Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: satsangaH: bhakti, jnAna, karma yoga

  1. #11
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: satsangaH: bhakti, jnAna, karma yoga

    guru kripA vilAsam (On the Greatness of the Guru) Vol. 2
    From: The Tamil Publications by the devotees of Shringeri Sri ShAradA PITham

    Gracious Words
    pp.227-231

    For SrImad AchAryAL (Sri Chandrasekhara BharatI MahAsvAmigaL), the mAtru bhAShA (mother tongue) was Telugu; desha bhAShA (regional language) was KannaDa; the language he was trained in, was Samskrutam; and the language he made parichayam (acquaintance) with for the sake of his shiShyas was Tamil. He would often say that he did not have a thorough parichayam in Tamil. Still, on some occasions it transpired that he had more knowledge in Tamil than many Tamilians.

    AchAryAr: In Tamil, what is the difference between (the usages) 'piRavi (birth) and piRappu (taking birth)?

    shiShya: Both are the same.

    AchAryAr: If they are the same, whey then two words?

    shiShya: There might be many words with the same meaning.

    AchAryAr: It is not nyAyam (logical) to be so in any bhAShA. If a word is to denote a padArthaM (meaning), it would 'do pravRutti' (express activity) 'doing avalamba' (resting upon) of a visheSha aMsha (specific feature) of that padArthaM. They would call it pravRutti nimittam in SamskRutam.

    Both agni and vahni might denote 'fire'. Still, he gets the name agni by the nimittam (sign, cause) that he 'carries forward' (in tortuous movement) and the name vahni by the nimittam that he 'reaches the havirbhAgas (shares of oblation) to the devatas (gods)'. In the same way, that same agni bears the name dahana since he burns everything, and anala since it swallows and digests everything demanding more.

    Therefore, in this manner, although we don't find any difference between the words piRavi and piRappu in everyday usage, there must be distinct inner meanings for them; I asked you as to what those (meanings) are.

    shiShya: It is not known to me.

    AchAryAr: Can it be this way? The term jananam refers to the kriyA (action) of taking birth; janma refers to the sthiti (state) that ensues after the action of birth is over. That is, one is the action and the other the janya-phala (fruit of birth) of that action. Similarly, can we have it in Tamil that piRappu refers to the janana-kriyA and piRavi refers to the janma-rUpa-phala?

    shiShya: Now it seems the same way to me too.

    AchAryAr: Mostly, in all languages, if there is parichayam in that lipi (letter), the letters can be read as such. But the meaning would be known only if there is bhAShA jnAnam (knowledge about the language). That is, the shabda jnAnam (knowledge of words and sounds) would first arise and then the meaning has to be searched.

    It seems that this krama (order) is different in Tamil. Here, only if the meaning is known first, the akSharas (letters) can be properly pronounced and the text read. For example, let us say that the word palam is written. Should it be read as palaM that refers to a measure of weight, phalaM that refers to a fruit, or balaM that refers to the sharIra shakti (bodily strength)? Only after knowing the meaning appropriate to the prakaraNa (occasion, treatment, context) of this word, it can be pronounced correctly? This seems to be a unique distinction for Tamil.

    shiShya: It happens this way because we have only one akSharaM that denotes four sounds. There is only one letter 'ka' for 'ka, kha, ga' and 'gha'.

    AchAryAr: Add 'ha' to that list.

    shiShya: vAstavaM (true). One letter for five sounds.

    AchAryAr: Why, isn't there one letter for seven sounds? Only 'cha' for all 'cha, Cha, ja, jha, sha, Sha' and 'sa'?

    shiShya: Yes.

    AchAryAr: Thus, if there is one letter for many sounds, there would be good avakAshaM (occasion, opportunity, room) for zleShas (puns) in Tamil?

    shiShya: Yes, there is.

    AchAryAr: The zleSha that arises due to differences in pronunciation would not be that much shuddha zleSha (clean pun). It is shlAghyaM (praiseworthy) only when there is pun without any pronunciation difference. There could be such puns in Tamil also? Tell me an example.

    shiShya: Nothing occurs to me now.

    AchAryAr: (considering it for a few moments and then with a smile) It is ordained in our Dharma ShAstras that while we pass through a street and a brAhmaNa is seen, we should cross/overtake him without showing our left profile to him. If that niyama (restraint) is expressed in Tamil, it would be satisfactory to some people in these times. "பார்ப்பானுக்கு இடம் கொடேல்"--"pArppAnukku iDam koDEl"--"Don't give left/room to a brahmin" is only good Tamil, right?

    *** *** ***

    AchAryAr: In Tamil Desham, if we ask a man "what are you doing?" he says, "வெறுமென இருக்கிறேன்"--"veRumena irukkiREn". Another man says, "தேமேனு இருக்கிறேன்"--"dEmEnu irukkiREn". A different other man says, "சும்மா இருக்கிறேன்"--"summA irukkiREn". What is the difference between these three (usages)?

    shiShya: There is no difference at all. They are used only in the meaning, "I remain without doing any kAryaM (work, task)."

    AchAryAr: The meaning might be the same. What is the reason for the difference in the shabda (words) in tAtparyaM (purport, aim)?

    shiShya: The reason is only their habit (of saying it).

    AchAryAr: This reason is not enough. That would give occasion to ask why the habit differs.

    shiShya: It is not known to me.

    AchAryAr: Can it be this way? If it is "veRumena irukkiREn", "veRum ena irukkiREn", that is, the meaning "I keep my mind empty without any saMkalpaM (wish, desire) therein" seems 'to be in dhvani' (echoed, hinted at) there.

    shiShya: It might be so.

    AchAryAr: What they say 'dEmEnu' seems to be a maru (Tamil 'maruvu', corruption) of 'deyvamE ena'. That is (for the usage "dEmEnu irukkiREn"), the meaning could become "I leave everything as daivAdhIna (subject to fate or God's will) and remain without myself having any saMkalpaM (wish, desire) or making any pravRutti (activity, exertion)." I have heard some people also say, "சிவனேனு இருக்கிறேன்"--"sivanEnu irukkiREn". Perhaps they too use "sivanE enRu" in the same tAtparyaM.

    shiShya: It might be in that same way.

    AchAryAr: Those who say "summA irukkiREn", I think, say it with the thought, "svayam Aha irukkiREn--I remain as my Self, that is, knowing my state I remain as my Self with the nishchaya buddhi (firm conviction) that there is no kAryam that need to be done by me."

    shiShya: It is not known if at least one person speaks it knowing this much of its tAtparyaM.

    AchAryAr: Not necessary that one should know it (the purport). Still, it is known that this knowledge is fixed basically in the people's mind in saMskAra rUpam (as an impression of knowledge). They say "brahmAnandaM" when they experience some visheSha sukhaM (distinct happiness, comfort). Do they say it only after experiencing brahmAnandaM? The saMskAra (impression of knowledge) that brahmAnandaM is the most uttama (lofty) sukham among those traditionally experienced, is fixed in mind.

    Similarly, our ShAstras do ghoShaNam (proclammation) that is no kAryaM (task, act) is there to do for

    • one who stands in yoga-niShTa (meditative union) doing nirodha (restraint, control, locking up) of all chitta-vRuddhi (expansion of mind);

    • one who remains in bhakti-niShTa (meditative devotion) keeping no pravRutti (activity, exertion) for himself and 'doing arpaNa' (consigning) of all kinds of his aMshas (characteristics) and surrendering to BhagavAn (God); and

    • one who is in laya (absorbed in dissolution) in jnAna-niShTa (meditative knowledge) as kevala-akhaNDa-chaitanya-rUpaM (abstract, unbroken form of knowledge) setting aside all his dehendriya manobuddhi (body, senses, mind and intelligence) as not his Self.

    It seems that having heard this knowledge from the elders, the saMskAram has arisen in people, to describe their actionless state as "veRumena" as a yogi, "deyvamE ena" as a bhakta and as "svayam Aha" as a jnAni.
    Last edited by saidevo; 07 August 2009 at 09:45 AM.
    रत्नाकरधौतपदां हिमालयकिरीटिनीम् ।
    ब्रह्मराजर्षिररत्नाढ्यां वन्दे भारतमातरम् ॥

    To her whose feet are washed by the ocean, who wears the Himalayas as her crown, and is adorned with the gems of rishis and kings, to Mother India, do I bow down in respect.

