Re:_Re:__Why_or_how_to_remove_Anatma_to_“experience”_self?

[Guest guest]

Dear Ranjeet-ji,

 

Namaste.

 

Reference both your postings on the subject, I have tried to bring out my

understanding on the points raised in your mail. I may be wrong.

 

 

 

<But does the word "adhikAraha" (??) stand for "Choice"? I doubt it.>

 

 

 

The word “Adhikaraha” is a Sanskrit word, but it is there in most of the Indian

languages, including Malayalam, Tamil, etc. The meaning is “one who has the

Right to do certain actions”. Adhikara always goes with the “Choice” one has in

doing the action, not doing it or doing it in a different way. (“Karthum sakyam,

akarthum sakyam, anyatha karthum sakyam”)

 

 

 

<To be very honest, no karma can be performed without expectation of a result.

Expectation of a result is the motivation for doing any karma, whether Loukika

or Vaidika. ">

 

 

 

This is purely my understanding by observing the Karma, action, performed by all

in Vyvahara level, and I think this must be the general understanding. In

Paramartha level (may I call it a “level” because all “levels” are consumed by

Paramartha), where is Karma, as once Karma is there it means Dwaitam. Upto now I

have not come across anybody who has no expectation of any result for his Karma.

The result may not be material but at least there must be a result of

satisfaction or happiness for the doer of the karma. If one has no expectation,

how can he do any karma as any karma, once performed, will involve result

whether he expects it or not. With expectation of, and concentrating on a result

only one can perform his karma efficiently. Even in love, there is an

expectation of result. May I quote the very famous mantra from B.Upanishad

“Atmanastu Kamaya Sarvam Priyam Bhavathi” i.e. for the sake (happiness) of atma

(jeeva), everything becomes dear to atma (jeeva).

 

 

 

<In Swami Chinmayanandaji's malayalam commentary, he addresses the people who

cannot perceive action without expectation of a result as "vichAra-shUnya" which

means "absense of intellect". It is a malayalam word. I>

 

 

 

Sri Nairji has already clarified this in a subsequent posting. I would like to

add, Vichara Shunya (it is a noun) is not Absence of Intellect, but “A person

who does not “do” Vichara, or Meemamsya, i.e. “intellectual analysis” Moreover

the meaning of “Vichara is not intellect”; it is “analysis” like in Atma

Vichara, i.e. Mananam on Atma. I hope you will appreciate, having intellect is

something and using that intellect for Vichara, i.e. for analysis, is entirely

another thing.

 

 

 

<Suppose (x + y) is our present state where 'x' is Knowledge of the Self and 'y'

is the ignorance or experience of the Non-Self. What we achieve

 

through sAdhana is just the removal of 'y'. Now what remains is just 'x'. Here

'x' is not a *result* per se. The removal of 'y' didn't *produce* a previously

non-existent 'x'. 'x' was always there.Maniji, you like to call it a *result*

whereas I don't. But our understanding is basically the same.>

 

 

 

If our present state is where knowledge of Self is there, how can there be any

ignorance, as self-knowledge swallows all ignorance in one go (“Ekanthena”). It

is Prathama Malla Nyayam. Rememebr the mantra “knowing which everything becomes

as if known”).

 

I request learned members of the group to correct me wherever my understanding

is wrong.

 

With kind regards and Hari Om

 

R.S.MANI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Sri Ranjeetji,

I would like to add the following to my earliuer posting on the subject:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<Further in verse 49, the Lord says 'Those who thirst for rewards are

 

pitiable (kripaNAh)'>.

 

While unfolding self i.e. teaching Vedanta, the words used are very important.

They should not result in “anyatha grahanam” on the part of the students.

 

For example the meaning of the word ”Vicharashunyaha:” which we have already

analyzed.

 

Now, the word “kripanah” means one who is a miser. Bhagavan Shankaracharya in

his Bhashya on verse 2.49 (B.G.)explains who is a “kripanah”. He says “yo vaa

ethad aksharam Gargi avidithwa asman lokath preithy, sa kripanah” i.e. A miser

is one who leaves this world without knowing that he or she is Brahman

(B.Up.3.8.10)”. Therefore he is pitiable as he or she does not use the given

intellect, particularly the discriminative power.

 

So, such person deserves pity as he does not use his intellect, which is given

to him.

 

 

 

<He, karmayogi, should never worry about the results.>

 

It does not say he should not expect any result. Once result has come he should

not worry, because he has not authored it, though he did perform action with

expectation of result, as there are unknown factors, on which we have no

control, which also contribute to the result of an action.

 

Hari Om

 

R.S.mani

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ranjeet Sankar <thefinalsearch wrote:

Namaste Shri Mani-ji,

 

Sankara Bhashyam Gita 2.47:

Verse meaning: Your right is for action alone, never for the results. Do not

become the agent of the results of action. May you not have any inclination for

inaction.

 

Commentary - Your right (adhikArah) is for action alone, not for steadfastness

in Knowledge. Even there, when you are engaged in action, you have never, i.e..

under no conditions whatever a right for the results of action - may you not

have a hankering for the results of action. Whenever you have a hankering for

the fruits of action, you will become the agent of acquiring the results of

action. Do not thus become the agent of acquiring the results of action by being

impelled by the thirst for the results of action, thus he does become the cause

for the production of the results of action. May you not have an inclination for

inaction, thinking, ' If the results of work be not desired, what is the need of

work which involves pain? '.

 

[ It is not that the Lord is just saying a fact that we don't have choice in

results. It is common knowledge to everyone. If that is so, then there is no

need for cautioning against inaction. If action is not to be undertaken by one

who is under the impulsion of the fruits of action, how then are they to be

undertaken? This is explained in verse 48. Further in verse 49, the Lord says

'Those who thirst for rewards are pitiable (kripaNAh)'. ]

 

 

Swami Chinmayanandaji's commentary:

Is action possible without expectation of results? It is impossible, says the

unthinking. The true karma-yogi knows that this verily is the secret of success.

[..........]

In this verse the Lord gives 4 essential advise to the karma-yogi. They are :

1) The karma-yogi should always concentrate only on the action.

2) He should never worry about the results.

3) He should not do any action for achieving any specific result.

4) He should not have an inclination for inaction.

 

[Please note Slno.3.]

 

So in my humble opinion as per my understanding of Sankara Bhashyam and Swami

Chinmayanandaji's commentary, the injunction is to engage in action without

expectation of results. That Self-less action is true Karma-yoga.

 

 

Hari Om

 

 

-

"R.S.MANI"

To:

Saturday, September 27, 2003 11:39 AM

Re:__Why_or_how_to_remove_Anatma_to_“experience”_self?

 

 

 

Dear Sri Ranjeet-ji,

 

Namaste,

 

Reference your kind posting,

 

Gita verse 2.47, “Karmanieva adhikara: ma phaleshu kadachana”

 

“Adhikara” or choice is only in Karma i.e. action and not in “Phala” as Phala is

not entirely keeping with the action, and one has no choice over the result once

action has been taken.

 

I quote the commentary on this verse by Swami Dayanandji, who is considered as a

Teacher following Sankara Tradition, (Bhashya) while unfolding the Knowledge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

Your use of is subject to

 

 

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Mani-ji,

 

 

You said:

" Upto now I have not come across anybody who has no expectation of any result

for his Karma. The result may not be material but at least there must be a

result of satisfaction or happiness for the doer of the karma. If one has no

expectation, how can he do any karma as any karma, once performed, will involve

result whether he expects it or not. "

 

 

If a person does an action without expecting a result, he will not become the

agent for acquiring the result of the action. However if he expects a result,

then he will have to enjoy the pApa or puNya associated with the result. Thus he

will remain in the cycle of samsAra.

 

 

You said:

" With expectation of, and concentrating on a result only one can perform his

karma efficiently. "

 

Concentration on the action, not on the results is the efficient way of Karma.

 

 

You said:

" Sri Nairji has already clarified this in a subsequent posting. I would like to

add, Vichara Shunya (it is a noun) is not Absence of Intellect, but “A person

who does not “do” Vichara, or Meemamsya, i.e. “intellectual analysis” Moreover

the meaning of “Vichara is not intellect”; it is “analysis” like in Atma

Vichara, i.e. Mananam on Atma. I hope you will appreciate, having intellect is

something and using that intellect for Vichara, i.e. for analysis, is entirely

another thing. "

 

Thank you for pointing it out. Sorry for my poor vocabulary.

 

 

You said:

" If our present state is where knowledge of Self is there, how can there be any

ignorance, as self-knowledge swallows all ignorance in one go (“Ekanthena”). It

is Prathama Malla Nyayam. "

 

The Knowledge is always there. The Self-*realization* discussed here is the

right apprehension of the Intellect. It is the change in perception of our

intellect. Now we may wonder how the inert Intellect which is itself a product

of Ignorance could possibly perceive the Self.

 

Sankaracharya says thus in his Bhashyam :

" However, some wiseacres assert that the intellect cannot comprehend the entity

called the Self since It is formless; hence, complete steadfastness in Knowledge

is impossible. This is truly so for those who have not associated with a

traditional line of teachers; who have not heard the Upanishads; whose

intellects are too much engrossed with external objects; and who have not

applied themselves diligently to the perfect means of knowledge. For those, on

the other hand, who are the opposite of these, it is absolutely impossible to

have the idea of reality with regard to empirical objects, which are within the

realm of duality involving the knower and the known, because in their case there

is no perception of any other thing apart from the Consciousness that is the

Self. "

 

 

You said:

" Rememebr the mantra “knowing which everything becomes as if known”). "

 

Maniji, we should not take the words literally. Then one might say that a

jivan-mukta will be knowing nuclear physics or the rules in a basketball game,

which is not true. What you have quoted is a part of Saunaka's question in

MundakOpanishad. It is just an indicator to show that Brahman which is one

without a second is the cause of all the Universe.

>From Sankara Bhashyam:

" By following the commonsense view, he puts this question knowingly: 'There are

in the world varieties of pieces of gold etc. which are known by ordinary people

from the recognized fact of the substantial oneness of gold etc. Similarly does

there exist a single (substance that is the ) cause of the whole universe of

diversity, by knowing which one (substance) all things become known?' "

 

You may please arrive at your own conclusion from the above.

It was nice discussing with you.

 

 

Hari Om

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ranjeetji, Maniji and all.

 

I thought I would stand on the banks and watch. But, when a

statement such as the one quoted below is made, the urge to jump in

cannot be resisted:

 

Ranjeetji said in reference to Maniji's quote of the mantra "knowing

which everything becomes as if known":

 

QUOTE

 

"Maniji, we should not take the words literally. Then one might say

that a jivan-mukta will be knowing nuclear physics or the rules in a

basketball game, which is not true. What you have quoted is a part of

Saunaka's question in MundakOpanishad. It is just an indicator to

show that Brahman which is one without a second is the cause of all

the Universe."

 

UNQUOTE

 

The last sentence says Brahman is the cause of all the universe. I

accept it although I don't like the word 'cause' in pure advaitic

sense.

 

If that is the case, the jIvanmukta, who is verily Brahman has in him

both nuclear physics and basketball game. Then, where is the

question of 'knowing' them in the pedestrian sense? He 'knows' (that

is true!) because he is Knowledge and not because he is the knower

and there are things to be known. This is not superstition but logic

granted by pramAnAs.

 

If the BhAshyA quote that is brought up by Ranjeetji to support his

statement is to be gone by, his statement would be like asking if

gold knows its own forms. Do we have to bring our upanishidic

understanding to such low levels of confusion?

 

As I understand it, the jIvanmuktA will definitely 'know' that

nuclear physics is he himself as is basketball game. Neither can I

visualize that 'knowing' nor describe it in words. The problem with

the statement is that it grants jIvanmuktA status to someone, where

dualistic knowing has ended, and, at the same time, expects him (the

JIvanmuktA) to behave like ordinary knowers.

 

Besides, I also understand that the jIvanmuktA will remain equanimous

in himself be he faced with a nuclear explosion or a basketball game.

This is possible for him because he 'knows' that both are him without

distinction. It is sufficient for me to underdstand that that is the

difference between him and me. I need not know the mechanics of the

how of it. The scriptures are my pramAnA here. The work in hand is

to coalesce the seeming distinctins to their original oneness in me

so that I don't anymore need any pramAnAs to 'know' that everything

is me. Needless to say that would necessarily include nuclear

physics and basketball.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair