Guest guest Posted June 11, 2001 Report Share Posted June 11, 2001 Sada, 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 results from an action viz. 'good' results from good actions when the action was unselfishly motivated, 'bad' from bad actions where the action was carried out for a result for oneself, and nil result when the action was purely in response to the need. If one carried out good actions only all ones life, one would go to heaven (whatever that is); if bad, one comes back as a cockroach and if 'pure' actions only, one becomes 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 cannot have interest in the result. Therefore there is no sanskaara generated. Therefore neither vyashTi nor samashTi can reap any rewards or punishments. Is this not so? Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2001 Report Share Posted June 11, 2001 >Sada, > >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 results >from an action viz. 'good' results from good actions when the action was >unselfishly motivated, 'bad' from bad actions where the action was carried >out for a result for oneself, and nil result when the action was purely in >response to the need. > >If one carried out good actions only all ones life, one would go to heaven >(whatever that is); if bad, one comes back as a cockroach and if 'pure' >actions only, one becomes enlightened. Isn't this the idea behind karma >yoga? Dennis - what you wrote is right for self-centered actions performed with the notion that I am the doer. Heavens and hells are the result of action that were performed with the notions of doer-ship and therefore there is an enjoyership for the doer- enjoyment of puNya and paapa or merits and demerits of the actions performed. If Iswara does the actions, the Iswara gets the results, Iswara being the all pervading reality. In principle Iswara does not do any bad actions since there is nothting self-fishly he wants. But those around him can see good or bad in His actions- as Pandava-s felt all Krishna-s actions are noble while Duryodhana felt, Krishna was the greatest and very powerful crook in the world and should be imprisoned if possible so that they can do what they want to do. Both Pandava-s and Kourava-s got benefit out of Krihsna-s actions. Hence the good is distributed to the good and the bad is distributed to the bad. Even the response to the need - there is good and bad involved. Take for example if some one is hurting an innocent and you spontaneously run and stop that crime by kicking that fellow out - A spontaneous action without it being a pre-meditative action. The action resulted some good part - saving the innocent and a bad part- punishing the crook. There is no action with nil result. Absence of negative result itself is positive and absence of positive is negative. Hari Om! Sadananda > >My point, then, was that the sage could not carry out any good or bad >actions since he cannot have interest in the result. Therefore there is no >sanskaara generated. Therefore neither vyashTi nor samashTi can reap any >rewards or punishments. Is this not so? > >Dennis > -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2001 Report Share Posted June 11, 2001 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. When Ishvara's will is the only cause of action (when any egotistical, selfish will is removed) then the Self-realised man's actions are neither good or bad. As we move from gross to subtle levels of consciousness, poor actions drop away, leaving more and more "right action", which creates less samskaras (maybe, a different class of samskara). But even for an avatar, jiva apparently manifests in "a personality", and maybe then anyone in a bodily manifestation has some residue of ego? On the cross, Christ was recorded as crying, "Father, why has Thou forsaken me?", despite seeming to have previously known his fate... Brian | | K. Sadananda [sada] | Monday, 11 June 2001 20:32 | advaitin | RE:prarabdha karma | | | >Sada, | > | >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 results | >from an action viz. 'good' results from good actions when | the action was | >unselfishly motivated, 'bad' from bad actions where the | action was carried | >out for a result for oneself, and nil result when the | action was purely in | >response to the need. | > | >If one carried out good actions only all ones life, one | would go to heaven | >(whatever that is); if bad, one comes back as a cockroach | and if 'pure' | >actions only, one becomes enlightened. Isn't this the idea | behind karma | >yoga? | | Dennis - what you wrote is right for self-centered actions performed | with the notion that I am the doer. Heavens and hells are | the result | of action that were performed with the notions of doer-ship and | therefore there is an enjoyership for the doer- enjoyment of puNya | and paapa or merits and demerits of the actions performed. | | If Iswara does the actions, the Iswara gets the results, | Iswara being | the all pervading reality. In principle Iswara does not do any bad | actions since there is nothting self-fishly he wants. But those | around him can see good or bad in His actions- as Pandava-s felt all | Krishna-s actions are noble while Duryodhana felt, Krishna was the | greatest and very powerful crook in the world and should be | imprisoned if possible so that they can do what they want to do. | Both Pandava-s and Kourava-s got benefit out of Krihsna-s actions. | Hence the good is distributed to the good and the bad is distributed | to the bad. | | Even the response to the need - there is good and bad | involved. Take | for example if some one is hurting an innocent and you spontaneously | run and stop that crime by kicking that fellow out - A spontaneous | action without it being a pre-meditative action. The action | resulted | some good part - saving the innocent and a bad part- punishing the | crook. There is no action with nil result. Absence of negative | result itself is positive and absence of positive is negative. | | Hari Om! | Sadananda | | | | > | >My point, then, was that the sage could not carry out any | good or bad | >actions since he cannot have interest in the result. | Therefore there is no | >sanskaara generated. Therefore neither vyashTi nor samashTi | can reap any | >rewards or punishments. Is this not so? | > | >Dennis | > | -- | K. Sadananda | Code 6323 | Naval Research Laboratory | Washington D.C. 20375 | Voice (202)767-2117 | Fax:(202)767-2623 | | | | | | 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 | | | | Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2001 Report Share Posted June 11, 2001 >Brian Milnes <b.milnes >Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. > >When Ishvara's will is the only cause of action (when any egotistical, >selfish will is removed) then the Self-realised man's actions are neither >good or bad. As we move from gross to subtle levels of consciousness, poor >actions drop away, leaving more and more "right action", which creates less >samskaras (maybe, a different class of samskara). Brian Milnes - greetings and thanks for your participation. Iswara according to advaita Vedanta is total vasana-s joined together. the cause for action is not individual selfishness but collective causal body put together. When things are joined as one unit, the individual separatist attitudes drop out and collective cooperative goodness only can join as one - just as when family operates as one unit, the individual likes and dislikes drop out leaving only the collective good for the family precipitates as one combined entity when the family acts as one. The same principle operates as collective vasana-s. From the point of the totality it is always collective good - that good includes favoring those that follow dharma and punishing those who follow adharma - both constituting the good of the totality. Hence you are right Iswara always does good. but for people like Duryodhana,kamsa and shashipaala, Krishana may be seen a tyrant while people like Arjuna his presence is a blessing indeed. This is what I implied by the good is distributed to the good and bad is distributed to the bad - although from the point of totality Iswara does not do any thing that is bad, that is by definition. > >But even for an avatar, jiva apparently manifests in "a personality", and >maybe then anyone in a bodily manifestation has some residue of ego? I donot think so - It is the total ego that is being reflected - but individual egos have their own judgement about the actions of the Iswara. That judgement is the result of their own vasana-s. Hari Om! Sadananda >Brian > _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda@h...> wrote: > > Iswara according to advaita Vedanta is total vasana-s joined together. the Please support this statement with a quote from any of the traditional works of advaita-vedaanta. What is a vasaana? It is an impression left by an action (or even repeated thoughts) And how can you tie this with the statements indicating the samaShTi and vyaShTi concept. Please explain. Ishvara according to advaita-vedanta is brahman with mAyA as upAdhi. trishati bhAshhya says that mAyA and avidyA correspond to samaShTi and vyashhTi forms of the same notion. jIva is brahman limited by avidya. Even in this context, ishvara is not a bundle of all vasana-s put together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 Namaste Raviji: Good to see back to the list. If we look carefully, we can find the answer to your question, within your explanation! You have rightly stated that Ishwara is Brahman plus Maya. The bundle of vasanas can't be different from Maya plus Brahman. Nothing exists without the Brahman which includes Maya as well as Vasanas. According Advaita, only Brahman exists! If we say that Vasanas can exist without the Brahman, we contradict Advaita and non-duality. The Tamil proverb: Thunilum Iruppan, Thurumbilum Iruppan (God exists on the stone and also in the dust). How can we deny the existence of God (Ishwara) anywhere? Does it not imply that we can see the impression of Ishwara through the Vasanas. Since we are always limited by avidya and all our expressions of Ishwara or Brahman are also limited to errors, omissions and subject to confusion. warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "Ravi" <miinalochanii> wrote: >....... > Ishvara according to advaita-vedanta is brahman with mAyA as upAdhi. > trishati bhAshhya says that mAyA and avidyA correspond to samaShTi > and vyashhTi forms of the same notion. jIva is brahman limited by > avidya. Even in this context, ishvara is not a bundle of all vasana-s > put together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 >"Ravi" <miinalochanii >advaitin >advaitin > Re: RE:prarabdha karma >Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:40:44 -0000 > >advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda@h...> wrote: > > > > > Iswara according to advaita Vedanta is total vasana-s joined >together. the > >Please support this statement with a quote from any of the >traditional works of advaita-vedaanta. Sorry Ravi - I should have said Iswara is the Brahman identified with the total vaasana-s - not just vaasana-s which are jadam. Of hand I do not remember specific quotations you need in order to support my statements. Hence if that is the only way to convince you, you can igore what I wrote as well as what I am going to write below. I will however provide the logic for it. But my understandng comes from the analysis of the universe from micro and macro cosmic states. I suggest you study the Mandukya Up and the kaarika for this. What is a vasaana? It is an >impression left by an action (or even repeated thoughts) And how can >you tie this with the statements indicating the samaShTi and vyaShTi >concept. Please explain. Vaasana-s are the impresions and these are the ones that form kaaraNa shariira - that is the causal bady. Just as my praradba which is bundle of vaasana-s that I bring into this world form the basis for my upaadhi-s, the environment that I am born and the environment I move about or in other words the world that I create in my life or the world that I experience in my life span - all part of the praradba and aagami karma-s or vasana-s. Hence my world is the reflection of my own vaasana-s. If you agree for this, we can go to the next step. Now Apply this to every individual and every jiiva or every chetana vastu - the world of each one is precipitated by their vaasana bundle - is it not. The whole universe is nothing but some total of the individual worlds put together. Hence samashTi vaasana-s dictate the type of the world that we are in. Iswara is the creator of the total universe. On what basis he creates - He has to create the world which is conducive to my vasana-s, the world that is conducive to your vasana-s and thus the world conducing to each one of the jiiva-s. Hence Jiiva identified with his vaasana is the creator of his world, SamashiTi vasana-s propel the creation of the entire universe of things and beings. Hence Brahman identified with the total vasana-s is Iswara and Brahman identified with the individal vasana is jiiva. We call the individual vasana-s as avidya - From the Iwara point we call the collective vasana-s as Maaya. When things join together the individual vasana-s that contradict each other get contradicted by each while those that can join together reinforce. Hence in the case of Iswara, all auspecious vasana-s are left as they are bundled together. It is like the hate groups joining together and get bound together as one group out of love and purpose among them, even though the hate everybody outside their group. If the whole universe of all groups join then there is only reinforced Love. Hence Iswara is the locus of all auspecious qualities. Hence Brahman identified with the samashTi vaasana-s is Iswara where samashTi has to be understood together. Let us look us Iswara of our dream world. If there are many jiiva-s and the universe in our dream world, we act as Iswara for our created dream world. We pervade the entire universe in avyakta form all the jiiva-s are in us but we not in them - mayaa tatam idam sarvam jagat avyakta muurthinaa.... Now each jiiva in our dream has his own individual vaasna-s - one jiiva want to act like a spectator while the other jiiva wants to act as a performer etc. All are product of the waking mind with its total impression that form the cause for Iswara to create. You see the analogy to a great extent. Hence Mandukya Up that provides the discussion from both micro and macro states - tejasa, hiranya garbha etc. > >Ishvara according to advaita-vedanta is brahman with mAyA as upAdhi. >trishati bhAshhya says that mAyA and avidyA correspond to samaShTi >and vyashhTi forms of the same notion. jIva is brahman limited by >avidya. Even in this context, ishvara is not a bundle of all vasana-s >put together. Sorry what I implied is Iswara is Brahman identified with the total vasana-s which is maaya as his upaadhi. Iswara being a chaitanya vastu cannot be jadam. I hope it clear now as corrected. Hari Om _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 Hari OM! Narayana Smrithis! Blessed Self, MAN - ego = GOD GOD + ego = MAN Ego we can expand EMOTIONS(VASANAS) Genetically Oraganized. BY THE Previous Karmas. Iswara cannot be a bundle of Vasanas,This thought itself is a notion. The World itself is a dream... With OM! Krishna Prasad. --- Ravi <miinalochanii wrote: > advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda@h...> > wrote: > > > > > Iswara according to advaita Vedanta is total vasana-s joined > together. the > > Please support this statement with a quote from any of the > traditional works of advaita-vedaanta. What is a vasaana? It is an > impression left by an action (or even repeated thoughts) And how > can > you tie this with the statements indicating the samaShTi and > vyaShTi > concept. Please explain. > > Ishvara according to advaita-vedanta is brahman with mAyA as > upAdhi. > trishati bhAshhya says that mAyA and avidyA correspond to samaShTi > and vyashhTi forms of the same notion. jIva is brahman limited by > avidya. Even in this context, ishvara is not a bundle of all > vasana-s > put together. > > > Get personalized email addresses from Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 Hari Om! I thought that we all agree that there is only one origin - God or Brahman. If we agree with this proposition, then the mathematical operations such as God + ego = Man assume that ego has a separate existence which is a contradiction! Any separation implies duality and we are left with inconsistencies. We have to accept the impossibility of intellectually resolving questions which can't be answered but will be dissolved with the realization! Let us admit our limitations and leave the questions for the Brahman! As Swami Chinmayananda used to state: "we should carry such questions safely in our pocket and ask the Brahman when we meet Him!" regards, Ram Chandran Note: I do agree that your explanations did provide new insights to such questions but still they are insufficient! advaitin, Krishna Prasad <rkrishp99> wrote: > Hari OM! Narayana Smrithis! > > > Blessed Self, > > MAN - ego = GOD > > GOD + ego = MAN > > Ego we can expand EMOTIONS(VASANAS) Genetically Oraganized. BY THE > Previous Karmas. > > Iswara cannot be a bundle of Vasanas,This thought itself is a notion. > The World itself is a dream... > > With OM! > > Krishna Prasad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda@h...> wrote: > > > > >"Ravi" <miinalochanii> > >advaitin > >advaitin > > Re: RE:prarabdha karma > >Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:40:44 -0000 > > > >advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda@h...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Iswara according to advaita Vedanta is total vasana-s joined > >together. the > > > >Please support this statement with a quote from any of the > >traditional works of advaita-vedaanta. > > Sorry Ravi - I should have said Iswara is the Brahman identified with the > total vaasana-s - not just vaasana-s which are jadam. > Respected Sir, Thank you for the clarification. My main intention of rejoining Advaitin was not so much to participate in its threads, but to have access to your BSB notes in the Files area. Unlike , which has Files area open to all, Advaitin is closed to members (I can understand that as you have member photos etc). I was casually looking at the messages, and original statement of yours actually came out as a rude shock. So I asked that question. Otherwise, I am training myself just focus on some of the important things (like trishati Bhashhya and VSB), and works which are more devotional in nature. And that suits my theistic bent of mind. I have definite views on these subjects, whether right or wrong, I am at peace with it now. For instance, Even when one says iishvarii is brahman limited by mAyA. I look at it not so much as a limitation on iishvarii but as a limitation of mAyA. SHE is limited by the limitataion of mAyA. It is like this, if I ask you to write about adhyaasa bhaashhyaa on one side of post-it sticky, that is all you can write. You are limited by the limitation of the size of the sticky. Given a choice you will write a 100 pages :-)) and it is not a limitation of your knowledge. That is how, I look at the role of mAyA as upAdhi wrt iishvarii. I will return to silence as far as Advaitin is concerned and peruse your BSB notes slowly and carefully from the beginning. For it is betters for fools like me to hold their tongue and if at all talk only about glories of jaganmAtA. AUM shivAbhyAnnamaH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...> wrote: > Hari Om! > > I thought that we all agree that there is only one origin - God or > Brahman. If we agree with this proposition, then the mathematical > operations such as God + ego = Man assume that ego has a separate > existence which is a contradiction! Any separation implies duality and > we are left with inconsistencies. To presume that duality is separation could be the mistake. I like the phrase 'duality is not a dirty word;-)' It is paradox on the conceptual level. > > We have to accept the impossibility of intellectually resolving > questions which can't be answered but will be dissolved with the > realization! > > Let us admit our limitations and leave the questions for the Brahman! Let Brahman have fun questing! > As Swami Chinmayananda used to state: "we should carry such questions > safely in our pocket and ask the Brahman when we meet Him!" > > regards, > > Ram Chandran Playing. Col Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 Namaste Coletteji: Thanks for pointing out the important subtle message. It is true that neither 'duality is a dirty word' nor 'nonduality is holy!' These concepts helpful for upto a certain point of spiritual development and afterwords they serve no purpose. For example, the dwaitans start their spiritual lessons with the prayer: "My only request to you, my Lord is to ask you to reside in my heart." With that attitude, they conduct their actions to keep their heart larger and purer to become comfortable for Almighty. This transforms them to be humble and be a servent instead of being the master. The Tamil Saint, Kulesekara Alwar's famous poem - Mukundamala describes such an attitude and his only request to his beloved Lord Krishna was to serve Him. Sri Hanuman, the greatest Bhakta of Sri Ram is another example. The attitude: 'God resides in my heart' helps to cultivate the spiritual habits to enable the transformation that 'God only resides in my heart.' The entire process is similar to the well known story - 'the camel and the tent.' What we need to provide to the Lord is a little space in our heart. Once the Almighty (camel) agrees to occupy, then He will drive out all our 'ego' and burdens of life completely! completly! regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, colette@b... wrote: > > To presume that duality is separation could be the mistake. I like the > phrase 'duality is not a dirty word;-)' It is paradox on the > conceptual level. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.