Philosophy and sadhana (BSB, Advaita, Yoga Vasistha)

[Guest guest]

Dear Ananda,

>Of course, I'm not at all sure whether you or

>Shri Sadananda would agree with this analysis.

>But it's the direction in which Shri Sadananda's

>fine explanation of BSB 2.2.28 has nudged yours truly.

 

I could find nothing wrong in either the logic or the 'advaiticity'

of your explanation regarding the omnipresence of consciousness, even

in illusion and ignorance, and in deep sleep, where nonduality is in

some sense most pure.

 

I certainly agree that even in the ignorance of maya, duality and the

waking state, the 'background' must be consciousness, and the more we

recognize the background, the more the maya recedes. That was also

the message of the Yoga Vasistha, which I quoted earlier.

 

As for deep sleep, what you say sounds logical, but I am back to the

same old problem: I simply don't remember deep sleep, so I am not

sure what to say. It is simply a big unknown for me.

 

By the way, if you have any reason to think that the Yoga Vasistha is

not 100% Advaita, please tell me, as I am getting deeply into it

lately. However, Swamis as illustrious as Sivananda and

Chinmayananda have endorsed it, so I think it is 'safe'.

 

I would love to learn something about its author(s) and date(s). I

have found nothing on the web. It seems like a rather mysterious

text so far. I wish I at least knew the approximate century. I have

the translation by Swami Venkatesananda, which should be quite

reliable.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

It is much trepidation that I venture to enter these deep

waters of `advanced Vedanta.' (I am still trying to master the basic

text "Tattva Bodha"!)

 

[My comments are inserted between asterisks below].

 

 

Dear Ananda,

>>Of course, I'm not at all sure whether you or

>>Shri Sadananda would agree with this analysis.

>>But it's the direction in which Shri Sadananda's

>>fine explanation of BSB 2.2.28 has nudged yours truly.

 

> in deep sleep, where nonduality is in

>some sense most pure.

>As for deep sleep, what you say sounds logical, but I am back to the

>same old problem: I simply don't remember deep sleep, so I am not

>sure what to say. It is simply a big unknown for me.

 

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

Tattva Bodha defines Karana Sarira (Causal Body) as:

anirvAchya (inexplicable – neither existent nor non-existent)

anAdi avidyA rUpam (of the nature of beginningless Ignorance)

sharIradvayasya kAraNamAtram (cause of the gross and subtle bodies)

satsvarUpa aj~nAnam (ignorance of one's own real nature – Self)

nirvikalpakarUpam (devoid of thoughts; unmanifest)

 

It defines Anandamaya Kosha as:

kAraNasharIrabhUta avidyAstha (of the form of the Causal body,

established in

Ignorance)

malinastvam (of impure nature)

priyAdivR^ittisahitaM (united with modifications – like

priya/moda/pramoda).

 

AtmA is defined as ….

sthUla-sUkShma-kAraNa-sharIrAd vyatiriktam (other than the three

Bodies)

pa~nchakoshAtItaH (beyond the five sheaths)

avasthAtrayasAkShI (witness of the three states of awareness)

 

Thus suShupti avasthA is within the realm of the Bodies and

Sheaths.

 

It is only in turIya that these are transcended.

 

In the words of Jnaneshvara (Changadeva Pasashti #65 – 65 verses

addressed to

Changadeva):

 

nideparaute nidaijaNe jAgR^iti giLonI jAgaNe is the true Being.

[THAT is the sleep beyond this sleep; which swallows (transcends)

this waking too.]

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

 

>By the way, if you have any reason to think that the Yoga Vasistha is

>not 100% Advaita, please tell me, as I am getting deeply into it

>lately. However, Swamis as illustrious as Sivananda and

>Chinmayananda have endorsed it, so I think it is 'safe'.

 

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

It was one of the favorites of Ramana Maharshi also.

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

>I would love to learn something about its author(s) and date(s). I

>have found nothing on the web. It seems like a rather mysterious

>text so far. I wish I at least knew the approximate century. I have

>the translation by Swami Venkatesananda, which should be quite

>reliable.

 

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

The written form has been given the dates of 9th-11th cent. CE.

