Guest guest Posted October 18, 2001 Report Share Posted October 18, 2001 namaste. This post arises out of my previous post (brahman as jIvA) of a few weeks ago on trying to understand ch. u. vi.3.2. My thanks to shri sunderji and to shri srinivasji for the references and comments. I like to get back to this mantra and present my understanding. ch. u. vi.3.2 says seyaM devataikshata, hantAham imAs tisro devatA anena jIvenA'tmanA'nupravishya mAma-rUpe vyAkaravANIti S. Radhakrishnan's translation That divinity thought, 'Well, let me enter into these three divinities by means of this living self and let me then develop names and forms'. The main emphasis of this mantra, as I see, is not who the three deities are, but what does "enter" and "then develop" mean. Various possibilities are 1. The mantra gives the impression on the face of it that fire, earth and water were present *apart* from brahman and then brahman thought "let me enter these and then give them name and forms". But that cannot be the case because fire, earth and water have evolved out of brahman (brahman is the material cause). Hence, "let me enter and then.." does not make sense if that meaning were taken. 2. Secondly, if brahman is to fire, earth and water like clay is to jars and pots, then, clay "entering into" the jars and pots does not arise, because clay is jars and pots or vice versa. Jars and pots do not have existence apart from clay. 3. The fire, earth and water are brahman. There is no place brahman has not pervaded. Hence, "let me enter into these.." is not meaningful. 4. Can the passage mean "let me first become jIvA and then through the jIvA enter into these fire, earth and water? This again is not possible because it means jIvA (which is an effect) is turning into another effect. This is similar to a jar saying "let me turn into a jug now". Such cannot be the case. 5. Entering may mean reflection. If we have thousand pots of water and the single Sun gets reflected in the thousand pots. The pot may think it has individual consciousness, but it is really a reflection of the original Sun. This may look symbolically correct, but brahman is infinite. A reflection can take place out of a finite thing, not of infinite brahman. So, while visualizing ourselves as reflection of infinite brahman may look attractive, that cannot be the proper understanding. As we dismiss the five above understandings, the actual meaning of the mantra is, probably, as follows. Atman is no other than brahman and brahman is no other than Atman. But this identity is not immediately revealed (recognition of this identity is moksha). The reason why this identity is not immediately revealed is: brahman is hidden in the deepest cave of the heart. "entry" of ch. u. vi.3.2 means "when brahman enters in the antahkaraNa of the jIvA" and makes the jIvA function. It is this knowledge [that brahman is Atman and Atman is brahman] that the upanishads are teaching. And it is to impart this knowledge (of brahman), that chandogya upanishad treated it as if brahman is entering the antahkaraNa of the jIvA from the deep cave of the heart. Also, the TaittirIya u., for e.g., teaches the various koshA-s leading to Ananadamaya. Devoid of all this manifestation, deep in the cave of the heart, is brahman. And it is that brahman that manifested or "entered" into the antahkaraNa of the jIvA. brahman cannot be cognized in its unmanifested form. It is only in association with some condition that brahman is cognized. This was also presented nicely in the latter half of Kaivalya upanishad. This is the way I understand "entered" of ch. u. vi.3.2. Any clarifications, amplifications, objections are very much appreciated. References: chandogya upanishad: trans. swami gambhirananda chandogya upanishad: trans. swami swahananda principal upanishads: S. Radhakrishnan Kaivalya upanishad: commentary by swami chinmayananda taittirIya upanishad: trans. alladi mahadeva sastry Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2001 Report Share Posted October 18, 2001 advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > This is the way I understand "entered" of ch. u. vi.3.2. Any > clarifications, amplifications, objections are very much appreciated. entry implies movement. when we say open the window let the air enter, air was there both inside and outside, what we implied and desired is the movement. when the desire/avidya stirs the consciouness and make it vibrate in duality, brahman apparently moves/enters to enliven the name and forms. but in truth it remains only as witness. AUM karmAdisaxiNyai namaH (above may be wrong, i very vaguely remember aurobindo expressing this sentiment in a poetic way in savitri) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2001 Report Share Posted October 18, 2001 Namaste, Every paradox in the upanishads may be said to serve the function of catapulting the mind to the Beyond, in which both apparently contradictory are reconciled, but only as a matter of 'experience' and not dialectic [akin to a koan in Zen]. For example, the 5th mantra of Isha upan. " tat ejati tat na ejati tat duure tat u antike " [it moves, it moves not; it is far, yet it is near]. I am not sure if this answers Murthygaru's question; but there are no logical answers to koans. Regards, Sunder advaitin, "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram" <miinalochanii> wrote: > advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > > This is the way I understand "entered" of ch. u. vi.3.2. Any > > clarifications, amplifications, objections are very much > appreciated. > > entry implies movement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2001 Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 Dear Friends, Murthygaru has given a very nice analysis to arrive at the meaning of the Pravesha sruti, which occurs in many upanishads, in keeping with the sampradaya. The pravesha sruti also is found in taitiriya Aranyakam which is chanted as part of Purusha Suuktam 'prajApatischarati garbhe antah ajayamAno bahudA vijAyate...' The tatparya of this vakya is to show the 'upalabdhi sthAnam of brahman' i.e the place of recognition of brahman which is our buddhi. That which enters a room is available in that room. Anything which enters an area is available there. Similarly brahman entered the creation means it is available for recognition here and now. with love and prayers, Jaishankar advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > > namaste. > .... > As we dismiss the five above understandings, the actual meaning of > the mantra is, probably, as follows. > > Atman is no other than brahman and brahman is no other than Atman. > But this identity is not immediately revealed (recognition of this > identity is moksha). The reason why this identity is not immediately > revealed is: brahman is hidden in the deepest cave of the heart. > > "entry" of ch. u. vi.3.2 means "when brahman enters in the antahkaraNa > of the jIvA" and makes the jIvA function. It is this knowledge > [that brahman is Atman and Atman is brahman] that the upanishads > are teaching. And it is to impart this knowledge (of brahman), that > chandogya upanishad treated it as if brahman is entering the > antahkaraNa of the jIvA from the deep cave of the heart. Also, > the TaittirIya u., for e.g., teaches the various koshA-s leading > to Ananadamaya. Devoid of all this manifestation, deep in the cave > of the heart, is brahman. And it is that brahman that manifested > or "entered" into the antahkaraNa of the jIvA. > > brahman cannot be cognized in its unmanifested form. It is only in > association with some condition that brahman is cognized. This was > also presented nicely in the latter half of Kaivalya upanishad. > > This is the way I understand "entered" of ch. u. vi.3.2. Any > clarifications, amplifications, objections are very much appreciated. > > References: > > chandogya upanishad: trans. swami gambhirananda > chandogya upanishad: trans. swami swahananda > principal upanishads: S. Radhakrishnan > Kaivalya upanishad: commentary by swami chinmayananda > taittirIya upanishad: trans. alladi mahadeva sastry > > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy > -- ---- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2001 Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 Namaste, Shankara adduces the same evidence in the Brahmasutra Bhashya : II:ii:17; II:iv:20; III:ii:6 & 21, supporting Murthygaru's analysis. Uddhava Gita [bhagavata MahaPurana 11th skandha/book, Chapter 17, (in some editions Ch. 22)] has a dialogue between Uddhava and SriKrishna. Uddhava asks how many 'tattva'-s are really there? Some say 3, others 5, 9, 11, 25, 26. SriKrishna replies:(v.#4,5,6) "...what is impossible for those who speak accepting My wonder-working Maya?" "...this sort of fighting over the issue is due to My powers, Sattva, Rajas, Tamas, which are so difficult to get rid of." "....this doubt vanishes when one attains calmness of mind and self-control, and after that dispute too is at an end." Regards, Sunder advaitin, srijai@e... wrote: > Dear Friends, > > Murthygaru has given a very nice analysis to arrive at the meaning of > the Pravesha sruti, which occurs in many upanishads, in keeping with > the sampradaya.> > > This is the way I understand "entered" of ch. u. vi.3.2. Any > > clarifications, amplifications, objections are very much > appreciated. > > > > References: > > > > chandogya upanishad: trans. swami gambhirananda > > chandogya upanishad: trans. swami swahananda > > principal upanishads: S. Radhakrishnan > > Kaivalya upanishad: commentary by swami chinmayananda > > taittirIya upanishad: trans. alladi mahadeva sastry > > > > > > Regards > > Gummuluru Murthy > > -- > ---- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2001 Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 advaitin, sunderh wrote: > Namaste, > > Every paradox in the upanishads may be said to serve the > function of catapulting the mind to the Beyond, in which both > apparently contradictory are reconciled, but only as a matter of > 'experience' and not dialectic [akin to a koan in Zen]. > > For example, the 5th mantra of Isha upan. > " tat ejati tat na ejati tat duure tat u antike " > [it moves, it moves not; it is far, yet it is near]. It seems puzzling and conflicting only when it is not understood and explained correctly. Please the read commentary of shankara for the 4th and 5th mantra-s of iishaavaasyopanishhad. Original text of His commentary is available online, and will serve as good aid to compare and verify any translation you may choose to use. Acharya explains it clearly and resolves the apparently conflicting terms. So it is not akin to zen koan and most zen koans are anyway an intellectual pastime. Things like one hand clapping etc. can be explained. Realization according to our traditon is shravana, manana and nidhidhyAsana, and in manana the conflicts have to be resolved. brahman is indeed manovachAmagocharA (as mentioned in sahasranAma), that is why through sAdhana and HER grace one has to transcend the realm of mind and words. Transcending the mind is not a trick to jolt one out of his mind as by a koan. My 2c. Ravi AUM shrImAtre namaH AUM manovAchamagocharAyai namaH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2001 Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 Ravisankar S. Mayavaram [miinalochanii] It seems puzzling and conflicting only when it is not understood and explained correctly. Please the read commentary of shankara for the 4th and 5th mantra-s of iishaavaasyopanishhad. Original text of His commentary is available online, and will serve as good aid to compare and verify any translation you may choose to use. Acharya explains it clearly and resolves the apparently conflicting terms. So it is not akin to zen koan and most zen koans are anyway an intellectual pastime. Things like one hand clapping etc. can be explained. Realization according to our traditon is shravana, manana and nidhidhyAsana, and in manana the conflicts have to be resolved. brahman is indeed manovachAmagocharA (as mentioned in sahasranAma), that is why through sAdhana and HER grace one has to transcend the realm of mind and words. Transcending the mind is not a trick to jolt one out of his mind as by a koan. My 2c. Ravi ********************* Self-Realization, by definition, is not dependent on *any* tradition. This is why we call it Self-Realization and not Tradition-Realization. "Your" tradition, "My" tradition, etc. may help us approach and Recognize the Truth of the Self, but these traditions are not themselves the Truth of Being. All traditions, philosophies, religions, ways of thinking, arguments for or against some thing, no matter how grand are completely foreign to the Self. Self, being Pure Consciousness, is beyond all such notions and is the unconditioned, uncaused state of Pure Being, whose nature is that of total independence. The ancient sages simply referred to it as Sat-Chit-Ananda. That whose nature is Self-Existence, Self-Bliss, Self-Joy. Transcendence of mind is really the absorption of the mind in the Self. The mind has no independent reality that can ultimately be transcended. It is only the Self that appears to shines through the mind as consciousness. Mind in fact is a condition of consciousness and thoughts appear in Consciousness like subtle objects . So even though we speak of transcendence to indicate the radical recognition of the core and source of consciousness, in reality, ultimately there is no transcendence. Who is going to transcend what? In order for the mind to be pulled into the Heart, the prerequisite is a calm and aware and surrendered mind that has the Grace of the Supreme due to overwhelming devotion and faith. The tradition one belongs to at that point is totally irrelevant. Love to all Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2001 Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 Hari OM! Narayana Smrithis! Blessed Self, Where there is duality there is fear and confusion always. When we are in the intellectual level all the arguments and confusions arise. With Love & OM! Krishna Prasad --- Harsha <harsha-hkl wrote: > > Ravisankar S. Mayavaram [miinalochanii] > > It seems puzzling and conflicting only when it is not understood > and > explained correctly. Please the read commentary of shankara for the > 4th and 5th mantra-s of iishaavaasyopanishhad. Original text of His > commentary is available online, and will serve as good aid to > compare and verify any translation you may choose to use. Acharya > explains it clearly and resolves the apparently conflicting terms. > > So it is not akin to zen koan and most zen koans are anyway an > intellectual pastime. Things like one hand clapping etc. can be > explained. Realization according to our traditon is shravana, > manana > and nidhidhyAsana, and in manana the conflicts have to be resolved. > brahman is indeed manovachAmagocharA (as mentioned in sahasranAma), > that is why through sAdhana and HER grace one has to transcend the > realm of mind and words. Transcending the mind is not a trick to > jolt > one out of his mind as by a koan. > > My 2c. > > Ravi > ********************* > Self-Realization, by definition, is not dependent on *any* > tradition. > > This is why we call it Self-Realization and not > Tradition-Realization. > > "Your" tradition, "My" tradition, etc. may help us approach and > Recognize > the Truth of the Self, but these traditions are not themselves the > Truth of > Being. All traditions, philosophies, religions, ways of thinking, > arguments > for or against some thing, no matter how grand are completely > foreign to the > Self. Self, being Pure Consciousness, is beyond all such notions > and is the > unconditioned, uncaused state of Pure Being, whose nature is that > of total > independence. The ancient sages simply referred to it as > Sat-Chit-Ananda. > That whose nature is Self-Existence, Self-Bliss, Self-Joy. > > Transcendence of mind is really the absorption of the mind in the > Self. The > mind has no independent reality that can ultimately be transcended. > It is > only the Self that appears to shines through the mind as > consciousness. > Mind in fact is a condition of consciousness and thoughts appear in > Consciousness like subtle objects . So even though we speak of > transcendence > to indicate the radical recognition of the core and source of > consciousness, > in reality, ultimately there is no transcendence. Who is going to > transcend > what? > > In order for the mind to be pulled into the Heart, the > prerequisite is a > calm and aware and surrendered mind that has the Grace of the > Supreme due to > overwhelming devotion and faith. The tradition one belongs to at > that point > is totally irrelevant. > > Love to all > Harsha > > > > Make a great connection at Personals. http://personals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2001 Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 Namaste, Definition of a Koan Koans are "riddles" used in the teaching of Buddhism to help the student realize satori ("enlightenment"). Koans are questions or statements that seem to defy conventional logic - which they do. The following description of koans is taken from "The Three Pillars of Zen" compiled by Roshi Philip Kapleau (Doubleday, New York, 1989): "Every koan is a unique expression of the living, indivisible Buddha-nature, which cannot be grasped by the bifurcating intellect. Despite the incongruity of their various elements, koans are profoundly meaningful, each pointing to a man's Face before his parents were born, his real Self. To people who cherish the letter above the spirit, koans appear bewildering, for in their phrasing koans deliberately throw sand into the eyes of the intellect to force us to open our Mind's eye and see the world and everything in it undistorted by our concepts and judgments. Koans take as their subjects tangible, down-to-earth objects such as a dog, a tree, a face, a finger to make us see, on the one hand, that each object has absolute value and, on the other, to arrest the tendency of the intellect to anchor itself in abstract concepts. But the import of every koan is the same: that the world is one interdependent Whole and that each separate one of us is that Whole." Regards, Sunder advaitin, "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram" <miinalochanii> wrote: > > So it is not akin to zen koan and most zen koans are anyway an > intellectual pastime. Things like one hand clapping etc. can be > explained. > My 2c. > > Ravi > > AUM shrImAtre namaH > > AUM manovAchamagocharAyai namaH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2001 Report Share Posted October 21, 2001 Hello Gummuluru Murthy, I was passing thru and your quotation caught my eye. To me this passage does suggest there is a difference between Atman and Brahman. Here I think "self" (atman) is spelled with a small "s" and means something like "manifestation". The deities (heat, water, and food) exist as principles that are filled out and multiplied (in this case by 3) in manifestation. However, "principle" isn't a completely satisfactory equivalent to "deity"; "basic material" might be closer. This chapter is a lessen in superior knowledge and follows the analogy of clay and pots or gold and gold jewelry. If you know clay then you know all clay pots; if you know heat then you know all kinds of fire etc. Ultimately, the logic is if you know the gold of Brahman, then you know all the atman trinkets. Conversely if you know the basic material of one trinket, then you know Brahman. This is also a lessen in the mathematics of knowledge and, interestingly, if you know the meaning of words, then you can know many hundreds of meanings of one book. And one might go further and say if you know the basic material of even one word, then Brahman is known. Enjoyed your piece. Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2001 Report Share Posted October 21, 2001 Thank you Harsha. This cannot be overstressed. Love and grace, ~ Janak. > Self-Realization, by definition, is not dependent on *any* tradition. > > This is why we call it Self-Realization and not Tradition- Realization. > ....... > In order for the mind to be pulled into the Heart, the prerequisite is a > calm and aware and surrendered mind that has the Grace of the Supreme due to > overwhelming devotion and faith. The tradition one belongs to at that point > is totally irrelevant. > > Love to all > Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2001 Report Share Posted October 22, 2001 advaitin, LBIDD@w... wrote: > This chapter is a lessen in superior knowledge and follows the analogy > of clay and pots or gold and gold jewelry. If you know clay then you > know all clay pots; if you know heat then you know all kinds of fire > etc. Ultimately, the logic is if you know the gold of Brahman, then you > know all the atman trinkets. Conversely if you know the basic material > of one trinket, then you know Brahman. > Namaste All, My posting here is not really related to the subject initiated by Shri Gummuluru Murthy. It is rather a remark on an analogy that is often used in Advaita literature. If I am interested in knowing about clay pots, how is it that on knowing clay, I would know all clay pots ? On knowing clay, I would know the underlying substance in all the clay pots, but there is still the creativity of the potter. On knowing clay I still will have to learn the different shapes and designs that can go into making of pots. Similarly, if one is interested in learning about the universe. There are two things to learn: 1. The underlying reality beneath the universe. 2. The twists that Prakriti puts on this reality in terms of name and form. On knowing just the underlying reality, can the quest of knowing about the universe be called complete ? Is there an unspecified assumption that on knowing the underlying reality the twists of Prakriti will also be known ? Best regards Shrinivas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2001 Report Share Posted October 23, 2001 On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 sgadkari2001 wrote: > Namaste All, > > My posting here is not really related to the subject initiated > by Shri Gummuluru Murthy. It is rather a remark on an analogy > that is often used in Advaita literature. > > If I am interested in knowing about clay pots, how is it > that on knowing clay, I would know all clay pots ? On knowing > clay, I would know the underlying substance in all the clay > pots, but there is still the creativity of the potter. On > knowing clay I still will have to learn the different shapes > and designs that can go into making of pots. > > Similarly, if one is interested in learning about the universe. > There are two things to learn: > 1. The underlying reality beneath the universe. > 2. The twists that Prakriti puts on this reality in terms > of name and form. > > On knowing just the underlying reality, can the quest of > knowing about the universe be called complete ? Is there an > unspecified assumption that on knowing the underlying reality > the twists of Prakriti will also be known ? > namaste. Let me try to respond to this. Knowing the names and forms and jugs and pots is apara vidyA, the lower knowledge. If we know the underlying basis for all the names and forms, there is no need to know the science of names and forms. Again, in Chandogya upanishad, sage nAradA says he learnt all the sciences of names and forms and still he felt incomplete because he didn't have the knowledge of the basis for names and forms. Further, the study of names and forms will leave us with the lingering doubt what is the substratum on which the names and forms are based and is thus, still, an incomplete knowledge. On the other hand, if we know the substratum, the clay for the jugs and pots, the study of names and forms will be found to be unnecessary and superfluous because the names and forms will be found to be asat. > Best regards > Shrinivas > Regards Gummuluru Murthy - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2001 Report Share Posted October 24, 2001 Namaste, It is because no analogy, simile, metaphor, example, can fit any description of the Ultimate Reality, that It is called "anupameya", [an = not; upamaa = simile], indescribable. 'Knowing' the underlying reality is the same as 'Being' the Reality, in Advaitic parlance. That Being, of course, 'knows' what It can Become, because everything It becomes is Itself. Regards, Sunder advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 sgadkari2001 wrote: > > > Namaste All, > > > > My posting here is not really related to the subject initiated > > by Shri Gummuluru Murthy. It is rather a remark on an analogy > > that is often used in Advaita literature. > > > > > > On knowing just the underlying reality, can the quest of > > knowing about the universe be called complete ? Is there an > > unspecified assumption that on knowing the underlying reality > > the twists of Prakriti will also be known ? > > > > namaste. > > Let me try to respond to this. Knowing the names and forms > and jugs and pots is apara vidyA, the lower knowledge. > > On the other hand, if we know the substratum, the clay for the > jugs and pots, the study of names and forms will be found to > be unnecessary and superfluous because the names and forms > will be found to be asat. > > > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2001 Report Share Posted October 24, 2001 >On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 sgadkari2001 wrote: >...... > > > On knowing just the underlying reality, can the quest of >> knowing about the universe be called complete ? Is there an >> unspecified assumption that on knowing the underlying reality >> the twists of Prakriti will also be known ? >> > >namaste. >...... >On the other hand, if we know the substratum, the clay for the >jugs and pots, the study of names and forms will be found to >be unnecessary and superfluous because the names and forms >will be found to be asat. > > >> Best regards >> Shrinivas >> > >Regards >Gummuluru Murthy >- > I would not call that knowing prakR^iti is unnecessary and superfluous and nor knowing the underlying the plurality will allow me to know "the twists of prakriti" either. Knowing the reality would remove my delusion that makes me feel that apparent plurality is a reality - that is, the delusion or notion that the illusion is real goes away. Hence I can deal with prakR^iti in its own sphere correctly without establishing wrong relationships as I do now when I am deluded. Vyavahaara is not unnecessary but entertainment for a change or fun. Why do I sit down and watch a movie involving changes of colors and shades in TV knowing that it is not real- but that is fun. Krishna never felt that his life was unnecessary and superfluous. He lived to his fullest extent with a smile on his face and had a greatest fun jumping with joy in Brindavan with milkmaids, in Dwaraka with thousands of wives and in Kurushetra war, while recognizing that it is all play or liila. No - knowing the substratum will not make me know the quantum mechanics or fracture mechanics. When it say - knowing which I know everything - involves two aspects - one is I know the substratum or the bottom line and second the feeling of incompleteness arising from longing to know disappears. Wise man seriously does not take life seriously- but plays seriously. It becomes His vibhuuti or glory. Until one becomes wise, one can see Him in all plays and play with Him - that becomes beautiful play and life is but play and without that play it becomes boring and even Krishna does not want that! Hari OM! Sadananda -- 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 October 24, 2001 Report Share Posted October 24, 2001 On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, K. Sadananda wrote: > > I would not call that knowing prakR^iti is unnecessary and > superfluous and nor knowing the underlying the plurality will allow > me to know "the twists of prakriti" either. > > Knowing the reality would remove my delusion that makes me feel that > apparent plurality is a reality - that is, the delusion or notion > that the illusion is real goes away. Hence I can deal with prakR^iti > in its own sphere correctly without establishing wrong relationships > as I do now when I am deluded. Vyavahaara is not unnecessary but > entertainment for a change or fun. Why do I sit down and watch a > movie involving changes of colors and shades in TV knowing that it is > not real- but that is fun. Krishna never felt that his life was > unnecessary and superfluous. He lived to his fullest extent with a > smile on his face and had a greatest fun jumping with joy in > Brindavan with milkmaids, in Dwaraka with thousands of wives and in > Kurushetra war, while recognizing that it is all play or liila. > > No - knowing the substratum will not make me know the quantum > mechanics or fracture mechanics. When it say - knowing which I know > everything - involves two aspects - one is I know the substratum or > the bottom line and second the feeling of incompleteness arising from > longing to know disappears. Wise man seriously does not take life > seriously- but plays seriously. It becomes His vibhuuti or glory. > Until one becomes wise, one can see Him in all plays and play with > Him - that becomes beautiful play and life is but play and without > that play it becomes boring and even Krishna does not want that! > > Hari OM! > Sadananda > namaste. While agreeing with what shri Sadananda garu says above re the usefulness or otherwise of the prak^iti vidyA, I need to say the following: For an embodiment of jnAnam, yes, the prakr^iti-vidyA is a play which is to be enjoyed as a play. For people at our stage of Knowledge, for us who have this human life and being blessed to some extent with advaita-vAsanA, to waste this life on prakr^iti-vidyA thinking about quantum mechanics or chemistry or even how creation came about is a waste of time. I understand shri shrinivas gadkari's question is "what is wrong with study of names and forms?" and my response of yesterday still stands. The study of Atma-vidyA is the only study worth making, other studies will not remove the incompleteness which led to the enquiry. Shri sadananda garu is saying: enjoy the study of names and forms as a leelA. But that enjoyment comes when we *know* that it is a leelA to be enjoyed. That would be with AtmavidyA. My saying what I said in my last post and in this one is to make people recognize the usefulness of AtmavidyA and also to make people recognize that wasting the precious human life in the study of science of names and forms is not really a proper use of the life in human form. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2001 Report Share Posted October 24, 2001 > I understand shri shrinivas gadkari's question is "what is wrong > with study of names and forms?" and my response of yesterday still > stands. The study of Atma-vidyA is the only study worth making, > other studies will not remove the incompleteness which led to > the enquiry. > > Shri sadananda garu is saying: enjoy the study of names and forms > as a leelA. But that enjoyment comes when we *know* that it is > a leelA to be enjoyed. That would be with AtmavidyA. My saying > what I said in my last post and in this one is to make people > recognize the usefulness of AtmavidyA and also to make people > recognize that wasting the precious human life in the study > of science of names and forms is not really a proper use of > the life in human form. > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy Namsate, Shri Gummuluru-Ji, when one undertakes a study of Prakriti, the knowledge of the underlying reality is already included in this study. In Chandogya Upanishad, Narada felt incompleteness even after learning various sciences. It is likely that at that point of time he understood each science seperately. Later he was instructed on how these seemingly separate sciences are connected. That connection probably was amta-vidya. What is this episode supposed to communicate ? 1. Just concentrate on atma-vidya and forget every other vidya ? Or 2. Devote yourself to study of various sciences, BUT also also strive to learn the UNIFYING principle. Without knowing the unifying principle, your study cannot be considered complete. Remember the stress of Patanjali on 'eka tattva abhyasa'. I know that many members of this list endorse interpretation 1. What I (as always) ask is by rejecting interpretation 2, are we not losing out. Note that interpreation 2, includes the study of atma-vidya in it. But here atma-vidya is treated as the UNIFYING principle between seemingly disconnected Vedic sciences. Looking forward to more discussion on this topic. I really feel clarifying this issue is important. Best regards Shrinivas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2001 Report Share Posted October 24, 2001 advaitin, "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote: > Knowing the reality would remove my delusion that makes me feel that > apparent plurality is a reality - that is, the delusion or notion > that the illusion is real goes away. Hence I can deal with prakR^iti > in its own sphere correctly without establishing wrong relationships > as I do now when I am deluded. Namaste Shri Sadananda-Ji, What you describe above is the practice of Yoga. I agree with you that as far as implementation of Vedanta in day-to-day life is concerned this Yoga is indeed the recommended practice. >When it say - knowing which I know > everything - involves two aspects - one is I know the substratum or > the bottom line and second the feeling of incompleteness arising from > longing to know disappears. Now coming to the scope of knowledge accessible through Vedas. "That which when known, everything else is known", should we so easily discard the literal meaning of this statement ? Take again the Chandogya Upanishad. Indra spent 101 Years at the place of Prajapati to know "That". >From the way this incident is narrated, one feels inclined to take this statement literally. If Indra invested 101 Years to know "That", it must be really valuable from all angles. Best regards Shrinivas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2001 Report Share Posted October 24, 2001 Thank you Sri Janakji. Truth is simple. Perhaps we also have to become simple to see it! :-). Love to all Harsha janakji [janakji] Sunday, October 21, 2001 2:57 PM advaitin Re: chandogya upanishad vi.3.2 Thank you Harsha. This cannot be overstressed. Love and grace, ~ Janak. > Self-Realization, by definition, is not dependent on *any* tradition. > > This is why we call it Self-Realization and not Tradition- Realization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2001 Report Share Posted October 25, 2001 > >Namaste Shri Sadananda-Ji, > >What you describe above is the practice of Yoga. I agree with you >that as far as implementation of Vedanta in day-to-day life >is concerned this Yoga is indeed the recommended practice. True - is it not what is intended by the teaching? - Any vyavahaara involving prakR^iti is at the level of yoga. From the absoluteness there are not sajaati, vijaari and swagata bheda-s to have a differentiation of even prakR^iti and purushha. > >>When it say - knowing which I know >> everything - involves two aspects - one is I know the substratum or >> the bottom line and second the feeling of incompleteness arising >from >> longing to know disappears. > >Now coming to the scope of knowledge accessible through Vedas. >"That which when known, everything else is known", >should we so easily discard the literal meaning of this >statement ? Take again the Chandogya Upanishad. Indra >spent 101 Years at the place of Prajapati to know "That". >>From the way this incident is narrated, one feels inclined >to take this statement literally. If Indra invested 101 Years >to know "That", it must be really valuable from all angles. > > >Best regards >Shrinivas > Shrinivas - Greetings. Even Veda-s come under the apara vidya - forget about Indra spending 101 years somewhere - We have been spending millians of lives trying to learn the truth of our real existence since in all these lives we we have been looking and searching for is only ananda which has been our own true nature all along. What we have been searching for we have searching with. That is what ultimately is being pointed out in Vedanta in the 'sat adhyaaya of Ch. Up. Ultimately forget about the 'time' the very existence of Indra itself is questioned as separate from us. Even the Veda-s exist because I exist. In Panchadasi Shree Vidyaaranya addresses these in the very first chapter - tatva viveka taking each experience and knowledge in the waking, dream and deep sleep states as an example. knowledge of the facts (through sense, mind and intellect) versus the knowledge of the knowledge of the facts. I know king Ashoka is factual knowledge - related to prakR^iti and if asked how do you know that you know Ashoka - one can only answer is "I know that I know ashoka" - " I know that I do not know gaagabuubu" - That which is different from known and different from unknown - the very knowledge it self - it is the very substratum for knowledge and it cannot be known in the sense it is not an object of knowledge - it is swaswaruupa - here knowing is "being" - - brahmavit brahma eva bhavati is exact truth - Even Veda-s can only point in the direction for one to know. Hence its classification as apara vidya in both Mundaka where student asks - tasminno bhagavo vij~naate sarva idam vij~naatam bhavati' - and in Brihadaaranya Up. The teacher proceeds to teach only the Brahma vidya - it is again not an objective knowledge to teach but to point in the direction of the nature of reality hence even this teaching of brahma vidya - that is vedanta is included in apara vidya only. Hence knowing that one knows every thing - only implication as the knowledge of substratum and not the names and forms which are only apparent and endless. In fact in the objective knowledge the more one tries to know the more ignorant one becomes in the sense he will know that there is lot more to learn that he was not even aware off before. One becomes a specialist of smaller and smaller field of knowledge. Hence one can never know prakR^iti since it is apparent and not real. It is like trying to learn the details of snake when it is rope there. Hence solution to the problem is not knowing the names and forms but the very substratum underlying the problem. If I know the fundamental particles - say electrons, protons and neutrons - in principle I have known all the elements since they are only assemblage of these fundamental particles. Second - the objective knowledge consisting of names and forms requires the upaadhi-s - mind and intellect. The very existence of object is questionable without the mind and intellect and the consciousness behind it. Then where is the question of independent knowledge of objects - prakR^iti. Hence knowing that everything is known only implies that the knowledge of the substratum of all objective knowledge. I was making comment to Shree Murthy gaaru's statement - "that it unnecessary to know the names and forms". I was only pointing out that Vyavahaara does not involve exclusion but inclusion but with correct understanding. This is not after realization- it is in fact is sadhana required as you rightly pointed out. That is the purpose of very teaching since teaching is for a sadhaka not for j~naani. Anyway this is my understanding. Hari OM! Sadananda -- 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 October 27, 2001 Report Share Posted October 27, 2001 advaitin, sunderh wrote: > Namaste, > > It is because no analogy, simile, metaphor, example, can fit > any description of the Ultimate Reality, that It is called > "anupameya", [an = not; upamaa = simile], indescribable. > > 'Knowing' the underlying reality is the same as 'Being' the > Reality, in Advaitic parlance. That Being, of course, 'knows' what It > can Become, because everything It becomes is Itself. > > > > Regards, > > Sunder > Greetings: And once the principle is understood, there is no need to see the application in practice. All love and grace, Janak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2001 Report Share Posted October 27, 2001 Namaste, It would be even more emphatic to say that the principle is not only understood but experienced as intimately as any sensation. It is also a drawback of 'aparaa vidyaa' [as referred to by Shrinivas-ji] where the practice of virtue/righteousness, as parts of 'chittashuddhi' is NOT a pre-requisite. Therefore, the 'advaita experience' can never be expected to be fulfilled. Regards, Sunder advaitin, janakji@e... wrote: > advaitin, sunderh wrote: > > > > > Greetings: > And once the principle is understood, there is no need to see the > application in practice. > > All love and grace, > Janak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2001 Report Share Posted October 28, 2001 Namaste! Once one surrenders and experiences the sweetest Lord Sri Krishna,one also experiences all as Krishna Leela,Krishna's charm,nay Krishna (God or Brahman) only in every particle,in every event in every one and every thing in this amazing wonder of wonders called human life! Ananda Sagar --- sunderh wrote: > Namaste, > > It would be even more emphatic to say that the > principle is not > only understood but experienced as intimately as any > sensation. > > It is also a drawback of 'aparaa vidyaa' [as > referred to by > Shrinivas-ji] where the practice of > virtue/righteousness, as parts of > 'chittashuddhi' is NOT a pre-requisite. Therefore, > the 'advaita > experience' can never be expected to be fulfilled. > > Regards, > > Sunder > > advaitin, janakji@e... wrote: > > advaitin, sunderh wrote: > > > > > > > > > Greetings: > > And once the principle is understood, there is no > need to see the > > application in practice. > > > > All love and grace, > > Janak. > > Make a great connection at Personals. http://personals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2001 Report Share Posted October 28, 2001 advaitin, sunderh wrote: > Namaste, > > It would be even more emphatic to say that the principle is not > only understood but experienced as intimately as any sensation. > > It is also a drawback of 'aparaa vidyaa' [as referred to by > Shrinivas-ji] where the practice of virtue/righteousness, as parts of > 'chittashuddhi' is NOT a pre-requisite. Therefore, the 'advaita > experience' can never be expected to be fulfilled. > > Regards, > > Sunder Namaste Shri Sunder-Ji, Consider the approach to 'aparaa vidya' outlined in advaitin/message/10654 . Do you feel such an approach is lacking in righteousess or is incapabale of providing 'advaita experience' ? It is likely that over a period of time the different Vedic sciences have got clouded. In that case, should one reject them completely ? Best regards Shrinivas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2001 Report Share Posted October 28, 2001 Namaste Shrinivas-ji, Thank you for the reference to your article. As pointed out by Sada-ji, Vedas [and the 'upangas', like Ayurveda] themselves form 'aparaa vidyaa'. The practice of Ayurveda, or of any other science, can certainly be associated with virtue and righteousness; but it is not a pre-requisite. Nor do the sciences aim at the summum bonum of life. All sciences are endangered by the 'asuric' [non-divine] elements in humanity; even 'yoga'! No one has advocated , as far as I know, practice of any of the sciences alone to result in advaitic experience. Vedanta philosophy does not inhibit study of 'aparaa vidyaa', but 'fulfils' it. For example, Isha upanishad mantras 9 and 12, clearly show the complementarity of the two approaches; but the ultimate transcendence of death to immortality, and of suffering to beatitude, can never be guaranteed by anything short of 'aatma-vichaara', which eliminates the very necessity of an 'objective' science. To my way of thinking, vedic science stands on its own validity, and does not require justification by Vedanta. Regards, Sunder advaitin, sgadkari2001 wrote: > - > > Consider the approach to 'aparaa vidya' outlined in > advaitin/message/10654 . > Do you feel such an approach is lacking in righteousess or > is incapabale of providing 'advaita experience' ? > 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.