Guest guest Posted September 6, 1999 Report Share Posted September 6, 1999 namaste. It is nice to see that the interpretation of smr^tir labdhA has evoked good response. I too welcome Veronica on to the Advaitin List and look forward to some insightful comments. While not disagreeing fully with what Veronica, Max Harris and Miles Wright are saying, let me say that the point I was trying to make there is that Brahman cannot be remembered and forgotten and remembered again. IT (Brahman) is not an object to be undergoing such effects. Brahman is always the subject. Let me distinguish between knowledge that can be remembered and forgotten and knowledge that does not go through this remembrance and forgetfulness of a jeeva. MuNDaka upanishad (1.1.4) says: tasmai sa hovAca: dve vidye veditavye iti ha sma yad brahmavido vadanti, parA caivAparA ca To him he said: two kinds of knowledge are to be known, as, indeed, the knowers of Brahman declare - the higher (parA) as well as the lower (aparA). MuNDaka 1.1.5 continues: tatrAparA r^gvedo yajurvedah sAmavedo'tharvavedah shikshA kalpo vyAkaraNam niruktam chando jyotisham - it. atha parA yayA tad aksharam adhigamyate. Of these, the lower is the R^gveda, the yajurveda, the sAmaveda, the atharvaveda. Phonetics, ritual, grammar, etymology, metrics and astrology. And the higher is that by which the Undecaying is aprehended. The two knowledges differ quite convincingly. The lower knowledge is what is grasped by the intellect. This knowledge can be remembered and forgotten and remembered again and forgotten again. Example: our learing physics and chemistry. In this lower knowledge, the knowledge and the knower are distinct. However much we understand physics, we can never be physics. On the other hand, the higher knowledge is Brahmavidya, the knowledge of the SELF. This cannot be grasped by the intellect. It is beyond the grasp of the mind and hence is not available for remembering and forgetting. The knower and the knowledge become one, with no distinction between knower and knowledge. Brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati Knower of Brahman becomes Brahman (TaittirIya u.). Knower of vedas becomes veda. In the example we are discussing (BG18.73 smr^tir labdhA), I think Arjuna could not be saying "I *remember* my true identity as Brahman" (stress on the word *remember*). Remembrance (recall) is a function of the mind. If the above were the interpretation, Brahma vidya becomes a faculty of the mind, which it is not. By using the word "I remember..", Arjuna still is differentiating between knower and knowledge. I agree Brahmavidya is not that is to be acquired from the outside. It is inside us. What is required is removal of the ignorance for the SELF to shine through. But one cannot *remember* and recall THAT. One has to become THAT. As ignorance is removed, one becomes THAT. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 1999 Report Share Posted September 6, 1999 namaste, > I agree Brahmavidya is not that is to be acquired from the outside. > It is inside us. What is required is removal of the ignorance for the SELF > to shine through. But one cannot *remember* and recall THAT. One has to > become THAT. As ignorance is removed, one becomes THAT. > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy There seems to be agreement here. The problem is only linguistic interpretation. Perhaps it could be put this way: The 'remembrance' is the remembrance by the mind of its source. In that remembrance all ignorance is removed and the mind itself, having enquired into or become fascinated with its origin, is consumed. There is no becoming, as such, for all is already eternally in place. The mind itself is solely dependent on That (Self). This (complete) remembrance by the mind of its true nature is also the dissolution of same (manonASa) for it no longer has the perception of its own independent existence (svabhava). The mind, in starting the tapas of enquiry, ends up being burned up by said fire of tapas. As Ramana Maharshi says "If one resorts uninteruptedly to remembrance of one's real nature (swarUpasmaraNa) until one attains Self, that alone will be sufficient." (Godman; 1985) A similar problem arose when someone asked Ramana Maharshi about his statement in "Who am I?" regarding "seeing the essence" (swarUpa dRshti). How can this be possible without positing the seer and the seen (and the consequent effect on Ultimate Unity)? His response was : "The fact is this. DRshti (sight) is consciousness. It forms the subject and the object. Can there be dRshti apart from the Self? The Self is all -- dRshti etc...Mind is only the dynamic power (shakti) of the Self." (Talks; no.268) Regards Miles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 1999 Report Share Posted September 7, 1999 Namaskar Murthygaru: Thanks for the clarifications and your reply seems to imply that you are agree with the primary contentions with some ifs and buts. Due to our limitations, we do remember and forget the sayings of the sages and saints spelled out in the Upanishads. The removal of ignorance is a process that mind has to undergo and intellect is the faculty which needs convincing evidences to accept facts. At the empirical level (vyavaharika -where we are now!, we have no option than to accept and undergo changes to become fit to learn the Brahma Vidya. Sankara does define qualifications to learn Brahma Vidya in Vivekachoodamani. All that you are asserting is true at the 'absolute level' (paramarthika level. At the Vyavaharika level, we need a framework where 'memory' plays an important role to convince the faculty of intellect to accept or reject empirical facts. The verse 73 acceptance of Arjun is a confirmation that he has been transformed by the teachings of Lord Krihsna. The message is subtle and you have rightly pointed out certain limitations. In the final analysis, we need to recognize that all our discussions (including you) has their own limitations! Ram Chandran >Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy >namaste. > >I agree Brahmavidya is not that is to be acquired from the outside. >It is inside us. What is required is removal of the ignorance for the SELF >to shine through. But one cannot *remember* and recall THAT. One has to >become THAT. As ignorance is removed, one becomes THAT. > >Regards >Gummuluru Murthy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 1999 Report Share Posted September 7, 1999 On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Ram Chandran wrote: > Ram Chandran <chandran > > Namaskar Murthygaru: > > Thanks for the clarifications and your reply seems to imply that you are > agree with the primary contentions with some ifs and buts. > > [...] > The message is subtle and you have rightly pointed out certain > limitations. In the final analysis, we need to recognize that all our > discussions (including you) has their own limitations! > > Ram Chandran > > namaste, Shri Ram Chandran, Thanks for your viewpoint on this topic and thanks for trying to find a commonality of understanding in the two slightly different interpretations suggested. Trying to find the commonality in two views is the hallmark of a true moderator. No, I do not agree with the interpretation suggested by Max, Veronica, Miles and you, at the present state of my understanding. That does not mean (i) that I am correct and others are wrong, or (ii) that I want others to accept my interpretation. You may well be right and I may be wrong. Over a period of time, as we continue our quest of understanding ourselves, Truth dawns on us and we see the Reality. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 1999 Report Share Posted September 7, 1999 Namaskar Murthygaru: I fully agree with your final conclusion and I am sure that Max, Veronica and Miles will also with the final statement of your posting. This is indeed the True Vedic Spirit in which all enquiries are conducted and thanks for reminding this Vedic spirit to the list members. We know very little and we need to learn a lot! regards, Ram Chandran Gummuluru Murthy wrote: > > Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy > > No, I do not agree with the interpretation suggested by Max, Veronica, > Miles and you, at the present state of my understanding. That does not > mean (i) that I am correct and others are wrong, or (ii) that I want > others to accept my interpretation. You may well be right and I may be > wrong. Over a period of time, as we continue our quest of understanding > ourselves, Truth dawns on us and we see the Reality. > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 1999 Report Share Posted September 7, 1999 > > Ram Chandran [chandran] > Tuesday, September 07, 1999 9:23 AM > advaitin > Re: smr^tir labdhA in BG18.73 > > > Ram Chandran <chandran > > Namaskar Murthygaru: > > I fully agree with your final conclusion and I am sure that Max, > Veronica and Miles will also with the final statement of your posting. > This is indeed the True Vedic Spirit in which all enquiries are > conducted and thanks for reminding this Vedic spirit to the list > members. We know very little and we need to learn a lot! > Harsha: Perhaps Sri Ramji, it can also be said that "We know very little and need to know even less." :-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 1999 Report Share Posted September 7, 1999 Namaskar Harshaji: You remind me the famous Upanishads saying: "The more we know, we know that more we don't know!" "Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" wrote: > > Harsha: Perhaps Sri Ramji, it can also be said that > "We know very little and need to know even less." :-). > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 1999 Report Share Posted September 7, 1999 Gummuluru Murthy: I agree essentially with you here. >IT (Brahman) is not an object to be undergoing such effects. Brahman is >always the subject. Yes. As viewed from the standpoint of absolute knowledge or Brahma vidya, Brahman cannot be the object of knowledge or the object of the knower, so neither can Brahman be the object of remembrance. >MuNDaka 1.1.5 continues: > >tatrAparA r^gvedo yajurvedah sAmavedo'tharvavedah shikshA kalpo >vyAkaraNam niruktam chando jyotisham - it. atha parA yayA tad aksharam >adhigamyate. > >Of these, the lower is the R^gveda, the yajurveda, the sAmaveda, the >atharvaveda. Phonetics, ritual, grammar, etymology, metrics and astrology. >And the higher is that by which the Undecaying is aprehended. The problem, I think, with using the phrase "remembering our true identity as Brahman", as Miles also pointed out, lies with linguistic difficulties, as well as with our necessity of operating from the standpoint of relative knowledge as soon as we use language to describe knowledge of Brahman or experiences thereof. Looking at the above passage from the Mundaka Upanisad, we see that the Upanisadic sages also had this problem. For the passage, in its English translation, reads "and the higher is that by which the Undecaying is apprehended." Just as the Undecaying cannot be known or remembered, neither can It be apprehended because that presupposes Brahman as an object of apprehension. Only Brahman apprehends. So, I think you are right in pointing out that in truth Brahman can not be remembered. But just as the Upanisadic sages needed to resort to language in order to point out the way to knowledge of Brahman so too do we by necessity need to use language that by its very nature renders falsehoods when applied in relation to our experiences of "knowing" Brahman. >What is required is removal of the ignorance for the SELF >to shine through. But one cannot *remember* and recall THAT. One has to >become THAT. As ignorance is removed, one becomes THAT. I think this is suitable way to refer to Satchitananda and can relate with your mode of expression. Yet, from the standpoint of higher knowledge do we really "become" That? namaste Veronica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 1999 Report Share Posted September 8, 1999 Continuing our discussion . . . I too agree that "Brahman cannot be remembered" if by this is meant that Brahman is affected by our "remembering" or "regaining of our true nature." But the point I was making earlier is that within the heart of the Jivatman Brahman already dwells and a "Brahman-realization" already "is." Furthermore, in this "place" or "domain of being" the Jivatman (an individualized formation of/within Brahman) already "knows" that it is Brahman, and lastly, that as the ego formation draws deeper into Jivatman it begins to "remember" what it as Jivatman already knows, or to put it another way, as the ego assimilates into Jivatman there is a merging of memory and knowledge of ego and Jivatman until, eventually, there oneness is self-known to itself. This is the sense in which I think it is reasonable to say that Brahman-realization, already present in the heart of the Jivatman, can be "remembered." Namste, -- Max >"D Hill" <bestisle >advaitin >Wed, 08 Sep 1999 03:02:07 PDT >Re: smr^tir labdhA in BG18.73 > >"D Hill" <bestisle > >Gummuluru Murthy: > >I agree essentially with you here. > >>IT (Brahman) is not an object to be undergoing such effects. Brahman is >>always the subject. > >Yes. As viewed from the standpoint of absolute knowledge or Brahma vidya, >Brahman cannot be the object of knowledge or the object of the knower, so >neither can Brahman be the object of remembrance. > > >>MuNDaka 1.1.5 continues: >> >>tatrAparA r^gvedo yajurvedah sAmavedo'tharvavedah shikshA kalpo >>vyAkaraNam niruktam chando jyotisham - it. atha parA yayA tad aksharam >>adhigamyate. >> >>Of these, the lower is the R^gveda, the yajurveda, the sAmaveda, the >>atharvaveda. Phonetics, ritual, grammar, etymology, metrics and astrology. >>And the higher is that by which the Undecaying is aprehended. > > >The problem, I think, with using the phrase "remembering our true identity >as Brahman", as Miles also pointed out, lies with linguistic difficulties, >as well as with our necessity of operating from the standpoint of relative >knowledge as soon as we use language to describe knowledge of Brahman or >experiences thereof. Looking at the above passage from the Mundaka Upanisad, >we see that the Upanisadic sages also had this problem. For the passage, in >its English translation, reads "and the higher is that by which the >Undecaying is apprehended." Just as the Undecaying cannot be known or >remembered, neither can It be apprehended because that presupposes Brahman >as an object of apprehension. Only Brahman apprehends. > >So, I think you are right in pointing out that in truth Brahman can not be >remembered. But just as the Upanisadic sages needed to resort to language in >order to point out the way to knowledge of Brahman so too do we by necessity >need to use language that by its very nature renders falsehoods when applied >in relation to our experiences of "knowing" Brahman. > >>What is required is removal of the ignorance for the SELF >>to shine through. But one cannot *remember* and recall THAT. One has to >>become THAT. As ignorance is removed, one becomes THAT. > > >I think this is suitable way to refer to Satchitananda and can relate with >your mode of expression. Yet, from the standpoint of higher knowledge do we >really "become" That? > >namaste > >Veronica > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >ONElist: your connection to online communities. > >------ >Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin > --------------------------- FREE - yourname - Visit http://www.philosophers.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 1999 Report Share Posted September 8, 1999 namaste. Thanks for the explanatory comments from Veronica, Max and Ram Chandran. I think, to some extent, this may be the inadequacy of the language to explain what we mean. Veronica is quite correct in pointing that out using the English translation of MuNDaka upanishad statement, "... Brahman is aprehended..." as an example. My only concern in this dialogue is that we may be giving too much importance to the activity of the mind in aprehending Brahman [again, I agree with Veronica that language is the barrier here: usage of "aprehending Brahman" is not right] which the mind does not deserve. I am grateful for all comments on this topic which are useful for highlighting the subject/object nature of Brahman. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 1999 Report Share Posted September 8, 1999 Namaskar: Let us try to understand the two states of Brahman - Paramarthika (absolute) and Vyavaharika (empirical): Paramarthika state (Realized Brahman without Maya) ================================================= How do I describe me as a realized Brahman? I am the knower of the TRUTH and I am the TRUTH. I can neither describe my Brahmanic nature any such description is a self contradiction! Without Maya, Mind, memory, rememberance and forgetfulness do not exist and all communication stops! The Vyavaharika State (Brahman with the spell of Maya) ===================================================== Mind, memory, rememberance and forgetfulness coexist with Maya. The intellect has the full freedom to make conjectures (theories and hypotheses) about the True Nature of Brahman without Maya. It should be understood that all such conjectures are also due to the spell of Maya and Maya is also responsible for each of us making judgements on various conjectures. In Bhagavad Gita, the great sage, Vedavyasa (believed to be a realized soul) try to educate how the spell of Maya is responsible for us not knowing our True Nature. He staged a drama where the intellect (Arjun) communicates with the Total Consciousness (Lord Krishna) through a series of dialogs. The dialog covers the entire spectrum of Vedanta and finally the conversation between the intellect and Consciouness come to an end with verse 73 of chapter 18. Vedavyasa's subtle message is that when the spell of Maya is dispelled, Total Consciousness will emerge! Unfortunately due to the spell of Maya, we seem to pay too much attention to the language of communication without focusing on the message. However, our discussions did contribute additional insights and I want to thank all the participants. Ram Chandran Note: At the Paramarthika level, communication doesn't exist and there is neither Gita nor Vedanta! (please note that this note is also a conjecture and under the influence of Maya!!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 1999 Report Share Posted September 8, 1999 Ram Chandran wrote: <<He staged a drama where the intellect (Arjun) communicates with the Total Consciousness (Lord Krishna) through a series of dialogs. The dialog covers the entire spectrum of Vedanta and finally the conversation between the intellect and Consciousness come to an end with verse 73 of chapter 18. Vedavyasa's subtle message is that when the spell of Maya is dispelled, Total Consciousness will emerge! Namaste, The postings on this subject have been very interesting. What Ram Chandran wrote was very clear. His insights along with a posting received from another list made the following appear as a possible understanding of Arjuna's response to Krishna when he replied: "My Lord, O immutable One! My delusion has fled. By Thy grace, O changeless One, the light has dawned. My doubts are gone, and I stand before Thee ready to do Thy will. " (translation by Shri Purohit Swami) Arjuna had a most profound vision of God when Krishna revealed both Himself and great Truths on the chariot. The veils of ignorance were removed from Arjuna eyes, he no longer saw himself as simply Arjuna the individual jeeva, he understood his place in the divine play, his responsibilities to uphold dharma and to surrender to the Lord's will and he even gained "knowledge" of his ultimate Oneness with the Lord, BUT It does not say that Arjuna actually "merged" into Krishna or became One with Brahman or the Lord. Please correct me if I am mistaken, but Arjuna seems to still retain his own awareness of a separate self. In an earlier verse Krishna says: "Dedicate thyself to Me, worship Me, sacrifice all for Me, prostrate thyself before Me, and to Me thou shalt surely come. Truly do I pledge thee; thou art My own beloved." It would seem that Arjuna had his ignorance dispelled and was shown the PATH to Self-realization, the battle that followed after Krishna's revelation and Arjuna's life thereafter, was where he had the opportunity to practice the revealed path that would take him to eventual union with the Lord. So possibly by simply seeking "knowledge" about Brahman, instead of "realizing" Brahman itself, what we get is only intellectual knowledge of the path instead of union. The following was posted on another listserve to which I belong by someone who frequently posts verses from Narada's Bhakti suttras. Though Sankara is often thought of as the quintessential jnani, his poetry is evidence that he was also a bhakti yogi ... So, I hope this is appropriate to share on the advaita list: << CHAPTER V - GLORY OF COMMUNION bhaktaa ekaantino mukhyaaH || 67 || Meaning: The devotees whose devotion is single-pointed towards the Lord are the best. Interpretation: shR^i kR^ishNa in Bhagavadgita (VII.16-17) categorizes the devotees into four kinds, one who is in distress, one who seeks wisdom, one who seeks wealth and one who seeks the Lord himself. Of all these the devotee that seeks the Lord himself will receive the Lord as well as everything else. OM AMRITESHVARYAI NAMAH Saraswathy >> The Purohit swami translation of the above verses are: "The righteous who worship Me are grouped by stages; first they who suffer, next they who desire knowledge, then they who thirst after truth, and lastly they who attain wisdom. Of all these, he who has gained wisdom, who meditates on Me without ceasing, devoting himself only to Me, he is the best; for by the wise person I am exceedingly beloved, and the wise person, too is beloved by Me. Noble-minded are they all, but the wise man I hold as My own Self; for he, remaining always at peace with Me, makes Me the final goal. After many lives, at last the wise one realizes Me as I am..." Might this mean that seeking knowledge "about" the Lord may dispel many of the veils of ignorance surrounding our realization of Brahman... It may lead us to the path toward God, but it is only by focusing directly on Brahman and nothing else that we will be able to go beyond the illusion of separation to fully realize the One? Salutations, Jai Guru, Parvati Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 1999 Report Share Posted September 9, 1999 Parvatijai wrote: > > [...] > > ... So possibly by simply seeking "knowledge" about Brahman, instead of > "realizing" Brahman itself, what we get is only intellectual knowledge of the > path instead of union. > > [...] > > Though Sankara is often thought of as the quintessential jnani, his poetry is > evidence that he was also a bhakti yogi ... > > << CHAPTER V - GLORY OF COMMUNION > > bhaktaa ekaantino mukhyaaH || 67 || > > Meaning: The devotees whose devotion is single-pointed towards the Lord > are the best. > > [...] > > Might this mean that seeking knowledge "about" the Lord may dispel many of > the veils of ignorance surrounding our realization of Brahman... It may lead > us to the path toward God, but it is only by focusing directly on Brahman and > nothing else that we will be able to go beyond the illusion of separation to > fully realize the One? > namaste Bhagavad Gita is geared to all temperaments and all paths... yes, Sankara however was not among the rare jnanis we may consider a parabhaktha, i would go so far as to say virtually *all* are bhaktas as well as karma and tyaga yogins. their fusion is refered to as purushottama yoga, which is what we're really all engaged in, aware or not, in any yoga system we adopt [in fact in *any* metaphysics]. i would like to share the following, a compelling account of the power of love through bhakti...which is--make no mistake--foundational and indispensible to the path of jnana. _______________________ 2nd March 1949; 5:15pm The very aged ashram stapati, the master sculpter, who has been absent since a long time, probably due to old age ailments, came in tottering, carrying fruit offerings. As the Maharshi saw him approach, his eyes opened widely and shown with extreme delight, as if he had seen a long-missed friend, which the old stapati observed. Stapati was so touched by these signs of Bhagavan's affection that his whole body shook. He wanted to expression to his love and adoration for Sri Bhagavan, but he did not know how to do it. Finally he yielded to his impulse and, contravening the Ashram rule which forbade the touch of the Master's body, fell flat on Maharshi's feet and legs and bathed them with tears. Two attendents gently helped him to rise and gave him a seat very near Bhagavan's couch. After he calmed down Sri Maharshi inquired after his health, the cause of his absence and all his other news. It was a sight to see Sri Bhagavan so deeply moved in meeting again an old Ashram worker, who had taken a leading part in the architectural design of his mother's temple according to the rules prescribed by the Hindu Shastras. --p.118; GURU RAMANA by S.S. Cohen (5th edition) _______________________ if one is blessed with this kind of bhaktibhavana in their approach to the jnana marga, the impact and therefore effectiveness of the imminent knowledge is commensurately increased. in fact, proportional to the force of such ekabhakti, the knot of avidya in the Heart (chit-jada-granthi) will as much fade. for example, given the capacity to be absorbed or the "coefficient of melt" (bhakti) combined with the scientific insight (jnana) revealing that such "knot" is merely a fleeting *miscalculation* (i.e. some phenomenal little piece of incidental hallucination somehow hung in the space of Mind), the yield is accordingly so... please read once again this story and feel what that blessed man was feeling. (for without the key its impact will go unnoticed...and what is the key?: that thou art already bold as love!) OM Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 1999 Report Share Posted September 9, 1999 This is the essence of the conclusion of the dialogue between Lord Krishna and Arjun in Bhagavad Gita that I posted few years back in another list. I have revised this article to make it appropriate for the current discussions. Gita's implicit message is that one should get rid of self (ego) to realize SELF. Arjun's answer to the Lord is summarized in verse18:73 "nasto mohah smrtir labdha tvatprasadaan mayaa cyuta sthito smi gatasamdehah karisye vacanam tava." Destroyed is my delusion and recognition has been gained by me through Thy grace, O Acyuta (Krishna), I stand firm with my doubts dispelled. I will act according to Thy word. Arjun assures the Lord that he is able to understand his "True Nature"and is ready to free himself from egoistic actions and desires. It is quite reasonable for anyone to conclude that Arjun is just telling the teacher that he understood His message and he is now ready and willing to fight. In the context of Mahabharat war, it is possible to establish enough evidence to support this contention. However, if we go through all the eighteen chapters of Gita, it is also possible to establish that the objective of Gita is to demonstrate the importance of subduing the intellect. The attitude of Arjun in chapter 2 and at verse 73 of chapter 18 are quite different. Intellect started with the question - why an action should be spontaneous without fearing about the consequences? At verse 73 the intellect accepts the fact that it needs to be subdued and it shouldn't intervene while performing an action. If and when we understand our true nature our Actions will become free from selfishness. Such an action becomes an "inaction (mind becomes inactive)." In the nature, the actions of animals and plants are always spontaneous. They are the noblest acts benefitting everybody including the humanity. We more often proud to call "my plant" and "my tree" as though we possessed those assets of the nature when we came to this universe! This presence of divinity can be experienced seen if we agree to get rid of egoistic (selfish) actions. The destruction of Divinity begins with the creation of action in the mind and the only way to retain Divinity is keep the mind inactive. Interestingly, our most peaceful time is while sleeping when the body is quite active (especially after a heavy meal!). Bhagavad Gita's Subtle Messages: Truth is nothing but our True Nature. True Nature is free from the spell of mAyA. True Nature illumines without any darkness. True Nature neither creates nor destroys. All actions in True Nature are spontaneous without looking for rewards. When actions are performed without looking for rewards mind becomes inactive. True Nature with an inactive mind enjoys eternal peace. True Nature is full of happiness and happiness sustains. True Nature is detached from the world of pain and suffering. True Nature loves everybody and hates nobody. True Nature silences body, mind, intelligence and ego. The key messages from Bhagavad Gita are subtle and this may explain why Acharyas Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhwa understood themdifferently. The structure of Gita verses by Vedavysa is quite neutral and the philosophy of Gita can be tuned to suit all religions of mankind including Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism and other religions of the universe. Aldus Huxley rightly calls Bhagavad Gita as "perennial philosophy." Ram Chandran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 1999 Report Share Posted September 9, 1999 In a message dated 9/9/1999 1:09:46 AM Central Daylight Time, egodust writes: << OM Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya >> Namaste, Thank you, that was a wonderful story. You may be interested in a book about a western man who was so certain that Ramana Maharshi was his guru that he went to India and lived at His ashram for eight years this was after Marhashi had already passed out of the body. There is quite a story of his lessons living there under the direction of one of Ramana's disciples and also his subsequent journey into the lap of the Divine Mother. Titled: On the Road to Freedom: A Pilgrimage in India by Swami Paramatmananda, vol. 1, published Mata Amritanandamayi Center, San Ramon, California. You can order it at: http://www.ammachi.org/ Jai Guru, Parvati Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.