The original was attributed to Valmiki, pre-historic and certainly

before writing into vogue.

[For a scholarly annotated anthology in German:

http://www.indologiewichtrach.ch/site/werkstatt/rezeptionen/yvtg.html

 

 

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

For some readers this site has many interesting excerpts:

 

http://www.euronet.nl/~advaya/excerpts.htm (Advayavada Buddhism)

 

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

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji.

 

With trepidation again, may I say a few words?

 

Won't we solve the problem if we reword your statement as follows?

 

"It is only in turIya that these are *CONSCIOUSLY* transcended."

 

To clarify: TurIyA, like gold in all ornaments made of that metal, is

present in the three states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep. On

final analysis, to the one who *discerns*, all three states are just

turIyA like all ornaments are gold. But, to the one who

doesn't 'see', there are the three *separate* states with deep sleep

signifying an 'empty unknowness'.

 

But, when we know that the 'empty unknownness' is an objectified

fact, we are left with no option other than concluding that that

could not be so without a witnessing presence during the operation of

the unknownness. That unknownness is an object, like the other

things which we don't know, because its presence is acknowledged.

That is just upto where we can go through logical discussions. The

rest depends on the sAdhanA we undertake, on which Anandaji has

already given us a wealth of information.

 

The texts you have quoted have come from those who have discerned

that they are just turIyA in all the states. They are the ones who

have *consciously* transcended (admitting the possibility of an

*unconscious* transcendence during deep sleep when objectifications

have come to rest), i.e. who have irreversably *known* that they are

what they had always been or *become* what they had always been in

the three states. To them, there are no three states. They are,

therefore, constant wakefulness - wakefulness to themselves (not to

be misinterpreted as our normal wakefulness of objectification).

 

They are turIyA, they are samAdhi, whereas we talk about turIyA and

samAdhi as logical objectifications. The asterisked "CONSCIOUSLY" in

your statement reworded above and elsewhere in this post signifies

this unique *wakefulness or transcendence* of the discerning where

there is really nothing woken up to or transcended!

 

Atmanadaji, I understand, has placed more emphasis on deep sleep

simply because it is logically the closest step to understanding

turIyA due to the absence of distracting objectifications present in

the other two states.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> It is only in turIya that these are transcended.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> They are turIyA, they are samAdhi, whereas we talk about turIyA and

> samAdhi as logical objectifications. The asterisked "CONSCIOUSLY"

in

> your statement reworded above and elsewhere in this post signifies

> this unique *wakefulness or transcendence* of the discerning where

> there is really nothing woken up to or transcended!

 

Namaste Madathhilji,

 

Well put! Thanks for the explaining the nuances.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sunder,

 

Thanks for your 15 Dec posting, about the Karana sharira, the

Anandamaya-kosha and Atma, as described in Shri Shankara's

'Tattva-bodha'. I haven't had a chance to study this text yet, so your

account is very interesting.

 

And I think that your conclusions are dead right that "suShupti avasthA

is within the realm of the Bodies and Sheaths" and that "It is only in

turIya that these are transcended."

 

Shri Atmananda would quite agree that sushupti *avastha*, as the *state

of* deep sleep is in the phenomenal realm of personality. The truth

called 'turiya' is not a state. But, in the state of deep sleep, that

truth is found shining all alone -- as that self which only knows,

whose knowing is its very being -- with no appearances to distract

attention away from it.

 

The karana sharira is one of those distracting appearances. It is not

truly present in deep sleep, but is only superimposed on deep sleep by

confused conception in the waking or dreaming mind. The karana sharira

is quite simply the 'unconscious' depth of mind, at the integrating

level of the ananda-maya kosha. It is that mental function which is

needed to put together mind's essentially fragmented acts of limited

and partial conception. We think of this 'unconscious' depth, in waking

and in dreams, to explain how it is that our minds seem able to

co-ordinate their thoughts and feelings and perceptions.

 

In short, the karana sharira is an explanation in the realm of

conceiving mind, and thus to be distinguished from atma or true self.

The karana sharira is a mere conception of the mind, appearing only in

the waking and dream states. It does not appear in the deep sleep

state -- where there are no appearances, but only truth or atma in

itself. In fact, it's only from that truth that all co-ordination

comes.

 

The 'unconscious' karana-sharira is just an inexplicable explanation,

which must dissolve completely in the actual experience of deep sleep.

In that experience, there can remain no sense of any changing state.

All that remains is unmixed self that shines in its own glory, as it

always is -- quite unaffected underneath all seeming changes of

apparent states. That self is what the Mandukya Upanishad calls

'turiya'.

 

When yogi's speak of 'turiya' as a nirvikalpa-samadhi state that comes

and goes, they are not speaking of the same 'turiya' as the Mandukya

Upanishad. The Mandukya 'turiya' is the changeless self that utterly

dissolves whatever comes to it -- including the seeming

'unconsciousness' of deep sleep and also the seeming 'consciousness of

objects' in the waking state. As it is neatly put in your quotation and

translation from the concluding stanza of the Cangadeva Pasashti:

 

nideparaute nidaijaNe jAgR^iti giLonI jAgaNe is the true Being.

[THAT is the sleep beyond this sleep; which swallows (transcends) this

waking too.]

 

Here, I would interpret 'this sleep' as the seemingly unconscious state

which deep sleeps appears to be when viewed from the outside. And 'THAT

is the sleep' would refer to the actual experience in deep sleep, where

the outside view has dissolved in that inmost self whose changeless

shining is there found unmixed. That same changeless shining stays on

ever-present in the dream and waking states, utterly dissolving each

appearance that our dreaming minds or our waking senses bring to it.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Benjamin,

 

Your Dec 14 message:

 

"As for deep sleep, what you say sounds logical, but I am back to the

same old problem: I simply don't remember deep sleep, so I am not sure

what to say. It is simply a big unknown for me."

 

We are indeed "back to the same old problem". But why is it a problem?

It's only a problem if one insists on knowing through memory, or in

other words through mind. Surely, this is a characteristic problem of

the idealist position. To insist on staying in the realm of ideas, on

standing in the mind, while looking for a truth beyond.

 

The whole point of considering deep sleep is that it points to an

immediate experience that cannot be remembered from the past. That

immediate experience is one's own identity -- just what one truly is,

beneath all seeming mind -- in the present. It most certainly is

'unknown' to mind, and so the mind makes a 'big' deal of it, and gives

it grand names like 'everything' or 'all' or 'brahman'. But that

'bigness' too is a mental superimposition that gives a false

impression. Hence the corrective of deep sleep, where 'small' and 'big'

and such qualities are utterly dissolved.

 

But this still leaves the problem of how to go where deep sleep points.

And there of course, no fellow sadhaka can help you. Only a teacher can

show that. A fellow sadhaka can only raise a question that the current

realm of discourse cannot answer. There, of course, you are dead right.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Anandaji,

 

Your erudite analysis is quite palatable to me.

 

Tattva Bodha does characterise kAraNa sharIra as 'anirvAchya'.

However, I still have a doubt whether it is an artifact of the

conceiving mind. This is related to the term 'guDAkesha' - conqueror

of sleep; does it mean one who has conquered sleep is enlightened, or

that one who is enlightened has conquered sleep? Is it a

yogic 'siddhi'?

 

From the point made by Madathilji, it is possible to remain

awake/conscious while still 'physiologicaly' asleep, or is it

metaphorical in the sense of Gita 2:69 (yA nishA

sarvabhUtaanAm .........)? The word avasthA-traya-sAkShI gives me the

impression of the former.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote:

 

In short, the karana sharira is an explanation in the realm of

> conceiving mind, and thus to be distinguished from atma or true

self.

> The karana sharira is a mere conception of the mind, appearing only

in

> the waking and dream states. It does not appear in the deep sleep

> state -- where there are no appearances, but only truth or atma in

> itself. In fact, it's only from that truth that all co-ordination

> comes.

>

> The 'unconscious' karana-sharira is just an inexplicable

explanation,

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji,

 

Reference your post 20167 addressed to Anandaji.

 

I am sure you can expect to hear in detail from Anandaji.