    --viShNu purANam

  2. #12
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: satsangaH: bhakti, jnAna, karma yoga

    Gracious Words
    pp.232-237

    AchAryAr: Since rich people have money, they conduct themselves with the determination that they can experience all the pleasures of the world. Suppose we tell them that if they are to get even more sukham in paralokam (heaven) or janmAntaram (another birth or life), they need to spend the money they have in good things, they might consider, 'neither the paralokam nor the janmAntaram is visible before the eyes now; and what is told in the ShAstras might be true or not, so losing the bhoga-sAdhanas (means of enjoyment) on hand now and then if nothing is obtained later, both these two things would be losses?' and determine 'so it would be prudent to keep the sukha-sAdhanas on hand now and enjoy them ourselves' and thus remain without spending their money for dharma; it can be said that this (consideration) in a way is only just.

    Some Astikas (God-believers) who have much attachment to money might even think, 'When Bhagavan has given us the sAdhanas to experience sukham, to say that I would not use them would only amount to ingratitude; would amount to having conducted myself against his saMkalpam (will). Apart from these, when Bhagavan himself has created a man as daridran (poor man), our giving him money in a bid to remove his poverty would also be virodha (in opposition) to bhagavat saMkalpam. Therefore, all dAna dharma would only be bhagavat apachAra (against God's ruling).

    Let them be what they would. Some people are born in poverty and some have become poor due to lack of fortune. And there is thought among these poor people that they cannot experience sukham in this world? Would they get the thought, "Owing to the sins committed in earlier births we experience poverty now. At least from now on we should not commit sins"? Should they not get the thought, "We don't have any sukham in this birth. If there is going to be sukam for us, it could only be seen in paralokam or punar janmam (another birth). And to have that siddha (accomplished) for us we should now do dharmAnuShThAnam (perforance of dharmic acts) and do ArAdhanam (worship) of Bhagavan"? And these (poor) people too remain without shraddha (faith) in vaidika kAryas (Vedic acts)? Although they need to wander and strive a lot for their jIvanam (living), why should it be that they have no spare time for sandhyAvandanAdi karmas? They forget that the limit of their Ayus (lifetime) and the amount of the bhogas they would experience are predestined. They forget what is shreyas (excellent, superior) for them. If they are told to do japam (litany) of GayatrI (mantra) pratidinam (every day), the mantra that is capable of giving sakalavida (all kinds of) aihika (of this world) and AmuShmika (of the other world) sukhas (pleasures) as well as the mokShaM which is parama-puruShArtham (ultimate aim, accomplishment), their manas (mind) does not go towards it even by a small step. Any padArtham (material object) that we accumulate in the ihalokam (this world, this life) does not come with us (when we depart). Only dharma, adharma would accompany us. It would never be a mark of prudence not to pay attention to them.

    *** *** ***

    AchAryAr: If one has to acquire knowledge of Atma-tattvaM without any doubts it can be done in this bhU-lokaM (earth); or in brahma-lokaM (BrahmA's world). The Upanishad appeals to us that this knowledge can't be acquired with clarity in the middle worlds--gandharva-lokaM, pitru-lokaM, deva-lokaM (world of Gandharvas, ancestors, Devas). To reach the BrahmaLoka, the karma should be done with uttama upAsana (supreme worship). If the shrama (effort, exertion, weariness) in doing that is considered, it would seem that we don't need to go to BrahmaLokam after all. Even if one reaches BrahmaLoka undertaking all that shramaM, the videha-mukti would happen to the sAdhaka only after doing brahma-vichAraM (inquiry about Brahman), and living the life until the kalpAntaM (end of Kalpa) at which time BrahmA (himself) attains mukti. He should wait until such time. For those who do vedAnta vichAraM in the bhU-lokaM, if they don't need to go to any other Loka, there would be mukti for them here and now. Therefore, one who is a buddhimAn (wise man) should take up efforts to acquire knowledge that is the sAdhana for mukti here and now.

    shiShya: Aren't the devAdi lokas puNya bhUmis (sacred lands)! What is the reason to say that jnAnam would not arise well in those worlds?

    AchAryAr: The reason is that they are puNya bhUmi. They are not karma bhUmi. No kind of karmAnuShTanaM can be done there. They are only bhoga bhUmi (land of enjoyment). Once we reach there, our manas (mind) would only indulge in enjoying the bhogas there and not go to other vishayas.

    This apart, there is no nyAyaM (logic, method) for vairAgyam (dispassion) which is the antaranga sAdhanaM (most essential technique) for jnAnam to arise there. As found here, there is nothing of jananam, vRuddhi, pariNamaM, jara, maraNam (birth, growth, change/evolution, old age/decrepitude, death) there. There only the same age, fit for bhogaM, right from the beginning to the end. Also, the duHkha hetus (reasons for suffering) vyAdhi, pasi, dAhaM (disease, hunger, thirst) are not there. Only if these are present, there is nimittaM (scope) for vairAgya to arise, seeing and experiencing them. Since none of these are there, they would always be indulged in vishaya sukhaM (pleasures of objects) with no thoughts of seeking the Atma sukhaM which is above that. Moreover, the brahma-niShTas (one absorbed in contemplating Brahman) who could teach brahma jnAnam won't be there. This is because if they become Atma jnAnis in bhU lokaM, there is no need for them to go to svarga lokaM (heavens). And once we reach those worlds, there is no sAdhyaM (possibility) to become jnAni.

    shiShya: If due to puNya vashaM (the influence of good karma), those in the devAdhi lokas get the ichChA (wish, desire) to attain Atma jnAnam, are there no gurus to help them?

    AchAryAr: If there is shakti to reach BrahmaLoka, they can approach BrahmA to have him as their guru; or they can approach the jIvan muktas who are employed in AdhikArika sthAnam (principal positions for universal administration) and are awaiting kalpAntaM along with BrahmA. If these two are not sAdhya, they needs must come back to the earth. In whatever way, there is no scope in the devAdhi lokas.

    Additionally, we can know about another reason by inference. If the advaita brahma-jnAnam has to arise, there is no way unless it is known that the dvaita prapancham (universe of duality) is mithyA (untrue, illusory). We always say that mithyA is neither atyanta asat (infinite untruth) nor sat (truth). We say that since the jagat (world, universe) is apparent it is not asat and as it is not in jnAna dashA (domain/condition of knowledge) it is not sat. When the doubt arises if there can be a padArthaM which is neither sat nor asat, we give the dRuShTAntas (examples, instances) of rajju-sarpaM (the snake that appears in a rope), sthANu-puruSha (the man who appears in a pillar), marumarIchikA (the water that appears in intensely hot weather, mirage) and shukti-rajataM (the silver that appears in a shell, mother-of-pearl) and teach that just as these things although they are apparent are not the reality, this Jagat is also not the reality. These things will not appear in utter darkness or in complete brightness; there should be nimittas (grounds, causes) where they are mixed to form manda-andhakAram (weak/slight/soft darkness). As there are night, day, sunshine and shadow here, there is the possibility of such bhramas (confusions, dizziness, errors) arising. In the svargAdi lokas there is always brightness, no shadow, no darkness. In that circumstance, there is no prasakti (opportunity, connection) to manda-andhakAram. Thereby there is no nimitta for bramarUpa anubhavas (experiences of illusion). Therefore, even if someone is there in the svargAdi lokas to teach vedAnta pAThaM, no dRuShTAntas would be obtained that could make the shiShya absorb the reality.

    To the ShiShya who in bhramitaM (amazement, confusion) as to how such a huge and vast Jagat is spoken of as mithyA, the Guru teaches, "Don't you see in your svapna (dream) during nidrA (sleep) countless large towns and palaces and people? Is anything among them is satyam (real, true)? When you have such shakti for sRuShTi (creation), why can't Bhagavan who is sarva-shakta (omnipotent) create this world? In the same way you realize that your svapna prapanchaM (dream universe) is only mithyA, determine it for yourself that this jAgrat prapanchaM (universe in the waking state) although it appears satyam is only mithyA."

    To those in the svargAdi lokas, there is no nidrA (sleep). Even no blinking of eyes. So no scope at all for svapna. So there is no way to teach them using the svapna dRuShTAntaM (dream example). To us (in this world), (the state of existence of) suShupti (deep sleep) can be given as dRuShTAntaM to teach that there can be a sukham (happiness) that is not subject to the manas (mind) and the indrya (senses). For them, there is no suShupti at all. If the Brahmam that is not reachable by any sort of pramANaM (inference, evidence, means, standards) is to be taught about, only if some dRuShTAntaM that is known to us is given, we can somewhat absorb that knowledge. In such devAdi lokas where no dRuShTAntaM suitable for advaita bodham (teaching of Advaita) is available, how can the brahma-tattvaM be taught? By these reasons we can know that there is no sAdhya to acquire jnAnam in those worlds.

    By some pUrva puNyam we have in this bhU-lokaM which is arha (deserving, eligible) for jnAna sambAdhanaM (acquirement of knowledge), and that in the BhArata Desham which is a karma bhUmi, got our birth in the kulam (lineage, family, race) of uttama maharishis (lofty great sages). Without wasting it, and using it well, and doing anuShTAnam of what is given in the ShAstras in sopAna krama (step by step order), it is our duty to keep endeavouring to attain the parama-puruShArtham (ultimate aim, accomplishment) without any further delay.
    रत्नाकरधौतपदां हिमालयकिरीटिनीम् ।
    ब्रह्मराजर्षिररत्नाढ्यां वन्दे भारतमातरम् ॥

    To her whose feet are washed by the ocean, who wears the Himalayas as her crown, and is adorned with the gems of rishis and kings, to Mother India, do I bow down in respect.

    --viShNu purANam

  3. #13
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: satsangaH: bhakti, jnAna, karma yoga

    guru kripA vilAsam (On the Greatness of the Guru) Vol. 2
    From: The Tamil Publications by the devotees of Shringeri Sri ShAradA PITham
    brahmAnubhavaM
    pp.40-41

    Even the Atma-jnAni should do anuShTAna (observe) of karma (rites and other external acts) for loka-sangraha (welfare of the world)--this is what GitAchArya (SrI KrishNa) has said; and our AchAryAr very well demonstrated it in his actions. During the time when he was bahir-mukham (externally conscious), he would conduct his nitya Ahnika karmas (diurnal activities) and ArAdhana (worship) of mUrtis with shraddhA (faith, sincerity).

    A nobleman from the state of Bengal who had heard of the sage's mahimA (greatness) and Atma niShTha (mediation on Self) came over to Shringeri and observed his external religious activities and the shraddhA the sage showed in Ahnikas and SrI Chakra PUja. Perhaps he thought that the AchAryAr would always be in samAdhi, forgetful of the world. He doubted whether it was justified that a jnAni he thought would be in laya (dissolved) in nirguNa brahmaM (attributeless Brahman) to be, on the contrary, showing interest in external karma and upAsana (worship). When he thought of seeking an appropriate samAdhAnam (reconciliation) for this, he got an opportunity to speak about it to SrImad AchAryAr himself.

    Prabhu: Is it justified that a man who has attained Atma-jnAnaM as prescribed in the VedAnta to indulge in karma or upAsana?

    SrI.A: What do you expect him to do otherwise?

    Prabhu (realizing that whatever reply he gave could be construed as a mistake): I don't say that he should do something. My doubt arose thus: Karma, IshvarAdhana or vedAnta vichAra--whatever it is, should there not be the thought of kartRutvaM (state of being performer), that "I do this act"? If it is Atma-jnAnaM, without the thought of "I do this act", there should be the state of akartA, "I am not the one who does it". Since both these bhAvanas (reflections) are in paraspara virodha (mutual opposition), how can they be with a person in samakAlaM (at the same time)?

    SrI.A: vAstavaM (True). Two things that are in paraspara virodha cannot be with the same AsAmi (person) at the same samaya (time). Now, who is the akartA?

    Prabhu: Only AtmA is the akartA.

    SrI.A: sari (Right). You are well acquainted with our siddhAntaM (philosophy). Now tell me who is the kartA (doer)?

    Prabhu: The sharIraM, indriya, manas, buddhi (body, senses, mind, intellect)--only these are the kartA.

    SrI.A: So it becomes that AtmA is akartA, and the kartA is anAtmA, right?

    Prabhu: Yes.

    SrI.A: Now you observe it carefully. Where does the nyAya virodha occur? Although kartRuvaM and akartRuvaM are in paraspara virodhaM, they are not in the same place?

    The Prabhu was overwhelmed with visheSha kRutajna (right attitude and gratitude) and bhakti towards the AchAryAr who cleared his doubt with such ease and facility.

    *** *** ***
    रत्नाकरधौतपदां हिमालयकिरीटिनीम् ।
    ब्रह्मराजर्षिररत्नाढ्यां वन्दे भारतमातरम् ॥

    To her whose feet are washed by the ocean, who wears the Himalayas as her crown, and is adorned with the gems of rishis and kings, to Mother India, do I bow down in respect.

    --viShNu purANam

  4. #14
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: satsangaH: bhakti, jnAna, karma yoga

    guru kripA vilAsam (On the Greatness of the Guru) Vol. 2
    From: The Tamil Publications by the devotees of Shringeri Sri ShAradA PITham

    Let there be no needless debates
    pp.184-189

    When a bhakta came to have darshan of SrImad AchAryAL (Sri Chandrasekhara BharatI MahAsvAmigaL), he did prastAvanA (begin to talk) about SrI RAmAnujAchArya.

    bhakta: When SrI RAmAnujAchArya is explaining the meaning of some upanishad vAkyas (sayings), for the saying 'brahmaM nirguNaM' he gives the meaning, 'heya-guNa-rahita (wanting in bad characteristics) and therefore 'ananta-kalyANaguNa-vishiShTa', (distinguished by all good characteristics); would that be appropriate?

    AchAryAr: Good, bad are all for us only; they are not in the Brahmam. The siddhAntaM (demonstrated conclusion) is only that he is of no guNa. If it is meant that "no bad guNas are there", it is enough to say 'nirdoSha' (with no deficiencies); there is no necessity at all to say 'nirguNa'.

    bhakta: Like suvAsanA, durvAsanA (good and bad intentions), since there is prayogaM (usage) of suguNa, durguNa (good and bad characteristic), isn't the guNa-shabda (the word 'guNa') one that can 'do anvaya' (associate) with both?

    AchAryAr: vAstavaM (True). When that is the case, if it is nirguNa, it would only mean that there is neither any good nor any bad characteristic?

    bhakta: I don't say it that way. Since durguNa is contained in the guNa-shabda, what is the mistake in explaining the meaning of nirguNa as 'one without any bad characteristic'?

    AchAryAr: There is no mistake. What is the pramANa (evidence, proof) to take that the general guNa-shabda only indicates durguNa?

    bhakta: Don't we use the (Tamil) word nAtRam (smell) to mean only durnAtRam (bad smell) in general?

    AchAryAr: vAstavaM. In the same way, is there any context where the shabda guNa is used to mean only 'bad characteristic'? When NAradA asked VAlmIki in Srimad RAmAyaNam guNavAn kashcha vIryavAn ("who is the one who is a 'guNavAn'--one with all good characterstics and a 'vIryavAn'--one capable of heroic deeds), did he mean "one with all bad characteristics?" In prayogam (usage) guNa would only mean 'good characteristic' in sAmAnya (commonly).

    bhakta: Even if it is not there in prayogaM, since the guNa-shabda is common, it would also indicate 'bad characteristic', is it not so?

    AchAryAr: It would also indicate 'good characteristic'. 'Doing alakShyaM' (ignoring) of prayogaM won't be nyAyaM (logical, justified) in any way. Suppose an elderly man comes when we are here. After he arrives, if I tell you "this man is an avidvAn", you would be startled, not knowing the meaning. If at that time I tell you, "My referring to this man as avidvAn was in the meaning 'heya-vidyA-rahita' (one who has no bad learning); the tAtparyaM (purport) of what I told was only that "this man is an ananta-kalyANa-vidvAn (one who has learnt all good disciplines of knowledge)", would that be of samAdhAnam (reconcilable) to you, you decide it for yourself.

    bhakta: They say that NArAyaNamUrti who remains either in paLLi (bed) in the kShIrAbdhi (milky ocean) or sitting in the ratna siMhAsanaM (throne of precious stones) at VaikuNThaM is the paratattvaM (ultimate Brahman), do the Advaitins agree with it?

    AchAryAr: What is the AkShepaM (objection) in agreeing with it? How can we, who say that the vyApti (pervasion) of ParaBrahmaM is in all the padArthAs (material objects) of the Jagad (world), say that those Divya MUrtis are not Paratattvam?

    bhakta: If that be so, what is the difference between them and us?

    AchAryAr: They say that only the Divya MUrtis in the VaikuNThaM are Paratattvam. We say that those MUrtis are the uttama vibhUtis (highest manifestations) of the Paratattvam.

    bhakta: What is the pAdakaM (obstacle, loss) for us if we agree that those MUrtis are themselves Paratattvam? Can't we have it as: just as the Sun who is only present in the sky pervades the whole world with his shine and warmth, in the same way BhagavAn too remains in VaikuNThaM and pervades the whole world with his prabhA (shine) and shakti (power)?

    AchAryAr: We can have. But then (in that case), that which pervades the world would only be shakti, not BhagavAn. Would it be nyAyam when the Vedas have mentioned BhagavAn himself as sarva-vyApaka (all-pervading), and that only Brahman is the greatest, to make that BhagavAn just a small parichChinna mUrti (divided, detached, confined image) residing in the VaikuNThaM and KailAsaM, giving the nature of his pervasion to only his shakti?

    bhakta: Is it the tAtparyaM that to do kapana (create, imagine) of a form for BhagavAn would be a mistake?

    AchAryAr: Not so. MUrti is necessarily required for the upAsaka (worshipper) to do dhyAna upAsanAdis (meditation and worship). Moreover, his UpAsanA-MUrti should be there and do anugraham to him for his lokAntaraM (worldly attachments) to go away, by his upAsanA bhAvam, and for him to experience sukham (bliss) thereafter. Therefore, in whatever way, a mUrti would only be a necessity.

    bhakta: The UpAsaka who goes up to VaikuNThaM or KailAsaM would have already conquered all his sakala-vidha rAga-dveShAdi (all kinds of likes and dislikes). He would be desireless. So if he goes to those Uttama LokAs, he is not going to indulge in the vaiShiyika sukha (pleasures for the senses) there. He would not do apekShA (need or desire) of anything except remaining shAshvata (eternal, immortal), having darshan of the Divya MUrti there. What is the mistake to have that state as the state of MokShaM? What is the reason that the Advaitins say that there is a kaivalyaM (absolute unity) above this state?

    AchAryAr: What you say is completely nyAyam (logical). But then only having darshan of the VaikuNThAdi MUrtis and experiencing its bliss is not sAdhyaM (feasible), and not uchitaM (proper) too. Since upAsana is only a mAnasIka karma (mental act) the vaikuNThAdi vAsaM (residence in VaikuNTham) that is attained by it would also be over with the puNya-kShaya (consumption of good karma). He would only need to return here.

    bhakta: How is it not uchitaM?

    AchAryAr: If the upAsakA remains in happiness having darshan of the VaikuNThAdi MUrtis, it would amount to the upAsakA becoming the bhoktA (one who experiences) and that MUrti becoming the bhogyaM (that which is experienced). The bhoktA is always AtmA, cetana (animate, intelligent, conscious); bhogyaM is always anAtmA, achetana (not the AtmA, inanimate/without consciousness). Therefore, if this man is having darshan of that Divya MUrti and experiencing happiness, it can only be that he makes that MUrti bhogyam and thereby anAtmA and jaDaM (inanimate). This is a great apachAraM (spiritual offence).

    Advaitins would not give room to such apachAraM. They would only accept the kaivalya padavi (path to Unity) as MokShaM, where the bhedaM (difference, distinction) of bhoktA-bhogyaM ceases into a state of unity of both.

    Apart from this, if it is a mUrti it could only be within limits. It would not be uchitaM to say that only it is the Paratattvam. As an udAharaNam (example), let us take MahAVishNu. It is seen in his mUrti as holding up a chakraM (disc) in the right hand and a shangkham (conch) in the left hand. But there would be space between his bhujaM (arm) and the hand that holds the disc, right? Would there be BhagavAn in that space? If he is not there, the sarva-vyapakatvaM for the Bhagavan would be gone. If he is there, the concept that the very MUrti with those limbs is BhagavAn would be gone? Does BhagavAn pervade only that space? He pervades the space of his stance, the VaikuNThaM he resides in, and all the fourteen worlds? Without creating the space in him where he is not there, how can a MUrti be created? Therefore, to think that what is with MUrti is only BhagavAn, since it 'does hAni to' (ruins) his sarva-vyApakatvaM, would only be apachAraM.

    Therefore, for the Divya MUrtis in VaikuNThAdi, except that we can ascribe the vyavahArika satyam (practical, conditional reality) as done for all the padArthas (material objects) in the world, we cannot ascribe paramArthika satyam (absolute reality). Based on the tAratamyas (gradations, proportions) in the vyavahArika satyam we say that those LokAs are nityam (eternal) and satyam (real). So long as there is bheda-buddhi for us (tendency to distinguish) for us, all these worlds are only real.

    In the stage we are in today, we need to only indulge in karma and upAsana as prescribed in the ShAstras, and since we are anarha (unworthy, unsuitable) to inquire into what the Paratattvam would be like in the stage of uttama jnAnaM (highest knowledge), it would only be a waste to debate about that--there is no doubt about it. When that state is reached, the Tattvam would be intelligible of its own. And there would be no time for arguments then.
    रत्नाकरधौतपदां हिमालयकिरीटिनीम् ।
    ब्रह्मराजर्षिररत्नाढ्यां वन्दे भारतमातरम् ॥

    To her whose feet are washed by the ocean, who wears the Himalayas as her crown, and is adorned with the gems of rishis and kings, to Mother India, do I bow down in respect.

    --viShNu purANam

  5. #15
    Join Date
    March 2008
    Location
    India
    Age
    56
    Posts
    18
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: satsangaH: bhakti, jnAna, karma yoga

    Pranams Sir.

    I read your threads in this forum and at Kanchi forum most avidly. It is enjoyable to read about Maha sannidhanam here. Please continue this.

    He is said to be a great yogi.If you can write on it in detail I will be most obliged , Sir .

    Thank you,

    Sringeri

  6. #16
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: satsangaH: bhakti, jnAna, karma yoga

    Namaste SrI Sringeri.

    Since our forefathers were native of Tirunelveli district, Tamilnadu, we were told that our family MaTham was Shringeri, but unfortunately we had the fortune to have darshan of the Shrigeri AchAryAL only recently, in the month of last June. During that trip I bought the book 'Guru Kripa Vilasam' (3 vol.) plus some other books, all in Tamil, from the publications stall there.

    I have also not had conversational darshan of Kanchi MahAperiyavAL, although our family has been fortunate to have a word or two spoken by the current AchAryALs of SrIMaTham, Kanchi during our darshans that were only few and far between.

    However, I believe I am fortunate to have darshan of the Kanchi and Shrigeri AchAryALs when I read about them. I consider it a small guru sevA to have been given the opportunity to selectively translate from the Tamil publications on them. I am happy that this small service of mine is useful to many devotees and I pray to the Gurus to accept any praise my work happens to receive and free me from any ego of achievement.

    Please do not address me as Sir, since I am only a humble, ordinary devotee of the PeriyavAs.
    रत्नाकरधौतपदां हिमालयकिरीटिनीम् ।
    ब्रह्मराजर्षिररत्नाढ्यां वन्दे भारतमातरम् ॥

    To her whose feet are washed by the ocean, who wears the Himalayas as her crown, and is adorned with the gems of rishis and kings, to Mother India, do I bow down in respect.

    --viShNu purANam

  7. #17
    Join Date
    March 2008
    Location
    India
    Age
    56
    Posts
    18
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: satsangaH: bhakti, jnAna, karma yoga

    Thank you sri saidevo. I really look forward to reading and knowing more on sri mahasannidhanam especially his yogic practice.

    With pranams,

    Sringeri.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •