RE: prarabdha karma

[Guest guest]

Two points of confusion regarding recent posts on the subject.

 

Sada-ji - you keep referring to samishhTi karma. samishhTi means sacrifice,

I believe. I think you actually mean samashTi - in the (Samkhya?) sense of

universal spirit as opposed to vyashTi, the individual? (I think I mentioned

once before that all this Sanskrit can actually lead to more rather than

less confusion! :-) )

 

You also say, speaking of the actions of Sage: - "There is no ego-centric

entity for action since there are no ego-centric vaasana-s there to propel

the actions. Hence even though a jiivanmukta appear to act - actually

Iswara himself acts since Jiivanmukta is the one who understood that he is

Brahman - hence now it is as though Brahman will be acting. Hence

consequence of the actions by the jiivanmukta belong to Brahman that is to

everyone - good or bad."

 

My understanding was that, since the Sage acts without any desire for a

result (in fact he knows that he does not act at all!), there is no

resulting sanskaara anyway, in which case there would be no good or bad

consequences to go to vyashTi or samashhTi.

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dennis Waite wrote:

>Two points of confusion regarding recent posts on the subject.

>

>Sada-ji - you keep referring to samishhTi karma. samishhTi means sacrifice,

>I believe. I think you actually mean samashTi - in the (Samkhya?) sense of

>universal spirit as opposed to vyashTi, the individual? (I think I

>mentioned

>once before that all this Sanskrit can actually lead to more rather than

>less confusion! :-) )

 

Dennis your first point is well taken. Thanks.

>

>You also say, speaking of the actions of Sage: - "There is no ego-centric

>entity for action since there are no ego-centric vaasana-s there to propel

>the actions. Hence even though a jiivanmukta appear to act - actually

>Iswara himself acts since Jiivanmukta is the one who understood that he is

>Brahman - hence now it is as though Brahman will be acting. Hence

>consequence of the actions by the jiivanmukta belong to Brahman that is to

>everyone - good or bad."

>

>My understanding was that, since the Sage acts without any desire for a

>result (in fact he knows that he does not act at all!), there is no

>resulting sanskaara anyway, in which case there would be no good or bad

>consequences to go to vyashTi or samashhTi.

>

 

My understanding is yes you are right that the sage acts without any

self-centered desire. Therefore action itself is motivated not by his

individual self but by total self - Iswara ichha. One can say - 'His will'

will be done - as it is Lord's desire - since any action is propelled by the

desire to act, even though it is not self-centered on the sage. Again every

action will have results, which are good and bad - good is defined here that

which takes one towards the truth and bad is that which takes one away from

the truth. Since Sage is already established in the truth, it does not

apply for him. It is for those who approach him for knowledge. Sage

teaches, not propelled by his desire to teach, but by the desire of the

students who are seeking a teacher who is well established in truth. This

is the law of nature. An appropriate teacher is provided for those who

seek.

 

Also this is one of the fundamental questions raised by vishhTaadvaitins and

dvaitins in rejecting jiivanmukta concept - since a jiivanmukta knows there

is no one to teach, how can he teach? - is there question. An Advaitin will

say yes he does not teach - he is non-doer. But from student's point there

is a teacher and teaching is done. It is the Lord himself teaches through

the available equipments - body, mind and intellect of the sage who is no

more in that body, mind and intellect. Guru brahma Guru Vishnu Guru devo

maheswaraH - is not just words but a fact. Good comes to the students out

of that action. Those who abuse Him - as those who abused Krishana in his

times, bad comes to those who abuse. Hence action and results are

accountable and that is based on universal principle that every cuase has an

effect and efect effect must have a cause. Even the avataara or birth of the

Lord is propelled by the desire of the total - pavitraanaaya sadhuunaam

vinaashaayach duhshkR^itaam - is only for the sake of good and bad in the

totality. All these, of course, have to be understood within vyavahaara.

 

Personally I donot see any inconsistencies in the logic.

 

Open as usual for discussion.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

>Dennis

>

 

_______________

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

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Sadanandaji,

 

Thank you very much for explaining the finer points

about prarabdha karma and surrounding concepts. I like

your explanation for these reasons :

 

1. It is comforting. It says that I have at least some

control over my future and am not completely at the

mercy of unseen forces.

 

2. It is encouraging and assuring. It encourages to do

the right thing in every situation and assures that no

good action will go waste.

 

3. It is logical and stands to reason. Once I accept

the concept of rebirth, everything else falls in

place.

 

4. It points out regular sadhana as a way of helping

the wavering the mind to refocus on the right path.

 

Thanks also for answering the excellent followup

questions from other group members. I too had a doubt

that how could the Divine Will expressing itself

through jeevanmukta ever produce bad results. But the

answer came from your example of the actions of Lord

Krishna and seeing the results of those actions from

the perspective of vyavahaara. So ultimately one needs

some buddhi even to recognize and appreciate a Divine

person in our presence, and if we do not have it, we

can at least attempt to get it by trying different

ways (sadhana) to keep our mind pure. Is that right ?

 

Thank you very much.

 

- Shirish

 

 

 

 

Get personalized email addresses from Mail - only $35

a year! http://personal.mail./

[Guest guest]

> I too had a doubt

>that how could the Divine Will expressing itself

>through jeevanmukta ever produce bad results. But the

>answer came from your example of the actions of Lord

>Krishna and seeing the results of those actions from

>the perspective of vyavahaara. So ultimately one needs

>some buddhi even to recognize and appreciate a Divine

>person in our presence, and if we do not have it, we

>can at least attempt to get it by trying different

>ways (sadhana) to keep our mind pure. Is that right ?

>

>Thank you very much.

>

>- Shirish

>

 

Shirishji - you have summarized beautifully the concepts. My hats off to you.

 

Yes sadhana is very important for spiritual growth although the goal

is self-existing. It is not for realization but for purification of

the mind which is a pre-requisite to see the truth as the truth.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear me! I'm really having difficulty expressing myself clearly on this one!

Can I repeat what I said last time but change some of the words?

 

 

The point I was making in respect of the sanskaara resulting from the

actions of a sage is as follows (sorry I wasn't sufficiently clear last

time!). I understand (from Gita et al) that there are three possible

outcomes from an action viz. 'good' agaami karma from good actions when the

action was unselfishly motivated, 'bad' agaami karma from bad actions where

the action was carried out in the expectation of a desired outcome for

oneself, and nil agaami karma when the action was purely in response to the

need.

If one carried out good actions only all ones life, then the accumulation of

karma (saMcita) would mean that at the end of one's life, one would go to

heaven (whatever that is); if bad, one would come back as a cockroach and if

'pure' actions only, one would be reborn into an environment conducive to

becoming enlightened. Isn't this the idea behind karma yoga?

My point, then, was that the sage could not carry out any good or bad

actions since he has no selfish or unselfish motives. Therefore there is no

sanskaara generated. Therefore neither vyashTi nor samashTi can reap any

rewards or punishments. Is this not so?

 

 

So, I am not disputing what you say about the immediate benefits or

otherwise to those who are involved in the actions of the sage. My

misleading mistake was to use the word 'result' when I meant sanskaara. But

the nub of the discussion is whether or not the saMcita karma of

participants is affected. My understanding is that it is not, as argued

above, whereas I understood you to be saying that the saMcita karma of

samashTi (whatever that means) *would* be affected.

 

Hope this clarifies the question and my apologies for misleading you.

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

>"Dennis Waite" <dwaite

>advaitin

>"Advaitin" <advaitin>

> Re: Prarabdha Karma

>Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:22:40 +0100

>

>Dear me! I'm really having difficulty expressing myself clearly on this

>one!

>Can I repeat what I said last time but change some of the words?

>

>

>The point I was making in respect of the sanskaara resulting from the

>actions of a sage is as follows (sorry I wasn't sufficiently clear last

>time!). I understand (from Gita et al) that there are three possible

>outcomes from an action viz. 'good' agaami karma from good actions when the

>action was unselfishly motivated, 'bad' agaami karma from bad actions where

>the action was carried out in the expectation of a desired outcome for

>oneself, and nil agaami karma when the action was purely in response to the

>need.

>If one carried out good actions only all ones life, then the accumulation

>of

>karma (saMcita) would mean that at the end of one's life, one would go to

>heaven (whatever that is); if bad, one would come back as a cockroach and

>if

>'pure' actions only, one would be reborn into an environment conducive to

>becoming enlightened. Isn't this the idea behind karma yoga? -

 

Yes in a way. I am not sure Dennis what you imply by pure action. As you

know Karma yoga involves two aspects - (a) detachment to the results of the

action, by surrendering the results of the action to the Lord - this leads

to neutralization of vasana-s. This is at the stage of a sadhak.

 

(b) Recognizing that he is not the doer and even the action is performed on

behalf of the Lord - Here surrendering the agency of action to the Lord.

Like an ambassador acting on behalf of his government. Clean slate. His

will will be done -etc.

>My point, then, was that the sage could not carry out any good or bad

>actions since he has no selfish or unselfish motives. Therefore there is no

>sanskaara generated. Therefore neither vyashTi nor samashTi can reap any

>rewards or punishments. Is this not so? Yes from the point of sage or

>Iswara.

>So, I am not disputing what you say about the immediate benefits or

>otherwise to those who are involved in the actions of the sage. My

>misleading mistake was to use the word 'result' when I meant sanskaara. But

>the nub of the discussion is whether or not the saMcita karma of

>participants is affected. My understanding is that it is not, as argued

>above, whereas I understood you to be saying that the saMcita karma of

>samashTi (whatever that means) *would* be affected.

 

SamashTi will reap the benefits of the actions of the Saga even though sage

himself does not have anything to reap since he knows he is not the doer.

When Nisargadatta maharaj was giving interviews to the people who were

asking questions, who was getting the benefit of Nisargadatta's actions.

Nisargadatta maharaj is not more here and perhaps even the people who were

asking those questions. But the benefit is coming to generations to come.

Those who are around him who want to listen to his talks and now all those

in the world who are studying "I am that" book. In fact it is said that

when a person realizes seven generations in that family reap the benefits of

the presence of that sage. Same is the case around every mahatma. SamashTi

is getting the benefit of the actions of the Iswara performed using the

upaadhi-s of the sage who has transcended.

 

Nothing to apologize and I am not sure I have answered your question really.

Anyway there is not much more I can add to the topic - may be it will come

back again and we can explore further.

Hari Om!

sadananda

 

 

>Hope this clarifies the question and my apologies for misleading you.

>

>Dennis

>

>

 

_______________

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

[Guest guest]

Sorry to labour this point but it seems to me, Sada-ji, that you are

confusing two things here (unless I am seriously misunderstanding the whole

concept, of course!).

 

Suppose that X performs an action with the selfish desire for a particular

result and suppose that Y is involved in this action. The outcome of this

action will be that X acquires some agaami sanskaara that will have its

effect on X either later in X's life or in a future life of 'X'. Quite

separate from this karmic element, there will be an immediate 'result'. This

might be that X gets what he wanted and is happy for a while. There may also

be a result for Y. e.g. if X was seducing Y's wife, Y will not be very

happy! However, I was not aware that X's actions affected Y's sanskaara.

Even beyond the immediate results, yes, there could be far reaching results.

If X had stolen Y's money, this could affect Y's children and so on through

the generations.

 

Now I know that other elements of sanskaara are involved here. e.g. the fact

that Y suffers in this way is due to his own prarabdha sanskaara from

earlier in his life (or previous lives) but I don't see that this is

relevant to the discussion. If X acting in this way actually *is* Y's

prarabdha sanskaara playing itself out, then your arguments would start to

make sense. Certainly this would then tie in nicely with the idea of

everything being predestined. It would also rule out any question of free

will.

 

But when we come to the actions of the sage. Are you saying that the same

applies to him? That he *must* perform certain actions when in contact with

others in order that the due prarabdha sanskaara can be meted out to them?

It all seems to be becoming very complicated!

 

As you say, there is a lot more to this question than first appears! (Sorry

for thinking as I write in this post!)

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

>"Dennis Waite" <dwaite

>Sorry to labour this point but it seems to me, Sada-ji, that you are

>confusing two things here (unless I am seriously misunderstanding the whole

>concept, of course!).

>

>Suppose that X performs an action with the selfish desire for a particular

>result and suppose that Y is involved in this action. The outcome of this

>action will be that X acquires some agaami sanskaara that will have its

>effect on X either later in X's life or in a future life of 'X'. Quite

>separate from this karmic element, there will be an immediate 'result'.

>This

>might be that X gets what he wanted and is happy for a while. There may

>also

>be a result for Y. e.g. if X was seducing Y's wife, Y will not be very

>happy! However, I was not aware that X's actions affected Y's sanskaara.

>Even beyond the immediate results, yes, there could be far reaching

>results.

>If X had stolen Y's money, this could affect Y's children and so on through

>the generations.

>

>Now I know that other elements of sanskaara are involved here. e.g. the

>fact

>that Y suffers in this way is due to his own prarabdha sanskaara from

>earlier in his life (or previous lives) but I don't see that this is

>relevant to the discussion. If X acting in this way actually *is* Y's

>prarabdha sanskaara playing itself out, then your arguments would start to

>make sense. Certainly this would then tie in nicely with the idea of

>everything being predestined. It would also rule out any question of free

>will.

 

Dennis - whatever X - does, it is his choice of the action and he has to

bare the consequence of that action. similarly Y has his choice of action

at any moment. As I mentioned earlier for humans, one has to choose to act

at every moment one way or the other. The environment is provided by the

prarabda due to the past actions and next environment is provided by the

past prarabda modified by the present action - This is true with respect X,

Y and his wife Z or whatever. I hope the interplay of praarabda and

purushaartha are clear. What you have is praarabda and what you do with

what you have is purushaartha - this applies at every moment. I hope this

aspect is clear.

>

>But when we come to the actions of the sage. Are you saying that the same

>applies to him? That he *must* perform certain actions when in contact with

>others in order that the due prarabdha sanskaara can be meted out to them?

>It all seems to be becoming very complicated!

 

No when it comes to the sage - there is no he but only HE. Since the sage

has realized that he is not he but is He -that is the result of the

realizatin of aham brahma asmi. brahma vit brahmaiva bhavati - the knower of

Brahman becomes Brahman. The body may have its prarabda but he does not

undergo any since he has realized he is akartaa and abhoktaa. You can

forget the sage now for all practical purposes.

 

Now we see the sage is teaching and he is doing lot of social services -

building temples, helping the poor etc. Since it is not he that is

operating but He (that is Iswara), one can say Iswara gets the benefits.

But Iswara also knows that He is not the doer but prakR^iti is the doer in

under his direction - mayaa adhyakshanena prakR^itiH suuyate - Hence the

results go back to prakR^iti - which is sum total of all jadam or universe

with good, bad and ugly all together. What my understanding is the good

performed by Iswara using the upaadhi-s of the sage is benefited by the

good, and bad gets the bad. One can also argue that since Iswara is all

compassionate - whatever HE Does is always good - That is true. Just to

confuse a little bit more - the good He does for the good- the good feels

good about it. But even the so called bad he does for the bad may infact

be good for them, eventhough the bad may not realize it that it is good for

them. Now that I have succcessfull confused you, I give a simple example of

what I mean. It is like sucking Putuna to death by Little Krishna and

indirectly blessing her eventhough it appears to be punishing her for her

actions - same is killing of kamsa or shashipaala etc. That is because by

definition Lord does not do anything bad to any body - like father punishing

a child for his misbehavior which is good for the child in the long run.

 

In summary - Sage has transcended and the Lord utilizes the equipment which

will be used for the benefit of the samashTi. My statement was and still is

the good resulting from the action is distributed to the good and bad is

distributed to the bad.

 

Dennis your patience is my virtue.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

>

>As you say, there is a lot more to this question than first appears! (Sorry

>for thinking as I write in this post!)

>

>Dennis

>

 

_______________

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

[Guest guest]

Greetings.

 

I have enjoyed reading and learnt a lot from the

discussions in this thread. There has been some

discussion about Destiny/Fate and Free will. Today I

came across an article on exactly the same topic. To

use the description on that page, it is ..

 

a dialog between Jagadguru Shankaracharya Swami

Chandrashekhara Bharati and a disciple

who was well learned in the vedanta literature and a

scholar. The talk relates to the confusion that

people have with regard to the role of fate or destiny

on one side and the applicability of free will and

individuality on the other.

...

 

I found it very illuminating and inspiring. Look at

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/articles/The_Riddle_of_Fate_and_Free.htm

 

- Shirish

 

 

 

Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.

http://buzz./

[Guest guest]

Sadananda,

 

I'm afraid your last post has further confused me, if anything (e.g. your

'simple' example of 'sucking putuna' did not mean anything to me at all!).

 

Let's keep this very simple. Could you just answer one question? Are you

saying that ALL actions generate sanskaara for the one who thinks himself a

doer, including those actions that are performed without any desire for a

result? If so, this is contrary to my previous understanding. I thought the

whole thrust of karma yoga was to act in this way and therefore burn up

prarabdha sanskaara and not create any agaama sanskaara. Am I perhaps

thinking in Samkhyan terms instead of Advaita?

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

>Sadananda,

>

>I'm afraid your last post has further confused me, if anything (e.g. your

>'simple' example of 'sucking putuna' did not mean anything to me at all!).

>

>Let's keep this very simple. Could you just answer one question? Are you

>saying that ALL actions generate sanskaara for the one who thinks himself a

>doer, including those actions that are performed without any desire for a

result?

 

Dennis - if I understand your question correctly (big IF?), by

samskaara you mean an impression in the mind besides the tangible

result of the action. The answer I give obviously is from my

understanding. As long as there is a notion of a doer-ship, the

samskaara will be there - to do it again or not to do it again or to

do it differently next time etc. If I can alter your statement little

bit - no body does any action (that is with the notion that I am a

doer) without the desire for the result. Since there is a doer, the

action has to be propelled by the desire for some result in mind - it

could include desire for self-satisfaction. This is true as long as

there is doership or kartR^itva bhaava involved. Longing for moksha

is also a desire prompted sadhana. karma becomes a yoga if the

results (result is different from the desire for the result) are

surrendered at the alter of the Lord (the action is propelled by

desire) - In a sequence - the desire prompts one to act and action

will give result but the result is offered to the Lord. In the last

step, in the processes of surrendering one gets a type of samskaara

which helps to clean out the previous vaasana-s. That this detergent

samskaara neutralizes the original vasaana that propelled as a desire

for the result and forced one to act. Thus he gets freed from the

pressure of vasana-s due to neutralization.

 

What I was discussing with reference to a sage is when one reaches a

situation that one has no more the notion of doer-ship. Then the

Lord is 'as though' a doer and the action is propelled by the

samashTi desire and the samashTi gets the results of that action and

samskaara of that action - good getting the good and bad getting the

bad. As I see it everything is self-consistent (even if it sounds

confusing!)

 

(This is just for fun - A teacher said that there is always some good

in everyone. Then a student asked - what about the devil - what is

good about the devil? - The teacher responded - the good about the

devil is that he is consistent- like my notes- consistently

confusing!)

>If so, this is contrary to my previous understanding. I thought the

>whole thrust of karma yoga was to act in this way and therefore burn up

>prarabdha sanskaara and not create any agaama sanskaara. Am I perhaps

>thinking in Samkhyan terms instead of Advaita?

 

Dennis what is surrendered in the karmayoga is the result of an

action not the cause or desire for for an action. One cannot

surrender a desire since it is not purusha tantra or under his

control to surrender or not surrender but one can neutralize it by

karama yoga. This is called sublimating the desire and not supressing

it. If there are no more desires left - he is either a sage or a

stone - Vasana-s that are neutralized becomes a glory of the Lord -

Like a snake becoming a bhuushaNam or ornament of the Lord which he

can wrap around his neck or sleep on it.

 

Keep questioning till I run out of answers!

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

>

>Dennis

 

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sadananda said "Keep questioning till I run out of answers!"

 

Always happy to oblige! :>)

 

You seem to be implying that all actions are motivated by desire. This is

not my understanding. (This seems to be my favourite phrase!) An action

purely in response to a perceived need is not so prompted. Suppose you are

walking up the road and suddenly you see a small child starting to run out

into the road in front of oncoming traffic. *Without any thought

whatsoever*, you rush up to the child and grab him before it is too late. No

(premeditated) desire for a result here - no sanskaara generated.

 

You also said "if I understand your question correctly (big IF?), by

samskaara you mean an impression in the mind besides the tangible result of

the action".

Yes! Certainly. I thought this was the whole idea behind action, karma and

reincarnation etc. Any action carried out for a result generates sanskaara,

which will affect the person in the future or in future lives as has been

described earlier. (I have never heard of 'detergent' sanskaara however! I

had been led to believe that this was a 'dissolving' of some of the existing

sanchita sanskaaraa.)) You yourself have spoken of sanchita, prarabdha and

agaama and given a description that sort of tallies with what I had

understood. You now seem to be saying that I have misunderstood, that these

are *not* 'impressions in the mind'. Is this so? They cannot be 'tangible

results' if they are taken into future lives.

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

>"Dennis Waite" <dwaite

>advaitin

>"Advaitin" <advaitin>

> RE: Prarabdha karma

>Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:03:40 +0100

>

>Sadananda said "Keep questioning till I run out of answers!"

>

>Always happy to oblige! :>)

>

>You seem to be implying that all actions are motivated by desire. This is

>not my understanding. (This seems to be my favourite phrase!) An action

>purely in response to a perceived need is not so prompted. Suppose you are

>walking up the road and suddenly you see a small child starting to run out

>into the road in front of oncoming traffic. *Without any thought

>whatsoever*, you rush up to the child and grab him before it is too late.

>No

>(premeditated) desire for a result here - no sanskaara generated.

 

This spontaneous actions which are exactly the way a sage also responds is

driven by the prakR^iti or the one can say the Lord. Yes you are right it

is not premeditated by the local mind and intellect but it is driven by the

global or one can say Iswara's mind. After the action is performed then I

(non-sage) may claim the agency of the action that I did it - while the sage

who does not have local 'i' may say the child was saved by the Lord. Read

for eaxmple the answer to the question by Nisargadatta maharaj in 'I am

that' when some one asked 'you seems to be answering my questions

beautifully yet you claim you are not answering - then who is answering?',

etc. The same goes to the function of the heart or the digestive systeme

and all other involuntary actions. - Lord in Geeta says that too - aham

viaswanaraH ...I am the doer for all these - what motivates Him to do it.

Because intrinsically the jiiva wants to continue to live to exhaust his

vasana's and Lord out of compassion blesses him with the environment to do

that - this is graceful way of saying it. Hence at the outset it is not

driven by any local desire - I call that also as samashhTi vasaana-s since

your living is helpful for others so that you can ask intelligent questions

on the praarabda on adviatin list!

>

>You also said "if I understand your question correctly (big IF?), by

>samskaara you mean an impression in the mind besides the tangible result of

>the action".

>Yes! Certainly. I thought this was the whole idea behind action, karma and

>reincarnation etc. Any action carried out for a result generates sanskaara,

>which will affect the person in the future or in future lives as has been

>described earlier. (I have never heard of 'detergent' sanskaara however! I

>had been led to believe that this was a 'dissolving' of some of the

>existing

>sanchita sanskaaraa.)) You yourself have spoken of sanchita, prarabdha and

>agaama and given a description that sort of tallies with what I had

>understood. You now seem to be saying that I have misunderstood, that these

>are *not* 'impressions in the mind'. Is this so? They cannot be 'tangible

>results' if they are taken into future lives.

 

 

No no no. I have only explained what I said and what you understood -

Normally we use the word vaasana instead of samskaara for that - Hence it

was more a retorical question. Yes karma performed by egotistical attitude

will leave a subtle impression ,call it samskaara or vaasana -(normall

samskaara is used in a connotation of good - that is stored aagaami and

sanchita- from which what we bring in this life is praarabda

 

Future environment that we encounter is set by this plus the results of the

present action. Hence my statement future prarabda is nothing but past

praradba modified by the present action.

 

But I am cleared about the Sage's action and role of samashhTi?

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

>

>Dennis

>

 

_______________

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

[Guest guest]

OM

GURUR BRAHMA GURUR VISNU GURUR DEVO MAHESHVARAH

GURUH SAKSHAT PARAM BRAHM TASMAI SRI GURVE NAMAH

OM NAMAH SIVAYA

OM NAMAH SIVANANDAYA

 

Blessed Self,

 

MAY I ANSWER THAT?

By SRI SWAMI SIVANANDA

http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/download/may_ianswer.htm

 

PRARABDHA AND PURUSHARTHA

By SRI SWAMI SIVANANDA

http://www.dlshq.org/discourse/sep97.htm

 

Pranam

 

OM

 

 

 

>

>

>

> >"Dennis Waite" <dwaite

> >advaitin

> >"Advaitin" <advaitin>

> > RE: Prarabdha karma

> >Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:03:40 +0100

> >

> >Sadananda said "Keep questioning till I run out of

answers!"

> >

> >Always happy to oblige! :>)

> >

> >You seem to be implying that all actions are motivated

by desire. This is

> >not my understanding. (This seems to be my favourite

phrase!) An action

> >purely in response to a perceived need is not so

prompted. Suppose you are

> >walking up the road and suddenly you see a small child

starting to run out

> >into the road in front of oncoming traffic. *Without any

thought

> >whatsoever*, you rush up to the child and grab him

before it is too late.

> >No

> >(premeditated) desire for a result here - no sanskaara

generated.

>

> This spontaneous actions which are exactly the way a sage

also responds is

> driven by the prakR^iti or the one can say the Lord. Yes

you are right it

> is not premeditated by the local mind and intellect but

it is driven by the

> global or one can say Iswara's mind. After the action is

performed then I

> (non-sage) may claim the agency of the action that I did

it - while the sage

> who does not have local 'i' may say the child was saved

by the Lord. Read

> for eaxmple the answer to the question by Nisargadatta

maharaj in 'I am

> that' when some one asked 'you seems to be answering my

questions

> beautifully yet you claim you are not answering - then

who is answering?',

> etc. The same goes to the function of the heart or the

digestive systeme

> and all other involuntary actions. - Lord in Geeta says

that too - aham

> viaswanaraH ...I am the doer for all these - what

motivates Him to do it.

> Because intrinsically the jiiva wants to continue to live

to exhaust his

> vasana's and Lord out of compassion blesses him with the

environment to do

> that - this is graceful way of saying it. Hence at the

outset it is not

> driven by any local desire - I call that also as

samashhTi vasaana-s since

> your living is helpful for others so that you can ask

intelligent questions

> on the praarabda on adviatin list!

>

> >

> >You also said "if I understand your question correctly

(big IF?), by

> >samskaara you mean an impression in the mind besides the

tangible result of

> >the action".

> >Yes! Certainly. I thought this was the whole idea behind

action, karma and

> >reincarnation etc. Any action carried out for a result

generates sanskaara,

> >which will affect the person in the future or in future

lives as has been

> >described earlier. (I have never heard of 'detergent'

sanskaara however! I

> >had been led to believe that this was a 'dissolving' of

some of the

> >existing

> >sanchita sanskaaraa.)) You yourself have spoken of

sanchita, prarabdha and

> >agaama and given a description that sort of tallies with

what I had

> >understood. You now seem to be saying that I have

misunderstood, that these

> >are *not* 'impressions in the mind'. Is this so? They

cannot be 'tangible

> >results' if they are taken into future lives.

>

>

> No no no. I have only explained what I said and what you

understood -

> Normally we use the word vaasana instead of samskaara for

that - Hence it

> was more a retorical question. Yes karma performed by

egotistical attitude

> will leave a subtle impression ,call it samskaara or

vaasana -(normall

> samskaara is used in a connotation of good - that is

stored aagaami and

> sanchita- from which what we bring in this life is

praarabda

>

> Future environment that we encounter is set by this plus

the results of the

> present action. Hence my statement future prarabda is

nothing but past

> praradba modified by the present action.

>

> But I am cleared about the Sage's action and role of

samashhTi?

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

>

>

> >

> >Dennis

> >

>

>

__________

_____

> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

http://explorer.msn.com

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of

nonseparablity of Atman and

Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to :

advaitin

> Messages Archived at:

advaitin/messages

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

 

 

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

Get FREE E-Mail

http://www.valuemail.net

[Guest guest]

Sada-ji,

 

Yes, I think I understand what you are saying now - thanks for your

patience. I'm not entirely happy with it, however! It does not seem

reasonable in talking about the actions of the Sage (who knows that he is

'I' and not 'i' and that there are no others) to talk about His actions

being driven by the mind of Iswara, because the Sage know that there is no

Iswara either! Why can't we just say something like 'there appears to be

doing, following a perceived or assumed cause and effect relationship' and

have done with it?

 

Dennis

 

P.S. Incidentally (at the risk of opening up a rat's nest!), is it generally

accepted that the whole concept of karma is a 'ploy' to push the relatively

ignorant towards the right 'path'; that there exists no pramaaNa for

justifying the concept?

[Guest guest]

OM

GURUR BRAHMA GURUR VISNU GURUR DEVO MAHESHVARAH

GURUH SAKSHAT PARAM BRAHM TASMAI SRI GURVE NAMAH

OM NAMAH SIVAYA

OM NAMAH SIVANANDAYA

 

Blessed Self,

The approach taken by me, of posting relevant urls to the

list is in my opinion the most effective and efficient

method.

 

Folks may not know about the location of a relevant article

by Saints etc, in this connection posting a few lines about

the title and the url is good.

 

It is then to the individual seeker to take a look at the

article, interpret it or anything else.

 

I do not know Sri Dennisji or any member of this group and

cannot do exactly as appeals personally to each one.

 

Lively discussions are not my goal.

 

Pranam

 

OM

>

> Kartik - if you pardon me, may I suggest something. I

know Swami

> Sivanandaji has written excellent articles on many

subjects. But for the

> purpose of these discussions insted of referring one to

url, I suggest you

> provide us the gist of the article in relation to the

questions or topic of

> discussions. This way instead of one reading the entire

article, you are

> focussing the issue directly on hand. In the end you can

of course provide

> reference for more details.

>

> It is easy for me to direct Dennis to go and read

Bhagavad Geeta commentary

> of Swami Chinmayanandaji and stop withit and I know

Dennis is not going to

> do that and knowing Dennis he will ask me back - you have

read it then tell

> me what it says related to my question.

>

> Personally I prefer you to tell us from what you

understand rather directing

> us to some article that somebody else wrote on it. (if

you have understood

> it is easy for you to write on it - if you not understod

then it is useless

> for you to suggesting us to read that article which

yourself not understood

> - either way refering just to an article is a no-win

situation). But if

> you can write what you understand, we can learn from each

other and then

> refer to the article for more details then it is a win-

win situation. This

> is no disrespect to Shree Sivanandaji, who was the one

who gave sanyaasa

> diiksha to my guru Swami Chinmyanandaji.

>

> I am only trying to encourage lively discussions among us

where we can learn

> from each other.

>

> Hope you take my commments in the right spirit.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

>

> >kartik

> >advaitin

> >advaitin

> >Re: RE: Prarabdha karma

> >Sat, 16 Jun 101 21:52:14 GMT

> >

> >OM

> >GURUR BRAHMA GURUR VISNU GURUR DEVO MAHESHVARAH

> >GURUH SAKSHAT PARAM BRAHM TASMAI SRI GURVE NAMAH

> >OM NAMAH SIVAYA

> >OM NAMAH SIVANANDAYA

> >

> >Blessed Self,

> >

> >MAY I ANSWER THAT?

> >By SRI SWAMI SIVANANDA

> >http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/download/may_ianswer.htm

> >

> >PRARABDHA AND PURUSHARTHA

> >By SRI SWAMI SIVANANDA

> >http://www.dlshq.org/discourse/sep97.htm

> >

> >Pranam

> >

> >OM

> >

> >

>

__________

_____

> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

http://explorer.msn.com

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of

nonseparablity of Atman and

Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to :

advaitin

> Messages Archived at:

advaitin/messages

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

 

 

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

Get FREE E-Mail

http://www.valuemail.net

[Guest guest]

>"Dennis Waite" <dwaite

>>Sada-ji,

>

>Yes, I think I understand what you are saying now - thanks for your

>patience. I'm not entirely happy with it, however! It does not seem

>reasonable in talking about the actions of the Sage (who knows that he is

>'I' and not 'i' and that there are no others) to talk about His actions

>being driven by the mind of Iswara, because the Sage know that there is no

>Iswara either!

 

It is not that for Sage there is no Iswara but he knows I am Iswara. If you

read Bhagavad geeta as the words of the Lord, He outlines his attitude to

the actions yet in viswaruupa he shows everything is in Him, including

arjuna to whome he is teaching and showing himslef that He is everywhere.

 

That is why the apparent duality where there is no real duality is called

leela vibhuuti - divine play. Play involves more than one and in this case

when there is no real more than one, it is only an apprent play.

>From the point of the sadhak, sage is real and separate from him and He is

his Guru.

 

The relation between Guru and sishya is very rare type. Until one realizes

guru is his own self, one sees as an external Guru. VivekachuuDamani

provides a beatiful outline of how one should treat his guru even after

realization.

 

Another thing Lord what ever plays and does- is to teach the others - even

though Krishna does not need a teacher and he goes to Sandeepany to learn.

 

The reason is - as he declares in Geeta - adyat aacharati shreshhTaH

.....whatever is done by the leaders the others follow. Hence he does the

right things so that other will not follow the wrong examples 'even though

he does not have to do anything'.

 

Why can't we just say something like 'there appears to be

>doing, following a perceived or assumed cause and effect relationship' and

>have done with it?

 

Sure one can say that sitting in that high pedestal but then we would not

have this fun of communicating as we did for the past few weeks on the

prarabda! See there is nothing 'to have done with it', since there is

nothing else 'to do with it'! It is an outlook from different perspectives.

Guru knows there is nothing to teach and nothing to learn and nothing to

do - yet he teaches the sadhak what he has to do (yoga) - what he has to

learn (j~naana), how he has to grow out of this doing and learning!

 

That is why one has to be very careful with this teaching - for one thing -

what side of the fense one is and to whom the teaching is addressed are

important to remember. Even though it is the truth, teaching that - 'You

are not the doer and not accountable to your actions' to a street gangstor

will cause more harm to an innosent by-standers and the society at large.

Hence a great emphasis is placed on the adhikaaratvam or qualification of a

student in the Indian philosophy - this is being discussed with reference to

aatma bodha text. One has to be qualified even to become a sanyaasi.

 

I heard from people who have half knowledge - "if the teching says Lord does

everything, how come I am suffering when he is the doer". I know one person

who was an ordant listener of Swami Chinmayanandaji and asked - Samiji - "I

have been listening your talks for the past few years and I understand now

vedanta very well. I know now 'I am Brahman' - but how come I am still

suffering?". Swamiji looked at him straight into his eyes and said -Sir If

you know you are Brahman, how come you are suffering - that is my question

too.

 

Hence j.k. says - it is not an understanding as an understanding as a

thought - it is an understanding as an understanding as a fact.

 

>

>Dennis

>

>P.S. Incidentally (at the risk of opening up a rat's nest!), is it

>generally

>accepted that the whole concept of karma is a 'ploy' to push the relatively

>ignorant towards the right 'path'; that there exists no pramaaNa for

>justifying the concept?

 

Last statement is not true. Whole of Bhagavat Geeta rests on karma yoga.

Bhagavat geeta is smR^iti pramaaNa. Lord says - niyatam kuru paartha - do

your obligator duties oh! arjuna - as a fighter of injustice. One has to be

very carefull in dealing with paramaarthika versus vyavahaara and to whome

the teaching is done.

 

There is no point in all these actions - is a teaching to a mature one who

is slowing realizing he is not able to get that absolute happiness through

finite action. But for a tamasic person, that kind of teaching only result

in lethergic life with no evalution of his mind. Hence we have puurva

kaaNda involving veda vihita karma - and only to mature minds who have the

vairaagya, viveka, shatsampaati and mumukshatvam, the vedanta teaching is

done.

 

All realigions provide some pramaana for yogo. Vedanta provides the

pramaana for the absolute nature of the reality.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

>

 

_______________

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

[Guest guest]

Kartik - if you pardon me, may I suggest something. I know Swami

Sivanandaji has written excellent articles on many subjects. But for the

purpose of these discussions insted of referring one to url, I suggest you

provide us the gist of the article in relation to the questions or topic of

discussions. This way instead of one reading the entire article, you are

focussing the issue directly on hand. In the end you can of course provide

reference for more details.

 

It is easy for me to direct Dennis to go and read Bhagavad Geeta commentary

of Swami Chinmayanandaji and stop withit and I know Dennis is not going to

do that and knowing Dennis he will ask me back - you have read it then tell

me what it says related to my question.

 

Personally I prefer you to tell us from what you understand rather directing

us to some article that somebody else wrote on it. (if you have understood

it is easy for you to write on it - if you not understod then it is useless

for you to suggesting us to read that article which yourself not understood

- either way refering just to an article is a no-win situation). But if

you can write what you understand, we can learn from each other and then

refer to the article for more details then it is a win-win situation. This

is no disrespect to Shree Sivanandaji, who was the one who gave sanyaasa

diiksha to my guru Swami Chinmyanandaji.

 

I am only trying to encourage lively discussions among us where we can learn

from each other.

 

Hope you take my commments in the right spirit.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

>kartik

>advaitin

>advaitin

>Re: RE: Prarabdha karma

>Sat, 16 Jun 101 21:52:14 GMT

>

>OM

>GURUR BRAHMA GURUR VISNU GURUR DEVO MAHESHVARAH

>GURUH SAKSHAT PARAM BRAHM TASMAI SRI GURVE NAMAH

>OM NAMAH SIVAYA

>OM NAMAH SIVANANDAYA

>

>Blessed Self,

>

>MAY I ANSWER THAT?

>By SRI SWAMI SIVANANDA

>http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/download/may_ianswer.htm

>

>PRARABDHA AND PURUSHARTHA

>By SRI SWAMI SIVANANDA

>http://www.dlshq.org/discourse/sep97.htm

>

>Pranam

>

>OM

>

>

_______________

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

[Guest guest]

>

>

>It is then to the individual seeker to take a look at the

>article, interpret it or anything else.

>

>I do not know Sri Dennisji or any member of this group and

>cannot do exactly as appeals personally to each one.

>

>Lively discussions are not my goal.

>

>Pranam

>

OM

 

Shree Kartikji - May I remind you that the discussions are the goal

of this list though. If you are member of this I would expect that

exactly. If you are just going to point out the URL-s - I suggest

that you send the info to one of the moderators - like sunder who

will put in the reference list for those who are interested.

 

The purpose of this adviatin list as you can see in FAQ is

essentially meant for discussions of the topics and not just to

pointing out to some lectures some where else.

 

I do not know many people in this list either other but I came to

know lot more through this discussion group. By sharing ideas from

each other we learn from each other. Otherwise there are lot of

books one can refer to and one can be directed to.

 

Sorry for my blunt criticism.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kartikji:

 

Let me thank you first for your active participation in the list

discussions by injecting approriate site references that are directly

or indirectly related to the topic of discussion. We do appreciate

your good intention of sharing the excellent points expressed by

Jnanis such as Swami Sivananandaji, Swami Krishnanandaji and others.

I hope that you understand and follow it up with the excellent

suggestion of Sri Sadananda, the guiding moderator of this list. List

discussions are mostly on conversational style similar to a Satsangh

study group format and we do want to maintain so that we get the

maximum benefit. In addtion to regular discussions, members are also

encouraged to share articls, Internet links to interesting articles at

appropriate time.

 

The purpose of Sri Sadanandaji's constructive criticism on your

postings is to request you to condense the most relevant materials

from the sited references so that the discussents can get more

insights without losing the focus. With your knowledge and

scholarship, it will take much lesser time for you to gather the

appropriate materials than for someone unfamiliar with those works.

Also when the readers see the quality of the presented materials, they

further get motivated to visit and read the entire articles

referenced. Most important, many members of the list may not

necessarily have access to Internet and they would love to get

materials directly through emails.

 

As you may know very well, the purpose of this list is to help all of

us remove our ignorance and gain wisdom from insights of knowledgeable

people like you. Feel free to share us with any suggestions and

comments for improving the quality of this list. We will be more than

happy to implement all constructive suggestions from any member.

 

warmest regards and greetings,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

| >Sadananda said "Keep questioning till I run out of answers!"

| >

| >Always happy to oblige! :>)

| >

| >You seem to be implying that all actions are motivated by

| desire. This is

| >not my understanding. (This seems to be my favourite

| phrase!) An action

| >purely in response to a perceived need is not so prompted.

| Suppose you are

| >walking up the road and suddenly you see a small child

| starting to run out

| >into the road in front of oncoming traffic. *Without any thought

| >whatsoever*, you rush up to the child and grab him before

| it is too late.

| >No

| >(premeditated) desire for a result here - no sanskaara generated.

 

Excuse me, but yes there is exactly that! Although the "unenlightened" but

kind meaning man is "acting out of the goodness of his heart", there is

still a wilful element of his own ego involved. Albeit a small proportion of

his volition, there is still some element of "I will be a hero for doing

this" motivation behind his action.

 

It is only when this ego is fully and permanently dissolved that such action

can be deemed to the work of the Lord; Ishwara, Jehovah.

 

Regards

 

Brian