 

However, since you referred to my point of view therein, I believe I

need to submit a clarification at my current level of understanding.

 

1. Awake / conscious implies our mundane objectification.

2. Physiological sleep relates to the body.

3. Witness is the literal English translation for sAkSi in avastA-

traya-sAkSi.

 

One who is realized and established in turIyA, who is turIyA himself,

cannot logically suffer from `mundane' objectification. So, his

witnessing implied in (3) above cannot be akin to our pedestrian

witnessing.

 

Then what is it? I understand that question doesn't arise as doesn't

the question posed to Bh. Ramana about when He became realized and

lucidly answered by Him (Ref: post # 2015 by Shri Eric

Paroissien). TurIyA, therefore, is to be understood (in words) as

an "aloneness fullness" where, in the Maharshi's own words, "there is

no you, nor I, nor he; no present, nor past, nor future. It is beyond

time and space, beyond expression". No sleeping body or its

physiology will ever dare to enter It!

 

In this light, I understand guDakEshA* to mean one who has `undone or

transcended' sleep as sleep belongs to the body (where, from the

point of view of the Realized, there is really nothing undone or

transcended). It doesn't connote a siddhi as siddhis are still

mundane and have no relevance to turIyA, going by the Maharshi's

words.

 

However, it is we who impute attributes to Realization and, as long

as we do so, we are bound to see the Realized caged and lumbering in

a body, which slumbers off and on, and as possessing miraculous

powers. These are all `artefacts' of the mind, as you rightly ask,

from whose tyranny we should free ourselves to *know* for ourselves

what turIyA or Realization or avastA-traya-sAkSitwam (Is that the

right noun form?) is all about.

 

Thus, the word sAkSi is neither mundane nor metaphorical. IT is the

Reality we are, which unfortunately we have to `be' despite `being'

IT! And when we `be' IT, there are no words to explain It to

others. Well, where are words and others then and where is a then in

that wherelessness!? Yet, we see the Realized speaking and writing

tomes! And we build tombs for them, when they go into mahAsamadhi!

He he he! Again the mind, Sir.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

*P.S. Grateful if you can enlighten us how and where you got the

meaning of sleep in guDAkesha. MW lists: thick-haired, the hero

Arjuna, and Siva.

 

___________________________

 

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> Namaste Anandaji,

>

> Your erudite analysis is quite palatable to me.

>

> Tattva Bodha does characterise kAraNa sharIra

as 'anirvAchya'.

> However, I still have a doubt whether it is an artifact of the

> conceiving mind. This is related to the term 'guDAkesha' -

conqueror

> of sleep; does it mean one who has conquered sleep is enlightened,

or

> that one who is enlightened has conquered sleep? Is it a

> yogic 'siddhi'?

>

> From the point made by Madathilji, it is possible to remain

> awake/conscious while still 'physiologicaly' asleep, or is it

> metaphorical in the sense of Gita 2:69 (yA nishA

> sarvabhUtaanAm .........)? The word avasthA-traya-sAkShI gives me

the

> impression of the former.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> Namaste Anandaji,

>

> Your erudite analysis is quite palatable to me.

>

> Tattva Bodha does characterise kAraNa sharIra

as 'anirvAchya'.

> However, I still have a doubt whether it is an artifact of the

> conceiving mind. This is related to the term 'guDAkesha' -

conqueror

> of sleep; does it mean one who has conquered sleep is enlightened,

or

> that one who is enlightened has conquered sleep? Is it a

> yogic 'siddhi'?

>

> From the point made by Madathilji, it is possible to remain

> awake/conscious while still 'physiologicaly' asleep, or is it

> metaphorical in the sense of Gita 2:69 (yA nishA

> sarvabhUtaanAm .........)? The word avasthA-traya-sAkShI gives me

the

> impression of the former.

>

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

>

>

namaste Sunderji,

if turiya is continuous in wake as in deep sleep or swoon or coma,

then this is your consciousness, then perhaps it would make it more

yours if you had personal memories of it?

do we need to add more 'person' to 'I am', does it ask you to bring

more of your luggage into it?

or can we let it be, free from the shape of our idiosyncrasy?

eric

 

 

> advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote:

>

> In short, the karana sharira is an explanation in the realm of

> > conceiving mind, and thus to be distinguished from atma or true

> self.

