A Realization : Saguna and Nirguna Brahman

[atanu]

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

Namaste Amith

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

Maitrayana-Brahmaya U. explains in the following way:

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

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

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

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

Om Namah Shivaya

[amith vikram]

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

[atanu]

namaste,
i didn't understand ur reply.r u telling that eventually a person'll find the destiny(advaita?)

Namaste amith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

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

Namaste Amith

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

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

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

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

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

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

Om Namah Shivaya

[kd gupta]

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

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

Atanuji , namaste

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

[atanu]

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

Namaste KD ji

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

I want the explanation of this shloka in Advaitin language…

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

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

Om Namah Shivaya

[Nara]

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

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

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

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

Cheers!

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

[atanu]

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

Namaste nara

I said:

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

If above is description of VA understanding, then you are perhaps a follower of Advaita. But I see that later you write:

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

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


Om Namah Shivaya

PS:

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

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

[smaranam]

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

Welcome back

[amith vikram]

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