j~nAna and bhakti

[Guest guest]

, "satkartar5" <sat_karta@h...>

wrote:

> > > My comments are at the bottom of the post. I will pass this on

to

> > HS as

> > > well.

> > >

> > > Harsha

> > >

> > > Jay Nelamangala wrote:

> > >

> > > > As you might have seen under the last month's discussions on

> > > > "free-will and fate",

> > > > some in this group accept there is free-will and yet there

are

> > others

> > > > who don't,

> > > > and both being devoted, learned advaitins. What does that

tell

> > us?

> > > > It tells us that

> > > > "sAkshee khalu sarva pramANa prAmANya nischAyakaha". The

final

> > > > pramANa on

> > > > what is acceptable and what is not, is one's own sAkshee or

> > > > 'conscience' ( the notion

> > > > of sAkshee in vEdanta, is much broader than what the word

> > conscince

> > > > indicates, but for a

> > > > lack of a better word in english, we will use the word

> > conscience

> > > > itself).

> > > >

> > > > In matters of right and wrong, just and unjust, truth and

> > false, the

> > > > final pramANa is one's own sAkshee for that person. This is

why,

> > what

> > > > one is convinced about, others are not.

> > > > There is lot more that is said to be about sAkshee. If the

> > > > moderators' are interested, may be a month can be devoted

just on

> > that

> > > > subject.

> > > >

> > > > >For realisation, Jnana and Bhakti both are necessary, it is

like

> > the

> > > > two wings of the Bird, a Bird >cannot fly with only One wing.

> > Think in

> > > > terms of Advaita! With Love

> > > >

> > > > But jnAna is getting stuck in intellect, Bhakti is in SaguNa

> > Brahman

> > > > which is again considered mithyA.

> > > >

> > > > Let me explain why my conscience does not let me think ' I

am

> > > > Infinite' , ' I am God', and such other ideas that seem to

> > freely

> > > > float around in this forum. People have given different

names

> > to it

> > > > : 'stuck in intellect', 'lack of understanding', 'not God

> > > > realized',

> > > > 'being in the wrong email list', ' dualistic thinking', 'not

> > thinking

> > > > in terms of Advaita', ' not learned enough', 'not able to

rise

> > above

> > > > mind', "not realized Pleroma", "not able to comprehend

> > advaita",

> > > > etc etc.

> > > >

> > > > My understanding is that the highest discipline is Brahma-

> > jignyAsA

> > > > which comes in the form shravaNa-manana-dhyAna.

> > > > Thus, meditation on a real thing, that leads to the

realization

> > of it

> > > > and in this case the right understanding of the thing is

> > > > obviously the presupposition of the meditation, because

dhyAna

> > is an

> > > > aspect of memory, and efforless dhyAna is samAdhi.

> > > >

> > > > But in advaita, this object of dhyAna is mithyA and the

> > meditation on

> > > > it is somehow supposed to remove wrong notions

> > > > and thereby help the correct understanding of Truth. My

> > conscience

> > > > does not let me accept this position because, firstly

> > > > If the final Truth, that we have called God or Parabrahman

is

> > > > self-evident or sva-prakAsha, and with reference to it the

> > > > distinction between right and wrong knowledge can not be

> > justified

> > > > because it is all notional and intellectual. My conscience

does

> > not let

> > > > me accept the fact that meditation on a wrong thing, i.e, the

> > thing

> > > > that is arOpita, removes wrong notions about Truth and leads

to

> > > > the correct understanding of it. Consiously I can not accept

> > such a

> > > > position simply because, it is not very convincing.

Further,

> > > > dhyAna and samAdhi are lower forms of discipline, and

discipline

> > in

> > > > the higher sense consists in application to shAstra, and this

> > > > presupposes no meditation.

> > > >

> > > Dear Jayji,

> > >

> > > You say that your conscience does not let you accept certain

> > things,

> > > etc. There is no one here objecting that you should not follow

your

> > > conscience and whatever approach to the divine that seems

natural

> > to

> > > you. You can certainly take satisfaction in your understanding

and

> > > knowledge.

> > >

> > > Our sages who proclaimed the Maha Vakyas took satisfaction in

their

> > > knowledge of the Self as it was their first hand knowledge and

not

> > just

> > > based on someone else's word or reading of books. Realizing the

> > Self is

> > > the ultimate satisfaction. Sages declare that "Knowing That,

> > nothing

> > > remains to be known".

> > >

> > > Atman Is Brahman is Both the basic axiom of Advaita as well as

the

> > > Actual Experience of Sages. If Self-Realization could be

> > contradicted by

> > > words and/or differing interpretations of Sanskrit verses, it

would

> > not

> > > be much of a Realization and could stand the test of time.

> > >

> > > Brahman is One without a second. Upon encountering IT the "I"

does

> > not

> > > survive as the mind but becomes (Recognizes It Self) as the

very

> > Eye

> > > that is Self Seeing and Self Being.

> > >

> > > Self is Sat-Chit-Ananda, Nityam, Poornum.

> > >

> > > These are not attributes of Brahman but the very nature of

Brahman.

> > It

> > > only appears paradoxical through the perspective of the mind,

yet

> > those

> > > who Know their own Heart as the Self finding nothing mysterious

in

> > it.

> > >

> > > Brahman does not have attributes that are complete. Brahman Is

> > Complete.

> > >

> > > Love to all

> > > Harsha

> >

> > hi Harsha:

> >

> > That is certainly a well phrased point of view. If I understand

it

> > Jay won't meditate on something false, mythya, as it goes against

his

> > conscience. Since he won't use mythya drishti then he should go

for

> > one of the other two: badha drishti, or pravilapa drishti. The

last

> > is said by Ramana to be the most powerful anyway.

> > From near the end of Vivekachudamani-p257 of "The Collected Works

of

> > Sri Ramana Maharshi" publisher V.S. Ramanan

>

>

> dear Bobby,

>

> please ellaborate

>

> Love, Karta

 

yeah, good idea karta.

 

Ramana translates Shankara in Vivekachudamani-

 

"Reject the outer world by any of these three means and recognize him

who sees it to be infinite, pure, homogeneous Brahman who is the

Self....Although all three of these viewpoints are aids to

realization, the third, in which one conceives everything as one's

own Self is the most powerful. Therefore, knowing the indivisible

self to be one's own Self, by one's own experience one must abide in

one's own true nature, BEYOND ANY MENTAL FORM (my caps). What more

is there to say?"

 

before that he gives the means-

 

"The essence of the Vedantic scriptures may be condensed into the

follwing points.

 

"First: In me, the unmoving Brahman, all that seems different is

utterly without reality, I alone am. This is called the standpoint

of elimination(badha drishti).

 

"Second: The dream and all else that appears in me as the result of

magic is an illusion, I alone am the Truth. This is called the

standpoint of illusion (mithya drishti).

 

"Third: All that appears as form apart from the sea, that is the

bubble and the wave, is the sea. All that is seen in a dream is seen

in him who sees the dream. Similarly, in me as in the ocean or the

man who dreams, all that seems separate from me is myself. This is

called the standpoint of resolving (the effect into its cause)

(pravilapa drishti)."

> > Love

> > Bobby G.