> > The karana sharira is a mere conception of the mind, appearing

only

> in

> > the waking and dream states. It does not appear in the deep sleep

> > state -- where there are no appearances, but only truth or atma in

> > itself. In fact, it's only from that truth that all co-ordination

> > comes.

> >

> > The 'unconscious' karana-sharira is just an inexplicable

> explanation,

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

 

 

Namaste Madathilji,

 

Thank you again for the clarification. I think the

jig-saw artifacts created by my mind are slowly beginning to fall

into place!

 

To condense the picture of my understanding :

 

1. Reality is That which does not change (kAlatraye api tiShThati

iti sat - Tattva Bodha)

 

2. Anything that changes , i.e. is ephemeral is Not Real (mithyA)

 

3. To understand the difference between the 1 & 2 is 'nitya -

anitya - vastu - vivekaH')

 

4. This can occur only in the present 'waking' state

 

5. This understanding is a kind of 'ripening' of the intellect into

intuition (aparokSha - j~nAna)

 

6. The 'mithya' nature of objects, dreams, and dreamless sleep are

all of the same character.

 

7. The intuition is firm (dR^iDha nishchayaH) to the extent

of 'chitta-shuddhi' through the practice of 'sAdhana-chatuShTaya',

and matures into 'sahaja-samAdhi'.

--

 

The source for the definition of Gudakesha:

 

http://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/audiodisplay.php3

 

Sanskrit Commentary - Sri Sankaracharya

...10.20.. --

 

aham AtmA pratyagAtmA guDAkesha guDAkA nidrA tasyAH IshaH guDAkeshaH

jitanidraH ityarthaH; ghanakesha iti vA |

 

Shankara Gita Bhashya 10:20

 

20.

Gudakesa, O Gudakesa-gudaka means sleep, and isa means master; master

of that (sleep) is gudakesa, i.e. one who has conquered sleep; [see

also under 1.24.-Tr.] or, one who has got thick hair;

(tr. Sw. Gambhirananda)

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "eric paroissien" <vertvetiver>

wrote:

> namaste Sunderji,

> if turiya is continuous in wake as in deep sleep or swoon or coma,

> then this is your consciousness, then perhaps it would make it more

> yours if you had personal memories of it?

> do we need to add more 'person' to 'I am', does it ask you to bring

> more of your luggage into it?

> or can we let it be, free from the shape of our idiosyncrasy?

> eric

 

Namaste Ericji,

 

The Changeless One cannot have memories, because it is beyond

time; and it cannot even have memory of I. It is not only One, but

also Alone (kevala --> kaivalya), where even the duality of bondage

and liberation ceases to exist. So, I agree with you!

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

PS I noticed that the ' disappears in the Reply!!

[Guest guest]

--- sunderh wrote:

> Namaste Ericji,

>

> The Changeless One cannot have memories, because it is beyond

> time; and it cannot even have memory of I. It is not only One, but

> also Alone (kevala --> kaivalya), where even the duality of bondage

> and liberation ceases to exist. So, I agree with you!

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

 

Sunder -As I understand - from the point of jiivanmukta, memories remain

but no delusion as I am the ego which is just a reflection of the

memory. He does teach Vedanta taping from his memory of the scriptures

that he has learned. But there is no notion of identification. A

mumukshu is advised by the scriptures to approach a teacher who is

established in Brahman and also has knowledge (involving memory) of the

scriptures - shotriam brahmanishhTam.

>From the absolute changeless, the question of memory is mute.

 

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.

 

 

 

New Photos - easier uploading and sharing.

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> Sunder -As I understand - from the point of jiivanmukta, memories

remain

> but no delusion as I am the ego which is just a reflection of the

> memory. He does teach Vedanta taping from his memory of the

scriptures

> that he has learned. But there is no notion of identification. A

> mumukshu is advised by the scriptures to approach a teacher who is

> established in Brahman and also has knowledge (involving memory) of

the

> scriptures - shotriam brahmanishhTam.

>

> From the absolute changeless, the question of memory is mute.

 

Namaste Sadaji,

 

May I venture even further to say that what the jivanmukta

says or does itself becomes a scripture? 'His' sankalpa (ekohaM bahu

syAm) is identical with that of the Changeless One.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, sunderh wrote:

..

>

> Namaste Sadaji,

>

> May I venture even further to say that what the jivanmukta

> says or does itself becomes a scripture? 'His' sankalpa (ekohaM

bahu

> syAm) is identical with that of the Changeless One.

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

 

dear Sunder, this would explain why the vasanas of the sanskrit

scholars are so heavy and that several more lifetimes and a huge

memory must be liberally granted for the study of ever accumulating

scriptures ;-)

eric

[Guest guest]

advaitin, vertvetiver wrote:

> dear Sunder, this would explain why the vasanas of the sanskrit

> scholars are so heavy and that several more lifetimes and a huge

> memory must be liberally granted for the study of ever accumulating

> scriptures ;-)

> eric

 

Namaste Eric,

 

That is why in Its infinite grace, it has granted us the

ultimate wisdom of 'trashing' the scriptures - as with Thomas Aquinas

on his Summa, after he saw the Real Light!

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Note from the list moderators:

Your reply emails always contain in the beginning of your mail with the

messages of the previous posters. Please cut the unnecessary portions before

sending your reply. We tried to reach your email address but the mail gets

rejected because your mailbox is full. If you continue to send with the tails,

your future messages will be rejected. Other new members of the list should also

make a note of this problem.

 

Example Edited Version

=========================

 

advaitin, sunderh wrote:

 

 

Namaste Sunder,

i thought of the scriptures as a fresh source where one goes once a

day at apointed times for an essential need; no village would take

the source or the well of water as the center of its economic

activity, however clear and cool the water.

i'll check the "Summa" to see what you are refering to Sunder-ji,

thank you;

eric

[Guest guest]

> Namaste Sadaji,

>

> May I venture even further to say that what the jivanmukta

> says or does itself becomes a scripture? 'His' sankalpa (ekohaM bahu

> syAm) is identical with that of the Changeless One.

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

 

True - In Kaivalya U. there is a sloka (I donot remember it) that says

until one realizes the scripures protect him or guide him and the same

sloka can also be interpreted as that after the realization he protects

the scriptures or essentially authenticates the scriptures. Bhagavaan

Ramana Maharshi is a beatiful example.

 

Ultimately, an approprite teacher is one who directs his disciples to

the scriputures as pramaaNa and not to his own experiences since they

cannot be objectively evaluted.

 

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.

 

 

 

New Photos - easier uploading and sharing.

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, vertvetiver wrote:

> i thought of the scriptures as a fresh source where one goes once a

> day at apointed times for an essential need; no village would take

> the source or the well of water as the center of its economic

> activity, however clear and cool the water.

> i'll check the "Summa" to see what you are refering to Sunder-ji,

> thank you;

> eric

 

Namaste Ericji,

 

Your metaphor is straight out of the Bhagavadgita!

 

 

 

yaavaanartha udapaane sarvataH samplutodake .

taavaansarveshhu vedeshhu braahmaNasya vijaanataH .. 2\-46..

 

2.46 A Brahmana with realization has that much utility in all the

Vedas as a man has in a well when there is a flood all around.

If there be no need for the infinite results of all the rites and

duties mentioned in the Vedas, then why should they be performed as a

dedication to God? Listen to the answer being given:

In the world, yavan, whatever; arthah, utility, use, like bathing,

drinking, etc.; one has udapane, in a well, pond and other numerous

limited reservoirs; all that, indeed, is achieved, i.e. all those

needs are fulfilled to that very extent; sampluhtodake, when there is

a flood; sarvatah, all arount. In a similar manner, whatever utility,

result of action, there is sarvesu, in all; the vedesu, Vedas, i.e.

in the rites and duties mentioned in the Vedas; all that utility is

achieved, i.e. gets fulfilled; tavan, to that very extent; in that

result of realization which comes brahmanasya, to a Brahmana, a

sannyasin; vijanatah, who knows the Reality that is the supreme Goal-

that result being comparable to the flood all around. For there is

the Upanisadic text, '...so all virtuous deeds performed by people

get included in this one...who knows what he (Raikva) knows....' (Ch.

