house or tea-party all by herself, sits in one chair as host, gets up and sits in another as guest1, guest2 and so on.


Hint from purAnas -

* Krshna and all Vishnu Avatars and Lord Shiva worship and adore each other.

* Sri RAm worshipped Lord Shiva.

* Rukmini who was Goddess Lakshmi, worshipped Gauri (PArvati) and prayed to Her that may Krshna be Her Husband, may the plan go smoothly.

* 'Unable to resist the temptation' (just a leela) , Lord Shiva disguised as an avdhoot visited Yashoda-Nanda's place to take a glimpse of baby Krshna and 'bless' the child.

* Gauri and Shiva MahAdev prayed to enter the RAs leela. Gauri got entry right away. Shivji was stopped at the 'entrance' by a gopi. He took a dip in the Yamuna to turn into a beautiful gopi, only then He was allowed :)

Jai Gopeshwar MahAdev !

Jai Shri Krshna





THAT materializes THAT, as a material cause for THAT
sarvam khalv idam brahma
"All indeed is Brahman"
(Sacred Chhāndogya 3.14)

love to you

brahman
09 January 2010, 02:31 AM
Love what? That’s again a question
I can’t love mountains, I can’t love waterfalls, I can’t love kids, I can’t love babies , I can’t love things separately
That’s love in duality, not eternal
When love comes to eternal, its love for ONE, then we start to love everything in the same,
like I do not love my hands, I do not love my legs, I do not love my eyes, instead I love my body.
The same way, the FAITH in ONE leads one to eternal love, which is undefined.

smaranam
09 January 2010, 08:23 AM
Love what? That’s again a question
I can’t love mountains, I can’t love waterfalls, I can’t love kids, I can’t love babies , I can’t love things separately
That’s love in duality, not eternal
When love comes to eternal, its love for ONE, then we start to love everything in the same,
like I do not love my hands, I do not love my legs, I do not love my eyes, instead I love my body.
The same way, the FAITH in ONE leads one to eternal love, which is undefined.

PraNAm !

Yes, I see the mistake I was making, and yet cannot help myself. (I told you I am in Kindergarten)

I was conveniently just being TVAM padartha, the witness, sAkshi, and not
considering the identity of TVAM with TAT (That) .

**Oneness of sAkshi (witness, tvam) with sAkshyam (that which is witnessed, tat).**

Hence the qn, "Am I not free to....? "

Just as it is absurd for fingers and toes (rays of the sun) to have independent will or seperate existence (Dvaita) , it is absurd for the sun to admire its own rays/Self seperately.

Unless the identity equation is not fully understood , unless the subject and predicate in the statement "TAT TVAM ASI" (THOU ART THAT) , has not been equated, the bridge is not crossed.

And to cross this bridge, study of scriptures, shastra with a Guru is essential, acc. to Shri Shankara.

SAkshi and SAksham become ONE.

PraNAm

Mohini Shakti Devi
09 January 2010, 03:55 PM
it is absurd for the sun to admire its own rays/Self seperately.

Unless the . . . The Sun is a actually a real Person. Every Person is making an Appearence before audiences that are of the highest refinement, who appreiciate the services well rendered by responsible and reliable authority figure heads.

smaranam
09 January 2010, 05:49 PM
it is absurd for the sun to admire its own rays/Self seperately.

Unless the . . . The Sun is a actually a real Person. Every Person is making an Appearence before audiences that are of the highest refinement, who appreiciate the services well rendered by responsible and reliable authority figure heads.

Namaste Mohini Mataji

Yes, this is all on the Leela and/or VyavahAr plane. This has been addressed in my post #138.

The highest pArmArthic state of the Self is one without a second. Only ONE Self. This is the context in which post #142 and #143 were speaking.

I shall leave it to Brahman and others to explain more.

Just a note to readers :

The pArmArthic state may be hard to understand.
That is no reason to say that Advaita is false, impurity of Kali Yuga etc.

On the contrary, the Advaitic Truth shouts out and echoes crystal clear from the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita.


Again , Advaita does not discard or dismiss Dvaita, it includes and embraces Dvaita :)

brahman
10 January 2010, 01:29 AM
PraNAm !

Yes, I see the mistake I was making, and yet cannot help myself.



there is nothing called mistakes Dear smaranam, its all part of the the तत् , and its all सत् alone. we shall believe it with the grace of the great sages

ॐ तत् सत्

kd gupta
10 January 2010, 02:51 AM
Creation and Adviata:

It looks like an oxymoron to me. If Advaita is all there is, then there was no necessity of creation! If the starting point and ending point of a man’s life is the same (Advaita), I think that the process of creation itself takes on a new meaning that does overshadow Advaita. In light of this reality that creation indeed took place, where does Advaita address this reality? In my view Advaita truly limits its ability to address this point in a meaningful way!

Einstein’s famous quote “God does not play dice” is very meaningful in that it implies there is an intent and specific purpose to His creation, which certainly is not with any malicious intent. From an Advaitic standpoint this intent and purpose is lost completely when God created us!

Therefore, we cannot deny that Dvaita has come into being at the moment of creation. Let us exchange and explore the reason and meaning behind the drive to creation. In fact, this was my very first earnest post but, unfortunately it was hijacked to another extreme.

Blessings,
Yes , it is very right , God does not play Dice , but it is female power or say Jad Prakriti which creats Jeevatma world , but keep in mind that a jeeva is the part of parmatma or Brahma , similarly as a glass of water form ocean is Ocean in self and Advaita at last, therefore surrender to him and fight for noble cause, till you are away from him .

nirotu
20 January 2010, 09:20 PM
“Nirotu, I repeat, nothing has been created.”

Dear Brahman:

Thank you for resurrecting my OP. Since this post of yours is directed to me, I would like to attempt to address it.

First of all, I had to stop at your very first sentence, “Nothing has been created!” and discuss this one statement before making further inroads in to your response. I hope you will not mind probing this further to understand it better.

This is a profound statement coming from a school – Advaitic teachings of Shankara. But, to me, it raises a serious question.

It is clear from Shankara doctrine that this world is neither “Sat (absolute reality)” nor “Asat (absolute non-reality)” but somewhere in between and is called “Mithya (Conditioned or operational reality) (vyAvahArika satyaM)”. This world is not a creation of God but is a superimposition of God in that God remains substratum of this universe. Adavita also argues that only the Absolute Self Is real and exists and the universe and our existence as individuals is a false imposition on a real substrate, the non-dual, undifferentiated principle of consciousness (borrowed from HDF source).

In my humble opinion, this type of reasoning only back-fires, especially, when used to describe Brahman. That is because it is derived from a pre-conceived notion that “creation” never happened,

Perhaps, this topic of “creation” itself makes for a lively debate.

Who created this universe? Did God have any hand in it? As I have read in many posts, this topic has been discussed at length by many who, I think, fall in Two basic categories holding opposing views.

On one side, a community of scientists and philosophers (theists) who believed God’s hand in creation right down to the last step in that everything behaves as if it was programmed from the beginning. Behind all this programming, there is a programmer who acted with infinite intelligence, craftsmanship and perfection.

On the other side, a community of scientists (atheists) and philosophers who did not believe in God’s hand in creation. They believed this world somehow Emanated (??) and continues to exist because of its own inherent power never needing any external force to keep it functioning. Advaita also holds this Principle that the God as the creator of this universe is only “incidental (tatasthalakśan), which to me, does not constitute the “essential attribute of God” and, therefore, does not do any justice to creator God.

According to Adi Shankara, God, the Supreme Cosmic Spirit or Brahman,Nominative singular Brahma, is the One, the whole and the only reality. Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe,material Objects and individuals are false. Brahman is at best described as that Infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, incorporeal, impersonal, transcendent Reality that is the divine ground of all Being (Borrowed statement).

However, what you fail to notice is the mention of the essential and intrinsic nature of God that distinguishes Him from all other things, which is His creative power. God’s “creatorship” is as much real as God himself. The creator ship is one of the essential and intrinsic attributes and properties (svarupalakshana) of God. In a way, Shankara, akin to an atheist, has declared that God did not create this world and this world is just a superimposition on God Himself. In doing so, Advaita Vedanta deprives God of “creatorship”.

If the fundamental tenet of Veda is to affirm creatorship to God, then, are you not negating the very nature of God – His creative intelligence and, thus, the very God creating the universe?

Is this any different from teetering on the edge of atheism? Just curious to know your take on this.

Perhaps, we can explore this without assuming adversarial role against each other and before venturing further.

Blessings,

grames
21 January 2010, 12:21 AM
Just a note to readers :

The pArmArthic state may be hard to understand.
That is no reason to say that Advaita is false, impurity of Kali Yuga etc.

On the contrary, the Advaitic Truth shouts out and echoes crystal clear from the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita.


Again , Advaita does not discard or dismiss Dvaita, it includes and embraces Dvaita :)


Very curious to know, what kind of Shruti support this ParamaArthic and Vyavaharthic states? Is it man made?

Onkara
21 January 2010, 03:15 AM
Dear Nirotu
I hope by adding a few brief thoughts to your well worded post, I am not encroaching on brahman Ji or yourself.


“Nothing has been created!”

In my humble opinion, this type of reasoning only back-fires, especially, when used to describe Brahman. That is because it is derived from a pre-conceived notion that “creation” never happened,


Good point. In which case what is conceived previous to what? Can the statement of “nothing has been created” pre-conceive my own existence? No, because how can even this idea arise if there is not something or somebody to have the idea. My point is that all ideas of creation arise in the creation and so they can only be pre-conceived in respect to time i.e. before the event it was pre-conceived and not the creation itself. The point Advaita makes, imho, is that it points out that THAT which already exists must exist for any creation theory to arise, including the sensation of time. i.e. “This world is not a creation of God but is a superimposition of God in that God remains substratum of this universe.”. We cannot negate that which we are unless we consider ourselves to be (in)dependent on our body, because the body-mind has a limitation relative (and seen to be independent) to universal existence. Taking oneself as the body-mind-intellect is precisely that which keeps us from missing what Vedanta claims as being truth.




On one side, a community of scientists and philosophers (theists) who believed God’s hand in creation right down to the last step in that everything behaves as if it was programmed from the beginning. Behind all this programming, there is a programmer who acted with infinite intelligence, craftsmanship and perfection.
Could we say this group of people begin with the immeasurable i.e. that from which the big bang came. They accept there must be a substratum for any big-bang or activity. However they may limit themselves professional as scientists to measuring the measurable.



On the other side, a community of scientists (atheists) and philosophers who did not believe in God’s hand in creation. They believed this world somehow Emanated (??) and continues to exist because of its own inherent power never needing any external force to keep it functioning. Advaita also holds this Principle that the God as the creator of this universe is only “incidental (tatasthalakśan), which to me, does not constitute the “essential attribute of God” and, therefore, does not do any justice to creator God.
Could we say that this group of people begin with the measurable i.e the material universe. That which came from the big bang. They draw the limit on that which they cannot measure i.e. the non-material and say it is not necessary or believable. Everything which is immeasurable is not real for them. This limits them to materialism, even if at the microscopic level.

The point being that both groups may have different starting points, but they are still measuring THAT.



In doing so, Advaita Vedanta deprives God of “creatorship”.

Advaita sets out to explain how variation and multiplicity can be experienced by us based on the presupposition that truth i.e. God, does not and cannot change. God cannot change because that which changes presumes that it is not eternal and the non-eternal cannot be true. All things require a substratum in order for change to be possible. That substratum in Santana Dharma is God, what ever the sect. It doesn’t negate creatorship but rather tries to explain how change (superimposition) can occur in the changeless (God, Brahman) from your and my perspective.

brahman
21 January 2010, 05:50 AM
Dear Brahman:

However, what you fail to notice is the mention of the essential and intrinsic nature of God that distinguishes Him from all other things, which is His creative power. God’s “creatorship” is as much real as God himself. The creator ship is one of the essential and intrinsic attributes and properties (svarupalakshana) of God. In a way, Shankara, akin to an atheist, has declared that God did not create this world and this world is just a superimposition on God Himself. In doing so, Advaita Vedanta deprives God of “creatorship”.

If the fundamental tenet of Veda is to affirm creatorship to God, then, are you not negating the very nature of God – His creative intelligence and, thus, the very God creating the universe?

Is this any different from teetering on the edge of atheism? Just curious to know your take on this.

Perhaps, we can explore this without assuming adversarial role against each other and before venturing further.

Blessings,






Dear Nirotu,

The divine knowledge, faith and devotion to God are observably active in you, perhaps in a scripture-oriented manner.

I should say I’m delighted in your accomplishment.

This knowledge and faith is the dawning to bliss of everything.

Now that this knowledge is observed,

Some experience God in sthula or understood as the manifestation.

Few others experience God in sookshma , equivalent to the inner energy form that pervades all living and non living beings.

There are others who experience God as the karana or cause of all living and non living beings.

However, some others experience their own identity with God.

This experience(4th) is termed as “advaita” is the highest concept in the realm of spiritual philosophy.

No definition can expound it.

Each of the above awareness represents different levels of consciousness of the Ultimate.

Each of the above is knowledge itself. There is no doubt about it.

In the ultimate analysis, the Upanishads proclaim the knowledge of the Atman's identity with Brahman as the ultimate knowledge or Ultimate truth or Ultimate bliss.


So, where should we start from?

At the pragmatic level, we should start from the awareness of the very nature of God (in any consciousness)


Believe in it, respect it, and not confront it, and thus be able to search for the ultimate truth.










Why consciousness differs


1) Look at these pots kept in a sunny ground

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_-o2bsLf7TfE/S1gxfz8YwCI/AAAAAAAAAHw/d6Zk_Rt-y1c/FIRST%20PIC%20TWO.jpg



2) These are empty pots and we are going to fill it with water

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_-o2bsLf7TfE/S1gxfzmohmI/AAAAAAAAAH0/SFXo7pAzp1U/FIRST%20PIC%20TWO%20CLOSE%20U.jpg



3) Same sun is reflected in these pots; it reflects differently, gives an impression of many suns.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_-o2bsLf7TfE/S1gxf2G6BCI/AAAAAAAAAH4/YuN-ZUG4fII/FIRST%20PIC%20THREE.jpg



4) Now I am going to break these pots and get rid of the separateness, and we see only one sun reflects!

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_-o2bsLf7TfE/S1gxgdvS4WI/AAAAAAAAAH8/NBY1UGf3Aj4/NO%20POT.jpg

we observed unevenness in the reflection of sun in these pots due to the ripples (ripples due to the unsteadiness of these pots)

Also we realized its one sun that reflected in many pots differently.
but on breaking of pots, it reflected as one sun alone.

This is how the individual consciousness to ultimate consciousness is obtained.


Love and blessings to you Nirotu




.

smaranam
21 January 2010, 10:57 AM
Very curious to know, what kind of Shruti support this ParamaArthic and Vyavaharthic states? Is it man made?

Namaste Gramesji

What can I say to learned ones like you ?
Only that , it is a matter of experiencing those states, and observation of the state of the Divine that can be useful in understanding them.

Shruti : Aham Brahmasmi
Tat tvam asi

Kena, Isha, Kath, ChAndogya , BrhadAranyaka Upanishads,
Bhagavad Gita - Chap 2 (Brahmabhuta, sthitapradnya) Chap 7 (Jnana Vijnyana Yog) , 10 (Vibhutiyog) , 11 (Vishwarupa) , 13 (Kshetrakshetradnya Yog verses 20, 22, 27, 28 why, the whole chapter) 14, 15, why, the whole Gita!

Mundaka Upanishad Simply put

jagran - waking
swapna - dream
shushupti - deep sleep
turya - Supreme blissful existence-consciousness


1. Whatever little internal experience Lord provides thru' these very instruments , BMI, and
2. all pramANa read - Upanishads , Bhagavad Gita, Brahma Sutra,
3. all that was learnt from "my" Gurus around "me"

tell me - these states of being you refer to are not man made.

At this point , I apologize, I do not have much time, and also just feel like quietly 'being' , and not say a word. However, I shall be glad to pick out verses from shruti as time permits, if you are interested, but would rather point you to others who know more and can explain better.

--------

I was led to experience that my Lord is my AtmA is me. It was automatically backed up by shruti and the Lord's own words in the Gita became much much clearer. Things started to unfold on their own. After reading scriptures from Vaishnnav and Dvaita point of view, there were loopholes. UpadrshtA, sAkshi, AtmA (as singular, never plural) , dehi, bhuta, Brahman, prakrti, Purusha, Vasudeva, Vishnu, "Sarva sharva Shiva sthanu avyaya .......... vishwam ..... pradhAna......"
I could see advaita in the lovely Shrimad Bhagvatam. VAsudeva alone is.
Some Bhagavat for you :
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=37880&postcount=26


Mai bachi hi nahi, sirf Woh rehe gaya. Truly was surprised to find that bhajan yesterday , as if it were talking my language. When "i" tried to protest to "my" Lord, there was no one left to do the protesting ... Lord alone is , was and will be. The one who ran to Him suddenly was a babe wearing a peacock feather swadled in cloth.

I am that babe , and you and he and she and it and they. And the mountains, rivers, canyons, stars , space. Yet this mind doesn't always notice that I am all these, you see. I do exist as a representative of this BMI, the same old same old. And that is the VyavahAric realm. The test ? No one can tell anything different. Not even this mind sometimes. Its not there yet :)

** Please do not misunderstand - this is not the supreme experience of Turya. That's not what I am trying to say. Just that the taste is there, it is out there, it is real as perceived by this BMI.

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

The Supreme does not impose it on anyone to accept or reject advaita. You don't have to. Its for us to experience the advaita.

For those interested in more understanding , I shall point to Brahman's latest post on this very thread - with the pictures of the pots - #151.

Devoteeji's excellent threads on Aham Brahmasmi (not for you Gramesji :)

Yajvanji's many posts loaded with wisdom, some specifically explaining Turya and TuryAtita, and his advaita primer :
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=5093

Saidevoji's excellent posts if one browses thru' this section.

Atanuji's excellent posts

And many more.


praNAm

bhaktajan
21 January 2010, 11:20 AM
Snip wrote:

Advaita sets out to explain how variation and multiplicity can be experienced by us based on the presupposition that truth i.e. God, does not and cannot change. God cannot change because that which changes presumes that it is not eternal and the non-eternal cannot be true.


Advaita is the conclusion of a philosophical treaty.

Advaita is not "the means and the end" it is just the "end".


"God, does not and cannot change?" ---Did God say this?

"changes presumes that [which] is not eternal
and
the non-eternal cannot be true." ---All is eternal, both "change and stagnancy" are contained within the same field where they co-exist without seperation. That is the basics of Duality.

That which stradles both is above and beyond both ---one such thing that stradles both is the jivatma ---these all are stradled by Paramatma ---these all are stradled by transcendence where there is no duality of purpose, only unity of purpose.


The purpose of existence in that transcendant realm is God's pastimes eternale.

Onkara
21 January 2010, 03:38 PM
Advaita is the conclusion of a philosophical treaty.

Advaita is not "the means and the end" it is just the "end".


Thank you Bhaktajan for your interest and useful post.
Yes. it is most certainly the end of a long search. :)



"God, does not and cannot change?" ---Did God say this?



Krishna said “But those who worship the imperishable, the indefinable, the unmanifest, the omnipresent, the unthinkable, the unchanging, the immovable, and the eternal Brahman; (12.3)
Restraining all the senses, even minded under all circumstances, engaged in the welfare of all creatures, they also attain Me.”(12.4) source (http://www.tphta.ws/TPH_BHAG.HTM)

Because Brahman (or Self) is reached from knowing that:

“This Atma cannot be cut, burned, wetted, or dried up. It is eternal, all pervading, unchanging, immovable, and primeval, Impenetrable, Unentered, unassailed, unharmed, untouched, Immortal, all-arriving, stable, sure.”(2.24)

Brahman as the Self (Atman) in Advaita is all pervading, unchanging and immortal.

For those who are ready for more then you word it well:




All is eternal, both "change and stagnancy" are contained within the same field where they co-exist without separation. That is the basics of Duality.


Yes, this is the field and the field knower. Both of which are Brahman :)

"Whatever is born, animate or inanimate, know them to be (born) from the union of the field and the field knower, O Arjuna." (13.26)

nirotu
25 January 2010, 05:27 PM
Dear Brahman:

Thank you for your response. With all due respect the subject we were discussing was related to “creation”. Somehow, I did not see your response to my query. I still do feel that Advaitic notion of “creation” account is not clear, at least to me. If I were to ask an advaitin if they believed in creation of the universe, the answer most likely is in the negative.

As I had said earlier in my post: it stems from a preconceived notion, “Every thing apart from Brahman is unreal”. If you look at Taittiriya Upanishad; “the source from which all things come, that by which they are sustained and that into which they enter” referring to three aspects of one God. Accordingly, Brahma creates universe and us with certain potentialities (The Gita (III,10)), Vishnu helps us to realize them through overcoming of opposition, and Siva signifies the victorious self-maintenance of the good. What is not clear to me is when Upanishad is so very clear on the “creation” and the events leading to “creation”, why would Shankara interpret differently shruti with his commentary?

Badarayana, in an attempt to resolve the conflicts within the scriptures, has authored the Brahmasutras. In the samanvaya chapter, he has attempted to harmonize conflicts within various Upanishads regarding creatorship of God. In that Badarayana is openly declaring the creative power as God’s intrinsic property and is declaring in clearest possible terms that God is the author of the world.

It is not clear to me why Shankara introduced saguna/nirguna aspects to God to define phenomenal and absolute planes, when, in fact, there is no plurality in God(s).

Please, pardon my asking. I am more inclined to think it is truth to me that dvaita is what runs this universe and its inhabitants towards the goal- advaita. There are many scholars here who may want to join in. But, please let us be respectful of each other’s views.

Blessings,

devotee
25 January 2010, 10:20 PM
Namaste Nirotu,

You have asked very good questions. Let's try to see as I see it all :

When we describe a thing, we must be sure from what plane we are perceiving that thing. When we forget that, we land into quagmire of confusion. I will give you an example here :

a) When I see a flower with my open eyes in sunlight, I find that the flower is red. When I see the same flower in blue light, the same flower appears as black. If I was able to see the same flower with an eye which could use X-rays, the flower would have been seen colourless & vanished losing its separate identity altogether.

Now, which observation should I rely on ? Can we say that the flower seen by using Sun-light is the correct observation & other observations are wrong ? We can't say that. If you go slightly deeper, you will realise that we cannot say whether the flower is red or black or colourless. It is appropriate to say, "We don't know what the colour of the flower is but it appears red in Sun-light". Now, we all know that colour is a perception only in the brain... in our mind ... it has no physical existence of its own ... it is the only the change in wavelength of light.

So, when you ask a Scientist, he may answer you this : "The perception of colour of flower is only within mind ... beyond mind there is no existence of colour. The mind responds giving rise to different perceptions of colours depending on what sort of information carrying medium (light in this case) produces what kind of impulse in the optical nerves.".

b) Let's now see this creation from Shankara's point of view. When one sees this world from the state of Turiya i.e. the unconditioned state, there is no duality & there is no creation at all ... this perception is beyond mind ... it is called direct perception ... so there is no distortion in perception ... it is the Reality as it is. From that state, the Creation is Brahman alone ... however, when we see from waking & dreaming states (the states within this world), then we are seeing through this mind. This mind creates an illusion of things just like the colour of the flower even though there was no colour to begin with.

Does it mean that the things don't exist ? No. They exist but not in the manner this mind sees it. This is also called as the relative state of existence because the perception of everything is relative & not absolute.

c) But what of this creation ? When seen through this mind, God is the ultimate reality. The Self alone is perceived as God as the ultimate reality within mental realm. This is explained very well in Maandukya Upanishad. It says that the third state of Brahman is God-state. It is the origin & end of all beings in this phenomenal world.

So, to make it short :

a) When we talk of direct perception of Reality (from Turiya State), there is no creation. This is what the Nirgun Brahman is.
b) When we talk of the relative perception within mental realm, there is creation of the two states with the third state of the Brahman/Self i.e. God, acting as the Lord of all, the omniscient & the omnipotent. This is what the Sagun Brahman is.

I hope it helps.

OM

grames
27 January 2010, 07:39 AM
Dear smaranam,

Sometimes it is very difficult to overcome our emotional attachment and then give in to false notions as truth. It is very much comparable to the scenario where love for son prevents the mother to see her own son's as thief.

I am not learnt and i honestly know the fact that i am very much ignorant and have to learn a lot but with sincerity. My question is simply about to know whether these two levels of Truths have Shruti support. Whatever you have written here does not lead me to believe there is one.

nirotu
27 January 2010, 11:14 AM
Namaste Nirotu,

You have asked very good questions. Let's try to see as I see it all :

When we describe a thing, we must be sure from what plane we are perceiving that thing. When we forget that, we land into quagmire of confusion. I will give you an example here :

a) When I see a flower with my open eyes in sunlight, I find that the flower is red. When I see the same flower in blue light, the same flower appears as black. If I was able to see the same flower with an eye which could use X-rays, the flower would have been seen colourless & vanished losing its separate identity altogether.

Now, which observation should I rely on ? Can we say that the flower seen by using Sun-light is the correct observation & other observations are wrong ? We can't say that. If you go slightly deeper, you will realise that we cannot say whether the flower is red or black or colourless. It is appropriate to say, "We don't know what the colour of the flower is but it appears red in Sun-light". Now, we all know that colour is a perception only in the brain... in our mind ... it has no physical existence of its own ... it is the only the change in wavelength of light.

So, when you ask a Scientist, he may answer you this : "The perception of colour of flower is only within mind ... beyond mind there is no existence of colour. The mind responds giving rise to different perceptions of colours depending on what sort of information carrying medium (light in this case) produces what kind of impulse in the optical nerves.".

b) Let's now see this creation from Shankara's point of view. When one sees this world from the state of Turiya i.e. the unconditioned state, there is no duality & there is no creation at all ... this perception is beyond mind ... it is called direct perception ... so there is no distortion in perception ... it is the Reality as it is. From that state, the Creation is Brahman alone ... however, when we see from waking & dreaming states (the states within this world), then we are seeing through this mind. This mind creates an illusion of things just like the colour of the flower even though there was no colour to begin with.

Does it mean that the things don't exist ? No. They exist but not in the manner this mind sees it. This is also called as the relative state of existence because the perception of everything is relative & not absolute.

c) But what of this creation ? When seen through this mind, God is the ultimate reality. The Self alone is perceived as God as the ultimate reality within mental realm. This is explained very well in Maandukya Upanishad. It says that the third state of Brahman is God-state. It is the origin & end of all beings in this phenomenal world.

So, to make it short :

a) When we talk of direct perception of Reality (from Turiya State), there is no creation. This is what the Nirgun Brahman is.
b) When we talk of the relative perception within mental realm, there is creation of the two states with the third state of the Brahman/Self i.e. God, acting as the Lord of all, the omniscient & the omnipotent. This is what the Sagun Brahman is.

I hope it helps.

OM

Dear Devotee:

First of all, thank you so much for your well thought out response. I do appreciate that. As I was reading carefully, I could not help having some unresolved doubts.

You have described very well and mounted all blame on perception.

But, errors of perception (phenomena of illusions) can also be due to errors in knowledge or knowledge itself being misapplied.

For example:

We all perceive sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Although, we do see sun rising and setting, the knowledge on which our perception is based is faulty. By dabbling in astronomy and science, we have come to know that the sun never moves but it is the earth that rotates giving the illusion of sun moving. Thus, the error in knowledge has led to a perception that sun is rising.

The same knowledge with which our mind apprehends every other thing in the world must also be faulty (unreal) because of the mahavakya, “apart from Brahman everything is unreal”. Given this, how can you even attempt to know the reality at all? Let us look at “maya” for a moment.

If “maya” is real then Advaita falls flat on its face.

If “maya” is unreal, then how can it be efficacious in producing the appearance of the world, the Brahman, and more importantly the Self? Brahman could not have created unreal maya to point to the real.

Therefore, “maya” is either real or unreal and, which cannot be in between. Therefore, either the advaita metaphysics is destroyed or maya is not efficacious.

How do you explain “maya” given the supremacy to the mahavakya of advaita?

If ignorance is the cause of illusory appearance of the world, then source of ignorance is faulty (unreal) knowledge. If every knowledge is unreal, how can you have full reality of Brahman and the full reality of the world?

It is unfair to see from Turiya perspective because we are not there yet!

Blessings,

saidevo
28 January 2010, 10:49 AM
namaste Nirotu and others.

A massive amount of discussion has taken place here in HDF, over the last few years under several threads in different slants on the subject of Creation and Advaita. It is difficult even to locate them, let alone read them all and say something that is not said by someone before elsewhere, to throw some new light.



The same knowledge with which our mind apprehends every other thing in the world must also be faulty (unreal) because of the mahavakya, “apart from Brahman everything is unreal”. Given this, how can you even attempt to know the reality at all?


I think you are referring to Shankara's famous statement

brahma satyam jagan mithya
jivo brahmaiva napara,

Brahman is the Reality, the universe is an illusion,
The living being is Brahman alone, none else.

which incidentally is not a mahAvAkya, although it is the only possible explanation of the purport of the mahAvAkyas.

If we look at the mahAvAkyas, we would find that except in two statements, they all speak from the POV of duality. Arranging the mahAvAkyas from the POV of non-duality to duality, we get:

ekam evadvitiyam brahma -- Brahman is one, without a second.
-- Chandogya upaniShad VI.ii.1

prajnanam brahma -- Consciousness is Brahman.
-- Aitareya upaniShad 3.3, of Rg Veda

sarvaM khalvidaM brahma -- All of this is brahman.
-- Chandogya upaniShad 3.14.1 of the Sama Veda

ayam Atma brahma -- This Self is Brahman.
-- Mandukya upaniShad 1.2, of Atharva Veda

tat tvam asi -- Thou art that.
-- Chandogya upaniShad 6.8.7, of Sama Veda, Kaivalya upaniShad

aham brahmAsmi -- I am Brahman.
-- Brhadaranyaka upaniShad 1.4.10, of Yajur Veda, Mahanarayana upaniShad

Inasmuch as very term 'upaniShad' requires a disciple to sit by the side of his guru and then both contemplate together on the meaning of the Reality, all the above mahAvAkyas might be considered as teachings, rather than statements. It's beautiful, the way the guru leads his disciples to the Reality of the Truth through these teachings:

• To start with, the guru makes a statement to indicate the target:
"Brahman is one, without a second."

• Then he describes the nature of that Brahman:
"Consciousness is Brahman."

• Lest the disciple think that only human beings with their superior consciousness are Brahman, the guru expands on the idea:
"All of this is brahman."

• And then he gets personal, first by refering to the Self in everyone:
"This Self is Brahman."

• The disciple is anxious that if he and his guru can ever be equated because of the unity of Self, so the guru assures him:
"Thou art that."

This statement, which is the most famous, is perhaps the most significant one. Here Brahman is described as (a mere) tad--that, as if it is something distinct and located farther in space. tvam--thou, is more real to us than tad--that. The dhAtu--root, of both these terms simply indicate two entities: tad--that, tva--the other. The pronouns tad--that and tvam--you, have been derived from these roots.

The teaching of this mahAvAkya is "you are that": that is what is considered 'you' and what is considered as 'that'--which is actually inside you--are not two different things but only an identical Reality.

• Finally, the guru zeros in on the first person and teaches "I am Brahman", and urges the disciple to have this thought persistently in mind at all times so he may eventually realize it.

Significantly, the teaching is, 'ahaM brahmAsmi'--'I AM Brahman', not 'I was Brahman' or 'I will (one day) be Brahman'. I AM Brahman in my waking, dreaming and deep sleep states and the fourth state that I would be eventually be capable of existing--as Devotee would love to put it.

The shikaram--peak, of all these mahAvAkyas of the upaniShads, is the cryptic statement of the Rig Veda about the Reality: ekam sat--Reality/Existence is One.--RV i.164.46.

**********

Where does the perception about Creation fit in these mahAvAkyas?

ekam sat--Reality is One. It is basically One Existence. This is from the POV of Brahman.

From our POV, however, we have these derivations and inferences from the statement of the Rig Veda:

• To be One Existence, IT should be infinite and eternal. As we are not comfortable with the reference IT, we give IT the name Brahman. Since its nature is consciousness, Brahman should be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

• IT implies inertness, but Brahman as Consciousness cannot be inert, but one with an undertone of spanda--resonance/vibration, which is responsible for the Creation as a multitudinous decorative manifestation on the Self.

Yajvan has approached the subject of Creation in a different angle in this thread:
Sleeping Absolute?
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2330

The mUrti behind all the paraphernalia of external decorations is just a naked form in stone. It is the mind that requires all the saguNa to give comfort and hope that it can transcend its limitations and experience the Reality.

devotee
28 January 2010, 10:51 AM
Namaste Nirotu,

The subject we are discussing here is very much similar to Quantum Mechanics & we must be very attentive to every concept we use. I hope you are not carrying any bias towards Advaita ( as I have seen with some people here) in this discussion otherwise any progress will be impossible after some time.


You have described very well and mounted all blame on perception. But, errors of perception (phenomena of illusions) can also be due to errors in knowledge or knowledge itself being misapplied.

Now, here the argument given is fallacious. Why ? To understand this, let us revisit our understanding of the terms, "Knowledge" & "Perception". Is there any knowledge ( except the knowledge with direct perception) which comes before any perception ? No. All worldly knowledge we have are nothing but bundle of perceptions.

How is the knowledge gained ?

I think the process of acquiring knowledge can be stated in this manner :
i) Observation
ii) Comparing with known data
iii) Establishing a link between the new observation with the known data or simply accepting the observation as the knowledge gained

Now all the three steps are heavily dependent on perception. How do we observe ? Through our sense organs & our mind. Now is this perception reliable ? Can we rely on our sense organs for the correctness of the observed phenomenon ?

Let's see :

a) Seeing :

Like perception of colour as the example given in the above post, other perception of "seeing" is also within our mind. You see a solid wall in front of you. You can't see any hole therein & you can never imagine that anything can pass through that rock-solid wall. However, let's go back to Physics & verify this observation : The wall is made up of many molecules attached together. There is considerable space ( even more than size of the molecules themselves) between the molecules. The molecules themselves are composed of many atoms attached together. They all have some considerable space between them. Within the Atom, there is very-very tiny nucleus & the rest is space. The Protons, Neutrons & Electrons too are not the final particles but they are made of quarks & anti-quarks & they occupy very little volume & the rest is space.

Now we don’t know whether the quarks & anti-quarks have any space within them ot they are the final particles. However, even if we agree that the quarks & anti-quarks are fully solid, what is the ratio of the total space within the wall & the volume of all the quarks & anti-quarks taken together ? The space within the wall thus calculated would be more than 99.99 % ! However, we don’t see that space. Does it mean that there is no space in that wall ? There is space but we can’t see it because of limitations of our eyes. So, the eyes are not very reliable for a correct observation.

b) Touching :

Can we rely on our sense of touch ? We know that no two atoms can come closer than a certain distance. If that is the case, then how do we “touch” anything ? We touch without touching ?

c) Hearing :

We can hear sound only within a certain band-width frequency. We can’t hear the sound generated by the bats. Does it mean that there is no sound created by them ?

d) Smell & taste :

Humans smell something as bad but the a dog smells the same thing with great interest as pleasant one. So, is the smell good or bad ? Can we say that Dog’s smell is wrong & ours is correct ? No, the substance gives out the same odour but it is interpreted by our mind & dog’s mind differently. So, the smell is actually in mind. The same logic can be given for taste.

So, all our five sense organs are not reliable. Now let’s see the working of our mind. What does the mind do ? It stores information gathered by our sense organs & compares new observation (which is relative) with already stored data (which again is relative) & comes out with something we know as “knowledge”.

So, can we say that any “knowledge” be absolute without being tainted with our tainted perception ? No. So, all our “knowledge” thus obtained are only relative, tainted or conditioned & unreliable for the absolute truth.
You can consider any “knowledge” & anlayse deeply as above & you will agree that all our knowledge are perception based & relative within mental realm. So, it is not that our perception is wrong because our knowledge is wrong. It is the other way round. Yes, this wrong knowledge can further lead us to further wrong perceptions but it all does start with wrong perceptions.

It has become a long thread, so I will discuss your other points in my post below.

OM

devotee
28 January 2010, 10:57 AM
Namaste Nirotu,

Continued from last post ...


For example: We all perceive sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Although, we do see sun rising and setting, the knowledge on which our perception is based is faulty. By dabbling in astronomy and science, we have come to know that the sun never moves but it is the earth that rotates giving the illusion of sun moving. Thus, the error in knowledge has led to a perception that sun is rising.

You have missed the point that it is because of our limitation to see only within a certain range that this illusion arose to begin with. If man could see the entire phenomena i.e. the Sun & the planet-system revolving around the sun at a glance he would never have this illusion. Earlier man believed that the earth is flat as when he saw from earth , he saw a flat earth …. but today you can see from outer space that the earth is round ! You don’t need anyone to prove you otherwise ! But still when we see the earth it looks flat … why ?


The same knowledge with which our mind apprehends every other thing in the world must also be faulty (unreal) because of the mahavakya, “apart from Brahman everything is unreal”. Given this, how can you even attempt to know the reality at all? Let us look at “maya” for a moment. If “maya” is real then Advaita falls flat on its face. If “maya” is unreal, then how can it be efficacious in producing the appearance of the world, the Brahman, and more importantly the Self? Brahman could not have created unreal maya to point to the real. Therefore, “maya” is either real or unreal and, which cannot be in between. Therefore, either the advaita metaphysics is destroyed or maya is not efficacious. How do you explain “maya” given the supremacy to the mahavakya of advaita? If ignorance is the cause of illusory appearance of the world, then source of ignorance is faulty (unreal) knowledge. If every knowledge is unreal, how can you have full reality of Brahman and the full reality of the world?

Now, here you have used terms, “Real”, “unreal” & “illusion” (also called Maya). I gave you an example of solid wall which is actually not solid but we see & perceive it as solid. This is Maya or illusion due to limitations of our sense organs. Now, tell me, is the wall real or unreal ? Does the wall exist or it doesn’t exist ?

First of all, let’s analyse our concept of existence. What do we understand by the term, “existence” ?

We say that something exists if :

a) That thing can be perceived by our sense organs
b) That thing may not be perceived by our sense organs but can be perceived by the concepts within our mind

But the reverse is not necessarily true ! We cannot say that anything which cannot be perceived by our mind or by our sense organs does not exist. There is a possibility that something may exist which may be beyond our sense organs & mind to perceive.

Similarly, “real” or “unreal” are concepts within our mind. There is a possibility of something which may be beyond our mental concepts of “real” & also “unreal” & can still exist !

Now what is Maya or illusion ? Illusion means wrong perception of something which is not really there. We see a rope in darkness & perceive it as a snake. This seeing a snake in a rope is an illusion created due to lack of light. However, this snake doesn’t exist …. But it doesn’t mean that “nothing exists” where snake was seen. Let’s understand it very carefully. This is very important in order to understand the root-cause behind your confusion. Maya creates an illusion but the substratum does exist which is not what we perceive but it is “something” & that is Brahman. The World is an illusion as World but it is reality as Brahman.

Now are you able to see the logic in correct perspective ? Again, Maya is not something outside Brahman. It is inherent characteristic of the Brahman in the first two states. Brahman is not without Maya in the first two states of Self. This property of Brahman in the first two states creates the multiplicity where there is none … it alone creates the world as we perceive it. The Substratum is the unconditioned Brahman where all these illusion arise.


It is unfair to see from Turiya perspective because we are not there yet! Blessings,

This is a very unexpected statement from you ! This shows a strong inclination to hold on to what you know till now & deny any new knowledge which refutes the existing one.

How can it be fair or unfair ? You must do it to understand the reality. There should be nothing left for revealing the face of Truth. The earth is flat as seen from earth. So, shall we say that it is unfair to see the earth from outer space if neither you or me have gone there ? Many people have gone there & confirmed how the earth looks from there … either we should believe them or go to space … it is not wise to say that, “As I have not gone to space I won’t believe what the people have gone there say !”. I cannot say that as I can’t see the atomic structure from my own eyes I won’t accept what is written in Physics books … then I am closing all windows which open to new knowledge which is still unknown to me. If that is the attitude we have then reading any book is futile … there is no value of the scriptures.

In the present context, as we have not been there, we must believe what the seers said in the Shruti or the people who had direct perception of the reality themselves. And there is always the path for any one of us to tread for direct perception too. Advaita Vedanta says that you too are that & you too can realize it.

Is it wise to say that I won’t believe what the seers said & I will also not do anything what is required to have direct perception myself …. & yet I will claim that what is said by the seers is wrong !

OM

smaranam
28 January 2010, 04:22 PM
Dear smaranam,

Sometimes it is very difficult to overcome our emotional attachment and then give in to false notions as truth. It is very much comparable to the scenario where love for son prevents the mother to see her own son's as thief.

I am not learnt and i honestly know the fact that i am very much ignorant and have to learn a lot but with sincerity. My question is simply about to know whether these two levels of Truths have Shruti support. Whatever you have written here does not lead me to believe there is one.

Mother and son you say ? That would be Maiya Yashoda about her Lalla :
"How can you accuse my Lalla of stealing your butter ?! I just gave Him loads of butter a few minutes ago! "

Shruti support ? I was giving the opportunity to arrive at the Truth by just listing clues to the Shruti.
For explicit Shruti, please read Saidevoji's post #159.



~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Advaita is LOVE
LOVE is a-dvaitic, no room for dvait.
ParmArtha is LOVE
LOVE is pArmArthic

The Lover and Beloved are ONE
My Beloved said so repeatedly, whether you believe it or not
Shruti says so explicitly , whether you can see and comprehend or not

Advaita is Love, Truth, Knowledge
whether you accept or reject it
whether you attack or propound it
Krshna loves you anyway

Love is when Chandra is reluctant to move away from Rohini Nakshatra

Love is where Creator and Created cannot be seperated out
Love is where Lover cannot be told apart from Beloved
Love is where Beloved sees Lover in mirror of Truth

Love is infinite
Love is Radhe-Shyam

Love cannot be caught in a box (Kena , Kath Upanishads - Agni cannot catch Brahman)
Love cannot be compartmentalized

Love is not ONLY being a servant, although service is love
Love is not ONLY one interpretation of Shruti, although interpretation and shruti is love
Love embraces ALL
Love encompasses all

Love is where Bindu cannot be seperated out of Bhakti Rasamrt Sindhu


I am LOVE
I am in LOVE
I am Brahman'
I am Radha
I am Krshna
I am Shiva
I am Gauri
I am Narayana
I am Lakshmi
I am each creature
I am each piece of geological existence
I am Universal Matter

I am Aakash
I am Shabda
I am Sparsha
I am Rupa , Rasa , Gandha

I am Chit
I am Sat
I am Ananda alone

Sri Krshna Govinda Hare MurAre
He NAth NArAyana VAsudeva ~

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

saidevo
28 January 2010, 08:39 PM
namaste Devotee.

The logic in your posts 160 and 161 is extremely good and impregnable! Most people in their worldly life today would rather believe the scientist than the seer. But then at HDF we pit science against spiritual philosophy and expose its limitations in a bid to arrive at the true knowledge.

namaste SmaraNam.

I Love your posts, they are beautiful expressions of bhakti! Every religion teaches that God is full of love for his children, which is the reason that Ananda is part of his nature. If we love God in turn and regulate our life as He would want it, we get peace. Besides, if we love His creations as we love Him, we too can partake His Ananda and obtain the real knowledge of the other aspects of His nature, namely sat and chit. Once we have that knowledge in experience, we are sure feel our identity with Him.

Chakravarti RAjagopAlAchArya in his introduction to the famous song 'Bhaja Govindam' of Shankara sung by MS SubbulakShmI says, "There is no difference between bhakti and jnAna; they are one and the same."

Nirotu keeps harping on Shankara's statement 'brahma satyam jagat mithyA' but would say nothing about Shankara's bhakti that established the shaNmata--six streams of worship, in Hinduism. A true advaitin knows the world as mAyA but perceives mAyA as the feminine shakti of Ishvara, surrenders to Her for revealing the true knowledge about Her Consort and his own identity with Him.

devotee
28 January 2010, 10:06 PM
Thank you Saidevoji ! :)

Smaranam, your posts are lovely ! The last post is just wonderful ! :)

To join you in the chorus, I would say this :

"Prem gali ati saankari jaa mein do na samaaye !"

===> The street of love is too narrow ... it does not allow "two" !

The real intense one-pointed love leads to one-ness. We all have heard the story of Laila-Majnu. Initially when separated from Laila, Majnu kept weeping & crying for Laila ... repeating her name again & again. After some time people saw that Majnu has gone silent ... very peaceful. People thought good sense has prevailed finally & Majnu has accepted the reality. Some people went to Majnu & asked, "You don't cry for Laila any more. What happened to Laila ?".

Majnu looked at them with his eyes filled with ecstasy of love ... "What are you saying ? I am Laila !".

OM

nirotu
28 January 2010, 10:29 PM
Dear Devotee:

Thank you for taking time to write so beautifully and so long. I will take time to read it carefully as it has lot of things to digest. However, rest assured that I am not against philosophy of advaita when understood in proper context.

Blessings,

grames
29 January 2010, 03:03 AM
Dear Smaranam,

Thanks and lately one wonderful thing that strikes me strongly from discussing with new advaitin in this forum is, Advaita itself is migrated towards philosophically every other school of Vedanta. Advaita is sounding like English language, which borrowed all the features of other doctrines and then relating it strongly to its 'original' conclusion of all is One ( at least as per these advaitins in this forum)

Btw, i am not accusing you but telling you a point that i do not see what you see. :)

Saidevoji's post does not provide any praamana for two states of reality and i am sorry again. Also, i am not forcing you to provide one cos with whatever i know so far, i do not think there is a direct shruti support for such two states of reality.

I enjoyed rest of your post with few lines omitted. :)

Yes Love is God, God is prema and that makes God GunaPurna and not Nirguna. If this is paramaArtha, this should be the Artha in all states and stages of reality as God is real, prema is real and Love is really real as you are witness of it. (Ask your wife for confirmation)

Yes The lover and the beloved are one, in the sense of the paramaArtha which is Love. So, only as long as Love is there, you feel you are One by such Love but Love require other "means" to feel that Oneness like expression, care, dedication, singing, dancing etc. Stop talking to your wife, stop eating what she prepare for you, stop giving your credit card to her, stop supporting her side with your mother and tell me if all these are not necessary but still Love alone can exist as real. Try it before you come back and answer for this question. The means of feeling the Oneness of the Subjects involved in Love are numerous, various and different and also assure that they are nothing but "attributes" which enable the subjects to express the ParamaArtha Love, Prema.

Advaita has no meaning if Love is true and there for me. so there is no adverse effect if i reject it or any divine benefit if i accept it as you already promised regardless, that all merciful Krshna loves me. (So, it is only my duty or my purusha arthas to understand that He is loving me and i have to complete the circuit to feel the Love of Him)

Love Binds but binding require two entities. Love is not melting two and molding in to one. If your "love" has to be understood as Self Love, it is attribute of that Self which negates the proposition of Advaita.


Love is blind :) but blissful. Ignorance is also Bliss so such love out of Ignorance is what??

But your response is "Lovely" and i appreciate your stance.

smaranam
29 January 2010, 11:02 AM
Majnu looked at them with his eyes filled with ecstasy of love ... "What are you saying ? I am Laila !".

OM

:)

Devoteeji, your patience, and sincere scientific explanations , so on the lines of Vedanta must make Shankaracharya smile.

namaste

bhaktajan
29 January 2010, 11:12 AM
At least as per these advaitins in this forum:

"Advaita" is sounding like English Poetry, which borrowed all the features of other doctrines and then relating it strongly to its 'original' conclusion of all is One.

All is one. and/or One is all.

This is the conclusion of Advaita.

There is no further Truth of Advaita.

Advaita is the conclusion that requires only one formula to commit to memory: "One, One-ness, One-only"

Advaita has no need to correlate to other Yogic doctrines that require a progressive step-by-step process.

It is enough to proclaim, "All is one" and thus, one is an Advaitin.

If only Chartered Accountancy was so universally applicable as Advaitin accumen, then the tax man would collect the same amount irregardless of the long-hand math.

smaranam
29 January 2010, 11:39 AM
Namaste


Dear Smaranam,

Thanks and lately one wonderful thing that strikes me strongly from discussing with new advaitin in this forum is, Advaita itself is migrated towards philosophically every other school of Vedanta. Advaita is sounding like English language, which borrowed all the features of other doctrines and then relating it strongly to its 'original' conclusion of all is One ( at least as per these advaitins in this forum)


According to me all the elements were already present in the Wholesome Advaita. They were hidden from view hence all misunderstandings perhaps.


Btw, i am not accusing you but telling you a point that i do not see what you see. :)

Then you are Yashoda Maiya :) Yashoda understands the language of Love.


I enjoyed rest of your post with few lines omitted. :)

I deleted some lines. Also, if "I am Krshna" is too gross for you, read as
"Love is Krshna" , all the sentences with I am are really coming from LOVE, not smaranam ! I am Love speaking



Yes Love is God, God is prema and that makes God GunaPurna and not Nirguna.
It also makes Him Eternal Bliss, Principle of Existence and Love alone.
Gunas are the ornaments and Nirguna is the sat-chit-ananda Gold. If you don't agree , let's leave it at that.



Yes The lover and the beloved are one, in the sense of the paramaArtha which is Love. So, only as long as Love is there, you feel you are One by such Love but Love require other "means" to feel that Oneness like expression, care, dedication, singing, dancing etc. Stop talking to your wife, stop eating what she prepare for you, stop giving your credit card to her, stop supporting her side with your mother and tell me if all these are not necessary but still Love alone can exist as real. Try it before you come back and answer for this question. The means of feeling the Oneness of the Subjects involved in Love are numerous, various and different and also assure that they are nothing but "attributes" which enable the subjects to express the ParamaArtha Love, Prema.

There you go Gramesji - you just stated the VyAvahAric and/or Leela yourself. In the pArmArthic, there is no "other" left to express the love to. Turya. Like the (appearantly stunned) Radha who finds Krshna within Herself, and seeing whom Uddhav is transformed.




But your response is "Lovely" and i appreciate your stance.


Thank you.

Attributes are a stage , which are easy to relate to in this world. While its perfectly alright to stay with the attributes, in the pArmArthic stage of advaita we are talking about , attributes vanish - as far as i understand.

Perhaps Shuddha Advaita philosophy of Mahaprabhu Vallabhacharya will help you understand advaita if that's your wish , if you haven't looked into it already. Where Krshna == Brahman and Jagat == Krshna

I am not too keen on getting into these discussions, and may not check threads frequently, so please forgive me if i don't reply to something right away.

praNAm

smaranam
29 January 2010, 11:52 AM
Every religion teaches that God is full of love for his children, which is the reason that Ananda is part of his nature. If we love God in turn and regulate our life as He would want it, we get peace. Besides, if we love His creations as we love Him, we too can partake His Ananda and obtain the real knowledge of the other aspects of His nature, namely sat and chit. Once we have that knowledge in experience, we are sure feel our identity with Him.


praNAm

This is such a simple yet beautiful summation of all that needs to be summed up.
Some say that advaita is merely a poetic statement, philosophical treaty, and does not point to any process.
However, there is an embedded process in the above, as well as the key - 'keelakam'.

brahman
01 February 2010, 05:49 AM
Dear Brahman:

Thank you for your response. With all due respect the subject we were discussing was related to “creation”. Somehow, I did not see your response to my query. I still do feel that Advaitic notion of “creation” account is not clear, at least to me. If I were to ask an advaitin if they believed in creation of the universe, the answer most likely is in the negative.

As I had said earlier in my post: it stems from a preconceived notion, “Every thing apart from Brahman is unreal”. If you look at Taittiriya Upanishad; “the source from which all things come, that by which they are sustained and that into which they enter” referring to three aspects of one God. Accordingly, Brahma creates universe and us with certain potentialities (The Gita (III,10)), Vishnu helps us to realize them through overcoming of opposition, and Siva signifies the victorious self-maintenance of the good. What is not clear to me is when Upanishad is so very clear on the “creation” and the events leading to “creation”, why would Shankara interpret differently shruti with his commentary?

Badarayana, in an attempt to resolve the conflicts within the scriptures, has authored the Brahmasutras. In the samanvaya chapter, he has attempted to harmonize conflicts within various Upanishads regarding creatorship of God. In that Badarayana is openly declaring the creative power as God’s intrinsic property and is declaring in clearest possible terms that God is the author of the world.

It is not clear to me why Shankara introduced saguna/nirguna aspects to God to define phenomenal and absolute planes, when, in fact, there is no plurality in God(s).

Please, pardon my asking. I am more inclined to think it is truth to me that dvaita is what runs this universe and its inhabitants towards the goal- advaita. There are many scholars here who may want to join in. But, please let us be respectful of each other’s views.

Blessings,






nirotu: I still do feel that notion of “creation” account is not clear, at least to me. If I were to ask an advaitin if they believed in creation of the universe, the answer most likely is in the negative.

That is true; I still have no definition for the creation of the universe. My vision or school of thought doesn’t allow me a definition for something not created.


nirotu : It is not clear to me why Shankara introduced saguna/nirguna aspects to God to define phenomenal and absolute planes, when, in fact, there is no plurality in God(s).

Won’t you agree that gravity existed before Newton?
Likewise, please understand that the Concept of saguna/ nirguna is as old as Sandhana Dharma. And so it should be proper to believe that there is no founder for it too.
Bhagavan Sankara was a true follower of Sandhana Dharma, and his contributions on saguna, nirguna are incredible.

nirotu : Please, pardon my asking. I am more inclined to think it is truth to me that dvaita is what runs this universe and its inhabitants towards the goal- advaita. There are many scholars here who may want to join in. But, please let us be respectful of each other’s views.

You said you are inclined to think.
But I have already been thinking.
So, here’s a simple advice.
When we start to think, its not knowledge anymore; instead it turns to an experience.
Be inclined to experience the bliss.

I am not trying to refute any thoughts or trying to teach anyone, instead I share my views about a particular vision or a thought being followed within the planes of a sacred ancient dharma, which is and will not be against the rest of the thoughts derived within the planes of this dharma

love and blessings




.

kd gupta
03 February 2010, 05:55 AM
Vidur asked Maitreya…..katham nivartasya sadanyatah .Why god makes the creation, when he is complete in himself ? Maitreya replied…
Puraschakre dwipadah puraschakre chatushpadah .
Purah sa pakshi bhutwa purah purushah avishat .brhadanyakup 2/5/18

When he wanted to play, who was the second ? no one, so created the universe, I think as below…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU-280mwfB8

satay
03 February 2010, 11:16 AM
Admin Note
Namaskar,
I have moved some of the unrelated posts on this thread to http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4814

Please continue the off topic discussion there.

Thanks,

jthomasnaz
30 July 2013, 05:46 PM
The universe was created, existing inside of Brahman. Quantum physics explains that everything in the universe acts like thought (Brahmans thoughts). All of this can be seen in Atman.

Sriram257
28 April 2015, 10:34 PM
"Creation and Advaita:

It looks like an oxymoron to me. If Advaita is all there is, then there was no necessity of creation! If the starting point and ending point of a man�s life is the same (Advaita), I think that the process of creation itself takes on a new meaning that does overshadow Advaita. In light of this reality that creation indeed took place, where does Advaita address this reality? In my view Advaita truly limits its ability to address this point in a meaningful way!"


Your question is coming from a very logical perspective so let me answer this from the teaching methodology adopted by traditional Acharyas.

Your must 1st understand what is Satyam and Mithya. Satyam is the reality that does not change. Mithya is that which depends upon Satyam. Therefore Mithya cannot be separate from Satyam. A classical example given over here is that of a Pot and a clay. The clay is there before the existence of the pot as well as the after the pot is destroyed. Also without the clay there is no existence to the pot. Hence the Pot is Mithya and the clay is Satyam.

Similarly the world is Mithya, and Brahman is Satyam. World is in the place of the Pot and the clay is in the place of Brahman.

A question may arise , we understand the definition of Satyam and Mithya, and that Brahman is the sum and substance of this world. In such a case why do we even have this Mithya world. Since Brahman is Achalam i.e without movement. For this we say that the cause of Mithya is Maya. So this whole world is created by Brahman's power called Maya. Now Maya here is the cause of Mithya. The effect is nothing but cause in a different form, hence Maya is also Mithya.

A question may arise, does this not break Advaita, since you have 2 existences, one is Maya and another is Brahman not so. Just as Satyam and Mithya cannot be called 2 existences and since Mithya is Satyam, just as the pot is clay but the clay is not necessarily pot. Similarly Maya is Brahman but Brahman is not Maya.

This is the way Advaitins resolve the riddle of creation within their Siddhanta.