Guest guest Posted May 16, 2003 Report Share Posted May 16, 2003 I thought the contents may be of interest to others - posting to the whole group. Sadananda --- bhaskar.yr wrote: Here is my understanding: Bhaskar –the example of ‘soyam devadatta ‘ is only an objective example provided to emphasize the following aspects : (1) – In understanding how one should discard the virodha lakshana –s -the contradictory attributes of this devadatta and that devadatta , to arrive at one unitary meaning of single devadatta since there are no two devadatta-s . 2. This is an excellent illustrative example of ‘bhaagatyaaga lakshana’- where one is discarding (tyaaga) only partial (bhaaga) – i.e. the contradictory attributes - 3. Even after discarding we are arriving at complete understanding when one recognizes and states "oh He is that devadaata! My god what a change!" When the student understands that, his understanding of devadatta is completes, full and also instantaneous. He does not have to do japa or karma or any other thing to arrive at his understanding . 4. Since in spite of rejection of some parts in arriving at the understanding – that understanding which is Advaita of devadatta , since there are no two devadatta-s - it implies naturally that whatever contradictory information or attributes that is rejected are only superficial entities and not real and does not affect our Adviatic understanding that there is only one devadatta in spite of differences in upaadhi-s of this devadatta and that devadatta. If these aspects are clear now we can apply to this to ‘tat tvam asi’ statement. By the by the whole discussion of this is provided by Bhagavaan Shankara in his ‘Vaakya Vritti" text. When the scripture says – you are that – here we are not equating jiiva with Brahman – it is jiiva with Iswara, since nothing can be said about Brahman – one without a second. ‘tvam’ – is jiiva with limited understanding of himself with the upaadhis – hence space wise, time wise or object wise is limited – with limited knowledge , limited powers etc. all are attributes of jiiva. ‘tat’ stands of Iswara – with his own upaadhi-s and attributes - sarva j~na , sara shaktimaan – etc – Omni present, Omni potent etc. – all attributes – what Ramanuja calls as sarva kalyaana guna aashraya. Now when the scriptures says –‘ tat tvam asi ‘ – you are that – that equation at the out set is ridiculous as it stands . But if the scripture says so, its vision of yourself is obviously different from your vision of yourself. You do not need scripture to tell you ‘ a tat tvam asi’ indicating that you are not Iswara – since that you already know without the need of scriptures – you do not need logic to prove that there is fire on the distant hill if you can see clearly . Logic comes only if you cannot see fire but can only see the smoke. Hence scripture becomes a pramaaNa to indicate something that you cannot see otherwise or logically deduce either. How can I be the Iswara – now apply the bhaaga tyaaga lakshana – See we cannot accept the equation due to contradictions in the attributes – apply the logic we used in understanding ‘he is that devadatta’ example. Stripped out of all upaadhis and limitations of the upaadhis of myself - the bare minimum that will be left behind is that am existent and consciousness and happiness – sat chit ananda aspect only – the rest are superimpositions just like this and that devadaata. Similarly do the same for Iswara – strip out all the contradictory attributes and stripped out of all these – what is left behind is only sat chit and ananda aspects only. Now equate the two – as scriptures says you are that – in the same sense as he is that devadaata – What is then equated is attribute-less entities – sat chit and ananda swaruupa only since everything else is contradictory. – there is cannot be dwaita or plurality in sat chit ananda – that is contradiction in terms. That scripure says so is another big misinterpretation of scriptures. Hence clear understanding not misunderstanding of pamaNa is also needed. Here the so-called ‘samanvaya’ that Jay talks about is used to misinterpret the scriptures. So be it. That is why we start with mahavaakya-s as the basis for rest of the interpretation s. If that is clear the role of the example ‘soyam devadatta’ is to illustrate the bhaaga tyaaga lakshana aspect. Now you are asking questions beyond the example - how can a teacher teach that he cannot objectify. If he objectifies the very Advaitic teaching is contradictory. This is a classical objection that Ramanuja raises in his shree bhaashya. That is why I bought out the example of the missing 10th man. When everybody taking turns counting that there are only 9 people who crossed the river and the 10th man is missing they are only counting all others except themselves. The teacher who is watching all the counting that is going on, to pacify the sufferings of the students says ‘do not worry , the 10th man is alive and I will bring the missing 10th man – for that please all stand in one line". They have already done that many times before and found no 10th man and are not in a position to stand for another time. But teacher seems to be nice person trying to help, says he knows that the missing 10th man is alive and he is going to bring right in front of them. Pure trust in the words of the teacher makes them stand for the nth time again all with expectation to discover the missing 10th man. When the teacher counts all and in the end says to the leader ‘you are that 10th man’ - ‘tat tvam asi’ – is that objective teaching or is it subjective teaching or what? That the tenth man is missing is only notional on the part of the students. Teaching in that sense is also notional too but it is still needed since the student does not realize that his understanding of himself is not notional and he is still searching for that. The teacher has to provide the proper environment for the teaching to takes place. The students themselves should have a faith in the teacher’s words that he is telling us the truth. Here the strong and deeply engraved notions about oneself are obstacles for the knowledge – It is like asking how can this ugly looking bald person be that devadatta who was so cute and handsome young boy! I cannot believe it! - You can see the role of teacher, the scripture and faith in all these that which is beyond perception, and logic. In the statement ‘ one who understands understand it not’ is clear statement that the knowledge is not of objective nature – here what Jay is discussing about epistemology comes into picture - he needs to understand the epistemological issues too - any thing that has attributes is an object ( and infact 'no object' has any substantive that can be measurable - if one looks at the epistemologial issues correctly - may be Benjamin will bring this out in writings in future) – and scripture indeed here emphasizing that it is not an objective knowledge. In fact it is one of the reason why Scripture becomes pramaaNa and Advaitic nature of reality is what is emphasized by the pramaaNa – since Jay is asking blindly where is the pramaaNa for ‘aparoksha j~naana’ –any paroksha j~nnanam ‘ can only be objective knowledge. Any way it is useless for me argue with a person who wants to close his eyes and still complain why he cannot see. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2003 Report Share Posted May 17, 2003 Namaste to all, With all due respect to the list moderators, I would like to share why I wrote "from black-list to dark list". I am not against Sadanandaji's Advaita or Jayji's Dvaita or Benjaminji's Buddhism nor do I have any strong inclination towards them. Personally I've nothing against Jayji's messages and I feel that it improves my thought process a lot. What is the use of the intellect and philosophy if you keep on agreeing all that you hear? With Jayji's messages I'm able to see the 2 sides of the coin..but I know that eventually I have to choose any one of them. But surely anyone who believes everything if it is back by a Sanskrit sloka will be lost in these messages. Leave alone intellectual progress, he will be totally confused. Now coming back to "black-list to dark-list"..What I felt was that whatever subject we were discussing (even if it is Nuclear Physics), Jayji would finally conclude that it is not something in prastahana-taraya and so it is not Vedanta. I felt that this stuborn nature of his..ie not bending the intellect any other way than his school's teachings will eventually get him out of this list. Maybe I should have written "from Black-list to Out-of-this-list". Personally I dont have anything against him and I consider him a learned person. Om ranjeet --- Ranjeet Sankar_s <thefinalsearch> wrote: > > Namaste Jayji > > > I know where you are heading...from black-list to dark-list !! > > > > Om > > ranjeet > > My strong advise for all members including Jay is to ignore Jay's mails > in terms of his understanding of prasthaana traya and validity of his > understanding of 'pramaaNa'. > > Hari OM! > Sadananda Namaste, It could not have been said better!!! I still would like to thank him for exemplifying some words & verses that could only be imagined - prajnAvAdAH - specious words of wisdom (Gita 2:11) shrutivipratipannA buddhiH - intellect distracted by scriptural doctrines (Gita 2:53) avajaananti maaM muuDhaa maanushhii.n tanumaashritam.h . paraM bhaavamajaananto mama bhuutamaheshvaram.h .. (Gita 9 : 11) 'Fools , without an understanding of My higher nature as the Supreme Lord of all the exists, disregard me manifest in the human body.' avidyaayaamantare vartamaanaaH svayaM dhiiraaH paNDitaMmanyamaanaaH . dandramyamaaNaaH pariyanti muuDhaa andhenaiva niiyamaanaa yathaandhaaH .. (Katha Upanishad I:2:5) 'Fools dwelling in darkness, wise in their own conceit, and puffed up with vain knowledge, go round and round, staggering to and fro, like blind men led by the blind." As for the school that adheres to J.N.'s interpretation, for my personal reference I had thought of calling it - J.N. school of Prasthanatrayi-Parabrahma-Dvaita/Advaita-atIta-vidyA. It may become a paramparA or sampradAya if we know who the previous teachers were. One can be sure it is not from Dakshinamurty sampradaya!! Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2003 Report Share Posted May 18, 2003 information sharing... - Jay Nelamangala Ranjeet Sankar_s Sunday, May 18, 2003 05:16 PM Fw: Re: j~nAna and bhakti - Jay Nelamangala advaitin Saturday, May 17, 2003 4:25 PM Re: Re: j~nAna and bhakti Dear Ranjeet, Thanks for your email. >Now coming back to "black-list to dark-list"..What I felt was that whatever >subject we were discussing (even if it is Nuclear Physics), Jayji would >finally conclude that it is not something in prastahana-taraya and so it is >not Vedanta. You need to understand what vijnAna and jnAna is. Nuclear-physics is not vEdAnta no doubt. But vEdAnta says that the knowledge of nuclear-physics when studied for its own sake is of no use. To understand how this world is derived from the One Source of All, Parabrahman which is denoted by 'Aum' - is 'jnAna' To understand how this world points to that One source of All Parabrahman is - vijnAna So Vedanta asks us to study nuclear-physics not for its own sake, but as pointing to Parabrahman. Knowledge of nuclear-physics itself is not going to take you anywhere except probably getting you a job and earn some money. The same nuclear-physics when understood as pointing to parabrahman, is 'shrEyas' or will uplift you here and hereafter. 'vijnAnam apEkshata iti jagat api tathA avagantavyam' - The world is to be understood because it points to its creator. yO mAm pa-shya-ti sa-rva-tra sa-rvam ca ma-yi pa-shya-ti | 6.30 So, whether it be nuclear-physics or something else, a jnAnee would look at it as the work-of-God. Also remember that when we talk of work-of-God, attributes-of-God, knowledge-of-God, power-of-God, will-of-God etc - these are not different from one another, and they are not different from God. It is only a matter of expression. Thus seeing God everywhere or seeing the work-of-God everywhere mean the same thing, expressed differently. But when we actually study nuclear-physics in an university, we do so without ever worrying about the One Source of All. For this reason, such a study fails to produce the knowledge of parabrahman - therefore, vedAnta calls it futile. Geology - study of stones for its own sake is futile, but the same study of stones, when understood as to how those stones point to Parabrahman is vijnAna. "jnAnam vijnAna sahitam yat jnAtvA mokshasE ashubhAt' SriKrishna says you need both jnAna with vijNAna. I hope I am clearer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2003 Report Share Posted May 19, 2003 praNAm prabhujis Hare Krishna Well, sofar we have been listening to the views of various members on the concept of jnAna & bhakti. There was rather elaborate discussion on advaita bhakti, jnAna mishrita bhakti, bhakti without jnAna, jnAna without bhakti etc. But one thing as I noticed from the mails is that nobody has tried to share what Sri Shankara BhagavadpAda offer on bhakti & jnAna in his prasthAna trayi bhAshya. Its a wide spread understanding that bhakti mArga leads one in realisation of saguNa brahman with name & form of his ishtadevata(apara brahman). Whereas, after sAdhana chatushtaya, without any duality through pure jnAna leads one to realise parabrahman or nirvishEsha brahman. Sri Shankara categorically emphasises that jnAna & jnAna alone is the only means of knowledge nothing else. *bhodhOnyasAdhanEbhyo hi sAkshAt mokshika sAdhanam! pAkasya vanhivat jnAnam vinA mOkshO na sidhyasi* (kindly bear with my sanskrit trasliteration). Sri Shankara here says that *bhOda* is the only means of knowledge. bhOda here means Atma bhOdha which gives us the knowledge that Atman is attributeless, Atma-paramAtma Ekatva, getting rid of ignorance of I-ness & mine-ness. This knowledge/realisation can be attained only through jnAna without jnAna it is impossible to attain mOksha (jnAnam vinA mOkshO na sidhyasi) as we cannot cook without fire!!. But shankara do insist on Atma nivEdana as described in bhAgavatam nava vidha bhakti. In his shatpadi sloka he prays sri narAyaNa * satyapi bhEdApagamE nAtha tavAham na mAmakInastvam! sAmudro hi tarangaha kvachana samudrO na tArangaha!! ( hE bhagavan viShNu, it is true that there is no difference between you & me, BUT it is * I * belong to YOU not it is YOU belong to me, as waves are belong to ocean, not ocean is belong to waves). Here shankara clearly mentions the surrendering of our *ego* entangled with agnAna. Here, question may arise how could sri shankar being a hard core advaitin can to the view of saguNa brahman since in all his monumental works he clearly advocates the highest brahman or para brahman. It is clear that in shrutis, there is a mention that OmkAra which is both para (higher) & apara (lower) brahman. ( which Sri Jay prabhuji wants to discuss with me in detail!!). Here while answering to pUrvapakSha objection asking shankara whether there are two brahmans higher & lower, shankara clearly & bluntly says *YES* there are two since this is borne out by shruti itself. But shankara further clarifies that here higher prahman means where brahman is taught by means of words such as astUlam (not gross) without names & forms which are the result of avidya. & lower brahman is NOTHING BUT higher brahman qualified by some specific features for the purpose of upAsana or meditation. Aspirant (sAdhaka) who wants to meditate this highest reality treats this pure brahman as manOmaya ( made up of mind) prANamayi ( body with life-breath) etc. It is quite obvious from the above that saguNa brahman intended for meditation has been para brahman itself. & it is evident that brahman endowed with qualities is objective reality feasible for meditation to the aspirants who have mediocre intellects & who cannot rise to the level of the absolutely featureless parabrahman. We can conclude that shankara's concept of para brahman & apara brahman are the synonyms given to brahman according to various stages & thoght position of the aspirants. Sri Shankara calls the same reality as para brahman when it is made the subject of enquiry as reality & apara brahman when it is preferred in the shrutis as an objective reality for meditation. Dear learned prabhujis of the list, kindly pardon me if I am strayed anywhere from the main topic. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2003 Report Share Posted May 19, 2003 Here is a mail from Shree Jay Nelamangala and my comments interjected for whatever it is worth. Sadananda > >Dear SadAnanda, > >Everyone in this group, including myself, respect your knowledge >of advaita. > >The theory of upAdhi - we should discuss it in this forum, so everyone >benefits from understanding what 'upAdhi' really is. This month's >topic being 'jnAna and bhakti', I don't know if it is the right thing to >do. Jay thanks for your kind email. Here is my understanding. Upaadhi's are just the shariira-s - that includes sthuula, suukshma and kaarana - and are well defined. I do not think there is any confusion in that. There is no problem with the upaadhi-s and they are required in order to interact with the world outside. The adhyaasa is taking the upadhi-s as myself - error of judgement due to self-ignorance manifests by taking upadhi-s as oneself in the waking, dream and deep sleep states. 'Vyavahaara is taken as absolutely real and absolutely real is ignored. Liberation is 'iha eva' - 'now and here (since they are only real). Jiivanmukta is one who still have upadhi-s but has no more notions that 'I am these upadhi-s'. His understanding will be - They are in me but I am not in them - mastaani sarva bhuutani na ca aham teshu avasthitaH' . >Our dhyAna produces exactly what our mind is fed. >If I do upAsanA as 'aham brahmAsmi' then that is exactly what my >experience will be in dhyAna. You are partially right about the first part. Second part is not right. 'aham brahma asmi is neither upasana nor a product of upasana. Upanasa is also karma since one has to 'do upaasana' - and result of karma is limited since karma is limited. This has been discussed in my Brahmasuutra notes. Brahman being infinite cannot be a product of a finite action. It cannot be produced either -One cannot become Brahman either unless one already is - I am existent and I am conscious are eternal facts - but I take myself that I am these upadhi-s due to ignorance of my true nature. Upasana is only for purification of the mind - "yoginaH karma kurvanti sagham tyaktvaa aatma suddhaye" says Geeta. But realization that I am what I am is knowledge - Knowledge is not purusha tantra that is, it is not a product of action. It is vastu tantra. > If I do upAsanA as God is 'SriKrishna' >then that is exactly what my experience will be in dhyAna. If I do >upAsanA as 'Goddess Durgaa' as the Ultimate God then that is exactly >what it will be in my dhyAna. Yes - if one has a form for the God - in the form of Krishna and Durga ' yes that form is your visualization of that parabrahma and that is exactly what your will see in your mind. If you see 'that' as other than yourself - you will still be afraid as Arjuna did. 'udaramantaram kurute athatasya bhayam bhavati' - is the shruti. But Krishna is not a form - form is born to Devaki and vasudeva - But Krishna identifies with not that particular form when he says 'Me' - it is the total consciousness-existent entity - sadeva soumay ideam agra asiit - I am the unmanifested he says - mayaa tatam ideam sarvam jagat avyakta muurthinaa" - Mind can only see vyakta not avyakta. >"yE yathA mAm prapadyantE tamsthataiva bhAjAmyaham" >This happens because Parabrahman as bhAgavatha puts it, >'Sa hi sarva manOvritti prErakaha samudAhritaha" >(He is indeed established as the only source of all minds and their states) No problem in that. True but adviatic knowledge is "Soham' or Sivoham - that sat chit ananda swaruupa is akhandam - and in that sense shruti's statement of identity of what you say 'He' and I are established and ahama brahma asmi or tat tvam asi - are realization or recognition. > >Each one has a different mind and there are various possible states >for each mind. Every mind getting to a certain state, is because of >Parabrahman. The first part is right - the second part is not necessarily - getting some where or going somewhere is purushaartha. Finite mind is also product of karma - hence kaarNa shariira is the kaaraNa for other shariira that includes the mind and buddhi which are shuumashariira. Parabrahma only blesses the result of action - here in terms of purification of the mind - if that is what you meant by getting to a state then it is O.K. State by definition is desha kaala vastu paricchinnam since one state is different from another state and by definition one state limits the other state. > >Hence, upanishats tell us that > >"yanmanasA na manutE yEnAhurmanO matam >tadEva brahma tvam viddhi nEdam yadidam upAsatE" > >(Brahman is that which produces what you grasp through your mind, >and not what your mind has grasped) The above statement - 'Hence .....' does not follow from your previous statement. 'Hence' your interpretation of the kena statement is not necessarily complete from advaitic perspective. Brahman is not a product of any thing - that it produced is your interpretation. What mantra says - that Brahman cannot be thought off, since whatever one thinks off is only an object - from the memory and by definition finite with attributes. Yat manasaa na manute. Yet mantra does not stop there - it defines Brahman as that because of which the very mind has the capacity to think - but that is not an object since object one can think- Hence it can only be the very subject- It also further says - it is not this that your worship here - excluding any forms - Krishna or Durga etc. - subject cannot be thought off as an object. And hence ' I am that Brahman - the very subject of the 'so-called investigation' - the very life-principle - which cannot be thought off as an object but because of which I am able to think using the mind as an instrument or upadhi. As you can see - Shruti is parmana for advaita too- starting from aham brahma asmi. > >One such state is 'going beyond mind' what you guys prefer to call >'aparOkshA-anubhooti' or 'advaita-anubhava'. Not exactly true either. There is no really going beyond mind in a true sense - it is the mind of the mind or eye of the eye - it is that because of which the very mind or eye functions too. The correct understanding is ' sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutani ca aatmani' - or you can say same thing identification with totality as 'yo mam pasyati sarvatra sarvatra mayi pasyati' . It is not going beyond mind - it is only used in due to lack of terminology to say it is not with the mind - The aprokshnaanubhuuti - is the vij~naana that you were mentioning - visheshhena j~naana' or you can even say 'vagata j~naana when j~naana is identified with superficial objective thoughts. It is not anubhava in the normal sense of usage since it is advaita - normal anubhava involves - subject-object distinctions - It is an understanding not as understanding as a thought but understanding as understanding as a fact. > >Upanishat says Brahman is not that either, because that state is also >produced by Parabrahman, just like any other state. > Your question is right and I have explained in detail where the problem is in your understanding of Advaita >That is the background of my question. > >Jay is asking blindly where is the pramaaNa for >> 'aparoksha j~naana' -any paroksha j~nnanam ' can only be objective >> knowledge. > >That is the background for my question, it is not a blind one. > >I can not put myself in a state of being Oneness or otherwise with God. Good - no problem in that. Please follow the path what suites you best - remember - it is better to follow ones dharma than other's dharma. Hence Shree Dattatreya in avadhuuta Giita says " Iswaraanugrahat eva pumsam advaita vaasana' >Neither we put ourselves in this samsAra, nor we can get out of it by >ourselves. That is the whole point. First part is yes/no. If someone else put us in samsaara - God becomes the most wicked person in this universe and He being the most compassionate one we cannot do that - samoham sarva bhuuteshu - that samatvam is getting compromized. One has to be accountable for ones action not someone else - that is the theory of karma. If samsaara is thrust up on us by someone - then we have a real problem since we are at whims and fancies of someone other than ourselves and any time the same thing can happen, in spite of assurances that once one reaches me there is no going back. We are at the mercy of some other person other than ourselves, however great that other person is! You are right we cannot get out it by ourselves in the sense it is not getting out or getting in - those are actions -Remember - na karmanaa naprajayaa .... That is why it involves knowledge - and knowledge is not purusha tantra. Adviata does not say you can 'will' the knowledge - any knowledge for that matter - one can only prepare the mind using upasana that you mentioned - that is purification process that is purusha tantra. Intuition or j~naana kshakshu develops and knowledge takes place when the mind is conducive to receive knowledge. - That is the interpretation of - 'daiviim esha guna mayi mama maaya duratyaya - maamevaye prapadyante maayam etatam tarantite' . > >Upanishats say >"nAyamAtmA pravachanEna labhyO na mEdhayA na bahunA shrutEna >yamEvaisha vruNutE tEna labhyaha tasyaisha AtmA vivrNutE tanoom svAm" >(This Parabrahman is not obtained by ones intelligence, speeches or >one's many varied education. One who is chosen by Parabrahman, only >he gets to get a glimpse of that Parabrahman) My friend - precisely - there is no disagreement with that - only difference you are assuming parambrahma is some person high up in the sky who is going to be selective to whom he is going to bless or not. Advaitic understanding of the truth is different - the knowledge can come only when the mind is prepared or purified by yoga - where karma, bhakti and j~naana are the means. That understanding "aham brahma asmi' is not by will and that realization happens only when the mind develops the requisite intuition and intuition cannot be willed either. So Advaita interprets the above slokas just as you did but from different perspective. So do not propagate your misunderstanding that there is no shruti pramaana for advaita. Only it does not misinterpret they way you did! >Sootras say >"Om jnyOta Eva Om" >"Om svAtmanA chOttarayOho Om " >"Om prithagupadEshAt Om" II.3.28 > >(This jivAtman is indeed different from the Independent Ruling Self >because of the scriptural teaching establishing their difference on >incontestable grounds) Sir, you have already ignored the mahavaakya-s and now you are quoting mantra-s with your own interpretations. Om ityekaaskaram Brahma - akaara ukaara makaaramiti and the whole of mandukhya upanishad and associated kaarika explain in detail the meaning of the Om kaara and the implication from both microcosmic and macrocosmic references. If you are interested to learn - study that upanishad alone and advaitic interpretation of the suutra-s. > >"tEshAm Eva anukampArtham aham ajnAnajam tamaha | >nAshayAmi AtmabhAvasthO jnAnadeepEna bhAsvataa" Geetha 10.11 > >(His final aim and goal is only Me, and I am indeed the >giver of knowledge to him. I am indeed the destroyer of his >ignorance by this knowledge. From this knowledge, >such a person reaches only Me. (10.10, 10.11). Yes - there is no problem in our understanding my friend . When he says I am avyakta and I am that Brahman and with the statement 'tat tvam asi' everything fits in exactly without any problem. Jay - you are not reinventing a wheel - Advaita is centuries old and there are many, many great achaaryas who have examined these using as big magnifiers that one can get and analyzed. Questions have been raised and questions have been answered. If one is really interested to learn there are books and books available. I can even tell you there are thousands of advaita books available to study compared to any other philosophy. I am taking a very simple text "Upadesha Saara" by the most recent mahatma ' Bhagavaan Ramana Maharshi' - who first experienced and confirmed what the scriptures says is indeed true. From avadhutta Geeta to Ashtavakra Geeta , yoga vashishhTa to most recent books - Upadesha saara, sat dharshan and ' I am that'- all echo that adviatic understanding of the Scriptures that pronounce the mahavaakyas. > >It is because of these considerations that other Acharyas establish that >Parabrahman is both different from this self and also is mOksha-dAtr. No sir, it is because of these reasons achaaryas have established that scriptural declaration that "prajnaanam Braham', tat tvam asi- ayama aatma brahma and aham brahma asmi are indeed true to the core. > >Calling such a knowledge as dualistic and blindly categorizing it >under 'ignorance', is not going to help. You should also show why >it is ignorance. True. You are right about that. I claim my ignorance of dwaita and vishhtaadvait philosophies to talk authoritatively on those. But due to grace of my teacher, I have understood to some degree about advaita . Hence my statements are only with firm understanding from that reference only. I would not go to dwaita list or vishishhTaadvata list and tell them your understanding is not according to PramaaNa - you are bringing dwaita or vishishhTaadvita as separate pramaaNas different from pratyaksha, anumaana and shabda, even though my understanding of the scriptures differs from theirs. > >It would be educational to all of us, if you interpret the above >shruti, geetha >and sootras starting from mahAvAkyas, instead of asking me to go-away from >this list. I did that above to the best I can. Jay - I have not asked you go-away from the list. Only I do not want you to use the list to propagate your misunderstanding to others by quoting scriptures out of context and claiming adviata cannot explain all that. If you are truly interested learning by all means study and stay as long as you want. But your projection is not what is. This list is not intended to propagate dwaita or vishishhTadvaita philosophies. There are well developed lists to do that exactly that and they moderate more strictly their posts too. Dwaita list is being run by your friend Shree Shiriisha Rao and vishishhTadvata as Bhakti list by Shree Mani Varadarajan. They will welcome your posts particularly if it is against 'maayavaada'! > >There is nothing personal here, I hope you will post this to the group. I am posting to the group along with my explanation. 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 May 20, 2003 Report Share Posted May 20, 2003 praNAm Jay prabhuji, Hare Krishna Infact, I was intended to continue this discussion off the list as the topics which we are discussing are out of the scope of the list policies. That is the reason why I've not replied to your previous mails also. Anyway, this time Sri Sadananda prabhuji himself addressed some of the issues you've raised on the other thread, I'd like to post my reply to the list if the moderators of the list donot have any objection. Prabhuji, there is no need to mention that the quoted shruti verse (prashnOpanishad 5-2) is not talking about mythological account of kamalAsana chaturmukha brahma nor rudra gaNa or bhUta gaNa. I clearly mentioned that this upanishad verse is about param & aparam brahmans. The complete verse is goes like this : *Verily, O SatyakAma, this OmkAra is both the Higher (para) & the Lower (apara) Brahman. Therefore the devotee goes to either of these only through this source*. As far as my limited knowledge goes, this is the only place apart from your quoted verse from bruhadAraNyaka wherein mUrtha & amUrtha are discussed, you can find explicit distinction between the higher & the lower brahman. A beautiful description (??) of para brahman you can find from Mundaka Upanishad also (3-2-9) : * whosoever knows that supreme brahman indeed, BECOMES THAT VERY BRAHMAN. In his family, no one is born that knows not brahman. He crosses lamentation, crosses sin, freed from the knots of the heart he becomes immortal* The above shruti verse is very clear in its claim that the person who has the knowledge of brahman results in identifyiung himself with brahman (brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati). This brahman has been addressed as akShara ( the imperishable), satyam (reality) & puruSha (person) also in various places of the upanishad. Further shruti clarifies this brahman as (shvetAshvEtara upanishad 4-3) : tvam stree tvam pumAnasi tvam kumAra uta vA kumArI! tvam geerNO dandEna vanchasi tvam jAtho bhavasi viShvatO mukaha!! Whatever you see in the names & forms is verily brahman, it is male, it is female, it is youth, vergin, it is the aged person with supporting stick etc.etc. So parabrahman is nothing but our self. You can have a look at 3-38 in the same upanishad : navadvArE purE dEhI .... & 4-2 : tadEvAgni, tadvAyu, tadsUrya, tadu chandramAh..... You can take all these verses to describe parabrahman in accordance with advaita perspective. ( prabhuji, you may have different interpretation to these verses according to your school of thought, let it be...you may note that I am presenting here advaitic understanding) Apart from the above, you can find verses which support Isvara or aparabrahman also in the shrutis: shvEtAsvEtara 6-7 says : Him the greatest ruler of all rulers, him the highest god of all the gods, the greatest protector of all protectors, beyond all of them do we regard that shining one praiseworthy ruler of the world.... as you know the next two verses contain the word shakti & kAraNam which clearly indicates the creative power of aparabrahman. So, I'd like to once again make it clear that shruti definitely talks about 2 brahmans for the sake of understanding of vedOkta tattva. This is what Sri Shankara clarifies that in order to educate the mind to interpret reality as it is, the shrutis always adopt the method of adhyArOpApavAda or deliberate super-imposition or provisional ascription & subsequently rescission ( I think this I've already mentioned in my personal mail to you). *Samanvaya* what we've been talking all these days can be done to derive the ultimate reality of brahman by the master key of Sri Shankara's *adhyArOpApavAda*. Through this method advaita understand the prastana trayI & this understanding will have to be in line with shruti mahAvAkya. Prabhuji, finally bottom line is, this *apparent* contradiction in the use of the adjectives para & apara with respect to brahman is only relative, The lower brahman or apara brahman is not atleast according to shankara either distinct from or inferior to parabrahman. As in pAramArtika there is no duality there (nEha nanAsti kinchana) (Atleast I hope, this is in line with your understanding of mukti i.e. merging in nirguNa brahman after pralaya). It is necessarily the same parabrahman that is sought to be known by the madhyama adhikAris with average intellect objectify the parabrahman with name & form. This Shankara clarifies in sUtra bhAShya 1-2-2 : //Without prANas, without mind, pure is a shruti relating to the para brahman, while this shruti * made up of mind* (manOmaya) having prANa as his body etc. shankara quotes here chandOgya upanishad -3-14-2) refers to brahman with qualities. This is the difference between the two texts. Therefore, since the qualities intended to be taught by the shruti apply to parabrahman only, we have to conclude that it is para brahman alone that is to be meditated upon//. Prabhuji, I think I've made my points clear . I humbly request your valid comments on above pls. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar PS: I've taken some of the references from Brahma Sutra Bhashya written by Swamiji of HN pur in kannada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2003 Report Share Posted May 20, 2003 You are right we cannot get out it by ourselves in the sense it is not getting out or getting in - those are actions -Remember - na karmanaa naprajayaa .... That is why it involves knowledge - and knowledge is not purusha tantra. >praNAm Sri Sadananda prabhuji Hare Krishna > you have quoted shruti verse from mahAnArAyaNa upanishad * na karmaNa na prajaya, na dhanEna tyagEnaike amrutatva mAnashu:* prabhuji, here shruti says to attain/realise amrutatva tyAga is the only means. Is shruti referring here karma sanyAsa or sacrificing our ego with limited adjuncts of sharIra traya pls. clarify. coz. in the subsequent verses this upanishad we can find sanyAsa yOga as well (sanyAsa yOgAdyataya shudda sattvAh:). >Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2003 Report Share Posted May 20, 2003 --- bhaskar.yr wrote: > > you have quoted shruti verse from mahAnArAyaNa upanishad * na > karmaNa > na prajaya, na dhanEna tyagEnaike amrutatva mAnashu:* prabhuji, here > shruti says to attain/realise amrutatva tyAga is the only means. Is > shruti > referring here karma sanyAsa or sacrificing our ego with limited > adjuncts > of sharIra traya pls. clarify. coz. in the subsequent verses this > upanishad we can find sanyAsa yOga as well (sanyAsa yOgAdyataya > shudda > sattvAh:). Baskar - First your note on para and apara brahma is educational. There are also sloka-s 5 and 6 in Geeta Ch. 7 where Krishna says about his lower and higher nature. The sloak nakarmana ... occurs also in Kaivalya upanishad, if I remember correctly and is chanted when we receive any sanyaasi with puurna kumbham. There tyaga actually involves true sanayaasa - what is that true sanyaasa krinshna himself provides in the 5th Chapter. j~neyassa nitya sanyaasii yo na dweshhTi na kankshati| nirdwandwo hi mahaabaaho sukham bandhaatpramuchyate|| Note that he is the eternal sanyaasi who has no dislike for any thing or does not desire any thing for him to be happy (free from raaga dwesha), who is beyond all pairs of opposites he is the one will attain the happiness and freedom from bondage. Sanyaasa actually implies samyak nyaasa - total renounciation - what one can renounce is only the false notions about oneself, since the rest of things does not belong to him anyway for him to renounce. One can renounce false notions only if has knows truth about himself. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search. 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.