4.1.4). The Lord also will say, 'all actions in their totality

culminate in Knowledge' (4.33). [The Commentators quotation from the

Ch. relates to meditation on the qualified Brahman. Lest it be

concluded that the present verse relates to knowledge of the

qualified Brahman only, he quotes again from the Gita toshow that the

conclusion holds good in the case of knowledge of the absolute

Brahman as well.]

Therefore, before one attains the fitness for steadfastness in

Knowledge, rites and duties, even though they have (limited) utility

as that of a well, pond, etc., have to be undertaken by one who is

fit for rites and duties.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Note from the List Moderators:

Inspite of our repeated appeal, you seem to continue to send your reply without

cutting the unnecessary part of previous message. As we have stated before, we

couldn't reach by private mail. We request your urgent attention and appropriate

action. Please be considerate to the list and to your fellow members of the

list, the Internet, and to all 760 mailboxes of the list!

 

Edited message:

 

advaitin, sunderh wrote:

> conclusion holds good in the case of knowledge of the absolute

> Brahman as well.]

> Therefore, before one attains the fitness for steadfastness in

> Knowledge, rites and duties, even though they have (limited)

utility

> as that of a well, pond, etc., have to be undertaken by one who is

> fit for rites and duties.

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

 

so Thunder-ji (we french people pronounce "th" as "s"),

this brings us to darsana;

do i feel deprived of His Holy Presence?

in the absence of Krishna shall i rejoice in the Gita?

shall i see better His Adorable Form in the reading of scriptures?

and who gives darsana to whom?

isn't Grace His tender look on my heart?

if there is a source to joy, is He the source or am i the source?

can there be two sources of bliss?

do you honor the scripture by the light of your eyes, sunder-ji?

eric

[Guest guest]

advaitin, vertvetiver wrote:

> this brings us to darsana;

> do i feel deprived of His Holy Presence?

> in the absence of Krishna shall i rejoice in the Gita?

> shall i see better His Adorable Form in the reading of scriptures?

> and who gives darsana to whom?

> isn't Grace His tender look on my heart?

> if there is a source to joy, is He the source or am i the source?

> can there be two sources of bliss?

> do you honor the scripture by the light of your eyes, sunder-ji?

> eric

 

Namaste Ericji,

 

From the Advaitic 'darshana' (view-point) you are in essence

Krishna, the sole source of joy!

 

In case you have not located Aquinas quote, here it is:

 

 

http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/SaintOfDay/default.asp?

id=1274

The Summa Theologiae, his last and, unfortunately, uncompleted work,

deals with the whole of Catholic theology. He stopped work on it

after celebrating Mass on December 6, 1273. When asked why he stopped

writing, he replied, "I cannot go on.... All that I have written

seems to me like so much straw compared to what I have seen and what

has been revealed to me." He died March 7, 1274.

==============================================================

http://www.stthomasirondequoit.com/SaintsAlive/id562.htm

All his study led him to the spiritual conclusion: "The ultimate

human knowledge of God is to know that we do not know God, and that

in so far as we know, what God is transcends all that we understand

of God." As a matter of fact, on December 6, 1273, he suddenly

stopped writing altogether. A mysterious thing had happened to him at

Mass that prompted him to put away his pens and paper forever. Asked

why, he replied, "I cannot go on . . . All that I have written seems

to me like so much straw compared to what I have seen and what has

been revealed to me."

==============================================================

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Moderator's Note to Ericji: Write your message in the beginning and remove the

unnecessary part of the tail as shown here!

 

thank you Thunder-ji, i'll take it as my reading of the day, as well

as the Bhagavad Gita.

regards,

eric

 

advaitin, sunderh wrote:

> advaitin, vertvetiver wrote:

>

> why, he replied, "I cannot go on . . . All that I have written

seems

> to me like so much straw compared to what I have seen and what has

> been revealed to me."

>>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder