j~nAna and bhakti

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Thank you for the suggestion.

 

I like to include the translations for all Sanskrit verses

except Bhagavadgita, as I think everyone should have a copy of the

Gita to refer to (including translation), and it is also available in

the Files section of this list. Hope you do not mind this.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar_s"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

> Namaste Sunderji,

> When you quote Sanskrit verses, would you be kind enough to include

the english translations too?

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji:

 

As always, your suggestion to Sri Jay is quite appropriate and

timely. The rest of my remarks in this post are general and not

directed to your question to Sri Jay.

 

This is a good time to inform the list members about several email

correspondences between Sadaji Sri Jay and me. During those

conversations we came to know that just like us, Sri Jay also lives

in the Northern Virginia suburb (Washington Metropolitan). During the

middle of 2001, Sri Sadaji has organized a weeklong Vedantic

discourse by a well-known scholar, Dr. SMS Chari on the relative

merits of Advaita, Visistadvaita and Dwaita. Interestingly, Sri Jay

also attended those discourses and he in fact borrowed several books

of Dr. Chari for reading. From what I know that Sri jay is a follower

of Madhwacharya's Dwaitan philosophy.

 

Most of us in the list are aware on the fundamental differences

between the three schools of thoughts (advaita, visitadvaita and

dwaita). For advaitins such differences can be easily explained by

the existence of the two levels of the reality - Paramarthika and

vyavaharika. At the vyavaharika levels, we have illusive perceptions

and duality and pluralities appear real. In other words, we dwaitan

and visistadvaitins at the vyavaharika level! Both the dwaita and

visitadvaita schools do not believe in the existence of the two

levels of reality and this one easy way to differentiate between

these philosophies.

 

The debate on the reasons behind the distinctions and hair-split

details on how to interpret the verses of the Upanishads,

Brahmasuutras and Bhagavadgita require scholarship of highest level.

Honestly, I do not see that is likely possible through email

correspondences. Ideally, people with high level of scholarships,

listening and articulating skills should gather in a conference

setting and present their cases. There are limitations to what a list

such as the advaitin list can do and I agree with Sadaji that debates

on the validity of philosophies are beyond the scope of this list.

 

At the same time, Sri jay is welcome to participate in the list

discussions and provide his viewpoint within the confinement of

dwaita. Ideally he should state clearly that what he states fall

within the dwaita philosophy. This is important because this list is

confined to the ideas and ideals of Shankaracharya and the members do

have the right to know when the ideas or ideals represent other

philosophies. As advaitins, we do want to get rid of our ignorance

and we have no problems listening to the 'Bhakti' aspects from the

dwaitan point of view. As I have said to Sri Jay (and he graciously

agree to honor my request) that he should not use this forum to make

derogative remarks on Shankaracharya or his ideas and ideals. As a

matter of fact, the policies prohibit insulting remarks on any

acharyas including the sages and saints belong to all religions.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Jayji.

>

> Permit me to barge in.

>

> You have articulated your objections very well indeed. However,

you

> have stopped short of explaining what you mean by "application to

> shAstra". Why don't we go our own separate ways till you

successfully

> do that? Who knows you may also get 'intellectually stuck' when you

> get down to doing the explaining business, the subject being so

> ineffable.

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony,

 

You said: "The Bhakti who drops the idea of individual energy becomes

praneaswara". Could you please explain? Not all of us have encountered all

of these Sanskrit terms (and my on-line Monier-Williams hasn't encountered

this one either!)

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dear Nair-jI,

 

"Application to shAstra" means leading the life of shAstra.

 

What is learnt at the feet of a Guru is shravaNa, to contemplate

on what is learnt is manana, and to lead the life of what is

contemplated and learnt is nidhidhyAsana or "Application to shAstra".

The three together are called Brahma-jignyAsA.

 

It comes in the form of study and teaching of shAstra (svAdhyAya-pravachana).

Taittareeya makes such a discipline as the highest discipline.

 

I am sure you have heard of,

 

"tapascha svAdhyAya-pravachanE cha"

"shamascha svAdhyAya-pravachanE cha"

"damascha svAdhyAya-pravachanE cha"

......

svAdhyAya-pravachana EvEti nAkO moudgalyaha -

tad hi tapas tad hi tapaha.

 

Taittareeya says that it is the highest form of tapas that one can do.

It has nothing to do with any school of thought, it is coming from

Taittareeya-upanishat. which makes every other discipline such as dhyAna,

subordinate to svAdhyAya-pravachana.

 

I am glad that you asked for clarification.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy

wrote:

>have produced such a gem of a post which is very

>

> close to my heart.

>

> You have expressed beautifully what advaita bhakti

> is and

> how necessary it is. shri shankara is a great bhakta

> and

> a great jnAni. At that ultimate, jnAna and bhakti

> are one

> and the same.

 

Namaste Gummuluru-ji

 

Thank you for your encouraging mail. You probably

know the following quote but others on the list may be

reading it for the first time. It comes from

Madhava-Vidyaranya's Shankara Digvijaya, Canto 7,

51-60.

The setting is that Shankara has been discussing his

Bhashya on Vyasa's Vedanta Sutras with the great sage

himself. The time comes for them to part and Vyasa

says:

'May your commentary shine until the end of time.

During the rest of your life may you uproot the

doctrines of those who oppose advaita philosophy and

establish in them faith in this doctrine of the unity

of all existence.'

He then departs and the text continues:

'Though himself an illumined sage, Shankara felt sad

at the departure of the great Vyasa. How can any

person help feeling sad when the force of circumstance

separates him from such centres radiating universal

love? Shankara, the greatest among Sannyasins,

somehow assuaged his own grief by feeling Vyasa's

presence in his heart through meditation and soon

started, as desired by him, on a spiritual conquest of

the whole land of Bharata.'

 

 

 

When I first read that it was very much a 'Wow'

moment. For me personally there is much in that

short extract, not least in being able to visualise

and experience the scene itself. Not least is how

prema, universal, unlimited love may be realised

through the appearance of attachment.

 

Best wishes

 

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> Hi Tony,

>

> You said: "The Bhakti who drops the idea of individual energy

becomes

> praneaswara". Could you please explain? Not all of us have

encountered all

> of these Sanskrit terms (and my on-line Monier-Williams hasn't

encountered

> this one either!)

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

Namaste,

 

It is a term that Nisargadatta Maharaj and others use meaning prana-

energy and Easwara- personal God. The word for Personal God in

Sanskrit is Ishwara/Easwara. Many also call this concept the Devi or

Goddess also, depending on one's tradition.

 

We are all that energy in relativity but we think we are indivdiuals.

 

That is also ultimately unreal as well of course.

[Guest guest]

Hari OM! Dear Jayji, Your Intellect only needs Conviction, Brahman is Beyond

your conviction. Yes, You cannot accept that conviction, because you are trying

to analyse BRAHMAN with your intellect, the power to analyse...is given to you

from BRAHMAN... intellect is only an equipment. The Source cannot be analysed.

only you can point to that source through ascetic discipline and Meditation. And

you can have intuitive knowledge about BRAHMAN. LIke the sweetness of sugar...

which cannot be explained by words, One has to taste the sugar for that! With

Love & OM! Krishna Prasad

 

Jay Nelamangala <jay wrote:Dear KrishnaPrasad-jI,

 

My conscience does not let

me accept the fact that meditation on a wrong thing, i.e, the thing that is

arOpita, removes wrong notions about Truth and leads to

the correct understanding of it. Consiously I can not accept such a position

simply because, it is not very convincing. Further, dhyAna and samAdhi are

lower forms of discipline, and discipline in the higher sense consists in

application to shAstra, and this presupposes no meditation.

 

I hope I have articulated it well enough.

 

 

 

 

 

Sponsor

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Jay-ji,

 

Thanks for your clarifications which, fortunately I believe, have

given rise to certain other doubts as mentioned below:

__________________

 

Jay-ji :

 

What is learnt at the feet of a Guru is shravaNa, to contemplate

on what is learnt is manana, and to lead the life of what is

contemplated and learnt is nidhidhyAsana or "Application to shAstra".

The three together are called Brahma-jignyAsA.

 

MRN:

 

I learnt advaita from a guru of Sankara lineage. That was a

situation I was placed in. With my level of understanding when I

began, I couldn't have asked for a better choice and selected a

better option. It was a given situation, let us say, granted by the

Lord. I reposed faith in that guru and learnt advaita by intently

listening to him (shravana). I did then contemplate (and still

continue to contemplate) (manana) on his teachings, which expound the

mahAvAkyas. My guru told me that I needed not delve into the

karmakAndAs of the Vedas but only concentrate on the upaniSadic

portions which declare the vedantic truth. I, therefore, restricted

myself to the study of the major upaniSads, brahmasUtras and bhagwat

gItA.

 

My guru taught me that, according to the above scriptures, I was

already liberated and that the only thing I needed to do was to get

rid of my false knowledge that I was bound. When I told him that I

was convinced of the logic of the scriptures as taught by him, my

guru advised me to continue contemplation, and also endeavour

deliberately to live like a jIvanmuktA so that, ultimately, I am able

to `be' so most spontaneously and naturally.

 

Logical contemplation on his teachings and the scriptures named above

(exclusive of Vedic karmakAndAs) plus my earnest endeavours to live

like a jIvanmuktA , I believe, are nidhidhyAsana or "Application to

shAstra" as per your above statement. Such contemplation has led me

to the conclusion that advaita as taught by teachers of my Guru's

tradition is very logical and continued application to it will

transform me ultimately into the Knowledge `conveyed' through the

mahAvAkyAs. (My present knowledge of the mahAvAkyAs being conceived,

I don't think I can express myself any better than this! Hope you

are with me here.)

 

This means that I have already begun "Application to shAstra".

Kindly tell me if you agree or if your idea of "Application to

shastra" is something different. If latter is the case, kindly take

pains to explain *comparatively* where and how I am wrong.

________________________

 

 

Jai-ji:

 

It comes in the form of study and teaching of shAstra (svAdhyAya-

pravachana).

Taittareeya makes such a discipline as the highest discipline.

 

I am sure you have heard of,

 

"tapascha svAdhyAya-pravachanE cha"

"shamascha svAdhyAya-pravachanE cha"

"damascha svAdhyAya-pravachanE cha"

......

svAdhyAya-pravachana EvEti nAkO moudgalyaha -

tad hi tapas tad hi tapaha.

 

Taittareeya says that it is the highest form of tapas that one can do.

It has nothing to do with any school of thought, it is coming from

Taittareeya-upanishat. which makes every other discipline such as

dhyAna,

subordinate to svAdhyAya-pravachana.

 

 

MRN:

 

I am afraid I cannot fully agree with your translation of svAdhyAya-

pravachana as just study and teaching of shAstra. With my very

limited knowledge of the language, I would rather believe that the

term also points at "assimilation and exposition of imparted

knowledge as one's own through contemplation and self-study". (This

understanding itself is the result of contemplation. Scholars may

kindly correct me if there is error in this understanding.). If the

importance and need for tapa – shama – dama are understood through

self-study and contemplation, will they not become natural and

spontaneous? The Ultimate Knowledge finally springs forth naturally

and spontaneously.

 

The question now – an Advaitin of Sankara lineage (or rather my

guru's tradition – to be more precise) does or is advised to do

exactly this. So, what and where is your disagreement, if at all

any. Will you kindly clarify?

___________________________

 

(The situation detailed above may not be my case exactly. At best,

it is a high-margin approximation. No tall claims.)

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

My comments are at the bottom of the post. I will pass this on to HS as

well.

 

Harsha

 

Jay Nelamangala wrote:

> As you might have seen under the last month's discussions on

> "free-will and fate",

> some in this group accept there is free-will and yet there are others

> who don't,

> and both being devoted, learned advaitins. What does that tell us?

> It tells us that

> "sAkshee khalu sarva pramANa prAmANya nischAyakaha". The final

> pramANa on

> what is acceptable and what is not, is one's own sAkshee or

> 'conscience' ( the notion

> of sAkshee in vEdanta, is much broader than what the word conscince

> indicates, but for a

> lack of a better word in english, we will use the word conscience

> itself).

>

> In matters of right and wrong, just and unjust, truth and false, the

> final pramANa is one's own sAkshee for that person. This is why, what

> one is convinced about, others are not.

> There is lot more that is said to be about sAkshee. If the

> moderators' are interested, may be a month can be devoted just on that

> subject.

>

> >For realisation, Jnana and Bhakti both are necessary, it is like the

> two wings of the Bird, a Bird >cannot fly with only One wing. Think in

> terms of Advaita! With Love

>

> But jnAna is getting stuck in intellect, Bhakti is in SaguNa Brahman

> which is again considered mithyA.

>

> Let me explain why my conscience does not let me think ' I am

> Infinite' , ' I am God', and such other ideas that seem to freely

> float around in this forum. People have given different names to it

> : 'stuck in intellect', 'lack of understanding', 'not God

> realized',

> 'being in the wrong email list', ' dualistic thinking', 'not thinking

> in terms of Advaita', ' not learned enough', 'not able to rise above

> mind', "not realized Pleroma", "not able to comprehend advaita",

> etc etc.

>

> My understanding is that the highest discipline is Brahma-jignyAsA

> which comes in the form shravaNa-manana-dhyAna.

> Thus, meditation on a real thing, that leads to the realization of it

> and in this case the right understanding of the thing is

> obviously the presupposition of the meditation, because dhyAna is an

> aspect of memory, and efforless dhyAna is samAdhi.

>

> But in advaita, this object of dhyAna is mithyA and the meditation on

> it is somehow supposed to remove wrong notions

> and thereby help the correct understanding of Truth. My conscience

> does not let me accept this position because, firstly

> If the final Truth, that we have called God or Parabrahman is

> self-evident or sva-prakAsha, and with reference to it the

> distinction between right and wrong knowledge can not be justified

> because it is all notional and intellectual. My conscience does not let

> me accept the fact that meditation on a wrong thing, i.e, the thing

> that is arOpita, removes wrong notions about Truth and leads to

> the correct understanding of it. Consiously I can not accept such a

> position simply because, it is not very convincing. Further,

> dhyAna and samAdhi are lower forms of discipline, and discipline in

> the higher sense consists in application to shAstra, and this

> presupposes no meditation.

>

Dear Jayji,

 

You say that your conscience does not let you accept certain things,

etc. There is no one here objecting that you should not follow your

conscience and whatever approach to the divine that seems natural to

you. You can certainly take satisfaction in your understanding and

knowledge.

 

Our sages who proclaimed the Maha Vakyas took satisfaction in their

knowledge of the Self as it was their first hand knowledge and not just

based on someone else's word or reading of books. Realizing the Self is

the ultimate satisfaction. Sages declare that "Knowing That, nothing

remains to be known".

 

Atman Is Brahman is Both the basic axiom of Advaita as well as the

Actual Experience of Sages. If Self-Realization could be contradicted by

words and/or differing interpretations of Sanskrit verses, it would not

be much of a Realization and could stand the test of time.

 

Brahman is One without a second. Upon encountering IT the "I" does not

survive as the mind but becomes (Recognizes It Self) as the very Eye

that is Self Seeing and Self Being.

 

Self is Sat-Chit-Ananda, Nityam, Poornum.

 

These are not attributes of Brahman but the very nature of Brahman. It

only appears paradoxical through the perspective of the mind, yet those

who Know their own Heart as the Self finding nothing mysterious in it.

 

Brahman does not have attributes that are complete. Brahman Is Complete.

 

Love to all

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Dear Nair,

>This means that I have already begun "Application to shAstra".

>Kindly tell me if you agree or if your idea of "Application to

>shastra" is something different.

 

You are blessed indeed to have a Guru who has taught you prasthAna-traya.

In fact vEda says "AchAryavAn purushO vEda" (One who has a guru is a human)

which shows the importance that Veda gives for Guru and learning.

>If latter is the case, kindly take

>pains to explain *comparatively* where and how I am wrong.

 

I can only explain what Brahma-jignyAsA means, to the best of my capacity.

Why it appeals to some and why not to some others, I can't answer that

question. It is really between your sAkshee, your Guru(s) and The

Universal-Guru SriKrishna ( or VedavyAsa in another form).

 

Again, this has nothing to do with any school of thought, because it is coming

straight from Sri VedavyAsa - the author of Geetha and Brahma-sootras - the

highest Teacher that there can be.

 

The word 'Brahma' in Brahma-jigyAsa stands for vEda. jigyAsa means vichAra or

enquiry. Thus Brahma-jignyAsA is 'vEda-vichAra' or 'Enquiry into entire Veda'.

>From your email, what has actually been done is 'mahAvAkya-jignyAsA' and

calling it Brahma-jigyAsA. Whether it is right or wrong, who am I to say?

 

I am sure you have learnt that Brahman is Infinite or anatha.

satyam-jnAnam-anantam-brahma - taittareeya

 

If Brahman is Infinite or ananta then the jignyAsA or enquiry that leads upto

that Infinite Brahman has to be also infinite through the Infinite words of

Veda. From your email, 'ananta' has been restricted to a dozen words coming

from four sentenses, and given the name 'Infinite'. By doing so, are'nt we

reducing the word 'anantha' to a mere finite word such as 'devadatta' ?.

 

This is the reason why Veda insists that a discussion on the Infinite God be

commenced only after the completion of a 12-year study of vedas.

May be you should get back to your Guru and discuss with him why Veda insists on

this.

 

>With my very limited knowledge of the language, I would rather believe that

>the term also points at "assimilation and exposition of imparted

>knowledge as one's own through contemplation and self-study".

 

Instead of restricting yourself to your beliefs, why don't you go back

to your Guru and learn Taittareeya. After all, these email forums and

discussions do not teach shAstra as such, only your Guru can, and luckily

you already have a Guru.

 

Let us not make these discussions for determining who is right or wrong.

Since there is only one parabrahman for all religions, for all people, and

for all schools of thought, let us use these email exchanges to examine what we

already know as parabrahman vis-a-vis what is presented as parabrahman by

shruti.

 

Let me know what you think.

 

Regards,

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Harsha,

 

You should check with moderators of this group before cross posting it to other

groups such as HS.

 

Note from the Moderator: The list has no objection if author wants to post the

artilce in a multiple of lists. At the same time, if you have objection then

your reply shouldn't be forwarded to other lists!

>These are not attributes of Brahman but the very nature of Brahman. It

>only appears paradoxical through the perspective of the mind, yet those

>who Know their own Heart as the Self finding nothing mysterious in it.

>Brahman does not have attributes that are complete. Brahman Is Complete.

 

You are very correct. Thanks for pointing it out. It is similar to saying

'Sugar is sweet' and 'Sugar has sweetness'.

 

BrihantO hi asmin guNaaha - 'Brahman has attributes which are Complete' and

'Brahman is Complete'

 

Parabrahman and His attributes are not different. Sweetness and Sugar can't be

seperated either.

 

In shAstra, Parabrahman is said to be both guNa and guNi. It is through

'vishEsha' that one can talk about "attributes of parabrahman"

as though Parabrahman (guNi) and His attributes (guNa) are different. That is

why sometimes we talk about God's body is made out

of His attributes such as jnAna, Ananda, Shakti, etc as though God has a body,

even though we all know that God does not have a body like we do.

 

I won't go through the details on 'vishEsha' here, as there is enough to be

said there that, it deserves a month long discussion some other time, if

moderators are interested.

 

Thanks and regards,

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Harsha and Moderator,

>Note from the Moderator: The list has no objection if author wants to post the

>artilce in a multiple of lists. At the same time, if you have objection then

>your reply shouldn't be forwarded to other lists!

 

I don't mind it either, as long as they let me know before cross posting which

list it is going to and also some info on the interests of that list.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Jay,

 

The main thing on the spiritual path is faith and surrender to the Lord

of the Heart, the ultimate Guru, who manifests in many forms to guide

the aspirant. Sri Krishna has said, "I am in the Heart of all

beings...." If one has faith, one can take it literally and find Him

there. In Gita, Sri Krishna has given many methods of contemplation and

practical advice as well concerning the spiritual paths.

 

Perhaps you have heard the story of Rishi Valmiki. As I recall Rishi

Valmiki was a thug and a dacoit. He received Diksha in the form of

mantra from his teacher who asked him to repeat the name of Rama. But

Valmiki perhaps forgot the mantra and at some point started repeating

Mara, Mara, instead of Rama, Rama, Rama.

 

Due to his faith, however, Valmiki remained absorbed in meditation and

became transformed into a saint.

 

So whatever our spiritual understanding is, it comes from the Lord of

the Heart and we can be grateful for it and be satisfied wth it.

 

According to Advaitic sages, because God is One without a second,

ultimately, we cannot stand on a separate platform from Him and remain

apart.

 

When God draws us to Him, and if our vasanas (latent tendencies, karmas)

are weak and we find no point in resisting the pull of God, then we are

pulled into God and only God can remain. Brahman Is Complete, say the

Vedas. Therefore, there is no room for anything else. "Thou art That."

Thou cannot be different from That. That is the Advaita perspective.

 

Advaitins also tend to be Bhaktas and take delight in telling of stories

of the Lord. As many people on the list have pointed out, there is no

contradiction between Bhakti and Jnana.

 

Harsha

 

Jay Nelamangala wrote:

> Dear Harsha,

>

> You should check with moderators of this group before cross posting it

> to other groups such as HS.

>

> Note from the Moderator: The list has no objection if author wants to

> post the artilce in a multiple of lists. At the same time, if you have

> objection then your reply shouldn't be forwarded to other lists!

>

> >These are not attributes of Brahman but the very nature of Brahman. It

> >only appears paradoxical through the perspective of the mind, yet those

> >who Know their own Heart as the Self finding nothing mysterious in it.

>

> >Brahman does not have attributes that are complete. Brahman Is Complete.

>

> You are very correct. Thanks for pointing it out. It is similar

> to saying 'Sugar is sweet' and 'Sugar has sweetness'.

>

> BrihantO hi asmin guNaaha - 'Brahman has attributes which are

> Complete' and 'Brahman is Complete'

>

> Parabrahman and His attributes are not different. Sweetness and

> Sugar can't be seperated either.

>

> In shAstra, Parabrahman is said to be both guNa and guNi. It is

> through 'vishEsha' that one can talk about "attributes of parabrahman"

> as though Parabrahman (guNi) and His attributes (guNa) are

> different. That is why sometimes we talk about God's body is made out

> of His attributes such as jnAna, Ananda, Shakti, etc as though God

> has a body, even though we all know that God does not have a body

> like we do.

>

> I won't go through the details on 'vishEsha' here, as there is enough

> to be said there that, it deserves a month long discussion some other

> time, if moderators are interested.

>

> Thanks and regards,

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Harsha,

 

This is all simple, beautiful, and to the point! I almost hated to snip it!

 

--Greg

 

At 01:29 PM 5/5/2003 -0400, professorhkl wrote:

>Dear Jay,

>

>The main thing on the spiritual path is faith and surrender to the Lord

>of the Heart, the ultimate Guru, who manifests in many forms to guide

>the aspirant.

 

 

....

[Guest guest]

advaitin, professorhkl <professorhkl@n...>

wrote:

> Dear Jay,

>

> The main thing on the spiritual path is faith and surrender to the

Lord

> of the Heart, the ultimate Guru, who manifests in many forms to

guide

> the aspirant. Sri Krishna has said, "I am in the Heart of all

> beings...." If one has faith, one can take it literally and find

Him

> there. In Gita, Sri Krishna has given many methods of contemplation

and

> practical advice as well concerning the spiritual paths.

>

> Perhaps you have heard the story of Rishi Valmiki. As I recall

Rishi

> Valmiki was a thug and a dacoit. He received Diksha in the form of

> mantra from his teacher who asked him to repeat the name of Rama.

But

> Valmiki perhaps forgot the mantra and at some point started

repeating

> Mara, Mara, instead of Rama, Rama, Rama.

>

> Due to his faith, however, Valmiki remained absorbed in meditation

and

> became transformed into a saint.

 

Namaste All, IMO,

 

It is a scientific process--------reducing the hold of samkaras by

repeating the name and other sadhanas. Humpty Dumpty will do if one

believes well enough. It is increasing our level of surrender or

reduction of ego. Some need a big dose of devotion others don't. One

has to be careful on choosing a guru, many are frauds. The Inner Guru

is the best one. Krishna is just another word for the universal

consciousness, kutastha caitanya, the universal energy or divine

energy Praneaswara, Goddess etc.

Meditation brings transformation but enquiry brings the ultimate

result. At some level Bhaktis become embued with Jnana....ONS..Tony.

Who am I?

[Guest guest]

Dear Harsha,

 

Yes, you are correct and I am very glad that you brought it up.

 

SriKrishna does say, " sarvasya chAham hridi sannivishTaha" in the

15th chapter, and as a dvaitin ( as some in this group would call me) I have no

problem at

all with what you are saying because of the consistency between my knowledge

and bhakti.

 

SriKrishna is parabrahman and I am not ( in both vyAvahArika and in

paramArthika) is my jnAna

and my devotion, worship, and object of my meditation is to the object of my

knowledge,

which is again the same one God namely SriKrishna. So there are no issues at

all in the

the object of my knowledge and the object of my devotion being one and the

same.

 

SriKrishna also says all over the Geetha that,

"yO mAm vEtti tattvataha" ( One who understand Me with pramANa)

"sa sarvavit bhajati mAm sarvabhAvEna", (that knowledgeable person is devoted to

Me in all respects)

"mat paramO mad bhaktaha", (make me the Highest, become My devotee)

"vedaischa sarvaihi ahamEva vEdyO" ( I am the one to be understood from all of

Vedas) etc

 

where in SriKrishna insists that we understand with pramANa

( tattva is that which is established by pramANa) that SriKrishna is the

Highest and be devoted to Him.

 

If I were a true advaitin, then my devotion to SriKrishna can only be a blind

faith

as my knowledge keeps reminding me that the deity-devotee duality is only

vyAvahArika

and it will vanish when transcended. In other words, I should be devoted to

my

Object of devotion, knowing fully well that it is to be given up. I should

worship a non-existent God,

and meditate upon an attributeless entity.

 

I am only trying to understand advaita better. How would I do all this

simultaneously?.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Harsha,

>Brahman Is Complete, say the

>Vedas. Therefore, there is no room for anything else.

 

Have you studied the antaryAmee-brAhmaNa? Let me know.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Jay:

 

True advaitins do not believe that 'God is non existent.' On the

contrary they believe that God resides within their own hearts and

they don't need to seek outside. Due to delusion, I do not recognize

the Lord within and look for Him everywhere other than within!

 

The devotion to SriKrishna need not be a blind faith if I recognize

that the Sri Krishna that I see out side is mirror of the same

Krishna inside my Heart. For true advaitins, the failure to recognize

Him is caused by the blindness of vision caused by 'ignorance.' Our

problem is more hanging and not giving up the false identity and

separating the Lord who is always within. We are the cause of our

own suffering by not willing to accept the fact that Lord and I can't

be separated even for a moment whether I like it, want it or not!

 

It seems that you are afraid to surrender your prayers to the Lord.

Isn't look ironical when you totally surrender you to the Lord,

aren't you surrender everything that includes prayers, devotion,

jnanam, Karma! If you want to hang on to any one them, you are

unlikely to recognize that the Lord can never be separated from you -

or if you prefer, you can say that you can't be separated from the

Lord.

 

Think for a moment and then simultaneously stop thinking!!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r...> wrote:

> Dear Harsha,

>

> If I were a true advaitin, then my devotion to SriKrishna can only

be a blind faith

> as my knowledge keeps reminding me that the deity-devotee duality

is only vyAvahArika

> and it will vanish when transcended. In other words, I should be

devoted to my

> Object of devotion, knowing fully well that it is to be given up.

I should worship a non-existent God,

> and meditate upon an attributeless entity.

>

> I am only trying to understand advaita better. How would I do all

this simultaneously?.

[Guest guest]

Dear Ram Chandran,

 

Thanks for clarifying. But I have some basic doubts that need to be clarified.

>For true advaitins, the failure to recognize

>Him is caused by the blindness of vision caused by 'ignorance.'

 

I agree. Ignorance is ignorance for everyone - for true advaitins and

also for true dvaitins. So you need to be specific what this 'ignorance' is

which is common to anyone who is trying to reach parabrahman.

>Our problem is more hanging and not giving up the false identity and

>separating the Lord who is always within.

 

Lord is always within, True. What is the false identity part?

>Due to delusion, I do not recognize

>the Lord within and look for Him everywhere other than within!

 

You need to clarify what this delution really is?

 

For someone who has no clue about anything such as Geetha or upanishats,

yes, may be he thinks he can only find God in idols, pictures and temples and

such places outside of him, not knowing that God is his antaryAmin. I am not

talking about them at all. Even a tiny doze of shAstra tells you that

parabrahman is antaryAmin and sarva-bhootAntarAtmA and contemplation on these

words takes away the so called 'delution' that you are talking about.

 

So why would a person with knowledge look everywhere except within?. So me

and you are talking of two entirely different brand of people here.

>We are the cause of our

>own suffering by not willing to accept the fact that Lord and I can't

>be separated even for a moment whether I like it, want it or not!

 

I exist and operate because of the Lord that is in me. This also is fairly a

straightforward idea that one comes to know

even with a little bit of study of shAstra. One may not have actually

experienced anything, such as the tureeyA state,

but definitely the contemplation and knowledge that the Lord is my antaryAmin

will be there. So, who are the 'people' that you are referring to here?

>It seems that you are afraid to surrender your prayers to the Lord.

 

I am not sure why you think I have this fear to surrender my prayers to the

Lord?.

>Think for a moment and then simultaneously stop thinking!!

 

I will try.

 

BTW, I really liked the last paragraph that you have written.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Jay, I do not see any contradiction here. As a bhakta I start of in a

situation where there is ONE GOD. Later when that Bhakti gets transformed into

jnana, I realise that there is ONLY GOD. Both statements are correct. pranaams,

Venkat

 

Jay Nelamangala <jay wrote:

If I were a true advaitin, then my devotion to SriKrishna can only be a blind

faith

as my knowledge keeps reminding me that the deity-devotee duality is only

vyAvahArika

and it will vanish when transcended. In other words, I should be devoted to my

Object of devotion, knowing fully well that it is to be given up. I should

worship a non-existent God,

and meditate upon an attributeless entity.

 

I am only trying to understand advaita better. How would I do all this

simultaneously?

 

 

 

 

 

Plus - For a better Internet experience

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dear Sri Jay:

 

First I am extremely happy to note that you are willing to open your

mind to observe and understand Sankara's insights of advaita

philosophy. This is a first great step for any sincere seeker and I

welcome this positive change in your attitude.

 

Now to clarify your questions, let me request you look back to the

statment that you made in the post previous to your last post:

 

"In other words, I should be devoted to my Object of devotion,

knowing fully well that it is to be given up. I should worship a non-

existent God, and meditate upon an attributeless entity. I am only

trying to understand advaita better. How would I do all this

simultaneously?."

 

It is only because of ignorance, we want to hang on with

the 'vasanas' and not willing to give up! If the prayers are done to

get the liberation, do we need to hang on with our prayers even after

our liberation? If we don't want to give up the prayers then such a

liberation does not represent 'true liberation.' The pole vault

jumper who wants to jump over the bar has to let the pole go,

otherwise he can never cross the bar! Even the Shastras can help the

seeker as a means to liberation and the seeker should be willing to

give up the shastras at the time of liberation! Even this suggestion

also interestingly comes from the Shastras!!

 

As Sri Venkatraman rightly puts it, true advaitins believe in 'only

God' in contrast to the other belief with one god plus many non-gods!

The best reference that I can think of regarding the meaning

for 'delusion' is once again Gita: Chapter 18, Verse 72

 

In this verse, Lord Krishna asks Arjuna:

 

kaccid etat chrutam partha tvayiagrena cetasa

kaccid ajnana-sammohah pranasta te dhanamjaya

 

Has this been heard, O son of Prtha, with single pointed mind? Has

the distraction caused by ignorance been dispelled, O Dhanamjaya?

 

In the very next verse 73, Arjuna replies:

 

nasto mohah smrtir labdha tvatprasadaan mayaacyta

sthito 'sm gata-sandehah harisye vacanam tava

 

Destroyed is my delusion as I have gained my memory through your

grace. OP Achyuta. I am firm; my doubtsa re gone. I will do according

to your word.

 

Since you are a learned man, I don't need to explain you anymore and

the entire Gita Upadesh of Lord Krishna to Sri Arjuna was infact for

removing Arjuna's ignorance propelled delusion!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r...> wrote:

> Dear Ram Chandran,

>

> Thanks for clarifying. But I have some basic doubts that need to

> be clarified. ...

> So you need to be specific what this 'ignorance' is

> which is common to anyone who is trying to reach parabrahman.

>

> .......

> You need to clarify what this delution really is?

>

>.....

> I am not sure why you think I have this fear to surrender my

prayers to the Lord?.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Jay-ji.

>From your responses to me and others, I think I am beginning to get

what you are trying to say. But certain statements still baffle me.

__________________

 

JAY-JI:

 

I can only explain what Brahma-jignyAsA means, to the best of my

capacity. Why it appeals to some and why not to some others, I can't

answer that question. It is really between your sAkshee, your Guru

(s) and The Universal-Guru SriKrishna ( or VedavyAsa in another form).

Again, this has nothing to do with any school of thought, because it

is coming straight from Sri VedavyAsa - the author of Geetha and

Brahma-sootras - the highest Teacher that there can be.

 

The word 'Brahma' in Brahma-jigyAsa stands for vEda. jigyAsa means

vichAra or enquiry. Thus Brahma-jignyAsA is 'vEda-vichAra'

or 'Enquiry into entire Veda'. From your email, what has actually

been done is 'mahAvAkya-jignyAsA' and calling it Brahma-jigyAsA.

Whether it is right or wrong, who am I to say?

 

MRN:

 

OK. I don't want you to commit on this. But you can certainly quote

Sri VedavyAsa if he has endorsed the definition of brahma-jignyAsa

stated by you above as vEda-vichAra meaning enquiry into entire

Veda. If that is the case, I would rather recheck with my guru about

his preference to restrict vichara only to the upaniSats,

brahmasUtras and bhagwat gItA.

_____________________

 

JAY-JI:

 

I am sure you have learnt that Brahman is Infinite or anatha.

satyam-jnAnam-anantam-brahma - taittareeya

 

If Brahman is Infinite or ananta then the jignyAsA or enquiry that

leads upto that Infinite Brahman has to be also infinite through the

Infinite words of Veda. From your email, 'ananta' has been

restricted to a dozen words coming from four sentenses, and given the

name 'Infinite'. By doing so, are'nt we reducing the word 'anantha'

to a mere finite word such as 'devadatta' ?.

 

MRN:

 

Simple logic, Sir. There cannot be three infinities existing

simultaneously. That is a non-situation from the vyAvahArikA

sense. If Brahman, Veda, jignyAsA are all infinite, then the logical

conclusion would be Brahman = Veda = jignyAsa, i.e. all three are one

without a second. I would, therefore, like to understand jignyAsa,

all other prerequisites that make a seeker an adhikAri for Knowledge,

and scriptural statements, whether or not they are meant to include

the entire Veda, as finite, helping the 'finite me' to discover

Infinity. When 'that' is done, then I wouldn't need them any more or

they would have vanished on their own without a trace along with

the 'finite me'. There is no reduction of the 'Infinite' to finite

in this understanding as alleged by you.

 

Besides, the entire upanishads, brahmasUtrAs and bhagwat gIta are not

just 'a dozen words or four sentences'. Isn't calling them so an act

of profanity for one who swears so very much by the Veda? Afterall,

the upaniSats are a part of the Veda. (No personal offence meant.

Just a doubt.)

___________________

 

JAY-JI:

 

This is the reason why Veda insists that a discussion on the Infinite

God be commenced only after the completion of a 12-year study of

vedas. May be you should get back to your Guru and discuss with him

why Veda insists on this.

 

MRN:

 

Can you quote the relevant Vedic statement please for the benefit of

all?

 

Besides, if you permit some personal curiosity on my part, you are on

record as having stated as follows in your introductory post:

 

QUOTE

 

I have learnt prasthAna traya in their original

forms - upanishats, Geetha and sootras to some

extent. I have learnt them in the traditional style rather than in

the academic style.

 

UNQUOTE

 

This obviously means you haven't yourself done the entire 12-year

study of vedas. How can one who hasn't studied a subject completely

so fervently recommend it to others? (No personal offence meant

here.)

______________________

 

JAY-JI:

 

Let us not make these discussions for determining who is right or

wrong. Since there is only one parabrahman for all religions, for all

people, and for all schools of thought, let us use these email

exchanges to examine what we already know as parabrahman vis-a-vis

what is presented as parabrahman by shruti.

 

MRN:

 

This is not an attempt to decide who is wrong or right. If another

Member points out some deficiency in my methodology, don't I have the

right to enquire with him, ascertain my mistakes and correct them, if

necessary and possible? That is all we are doing here now.

 

Thank you very much for your patience and understanding.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Jay Nelamangala wrote:

> Dear Harsha,

>

> >Brahman Is Complete, say the

> >Vedas. Therefore, there is no room for anything else.

>

> Have you studied the antaryAmee-brAhmaNa? Let me know.

 

***************************

No, I have not studied any scriptures formally and have no training in

Sanskrit. I understand Hindi and Punjabi fairly well. I was fluent in

reading Hindi until I was a teenager and have read various stories in

Hindi including Ramayana, Mahabharta (Gita being part of that) and

related areas. Most things I have read like Vivekachudamani and others

texts have been in English. In fact, now if I wish to read something, it

has to be an English translation as I cannot read Hindi like I used to.

I am generally familiar with scriptures from English translations.

 

Advaitin group has many knowledgeable people and scholars with deep

insights. Being part of this group has made me appreciate even more how

simple and beautiful the utterances and indications are in our

Upanishads and so many other texts like Avadhuta Gita. So I feel

fortunate to be part of this group.

 

My own group is called . We have an electronic journal in

which we put stories, essays, poetry, and art. The third volume is near

completion but we are still accepting articles.

 

/join

 

 

 

 

 

I am a devotee of Sri Ramana Maharshi.

 

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Dear Harsha,

 

Keep up the good work that you are doing with your satsang.

 

But at some point also find time to study Vedas either in their

original forms or atleast in a translated form.

Jay Nelamangala wrote:

> Dear Harsha,

>

> >Brahman Is Complete, say the

> >Vedas. Therefore, there is no room for anything else.

>

> Have you studied the antaryAmee-brAhmaNa? Let me know.

 

***************************

No, I have not studied any scriptures formally and have no training in

 

Brahman is Complete. antaryAmee-brAhmaNa of the BrihadAraNyakOpanishat,

establishes the inner-controllership of Brahman twenty one times. Don't you

think

you should study it once, before assuming there is no room for anything else.

 

If there is no room for anything else, let me know where do you think you are?.

Please don't tell me you don't exist.

 

If you do exist, then you are either already Brahman or you are not.

The fact that you are not a sarvajnya tells me that you are not Brahman (

atleast yet).

So you do exist and you are not Brahman as of today. Where do you think you

exist?

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jay Nelamangala wrote:

> Brahman is Complete. antaryAmee-brAhmaNa of the BrihadAraNyakOpanishat,

> establishes the inner-controllership of Brahman twenty one times.

> Don't you think

> you should study it once, before assuming there is no room for

> anything else.

>

> If there is no room for anything else, let me know where do you think

> you are?.

> Please don't tell me you don't exist.

>

> If you do exist, then you are either already Brahman or you are not.

> The fact that you are not a sarvajnya tells me that you are not

> Brahman ( atleast yet).

> So you do exist and you are not Brahman as of today. Where do you

> think you exist?

 

 

Your questions are directed outward. Because Brahman is antaryAmee,

sages and scriptures advise looking within. Sri Krishna has said that

the aspirant with a pure heart should find a place of solitude, free of

disturbance, and meditate on Him. If Bhagavan felt that it would be

productive for one's spiritual growth to be asking others "Where do you

think you are?" He would have said so. But Sri Krishna did not say to

Arjuna, "Go Arjuna and ask Yuddishtra and Bhima, "Where are you?",

"Where do you think you exist?" etc.

 

The methods and paths given in the Gita direct people to seek the Lord

within without being disturbed by others.

 

Sri Ramana has also advised that the proper inquiry is, "Who am I" (not

who are you?) or perhaps "Whence am I" (not where are you?). The

existence of a "you" presupposes the existence of an "I". So the focus

on the "I" should be the root focus.

 

Once one finds where one is and where one exists, everyone else's

existence will become crystal clear as well.

 

If you are inclined towards Bhakti and have a particular view of

Bhagavan, than you can be satisfied knowing that you know what is in the

Vedas and that you have grasped what needs to be grasped.

 

I have said all I can for now.

 

Love to all

Harsha