universal koan - typos fixed; please ignore former

[Guest guest]

hariH OM! murthyji-

namaskaar.

 

perhaps i didn't explain my point as clear as i could have.

however, re your observations/elucidations, i have some of

what i believe may prove to be interesting reservations.

 

however, before i expound on them, i'd like to offer the

following. i apologize for its length. it's something

that 'came through' me (which in fact i believe is the case

with all utterances, by all, at all times, and all places!

... the clarity factor being dependent on the individual's

equipment as per their evolved antahkarana), and will segue

into what will [hopefully] effectively address your concerns.

 

(it starts off apparently unrelated.. )

 

the leap between avidya and atmasakshat isn't measured in

light-years...but in the width of a quark!.. for that is

the thickness of the sheath of the ancient socio-hypnotic

suggestion dictating that we are 'in fact' hopelessly mired

in ignorance!

 

i see this insight as a significant relative truth.

 

its counterpart, being a less significant relative truth,

is that we have lifetimes of karma to burn before we even

approach being ready or fit to 'receive.'

 

while i see the highest relative truth over either the

above: is that we are *already* fully enlightened and

absolutely free, *despite* that ignorance is an incredibly

mysterious event based on what could be considered the

mathematical factorial of *infinite illusion*!:

([infinite illusion] x [infinite illusion - 1] x

[infinite illusion - 2] x ...etc. *ad infinitum*!

 

i refer to this affectionately as 'crazy-mind mathematical

philosophy,' an offshoot of 'zen-kill logic,' specifically

designed to drive one out of and *beyond* their mind, while

yet being utterly benign (as *everything* in truth is, since

nothing can have any real, abiding effect on the Self).

 

yet it can be *relatively* contraindicated for some people,

as kundalini or laya yoga may be; or certain drugs that

would have deleterious effects on some due to their unique

brain/body chemistry..etc.

 

so it's obvious that we're confronted with a very primal

and unavoidable contradiction: that we are and have ever

been Self-realized on one hand; yet subjected to the Play

of brahman's maya [in the form of Its leela] on the other.

 

so, *through me* one day came this:

 

"act as though everything matters;

*be* as though nothing does."

 

where, later.... i managed to whittle it down to:

 

"act dual;

be one."

 

commentary:

this is how it ever was and will ever be. it was the

condition before, it is during, and will be after mukthi.

 

mukthi itself in fact reveals it as such..

(we've been often told this..)

 

my argument is that the 'acting dual' aspect of the formula

is an eternal one! i don't believe that when enlighenment is

had, that the world becomes unreal...that the jnani is never

to be reborn again. this, i contend, is another hyper-flawed

*relative* concept traditionally held by most hindus.

 

and as i've stated before, many times, the rig veda speaks to

each [cyclical] precondition of brahman's *decisive* creation,

as the result of *desire*. (no-one on the list wants to talk

about this! i had asked sri h.b. dave to post and discuss

these early passages, who said he would but never did..)

 

another passage in the rig veda says: [paraphrased] "Only

the highest Being knows the truth behind the Mystery of Being.

Or does he?" (i have no idea where this passage can be found

though...if anyone knows, i'd appreciate their informing me.)

 

this is of even greater import!: i'm requesting the scholars

of our List to investigate these passages and provide us with

another translation, besides the one given here:

http://www.hinduismtoday.kauai.hi.us/books/vedic_experience/Part1/VEPartIChA.htm\

l

 

(scroll down to "Nasadiya Sukta" [RV X, 129]. then scroll up

to its commentary: "1. Solitude" and "2. Sacrifice" where it's

stated: "Prajapati desires a second but he has no primary matter

out of which to create the universe....etc") (note: Prajapati or

hiranyagarbha (being the first outbreath or Mind-seed [as the

womb] of brahman at the dawn of a new cycle of creation).

 

....the point of the above being that **of course** the jnani

isn't above brahman .. but *is* brahman. and brahman, somehow

ever-possessing the power of maya, sruti tells us, will thus

create, sustain and destroy Its leela *eternally*!

 

so it can be said that the jnani reaches the point where he

is no longer reborn *in ignorance*!! however, he will be

reborn again and again, as per the nature inhering in brahman.

 

yet finally, this *neither* reaches the realm of ultimate truth!

for, ultimate or absolute truth cannot be cornered by or through

the Mind...not even isvara's mahamahat! for the highest pointer

to the truth tells us, as alluded to above [as per rig veda],

that the sathyanishta (True State of Existence) is a Mystery

*without any possibility of resolution*.

 

so, we cannot say with absolute certainty that either 1) the jnani

will achieve videhamukthi (in the sense he/she will never be born

again into the world) or 2) he will in fact be eternally reborn.

*neither* statement can be made as representing the absolute truth

....since not only is the conception we have of 'truth' irrelevant

in paramarthika, any statement made about its reflection in the

vyavaharika is *equally* a pure mystery!! and this latter point

seems to be almost exclusively forgotten or at least pragmatically

overlooked.

 

OM shaanthi!

_____________________

 

 

now to address our posts..

 

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

>

> 1. If what you stated above is the ultimate Truth, then what

> does neti, neti (not this, not this) of the upanishads mean?

> Doesn't neti, neti negate all that is perceivable (as brahman).

> As I understand, neti, neti mean (1) that whatever perceivable

> inferrable is not brahman, (2) that which is the substratum for

> all that is perceivable, inferrable is the brahman.

>

> What you are saying above is everything is brahman (sarvam

> khalv idam brahma). That is a statement of Truth indeed,

> but still, that is not the *final* statement of Truth.

>

> 2. What you said above accepts the names and forms, but

> accepts it as brahman. That is, the names and forms are

> the subject and brahman is the object. The ultimate statement

> of Truth is: brahman is the subject, the names and forms are

> the objects. This is also beautifully brought up by shri

> shankara in His bhAShya on bhagavadgItA 4.24 brahmArpanam

> brahma haviH... That verse commented on by shri shankara states

> "brahman is what is offered (in a yagna), brahman is the means

> by which offering is made, brahman is the fire.. brahman is

> doing the offering, brahman is the receptor...". Note, it is

> not stated "the offering is brahman, the ladle is brahman etc..".

> Brahman is THE subject, and what is perceivable (of names and

> forms), inferrable is all objects.

 

 

yes, we learn enormously from eachother on this list!

 

first of all, i would like to mention: there are two variables

at stake, in the potential recognition of a given individual's

philosophical view. 1) [obviously] the semantics involved, in

words and ideas; and 2) the quality of temperament involved.

 

so the beautiful method of advaita is aimed at neutralizing

the battle initiated by [and yet apparently still raging in]

the philosophical Mind.

 

and the way to do this is to shut down the clever ploys of

the pro/antagonists: the Mind's 'judgment set-up' that there

is a real unmanifest (nirguna) state, and an unreal manifest

(sa-guna) state.

 

(murthyji, again, this is a term i like to use, which

incidentally wasn't initiated by me, but was alluded to

by sri ramana on a least two occasions, which references

i might be able to locate...as well as alluded to in a

passage of bg: ch7; v5, where it's referred to as krishna's

[or the paramatman's] Lower and Higher prakrti. of course

it doesn't name saguna brahman, which is commonly exclusively

considered the projection as isvara. there's more to the

logic behind this, but i'm already obviously over-involved

here.)

 

re your observation no. 1:

 

just as a reminder, i don't believe (and i'm sure you'll

agree in this context) that truth, per se, can't be stated,

insofar as 'ultimate' or 'absolute truth' is concerned, but

rather only pointed to [inferentially], at best. in this

regard, we can speak of *relative truth*, which is

incidentally however--again obviously--*relative* to what

would have to be potentially many functional variables..

 

and this leads us to consider how certain passages in the

various scriptural texts are specifically tailored to the

individual involved. this is why, at face value, so many

contradictions can be found.. i.e. at what level is the

statement's orientation? vyavahara?; paramartha?;

and if within vyavahara, exactly where on the rung of

understanding within *its* range, is the given statement

applicable?

 

the contradiction implicit in *the topic itself* in your

no. 1 observation is this: if we take 'neti, neti, etc'

to its logical conclusion, we would then have to restate

the axiom "all this is brahman," to "*none* of this is

brahman"!

 

so, to reconcile this, i believe the formula used for

negating one's upadhis [assumed as integral to one's

identity as the Self], has some extremely valuable

reasons why it's beneficial to do so. one reason is

that if the person is a novice embarking on the dharmic

path, in order to undo their ages-developed tendency to

see themselves as exclusive egos, with an exclusive

mind, emotions, etc, it would take an extraordinary

degree of counter-training to shake them out of that

view...thus to simply/purely negate is prescribed.

 

another reason is it's the most expedient way of arriving

at a glimpse into the free-state of nirvikalpa samadhi.

 

however, shortly thereafter, the injunction is given that

in fact, all that one was negating is, in truth, part and

parcel of the nature of brahman. emphasizing here: *part

and parcel*! for the nature of brahman comprises *all*

upadhis *PLUS* is beyond all upadhis *simultaneously*...

that is, [the totality of] brahman = saguna brahman *plus*

its source in nirguna brahman!

 

so then the method for atmavichara, being 'neti, neti,

etc,' would have the implication 'neti eva, neti eva,

etc.' or 'not this *alone*, not this *alone*, etc.'

(or 'not this *as such*, ...etc.'). ...is technically

"all of this *plus* beyond all of this" which, in turn,

becomes anirvachaniya [in the *stable state* of sahaja

samadhi].

 

re your no. 2 observation: we have to remember that the

subject and object and their connection via the act of

knowing, are in reality fused as one phenomenon...being

comparable to: drishti, drik, drishyam (seer, seen, seeing);

jnanatha, jnana, jnanayam (knower, knowledge, known).

(sanskrit spelling errors notwithstanding :-)

 

this fusion is to my undersanding the all-important central

message of advaitam. which, if understood and assimilated

into the intellect, has the potential of expediently putting

an end to the ancient, stubborn habit the Mind has developed

in actively judging that there exists any real and critical

rift between seer and seen; knower and known; etc..

 

regards,

frank

[Guest guest]

Frank & Murthy Gaaru- if you do not mind my stepping in, I like to present

my understanding on the subject for whatever it is worth. I know both of you

are aware of the facts but for the benefit of the other readers I go over

the statement by statement clarifying from my perspective. I will adress

first part of Frank's post.

 

Frank wrote:

 

The leap between avidya and atmasakshat isn't measured in

light-years...but in the width of a quark!.. for that is

the thickness of the sheath of the ancient socio-hypnotic

suggestion dictating that we are 'in fact' hopelessly mired

in ignorance!

 

Sada: not even leap of the width of the quark Frank – you are that already

right here and now and therefore where is the need of leap. SwataH siddhaH

–you are already that all the time – even at the time of ignorance. Only

the mistaken notions have to be dropped since they are notions and not

facts. That is what adhyaasa implies.

 

Frank:

i see this insight as a significant relative truth.

 

its counterpart, being a less significant relative truth,

is that we have lifetimes of karma to burn before we even

approach being ready or fit to 'receive.'

 

Sada: That is not true either. If we think we have life time karma or

manylives of karma – then we have. But the fact of the matter is –akartaa

aham and abhoktaa aham – I am neither doer and nor enjoyed-How can an

non-doer has karma of anykind –That is a contradiction in terms. That I have

again is another firmly established notion in the mind. The sooner we drop

it the better it is!

 

Frank:

while i see the highest relative truth over either the

above: is that we are *already* fully enlightened and

absolutely free, *despite* that ignorance is an incredibly

mysterious event based on what could be considered the

mathematical factorial of *infinite illusion*!:

([infinite illusion] x [infinite illusion - 1] x

[infinite illusion - 2] x ...etc. *ad infinitum*!

 

Sada: Frank you are defining ‘ignorance’ – any definition of ignorance is

itself a product of ignorance – hence it is by definition invalid. Shankara

hence carefully terms as ‘anirvachaniiyam’ or indefinable or inexpressible

or inexplicable – Any vachana including the factorial part is definition

that makes ignorance no more ignorance. By the by, illusion is not

ignorance. Ignorance is the route cause for taking illusionary projection

as real. That is the delusion resulting from - ignorance +illusion to give

rise to delusion. Ignorance is there in deep Sleep State – illusion comes

into picture with the subtle body-mind and intellect becoming active. It is

like simple beam of consciousness splitting into spectrum of rainbow colors

by the prism of body-mind-intellect- essentially as subject – object and

relation between these two. Ignorance of not knowing that subject and object

as one and the same contributes to the delusion of taking subject and object

are distinct and real.

 

Frank:

i refer to this affectionately as 'crazy-mind mathematical

philosophy,' an offshoot of 'zen-kill logic,' specifically

designed to drive one out of and *beyond* their mind, while

yet being utterly benign (as *everything* in truth is, since

nothing can have any real, abiding effect on the Self).

 

yet it can be *relatively* contraindicated for some people,

as kundalini or laya yoga may be; or certain drugs that

would have deleterious effects on some due to their unique

brain/body chemistry..etc.

 

so it's obvious that we're confronted with a very primal

and unavoidable contradiction: that we are and have ever

been Self-realized on one hand; yet subjected to the Play

of brahman's maya [in the form of Its leela] on the other.

 

Sada: Frank everything you say has an apparent relevancy except you made a

big jump with the last statement. No one is really subjected to play of

brahman’s maaya or leela. First there is no other Brahman and there is no

leela either. It is like one imagining that one is tied in prison and then

complaining that I have to play the prisoner’s role because I have been tied

by the invisible Brahma by his maaya or powers. The apparent contradiction

is self-afflicted contradiction with no truth in it since even that tying is

only a notion in the mind. The point is when as your first part says ‘we

are and have ever been Self-realized on one hand – then there is no question

of Brahman maaya or leela – it is my own contradictory notions cause so

called self-contradiction since it is induced by self alone. Brahman is

eternally not guilty of the accused crime!

 

Frank:

so, *through me* one day came this:

 

"act as though everything matters;

*be* as though nothing does."

 

where, later.... i managed to whittle it down to:

 

"act dual;

be one."

 

Sada: Sorry Frank –How can I act – when I akartaa, abhoktaa – never a doer

nor enjoyer. Be one is the fact and the first part act duel or act as

though everything matters – recognize you are not the actor or enjoyer – It

is about the time just stand back and see – how things are getting done as

if you are watching the movie on the TV. If you are tired just turn The TV

off – show is over. Here is saying –

 

Only a fool does not takes life seriously

Only an intelligent one seriously takes life seriously.

Only a wise seriously does not take life seriously.

 

rank:

commentary:

this is how it ever was and will ever be. it was the

condition before, it is during, and will be after mukthi.

 

mukthi itself in fact reveals it as such..

(we've been often told this..)

 

my argument is that the 'acting dual' aspect of the formula

is an eternal one! i don't believe that when enlighenment is

had, that the world becomes unreal...that the jnani is never

to be reborn again. this, i contend, is another hyper-flawed

*relative* concept traditionally held by most hindus.

 

Sada: Sorry Frank – You can belief whatever you wants – no one can restrict

that. That is your right. Beliefs cannot be questioned. But what scriptures

says is different – Let us differentiate enlightment state as

1. Jiivan mukta – liberated while living in the upaadhiis –body, mind and

intellect. Since the prism is functioning the plurality exists in the

waking and dream state when they are active. But in the above equation of

delusion we have now removed the ignorance since Jiivan mukta knows the

truth. Hence now we have illusion due to the equipments but no delusion

since ignorance is not there. Hence jiivamukta sees plurality but he has no

notion that the plurality is reality. Fact of the matter is jiivamukta is

now Brahman and making use of the instruments available since they have

their own praarabda to remain for the benefit of the saadhak-s who need a

teacher. Since Brahman is now using the equipments he plays the role of tiny

iswara – Guru Brahma, guru Vishnu etc.

2. Vedeha mukta – The equipments drop out – them the prism to split one into

many is not there – It is pure consciousness – There is no duality at that

state. Hence Mukti in your statement should be clear. Brahman is advitiiyam

–no duel – duality is only at the level of creation and creation is an

action –Brahman being akartaa –how can be accused of action of creating.

Hence one should be clear in terms of advaitic concept- Although Brahman and

Iswara are used sometimes interchangeably in Scriptures, Shankara makes it

very clear – that we talk about creation etc we have already comedown a

level and we are referring with Iswara. From the absolute point there is no

creation, created or creator.

 

Bhagavaan Ramama says beautifully in his Upadeshasaara – iishha jiivayoH

vishhadhii bhidaa, satva bhaavato vastu kevalam. The difference between

Iswara and jiiva is only in veshha or costumes they are wearing. Costume is

that which makes one look different from what one is. Iswara wares a

costume of omniscient and omnipotent and jiiva wears a costume of limited

power and knowledge. But when the costumes are dropped out the essence in

both is the same. That is pure existence.

 

 

Frank:

and as i've stated before, many times, the rig veda speaks to

each [cyclical] precondition of brahman's *decisive* creation,

as the result of *desire*. (no-one on the list wants to talk

about this! i had asked sri h.b. dave to post and discuss

these early passages, who said he would but never did..)

 

Sada: As discussed above and as is presented in the discussion related to

suutra 2 and will be discussed more from suutra 5 on – and as Shankara and

vyaasa clarifies – whenever Brahman is used we are referring to nirguNa who

then can not have desire – since he gets qualified as Desiree who has or had

desire. That Brahman with desire to create is what is Iswara. Now we have

saguNa Brahman – who is all the powers and all the glory etc who can create

either as his liila or let prakrR^iti manifest in his presence –all are

descriptors at Iswara Level –Iswara came into picture because –jiiva sees

the creation and wants to account for it - Hence the creator, creation and

creating. –using samishhTi vaasana-s, samishhTi mind etc., which is nothing

but hiranya garba, Tejasa etc.

 

Frank:

another passage in the rig veda says: [paraphrased] "Only

the highest Being knows the truth behind the Mystery of Being.

Or does he?" (i have no idea where this passage can be found

though...if anyone knows, i'd appreciate their informing me.)

 

this is of even greater import!: i'm requesting the scholars

of our List to investigate these passages and provide us with

another translation, besides the one given here:

http://www.hinduismtoday.kauai.hi.us/books/vedic_experience/Part1/VEPartIChA.htm\

l

 

(scroll down to "Nasadiya Sukta" [RV X, 129]. then scroll up

to its commentary: "1. Solitude" and "2. Sacrifice" where it's

stated: "Prajapati desires a second but he has no primary matter

out of which to create the universe....etc") (note: Prajapati or

hiranyagarbha (being the first outbreath or Mind-seed [as the

womb] of Brahman at the dawn of a new cycle of creation).

 

Sada – All these process are the level below Brahman – We are now talking at

the level of Iswara – prajaapati etc.

 

Frank: ...the point of the above being that **of course** the jnani

isn't above Brahman .. but *is* Brahman. and Brahman, somehow

ever-possessing the power of maya, sruti tells us, will thus

create, sustain and destroy Its leela *eternally*!

 

Sada: The above clarifies the role of Iswara as saguNa. In the case of

jiiva as jiivanmukta – as I have explained – He is like Iswara – seeing the

creation but no delusion that creation is real. From Brahman point there is

no creation nor creator nor creating nor desire – He is pure consciousness

beyond all. That is the videha mukta – brahma vit brahma eva bhavati. Knower

of Brahman becomes Brahman.

 

Frank:

so it can be said that the jnani reaches the point where he

is no longer reborn *in ignorance*!! however, he will be

reborn again and again, as per the nature inhering in Brahman.

 

Sada: NO! That is not what the scripures say. That is exactly reason we go

to scriptures are pramaaNa rather than the words of sada or murthy or Frank

or anybody else. No more births for j~naani – the motivating force for

birth is praarabda karma and when he recognized he was never a doer to start

with – that is j~naani- there is nothing that propels j~naani to have birth.

One should not mistake the creation etc are accounted in the scriptures

since jiiva has the notion of creation which is all powerful and we need a

omniscient Lord to create such vast creation etc. Creation came into picture

because of prism of body-mind and intellect – when they are dropped out no

question of creation-created-creating cycle. Brahman has not nature of

inheritance being nirguNa – any way you try to qualify Brahman it is

invalid. Iswara is already in the cycle of creation process. One should be

careful.

Frank:

yet finally, this *neither* reaches the realm of ultimate truth!

for, ultimate or absolute truth cannot be cornered by or through

the Mind...not even isvara's mahamahat! for the highest pointer

to the truth tells us, as alluded to above [as per rig veda],

that the sathyanishta (True State of Existence) is a Mystery

*without any possibility of resolution*.

 

Sada: what is implied is that intellectually it cannot be comprehended since

any comprehension is through the intellect. Mystery is that which one sees

but cannot be logically explained and that which is beyond intellect is

beyond resolution since resolution is done by the intellect.

 

Frank:

so, we cannot say with absolute certainty that either 1) the jnani

will achieve videhamukthi (in the sense he/she will never be born

again into the world) or 2) he will in fact be eternally reborn.

*neither* statement can be made as representing the absolute truth

....since not only is the conception we have of 'truth' irrelevant

in paramarthika, any statement made about its reflection in the

vyavaharika is *equally* a pure mystery!! and this latter point

seems to be almost exclusively forgotten or at least pragmatically

overlooked.

 

Sada – the first statement is absolutely true as per scriptures. The second

statement is wrong – since to have birth – the motivating factor – vaasana-

kaarana shariira has to be there – that is dissolved for ever and hence no

cause for rebirth. Since it is beyond intellectual comprehension since

intellect itself gets dissolved in the process – all other terms are used by

scriptures only to point out using the words that which cannot be pointed

out. That is the limitation of religious teaching – Please read J. Grimes

thesis on this topic or religious teaching. Hence Vyaasa emphasizes -

samanvaya or consistency that I am currently discussing with reference to

suutra 4.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

_______________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

The following observations are worth mentioning concerning this

particular point:

 

Namaste,

 

http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/religions/theology.htm

 

"Kama: The Indian love-god or Cupid is called Kamadeva. Though he is

identified with the Kama that is mentioned in the Nasadiya-Sukta of

the Rig-Veda and thus is a kind of self-born being, it is evident that

the Kama of this Sukta is an epithet of the cosmic creative Will and

cannot be identified with the Kamadeva of the Epics and Puranas."

_____

 

Sri Aurobindo, a scholar of English, Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit, had

this to say: [The Secret of the Veda, 1971, 1st enlarged ed.; publ.

Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust. p. 351 - 357]

 

"To translate the Veda is to border upon an attempt at the impossible.

For while a literal English rendering of the hymns of the ancient

Illuminates would be a falsification of their sense and spirit, a

version which aimed at bringing all the real thought to the surface

would be an interpretation rather than a translation.......

 

The Veda is a book of esoteric symbols, almost of spiritual formulae,

which masks itself as a collection of ritual poems. The inner sense is

psychological, universal, impersonal; the ostensible significance and

the figures which were meant to reveal to the initiates what they

concealed from the ignorant, are to all appearance crudely concrete,

intimately personal, loosely occasional and allusive........

 

The Vedic language as a whole is a powerful and remarkable instrument,

terse, knotted, virile, packed, and in its turns careful to follow the

natural flight of the thought in the mind than to achieve the smooth

and careful constructions and the clear transitions of a logical and

rhetorical syntax.........

 

To enter into the very heart of the mystic doctrine, we must ourselves

have trod the ancient paths and renewed the lost discipline, the

forgotten experience.....

 

The Rishis sought to conceal their knowledge from the unfit, believing

perhaps that the corruption of the best might lead to the worst and

fearing to give the potent wine of the Soma to the child and the

weakling......

 

Small is the chance that in an age which blinds our eyes with the

transient glories of the outward life and deafens our ears with the

victorious trumpets of a material and mechanical knowledge many shal

cast more than the eye of an intellectual and imaginative curiosity on

the pass-words of their ancient discipline orseek to penetrate into

the heart of their radiant mysteries...."

 

The naasadiiya suukta follows: [transl. By A.L.Basham]

 

naasa\'daasii\`nnosadaa\'siitta\`daanii\`M naasii\`drajo\` no

vyo\'maapa\`ro yat | \\

kimaava\'riiva\`H kuha\`kasya\`sharma\`nnaMbha\`H

kimaa\'sii\`dgaha\'naM gabhii\`raM || 1 ||

 

 

Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,

There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.

What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping

Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?

 

 

na mR^ityuraa\'siida\`mR^ita\`M na tarhi\` na

raatryaa\`.aahna\'.aaasiitprake\`taH |

aanii\'davaa\`taM sva\`dhayaa\` tadeka\`M tasmaa\'ddhaa\`nyannapa\`raH

kiJNcha\`naasa\' || 2 ||

 

Then there was neither death nor immortality

nor was there then the torch of night and day.

The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.

There was that One then, and there was no other.

 

tama\'.aaasii\`ttama\'saa guu\`hLamagre\' prake\`taM sa\'li\`laM

sarva\'maa.ai\`daM |\\

tu\`chchhyenaa\`bhvapi\'hita\`M yadaasii\`ttapa\'sa\`stanma\'hi\`naa

jaa\'ya\`taika\'M || 3 ||

 

 

At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.

All this was only unillumined water.

That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,

arose at last, born of the power of heat.

 

 

kaama\`stadagre\` sama\'varta\`taadhi mana\'so\` reta\'H pratha\`maM

yadaasii\'t |

sa\`tobandhu\`masa\'ti\` nira\'vindanhR^i\`di pra\`tiishhyaa\'

ka\`vayo\' manii\`shhaa || 4 ||

 

In the beginning desire descended on it -

that was the primal seed, born of the mind.

The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom

know that which is is kin to that which is not.

 

ti\`ra\`shchiino\` vita\'to ra\`shmire\'shhaama\`dhaH svi\'daa\`sii 3

du\`pari\'svidaasii 3 t |

re\`to\`dhaa.aaa\'sanmahi\`maana\'.aaasantsva\`dhaa.aa\`vastaa\`t

praya\'tiH pa\`rastaa\'t || 5 ||

 

And they have stretched their cord across the void,

and know what was above, and what below.

Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.

Below was strength, and over it was impulse.

 

 

ko.aa\`ddhaa ve\'da\` ka.ai\`ha pravo\'cha\`t kuta\`.aaajaa\'taa\`

kuta\'.ai\`yaM visR^i\'shhTiH |

a\`rvaagde\`vaa.aa\`sya vi\`sarja\'ne\`naathaa\`ko ve\'da\`

yata\'.aaaba\`bhuuva\' || 6 ||

 

 

But, after all, who knows, and who can say

Whence it all came, and how creation happened?

the gods themselves are later than creation,

so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

 

i\`yaM visR^i\'shhTi\`ryata\'.aaaba\`bhuuva\' yadi\' vaa da\`dhe

yadi\' vaa\` na |

yo.aa\`syaadhya\'xaH para\`me vyo\'ma\`ntso.aa\`Mga ve\'da\` yadi\'

vaa\` na veda\' || 7 ||

 

 

Whence all creation had its origin,

he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,

he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,

he knows - or maybe even he does not know.

 

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

advaitin, f maiello <egodust@d...> wrote:

 

 

my argument is that the 'acting dual' aspect of the formula

is an eternal one! i don't believe that when enlighenment is

had, that the world becomes unreal...that the jnani is never

to be reborn again. this, i contend, is another hyper-flawed

*relative* concept traditionally held by most hindus.

 

and as i've stated before, many times, the rig veda speaks to

each [cyclical] precondition of brahman's *decisive* creation,

as the result of *desire*. (no-one on the list wants to talk

about this! i had asked sri h.b. dave to post and discuss

these early passages, who said he would but never did..)

 

another passage in the rig veda says: [paraphrased] "Only

the highest Being knows the truth behind the Mystery of Being.

Or does he?" (i have no idea where this passage can be found

though...if anyone knows, i'd appreciate their informing me.)

 

this is of even greater import!: i'm requesting the scholars

of our List to investigate these passages and provide us with

another translation, besides the one given here:

http://www.hinduismtoday.kauai.hi.us/books/vedic_experience/Part1/VEPartIChA.htm\

\

l

 

(scroll down to "Nasadiya Sukta" [RV X, 129]. then scroll up

to its commentary: "1. Solitude" and "2. Sacrifice" where it's

stated: "Prajapati desires a second but he has no primary matter

out of which to create the universe....etc") (note: Prajapati or

hiranyagarbha (being the first outbreath or Mind-seed [as the

womb] of brahman at the dawn of a new cycle of creation).

 

....the point of the above being that **of course** the jnani

isn't above brahman .. but *is* brahman. and brahman, somehow

ever-possessing the power of maya, sruti tells us, will thus

create, sustain and destroy Its leela *eternally*!

 

so it can be said that the jnani reaches the point where he

is no longer reborn *in ignorance*!! however, he will be

reborn again and again, as per the nature inhering in brahman.

 

yet finally, this *neither* reaches the realm of ultimate truth!

for, ultimate or absolute truth cannot be cornered by or through

the Mind...not even isvara's mahamahat! for the highest pointer

to the truth tells us, as alluded to above [as per rig veda],

that the sathyanishta (True State of Existence) is a Mystery

*without any possibility of resolution*.

 

so, we cannot say with absolute certainty that either 1) the jnani

will achieve videhamukthi (in the sense he/she will never be born

again into the world) or 2) he will in fact be eternally reborn.

*neither* statement can be made as representing the absolute truth

....since not only is the conception we have of 'truth' irrelevant

in paramarthika, any statement made about its reflection in the

vyavaharika is *equally* a pure mystery!! and this latter point

seems to be almost exclusively forgotten or at least pragmatically

overlooked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda@h...> wrote:

>

>

> Frank:

> and as i've stated before, many times, the rig veda speaks to

> each [cyclical] precondition of brahman's *decisive* creation,

> as the result of *desire*. (no-one on the list wants to talk

> about this! i had asked sri h.b. dave to post and discuss

> these early passages, who said he would but never did..)

>

> Sada: As discussed above and as is presented in the discussion

related to

> suutra 2 and will be discussed more from suutra 5 on ? and as

Shankara and

> vyaasa clarifies ? whenever Brahman is used we are referring to

nirguNa who

> then can not have desire ? since he gets qualified as Desiree who

has or had

> desire. That Brahman with desire to create is what is Iswara. Now we

have

> saguNa Brahman ? who is all the powers and all the glory etc who

can create

> either as his liila or let prakrR^iti manifest in his presence ?all are

> descriptors at Iswara Level ?Iswara came into picture because ?jiiva

sees

> the creation and wants to account for it - Hence the creator,

creation and

> creating. ?using samishhTi vaasana-s, samishhTi mind etc., which is

nothing

> but hiranya garba, Tejasa etc.

>

> Frank:

> another passage in the rig veda says: [paraphrased] "Only

> the highest Being knows the truth behind the Mystery of Being.

> Or does he?" (i have no idea where this passage can be found

> though...if anyone knows, i'd appreciate their informing me.)

>

> this is of even greater import!: i'm requesting the scholars

> of our List to investigate these passages and provide us with

> another translation, besides the one given here:

>

http://www.hinduismtoday.kauai.hi.us/books/vedic_experience/Part1/VEPartIChA.htm\

l

>

> (scroll down to "Nasadiya Sukta" [RV X, 129]. then scroll up

> to its commentary: "1. Solitude" and "2. Sacrifice" where it's

> stated: "Prajapati desires a second but he has no primary matter

> out of which to create the universe....etc") (note: Prajapati or

> hiranyagarbha (being the first outbreath or Mind-seed [as the

> womb] of Brahman at the dawn of a new cycle of creation).

>

>

[Guest guest]

Kuntimaddi Sadananda wrote:

>

> Frank & Murthy Gaaru- if you do not mind my stepping in, I like to present

> my understanding on the subject for whatever it is worth. I know both of you

> are aware of the facts but for the benefit of the other readers I go over

> the statement by statement clarifying from my perspective. I will adress

> first part of Frank's post.

 

 

hariH OM! sadaji-

namaste.

 

please realize (it's quite clear in most of my posts), that i

have no philosophical agenda. that the only premise i'm working

from is that--as janaka said to guru astavakra, quite succinctly

[paraphrasing]: "The mind is the thief stealing my natural bliss,

i shall deal with it summarily." ...that the main thing is to

disassemble, decimate, defuse [or however you want to put it] the

stubborn judgment process in/of the mind...specifically in the

philosophical Mind. and for this reason, whatever i offer--

whatever is, as i mentioned in the last post to murthyji, 'coming

through me,' in the course of channeling the script of isvara

(which is so being transmitted this exact way through *all of us*

....thus incidentally pointing out that none of us are ever ourselves

the doers involved, merely instruments in the Plan of isvara)--is

for the purpose of methodology and *not* ideology!

 

it's also important to point out [in forums such as this], the need

to be capable of grasping the *intent* in a given post, as well as

have a feel for the poster's overall understanding and presentation,

before we're in a position to effectively criticize. obviously this

is not an easy task...in fact it's truly an artform. for example,

i've seen all along how each of the regular posters has a certain

angle of approach; and i might disagree, for instance, with something

that might be said specifically...however, within the context of what

i'm capable of assessing is their approach, i feel it has significant

value for the people who are in tune with their particular wavelength

of understanding [or position on the path, so to speak] and therefore

will refrain from commenting. some of us clearly rely heavily on

scripture to support our views; others, like myself, are motivated

to attempt to speak from our feelings and accumulated understanding

[of the matter at hand]. there are advantages and disadvantages to

each of these approaches, as one would expect.. the ideal would

obviously be a blend of the two, which is basically what's happening

in any event..

 

(it's worth mentioning, as an aside: it's easy to quote from scripture

and conclude 'such and such statement' is the answer to 'such and such

question,' when we all really know how easy it is to curve the meaning

to suit and support our position, or take ideas out of context, etc..)

 

re my post in this instance: if you take the whole of it--in the

form of an overview--you would see that it's fully in accord with

*most* of what you decided to refute within it, part by part.

(again, it wasn't *your* decision to do so.....but, see, to have

to be pointing out things like this continuously would almost

cripple our communication process. by now, we should be in the

position to acknowledge that we're already quite aware of the

basics: such as there being no karta, etc)

 

entire books have been written about the matter of effective

communication. i'm sure you're quite aware that how to effectively

listen would be one of its foremost requisites. in this context, we

have to be mindful of the factor of semantics, in words *and* ideas,

that clearly tend to be the main culprit for misunderstandings. in a

very real way, each human being speaks a different language based on

their unique development as the result of their unique collection of

experiences that lead to their unique definitions of *each* of their

words!

 

in my case, i'm attempting to establish what i understand as the

*method* of advaita...which, as alluded to above, hones in on

defusing or rendering the ego-Mind harmless...ideally becoming merely

a witness to 'What Is.'

 

i've come to understand that the *method* of advaita seeks to unify

our fields of experience, Within and Without, for the express purpose

of affording us the opportunity to exhaust our obsessive-compulsion

to judge and categorize...out of the habit-mode of analyzing Life

and everything in it, as per 'Self vs not-Self.' whatever means is

adopted to affect this end (some refer to as 'the attenuated Mind')

is justified. that is, the philosophic ideas *themselves* have no

other weight than the end they're capable of affecting! which is

also why i conclude many posts with the fact that "all This [as well

as That] is an unfathomable Mystery"! including the post we're now

discussing...i don't see how this point i've been making can be

overlooked...afterall, by now i'm sounding like a broken record.. :-)

_____________

 

re the debate [at hand] on our interpretation of advaita's concepts,

defining its *strategic method of operation* in our posts:

 

where we *do* differ--clearly--is on two accounts (which, as i said,

has to do with understanding the *strategy* of the method of the

jnanamarga [via advaita] and *not* propounding any pat ideological

philosophy): 1) the idea pertaining to the verity of the existence

of the leela; and 2) the idea re whether the jivanmuktha becomes

permanently discarnate after exhausting the prarabdha.

 

in these i contend that the popular view (based on what i'm claiming

is an erroneous interpretation of sastric axioms) is really promoting

the very opposite of advaita!: which seeks to establish that there is

*no* real difference (no *duality*) between the Unmanifest and Manifest

components of Reality: the nir-guna and sa-guna aspects of brahman.

this popular view--as commonly held by strictly orthodox proponents

in any religion--i define as 'exoteric.' orthodoxy, in my experience,

almost inevitably becomes restrictive and blind-faith authoritative.

whereas the 'esoteric' counterpart in any religion actually reveals

a compellingly universal metaphysics(!) which, in of itself, provides

a great reinforcing as to what specifically should be our goal: not

an established preceptive or tenent-oriented spiritual philosophy,

but rather the means to experientially connect to our Primal Being

[we refer to variously as brahman, ayn soph, allah, nagual, etc].)

 

as i've posted many times, here's what sri ramana has said, re the

nature of the leela:

 

Visitor: "Sri Aurobindo says the world is real and you say

it is unreal. How can the world be unreal?"

 

Bhagavan: "The Vedantins do not say the world is unreal.

That is a misunderstanding. If they did, what would be the

meaning of the Vedantic text: "All this is Brahman"? They

only mean that the world is unreal as world, but is real

as Self. If you regard the world as not-Self, it is not

real. Everything, whether you call it maya or lila or sakti,

must be within the Self and not apart from It. There can

be no sakti apart from the sakta."

 

- DAY BY DAY WITH BHAGAVAN (1977) p.233

 

and sivananda said this:

 

"This Maya and Brahman are inseparable."

 

- LECTURES ON YOGA AND VEDANTA (1984) p.241

 

the above, to me, is the very pith and essence of non-duality; and

it has wide-sweeping implications, especially regarding the proper

perspective on matters such as the way the ego-Mind apprehends and

organizes its attitude toward the nature of the world--generating

therefrom [prior to moksha] its entanglement in the web of constant,

haunting judgments and antagonisms (the very foundation of the jiva's

[dilemma re its] *mysteriously apparent* internal battle! emphasizing

here 'mysteriously apparent' because upon Self-enquiry, no such battle

or even mind can be found! ... :-).

 

there's no need to remind anyone here that what we're really after is

Self-realization. And whichever way we chose to perceive the matter

of the ideas involved is, *in of itself*, not the overriding/pressing

issue. the reason non-dual philosophy is so powerful is it avails the

most expedient way for the Mind to cease and desist its habit-formed

campaign of obsessive judgment and hence alienation from its own source

in the Self. it clings to the constant battle between what the indriyas

are transmitting and what it wants to believe is existentially *apart*

from such data received. this battle is the result of the inability

to *effectively* reconcile the two!! and to maintain the attitude

that the world or leela is a hare's horn, only helps perpetuate it!

as does the idea that jivanmukthi resolves into videhamukthi, creating,

again, a dichotomy between the world and its source in brahman...thus

reinforcing instead of defusing the internal battle.

 

in light of this, in fact, *any* ideas held [short of concluding

'all this is a Mystery'] only serve to sustain the colossal dynamo

of ego-Mind and its ages-forged machine of churning judgments.

 

bhagavan ramana has said, in so many words, that as one approaches

the final threshold of moksha, the greatest of all obstacles is his

precious collection of philosophical ideas [sustaining preconceived

notions and therefore *expectations*].

 

OM shaanthi shaanthi shaanthiH

 

regards,

frank

[Guest guest]

sunderh wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> The following observations are worth mentioning concerning this

> particular point:

 

 

thanks sunderji!

 

OM shaanthi.

pranaam,

frank

[Guest guest]

Thank you Frankji for your in-depth understanding and the sustained

eloquence contained in your words as they bring great joy. Your approach

suggesting that it is the judgment process of the mind itself that must be

resolved or defused is most powerful and yet extremely subtle. I know you

make such a statement based on decades of experience and understanding and

first hand knowledge. The potency of your words is obvious. The example you

gave about Janka and Astavakra is an excellent one and makes your point

well. Did not Rishi Astavakra say to King Janaka, "Stop"! And did not King

Janka immediately understand that surrendering everything, even the movement

of the mind, (the mind itself) was meant by that instruction of his Guru?

 

Language limits us in our expression of Truth but it seems that to cross the

final barrier in understanding requires the willingness to completely

surrender (all ideas, scriptural and otherwise, indeed all the faculties of

the mind - the mind itself) to the Lord of the Heart Who has never been

separate from us. Even this surrender comes about due to Grace.

 

Frankji you stated,

__________________________

"bhagavan ramana has said, in so many words, that as one approaches

the final threshold of moksha, the greatest of all obstacles is his

precious collection of philosophical ideas [sustaining preconceived

notions and therefore *expectations*]."

______________________________

 

Ramana Maharshi did not mince words when it came to directly pointing at the

Truth free and independent from conventional traditions. We are all saying

the same thing in our own unique way depending on our backgrounds.

 

Frankji, your whole post is worth reading carefully. I again quote you below

as you make an important point regarding communications on these lists. The

fact is that there are many experienced people on these lists in every sense

of the word. For what it is worth, it is also my personal observation that

having a general feeling for where a person is coming from may be helpful in

responding and fostering a discussion.

_____

"t's also important to point out [in forums such as this], the need

to be capable of grasping the *intent* in a given post, as well as

have a feel for the poster's overall understanding and presentation,

before we're in a position to effectively criticize. obviously this

is not an easy task...in fact it's truly an artform. for example,

i've seen all along how each of the regular posters has a certain

angle of approach; and i might disagree, for instance, with something

that might be said specifically...however, within the context of what

i'm capable of assessing is their approach, i feel it has significant

value for the people who are in tune with their particular wavelength

of understanding [or position on the path, so to speak] and therefore

will refrain from commenting. some of us clearly rely heavily on

scripture to support our views; others, like myself, are motivated

to attempt to speak from our feelings and accumulated understanding

[of the matter at hand]. there are advantages and disadvantages to

each of these approaches, as one would expect.. the ideal would

obviously be a blend of the two, which is basically what's happening

in any event.."

_______

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

f maiello [egodust]

Friday, March 16, 2001 12:53 PM

advaitin

Re: universal koan - typos fixed; please ignore

former

 

 

hariH OM! sadaji-

namaste.

 

please realize (it's quite clear in most of my posts), that i

have no philosophical agenda. that the only premise i'm working

from is that--as janaka said to guru astavakra, quite succinctly

[paraphrasing]: "The mind is the thief stealing my natural bliss,

i shall deal with it summarily." ...that the main thing is to

disassemble, decimate, defuse [or however you want to put it] the

stubborn judgment process in/of the mind...specifically in the

philosophical Mind. and for this reason, whatever i offer--

whatever is, as i mentioned in the last post to murthyji, 'coming

through me,' in the course of channeling the script of isvara

(which is so being transmitted this exact way through *all of us*

....thus incidentally pointing out that none of us are ever ourselves

the doers involved, merely instruments in the Plan of isvara)--is

for the purpose of methodology and *not* ideology!

 

it's also important to point out [in forums such as this], the need

to be capable of grasping the *intent* in a given post, as well as

have a feel for the poster's overall understanding and presentation,

before we're in a position to effectively criticize. obviously this

is not an easy task...in fact it's truly an artform. for example,

i've seen all along how each of the regular posters has a certain

angle of approach; and i might disagree, for instance, with something

that might be said specifically...however, within the context of what

i'm capable of assessing is their approach, i feel it has significant

value for the people who are in tune with their particular wavelength

of understanding [or position on the path, so to speak] and therefore

will refrain from commenting. some of us clearly rely heavily on

scripture to support our views; others, like myself, are motivated

to attempt to speak from our feelings and accumulated understanding

[of the matter at hand]. there are advantages and disadvantages to

each of these approaches, as one would expect.. the ideal would

obviously be a blend of the two, which is basically what's happening

in any event..

 

(it's worth mentioning, as an aside: it's easy to quote from scripture

and conclude 'such and such statement' is the answer to 'such and such

question,' when we all really know how easy it is to curve the meaning

to suit and support our position, or take ideas out of context, etc..)

 

re my post in this instance: if you take the whole of it--in the

form of an overview--you would see that it's fully in accord with

*most* of what you decided to refute within it, part by part.

(again, it wasn't *your* decision to do so.....but, see, to have

to be pointing out things like this continuously would almost

cripple our communication process. by now, we should be in the

position to acknowledge that we're already quite aware of the

basics: such as there being no karta, etc)

 

entire books have been written about the matter of effective

communication. i'm sure you're quite aware that how to effectively

listen would be one of its foremost requisites. in this context, we

have to be mindful of the factor of semantics, in words *and* ideas,

that clearly tend to be the main culprit for misunderstandings. in a

very real way, each human being speaks a different language based on

their unique development as the result of their unique collection of

experiences that lead to their unique definitions of *each* of their

words!

 

in my case, i'm attempting to establish what i understand as the

*method* of advaita...which, as alluded to above, hones in on

defusing or rendering the ego-Mind harmless...ideally becoming merely

a witness to 'What Is.'

 

i've come to understand that the *method* of advaita seeks to unify

our fields of experience, Within and Without, for the express purpose

of affording us the opportunity to exhaust our obsessive-compulsion

to judge and categorize...out of the habit-mode of analyzing Life

and everything in it, as per 'Self vs not-Self.' whatever means is

adopted to affect this end (some refer to as 'the attenuated Mind')

is justified. that is, the philosophic ideas *themselves* have no

other weight than the end they're capable of affecting! which is

also why i conclude many posts with the fact that "all This [as well

as That] is an unfathomable Mystery"! including the post we're now

discussing...i don't see how this point i've been making can be

overlooked...afterall, by now i'm sounding like a broken record.. :-)

_____________

 

re the debate [at hand] on our interpretation of advaita's concepts,

defining its *strategic method of operation* in our posts:

 

where we *do* differ--clearly--is on two accounts (which, as i said,

has to do with understanding the *strategy* of the method of the

jnanamarga [via advaita] and *not* propounding any pat ideological

philosophy): 1) the idea pertaining to the verity of the existence

of the leela; and 2) the idea re whether the jivanmuktha becomes

permanently discarnate after exhausting the prarabdha.

 

in these i contend that the popular view (based on what i'm claiming

is an erroneous interpretation of sastric axioms) is really promoting

the very opposite of advaita!: which seeks to establish that there is

*no* real difference (no *duality*) between the Unmanifest and Manifest

components of Reality: the nir-guna and sa-guna aspects of brahman.

this popular view--as commonly held by strictly orthodox proponents

in any religion--i define as 'exoteric.' orthodoxy, in my experience,

almost inevitably becomes restrictive and blind-faith authoritative.

whereas the 'esoteric' counterpart in any religion actually reveals

a compellingly universal metaphysics(!) which, in of itself, provides

a great reinforcing as to what specifically should be our goal: not

an established preceptive or tenent-oriented spiritual philosophy,

but rather the means to experientially connect to our Primal Being

[we refer to variously as brahman, ayn soph, allah, nagual, etc].)

 

as i've posted many times, here's what sri ramana has said, re the

nature of the leela:

 

Visitor: "Sri Aurobindo says the world is real and you say

it is unreal. How can the world be unreal?"

 

Bhagavan: "The Vedantins do not say the world is unreal.

That is a misunderstanding. If they did, what would be the

meaning of the Vedantic text: "All this is Brahman"? They

only mean that the world is unreal as world, but is real

as Self. If you regard the world as not-Self, it is not

real. Everything, whether you call it maya or lila or sakti,

must be within the Self and not apart from It. There can

be no sakti apart from the sakta."

 

- DAY BY DAY WITH BHAGAVAN (1977) p.233

 

and sivananda said this:

 

"This Maya and Brahman are inseparable."

 

- LECTURES ON YOGA AND VEDANTA (1984) p.241

 

the above, to me, is the very pith and essence of non-duality; and

it has wide-sweeping implications, especially regarding the proper

perspective on matters such as the way the ego-Mind apprehends and

organizes its attitude toward the nature of the world--generating

therefrom [prior to moksha] its entanglement in the web of constant,

haunting judgments and antagonisms (the very foundation of the jiva's

[dilemma re its] *mysteriously apparent* internal battle! emphasizing

here 'mysteriously apparent' because upon Self-enquiry, no such battle

or even mind can be found! ... :-).

 

there's no need to remind anyone here that what we're really after is

Self-realization. And whichever way we chose to perceive the matter

of the ideas involved is, *in of itself*, not the overriding/pressing

issue. the reason non-dual philosophy is so powerful is it avails the

most expedient way for the Mind to cease and desist its habit-formed

campaign of obsessive judgment and hence alienation from its own source

in the Self. it clings to the constant battle between what the indriyas

are transmitting and what it wants to believe is existentially *apart*

from such data received. this battle is the result of the inability

to *effectively* reconcile the two!! and to maintain the attitude

that the world or leela is a hare's horn, only helps perpetuate it!

as does the idea that jivanmukthi resolves into videhamukthi, creating,

again, a dichotomy between the world and its source in brahman...thus

reinforcing instead of defusing the internal battle.

 

in light of this, in fact, *any* ideas held [short of concluding

'all this is a Mystery'] only serve to sustain the colossal dynamo

of ego-Mind and its ages-forged machine of churning judgments.

 

bhagavan ramana has said, in so many words, that as one approaches

the final threshold of moksha, the greatest of all obstacles is his

precious collection of philosophical ideas [sustaining preconceived

notions and therefore *expectations*].

 

OM shaanthi shaanthi shaanthiH

 

regards,

frank

[Guest guest]

>f maiello <egodust

>

>Kuntimaddi Sadananda wrote:

> >

> > Frank & Murthy Gaaru- if you do not mind my stepping in, I like to

>present

> > my understanding on the subject for whatever it is worth. I know both of

>you

> > are aware of the facts but for the benefit of the other readers I go

>over

> > the statement by statement clarifying from my perspective. I will

>adress

> > first part of Frank's post.

>

>

>hariH OM! sadaji-

>namaste.

>

>please realize (it's quite clear in most of my posts), that i

>have no philosophical agenda.

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

Frankji -

 

As the introduction of my post clearly indicated why I was writing taking

statement by statement. I know you do not have any agenda and nor I do have

one. We both are after the truth and that is the beauty of these

discussions too. What I understood learning from my teachers - I presented

and will continute to present. The discussions involving agreements and

disagreements, as I had emphasized with Shree G. Murthy gaaru -is not with

individuals but with the concepts. If I have come across as the criticism

of an individual my sincere apologizes. Please rest assured that I have

greatest respect for your wisdom and the topic is meant for discussion and

clarification from individual perspectives. If I exceeded the bounds

explicitly or implicitly my apologies again again. It was never intended to

be that way.

 

Essential point I was making and continue to make is the differentiation of

Iswara state and Brahman state. Brahman being nirguNa, and that includes not

having desires too. When scriptures talk about Brahman with desire -we are

referring to Iswara - Brahman is used in the sense of Iswara and sometimes

in the sense of jiiva too. Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhwa each have

interpreted these scriptural statements in their own way. What I preseted

is - as I mention not what I think - but what is presented by achaarya-s

using scriptures as pramaaNa. A realized (jivva which is same as Brahman

now)cannot have rebirth - since bith is propelled by invidual vaasana-s. He

can of course take birth by the demand of the samishhTi vaasana -And that is

what we call it as avataara - that is Brahman as Iswara taking the birth as

jiiva but without the delusion since ignorance is the not the cause for the

birth.

If these concepts are clear - My post has served the intended purpose -If

not let us discuss this out.

 

With saashhTanga praNams

sadaa annanda

 

 

_______________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Frankji and Sadanandaji:

 

Pranams,

 

My stepping in now is just to express my appreciation to both of you

for your viewpoints and please don't mistake this as an interference.

I want to inform both of you that a sizable number of members of this

list admire you both for your continuous and valuable contributions

through your participation. Those members which includes me know your

background and you two have demonstrated through your postings and

sharing of knowledge that you are true seekers. I am glad to be in

your company.

 

More than anything else, I find the exchanges between you are quite

refreshing give practical lessons to anyone who want to learn to

express disagreements pleasantly and forcefully. Our sages from

Vedavyasa to Ramanamaharishi have shown and given us the courage and

freedom to express what we believe. Let us keep continuing our

conversations with the spirit and courage shown by the sages of the

past and present.

 

warmest regards,

 

OM shaanthi shaanthi shaanthiH

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

Kuntimaddi Sadananda wrote:

>

> Essential point I was making and continue to make is the differentiation of

> Iswara state and Brahman state. Brahman being nirguNa, and that includes not

> having desires too. When scriptures talk about Brahman with desire -we are

> referring to Iswara - Brahman is used in the sense of Iswara and sometimes

> in the sense of jiiva too. Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhwa each have

> interpreted these scriptural statements in their own way. What I preseted

> is - as I mention not what I think - but what is presented by achaarya-s

> using scriptures as pramaaNa. A realized (jivva which is same as Brahman

> now)cannot have rebirth - since bith is propelled by invidual vaasana-s. He

> can of course take birth by the demand of the samishhTi vaasana -And that is

> what we call it as avataara - that is Brahman as Iswara taking the birth as

> jiiva but without the delusion since ignorance is the not the cause for the

> birth.

> If these concepts are clear - My post has served the intended purpose -If

> not let us discuss this out.

>

 

 

hariH OM! sadaji-

pranaam.

 

yes...obviously we have different approaches by virtue

of different interpretations of the vedic sastras, and

especially what advaita represents [as per the concepts

it expounds specifically in terms of *methodology*].

 

i don't feel it would be fruitful for us to debate which

understanding comes closest to [what might be referred to

as] advaita's 'intended arrangement of concepts' leading

to its unequivocally radical, transformative approach.

 

as my wife once said, "true advaita is beyond academia."

which is how i see it also. (however, this view is from

only one of potentially many valid vantage points.)

 

yet, within this vantage point: holding to ideas, for

example, regarding whether or not a jivanmuktha will

take birth again is, *on its own merits as a potential

verity* unimportant(!), relative to whether adopting

[such an idea] releases us or not from the clutches of

the illusion of our delusion.

 

however, it depends on the individual in question where,

for all we know, one approach may indeed be better than

another! therefore, debating which is more efficacious

or even more or less representative of even gaudapada's

or sankara's original intention behind the teaching, if

the means of a given conceptual application [or approach]

works, that's all that should really matter. i'm sure we

can agree: the bottom line is mukthi, not philosophy.

 

peace in ONE,

frank