Shankara's philosophy for the World!

[Guest guest]

Shankara's philosophy for the World!

Inspirations from the Vedas

 

Yesterday I and some of my friends had a very nice discussion, while we were

reading and trying to understand Brahma-sutra's commentary by Bhagavan Shri

Shankaracharya. We were not trying to understand it verbally, we have many times

understood it verbally (some among us have even taught it to others many times),

but we wanted the truth to flow out from it, the universal truth, not the verbal

meaning, we seem sometimes full with that, sometimes it becomes too much for us,

after having been reading/studying/teaching these things for the last many

years. We would like to realize them now, we would like to penetrate deep in

them.

 

We shouldn't forget that these words are just indications, we should try to see

towards that which they indicate, but most of the scholars loose the point and

keep on seeing towards the indication mark and feel very upset when they don't

find the city on the signboard ;-)

 

Though it may sound a paradox, these words are trying in vain to describe that

which is above the ability to be described. However, the truth is never

described in fact, but the words ultimately lead us to its realization, but

indeed only if we are not perplexed by them and we don't keep a firm hold on

them and only if we understand their indication and then look towards that

direction, placing our backs towards the words. That is essential, we have to

look in to the opposite direction of the indication, if we want the indication

to do its word. Isn't it?

 

However, I would like to share some of my thoughts/inspiration with all of you,

and let many be inspired by these supreme truths.

 

Some say God in the sky, some say God is in his supreme abode somewhere above

this world, in a realm I don't know where. Vedas and Vedanta teach us that He is

within us, more than that our own Self. Aitareya Upanishad makes it very clear,

"after creating this person, He entered it". If this is understood literally,

than what is the soul different from God.

 

When we say God is existing within us in our heart, do we mean that two souls

are existing, the first being the soul or spirit of God and the second our soul?

I feel, this is a naive statement. There is only one entity in our heart and

everywhere else, that is God and that is what we are, I, you and the rest around

us, every single thing.

 

The Son of God places it so nicely in His great words which are treasures for

every person seeking a transcendental truth in his life. He says in the Gospel

of Thomas (1:3),

 

"Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in

the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is

in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you

and it is outside you."

 

The "parama pada (the supreme abode) of Vishnu" as the Upanishads and Rig-veda

term it, is indeed this what Jesus calls "the kingdom of heaven".

 

How nicely does Rig-veda state it, "That Supreme Abode of Vishnu is always

visible to those who have realized it, like the eyes see all this in the

day-light".

 

Didn't Jesus see it like we do see every thing before us? Isn't he in that state

of realization, which is described in the Vedas?

 

What does Vishnu mean? The word has derived from the root "vish", which means to

enter, thus giving the mean, "he who has entered every thing". His supreme abode

is our Heart, called "dahara aakasha" in the Upanishads or "haarda dyu" the

heaven existing in the heart. Though He is everywhere, when He is realized, He

would always be realized within your own self, therefore, the heart has been

said as to be His abode. This has been many times clarified by Bhagavan

Shankaracharya in his commentary on Brahma-sutras and by Vachaspati Mishra in

his Bhamati, one of the foremost sub-commentaries on Shankara's commentary.

 

In the same way, the "svarga" described in the Vedas, is in fact this kingdom

of heaven, it also has derived from the word "swa" which means "the self".

 

The word "svarga" has been very clearly used in the end Kena Upanishad in the

meaning of that state of Realization. Why don't we apply the same meaning to the

rest context, wherever that word has been used in the Vedas? Why do we apply

other stupid and speculative aspects, even in this era of scientific

advancement?

 

However, later it has been introduced by the Purana's in a very different way,

having Apsara's etc. According to my thought this must be an influence of Islam.

Islam seems to talk about a heaven in that way. I don't know, if that is really

what even Mohammad himself meant, or is it just an exoteric teaching for the

mass, and he might have kept the esoteric teachings for his own self and his

nearest disciples, as Moses did with the commandments of God.

 

However it may be, it doesn't concern me, what I think is that we should realize

the truth and see it with our own eyes, not these outer eyes, but an eye

transcending this mortal existence, the third eye of Shiva, which destroys this

whole world, isn't it what Upanishads and Gita and all these scriptures had been

doing for the last many many thousand years, destroying this world filled with

grieve and sorrow and problems?

 

We shouldn't believe something merely because it is written here and there. God

has given us an intellect to ponder and we should use it, not the mind, but the

intellect. Deep contemplation and meditation on these truths reveal them to us,

therefore every religion in this world teaches or practices meditation, isn't

it?

 

However, the word Shiva literally means "Supreme Bliss" and Shankara means, that

which creates Supreme Piece, is it not this knowledge which is described in the

Vedas?

 

When a person obtains that knowledge, he transcends the hatred, which is there

in the state of ignorance towards generally hated things. And to show this fact,

Lord Shiva has been shown possessing all those things, which a general person

would hate to have. He keeps them with him, this shows that he has transcended

hatred and loves even the most hated thing. If it is this what we can learn from

Lord Shiva, then I think it is useful for us to be his devotee,

otherwise.........???

 

What does the Yajur Veda say? It says, "He who sees all and everything in his

own self, and sees his own self in all, he never hates anything".

 

Isn't it this, which is and has to be the essence of all religions and of the

philosophy of Shankaracharya. Shankaracharya and his grand-master

Gaudapadacharya states very clearly that they don't have any problem with any

other philosophy and can accept all the views, but it is those people, who have

problems with our philosophy. And therefore, Shankaracharya states it so nicely

in his commentary on Prashna Upanishads, "the cause of debate should be thrown

towards them who are debating, a Vedavit (who knows the Vedas) should protect

his mind from them and should always be happy".

 

Isn't it what Buddha also said many times? And I think every self-enlightened

soul would say the same.

 

Debating/arguing leads nowhere, isn't it this what Shankaracharya wants to say?

However, if it is done to exchange views and thoughts, like many here inside are

doing, it may help our mind, intellect or the way of thinking in becoming broad,

broad like the Supreme Truth called Brahman in the Upanishads. But if it is done

with a feeling of superiority complex, it becomes totally useless, isn't it?

 

Haven't you ever looked at a lamb? How happy it is, how cheerful and in a state

of bliss it remains. It doesn't discuss, it doesn't read, it doesn't learn, it

is just happy, simply just happy. There is no cause of its happiness, in fact

true happiness and eternal happiness has no cause, every happiness having a

cause would and should end with its cause. Why don't learn something from that

lamb? Like Adi Guru Dattatreya accepted 24 masters, let us also do the same. Let

the loving small lamb be our best master.

 

In fact God has placed so many loving and harsh teachers in this world, that

there is no need to study any book. From whom did the first author learn these

Universal Truths? But indeed because we constantly tend to ignore or are disable

to understand their massage, we need books, which described those very same

truths, which are taught by these mostly unnoticed teachers, like a loving small

lamb, and endless good or bad circumstances forthcoming in our daily life, and

endless other things. Thus great saints tell us, "this world is filled with

knowledge, one just needs to open his doors and let the knowledge flow in him".

But, alas, we are like containers, really like air-tight containers, we want to

be like that, and thus we loose the opportunity to understand the Supreme Truth

and simply pass over it. Alas! It is so sad! :-(

 

Loving Regards and I apologies if I hurt anybodies feelings, but I just wanted

to place the facts straightforward,

 

Siddhartha Krishna