Fwd: [Advaita-l] Doubt on Ishwara

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Chittaranjan,

 

I am not sure if you are a member of the Advaita-L list. Another Venkat (In

Mumbai English one could say, 'All Venkats are like this only') on that list has

raised a question on Ishwara which articulates the problem in a way that gives

me the clue to its origin in my own case.

 

As a student of Vedanta, I exclude myself from the definition of 'Common People'

and Ishwara is meant for only common people.

 

And being not enlightened, I still carry the burden of Samsara (Pun intended)

and hence very much require Ishwara.

 

Catch - 22! The only solution I suppose is to rid myself of intellectual

snobbery and include myself once again in the group of 'common people'. I

suppose this is going to be easier said than done.

 

I found your comments on my last mail on this very subject very useful. Hence I

though I will share these thoughts with you.

 

praNAms,

Venkat - M

venkat ramanan krishnan <krish_venks wrote:

"venkat ramanan krishnan"

advaita-l

Wed, 28 Jan 2004 04:31:13 +0530

[Advaita-l] doubt

 

Namaste,

 

The crux of Advaita as I understand it, is that God is impersonal. That he

is formless,attributeless, nameless etc. (Please correct me if I am wrong. )

If so, who are Vishnu, Brahma, Siva and why do we celebrate their forms?

In reality if its maya which makes us think that they are Gods and we are

mortals, then once we have the knowledge that we are them(tat tvam asi),

should we still pray? For isn't it also true that Shankaracharya believed

that Knowledge alone is sufficent for salvation? Again, please do correct me

if I am wrong.

In short, would it be corrrect to deduce that the Great Acharyas like

Shankaracharya found happiness within themsleves and composed hymns &

glorified the deities only for the benefit of the common people ?

 

regards

krishnan

sarve janAh sukhino bhavantu

 

 

 

BT Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste to all..

 

The crux of Advaita as I understand it, is that God is impersonal. That he

is formless,attributeless, nameless etc. (Please correct me if I am wrong. )

As Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa says "GOD is in fact attributeless, formless,

nameless etc. But he

appears to have attribute, form, name to the devotee full of devotion and faith.

GOD is like Sea or Water

which has no form and is tasteless. But due to the devotion of the

devotee(coldness), water forms ice and

hence it seems to be take a form. And when the Gnana or Knowledge in the form of

Sun comes, the ice

returns back to its original state of water."

 

If so, who are Vishnu, Brahma, Siva and why do we celebrate their forms?

As Sri Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita

"Ye yatha mAm prapadhyante tAmstateyva bhajAmi aham".

"Whoeveer worships me in whatever form, I appear to him in that form".

 

Since it is tough to meditate on the formless GOD for common people, hence these

forms have been

made. According to one's nature, he can meditate on the suitable form of GOD.

 

In reality if its maya which makes us think that they are Gods and we are

mortals, then once we have the knowledge that we are them(tat tvam asi),

should we still pray? For isn't it also true that Shankaracharya believed

that Knowledge alone is sufficent for salvation? Again, please do correct me

if I am wrong.

Once the knowledge has been gained, there is no two or duality and the

distinction of GOD and devotee

ceases to exist. There exists only Brahman (Sarvam Brahma mayam). Hence what or

whom to pray, when only

Brahman exists?

 

In short, would it be corrrect to deduce that the Great Acharyas like

Shankaracharya found happiness within themsleves and composed hymns &

glorified the deities only for the benefit of the common people ?

The greatness of Great Acharyas and Saints are that they show the other people

how to realize the Brahman.

Adi Sankara composed hymns only for the common people to pray and get grasp of.

Adi Sankara found happiness in

doing this because there existed only Brahman of the nature of Absolute

Existence, Consciouness and Bliss.

 

Pranams to all

Hariram S

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Venkatramanji,

 

I believe there is something very important in what you say. All this

illusion talk has the power to make the ego think itself larger than

the Creator. I face the same problems that you do.

 

It is perhaps chastening to hear what the Acharya has to say to the

Vijnanavada Buddhists who claim that the world is false. He says that

they have no curb to their mouth and only expose their garrulousness.

Now why should we Advaitins be excluded from this if we too think the

world is an illusion?

 

There is a popular view that the argument the Acharya employs here is

only to establish a provisional truth in vyavaharika sathya. I do not

think so. The Acharya very clearly meant that the world is real and

should be accepted as it is seen. There is a very powerful two-forked

argument that the Acarya uses against the Sarvastitvavadins as well

as the Vijnanavadins. If an object is only a cognition "this is like

that" it fails on two counts. Firstly, the "illusory this" that

appears as "that" must have "that" as the real object for the

appearance to be sustained as an appearance. Because what we are

saying is that the "illusory this" is like "that real thing". The

reality of "that" is already asserted in the statement; it is

constituted in the very cognition. Also, this real object on which

the appearance is based must be alike for the comparative "like this"

to be sustained. If the object that is designated as "that" is also

held to be an illusion, then an infinite regress follows "this is

like that which is like that which is.....". For as the Acharya says:

For nobody speaks thus "Visnumitra appears like the son of a barren

woman." The theory of illusion actually requires a parallel real

universe for it to be sustained. (Shri Jay pointed out that this

argument was used against the Advaitins. Surprising how the Acharya's

arguments against the purva paksha are now being used by the purva

pakshins against the Advaitins!)

 

The second fork of the argument is that the cognition of "this is

like that" cannot be sustained without objects because the cognition

would reduce to the cognition of mere similarity: it would be the

bhava of similarity only.

 

The world is real. Not provisionally, but truly. It is the truth that

one arrives at after one has travelled the marga of illusion and

reached the destination. Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa used to

say: "first you say that the world is unreal, and then you say that

it is real". Ishwara is real. Ishwara is not elevated to the high

position by the benevolence of the philosopher; rather it is the

philosopher who needs the Grace of Ishwara to rise.

 

Venkatji, I would like to share some thoughts for whatever they are

worth. They may not sound very Advaitic, but personally I do not find

any difference between these thoughts and Advaita.

 

I am not Brahman, as I conceive myself to be now. When I say "the

world is an illusion", I often compress the world to fit into the

limited notion of my self when I should be leaving the world as it

is, and should be focussing on the enquiry into self. The Self will

reveal itself, and surely what IT reveals itself to be will be larger

than anything that we can possibly conceive.

 

The ego is a mass of illusion. It lacks authenticity and hence uses

all its means to build what it lacks. It even uses the theory of

illusoriness of the world to build the illusion that it is greater

than Ishwara. It does not realise that it is when the ego bows down

that Ishwara speaks through the jiva that "I am Brahman". Such jivas

are rare and few in number. The ego is fickle, and in Kali Yuga, it

is easier to learn to bow down through Bhakti, because Bhakti is the

melting of the ego which is the same as bowing down to Ishwara. A

bowing ego says "You are Ishwara" rather than "I am Brahman".

Therefore, as long as the ego has a hold, it is He that we must bow

down to. A few great jivas can let the Purusha speak through them

because their ego is burnt out in the fire of knowledge. Ishwara is

real, and the path of Radha going back to Krishna is as valid and

real and true as the path of the Jnani merging in Brahman.

 

Atleast this is how I think in my more lucid moments.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

 

advaitin, S Venkatraman <svenkat52> wrote:

> Namaste Shri Chittaranjan,

>

> I am not sure if you are a member of the Advaita-L list. Another

Venkat (In Mumbai English one could say, 'All Venkats are like this

only') on that list has raised a question on Ishwara which

articulates the problem in a way that gives me the clue to its origin

in my own case.

>

> As a student of Vedanta, I exclude myself from the definition

of 'Common People' and Ishwara is meant for only common people.

>

> And being not enlightened, I still carry the burden of Samsara (Pun

intended) and hence very much require Ishwara.

>

> Catch - 22! The only solution I suppose is to rid myself of

intellectual snobbery and include myself once again in the group

of 'common people'. I suppose this is going to be easier said than

done.

>

> I found your comments on my last mail on this very subject very

useful. Hence I though I will share these thoughts with you.

>

> praNAms,

> Venkat - M

> venkat ramanan krishnan <krish_venks@h...> wrote:

> "venkat ramanan krishnan"

> advaita-l@l...

> Wed, 28 Jan 2004 04:31:13 +0530

> [Advaita-l] doubt

>

> Namaste,

>

> The crux of Advaita as I understand it, is that God is impersonal.

That he

> is formless,attributeless, nameless etc. (Please correct me if I am

wrong. )

> If so, who are Vishnu, Brahma, Siva and why do we celebrate their

forms?

> In reality if its maya which makes us think that they are Gods and

we are

> mortals, then once we have the knowledge that we are them(tat tvam

asi),

> should we still pray? For isn't it also true that Shankaracharya

believed

> that Knowledge alone is sufficent for salvation? Again, please do

correct me

> if I am wrong.

> In short, would it be corrrect to deduce that the Great Acharyas

like

> Shankaracharya found happiness within themsleves and composed hymns

&

> glorified the deities only for the benefit of the common people ?

>

> regards

> krishnan

> sarve janAh sukhino bhavantu

>

>

>

> BT Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and

save £80

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

 

Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

 

I am not Brahman, as I conceive myself to be now. When I say "the world is an

illusion", I often compress the world to fit into the

limited notion of my self when I should be leaving the world as it is, and

should be focussing on the enquiry into self. The Self will reveal itself, and

surely what IT reveals itself to be will be larger than anything that we can

possibly conceive.

 

The ego is a mass of illusion. It lacks authenticity and hence uses all its

means to build what it lacks. It even uses the theory of illusoriness of the

world to build the illusion that it is greater than Ishwara. It does not realise

that it is when the ego bows down that Ishwara speaks through the jiva that "I

am Brahman". Such jivas are rare and few in number. The ego is fickle, and in

Kali Yuga, it is easier to learn to bow down through Bhakti, because Bhakti is

the melting of the ego which is the same as bowing down to Ishwara. A bowing ego

says "You are Ishwara" rather than "I am Brahman". Therefore, as long as the ego

has a hold, it is He that we must bow down to. A few great jivas can let the

Purusha speak through them because their ego is burnt out in the fire of

knowledge. Ishwara is real, and the path of Radha going back to Krishna is as

valid and real and true as the path of the Jnani merging in Brahman.

 

 

VENKAT -M

 

Very profound thoughts and thanks a lot for sharing them with me. I intend

reading the above quote from your message once every day till I own up those

thoughts.

 

praNAms,

 

Venkat - M

 

 

 

Chat instantly with your online friends?

Get the FREE Messenger

 

 

[Guest guest]

Pranams Chittaranjanji and all

> Now why should we Advaitins be excluded from this if we too think

the

> world is an illusion?

>

Let me speculate. The seeker seeks and the Acharyas have to direct.

The Acharyas out of compassion address the lowest common denominator

of the seekers who would rather start of with a blind belief.

 

When our Acharyas say that the world is an illusion, it could be with

the intention of focussing the seekers attention on the Self within

to the exclusion of the 'world outside' to which all the senses are

clamouring to go.

 

They know that this statement is not harmful to the discriminating

seeker either- such a one has any way started deriving the joy of

going inwards in an effort to understand reality.

 

The problem comes when several seekers instead of going inwards start

getting attached to the 'intellectual' pleasures of analysing,

presenting, debating, winning etc. They miss the spirit of the what

the Acharyas are advocating and start applying the ego-attached

intellect to these statements.

 

To my mind, it is not really an issue whether the world is real or

whether it is an illusion of this type or that. All that Acharyas are

trying to say is that if you allow yourself to be carried away the

world and its objects, you may not find the answers you are seeking.

 

Many Pranams to all

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sridharji,

 

I agree with you.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, "asridhar19" <asridhar19> wrote:

> Pranams Chittaranjanji and all

> > Now why should we Advaitins be excluded from this if we too think

> the

> > world is an illusion?

> >

> Let me speculate. The seeker seeks and the Acharyas have to direct.

> The Acharyas out of compassion address the lowest common

denominator

> of the seekers who would rather start of with a blind belief.

>

> When our Acharyas say that the world is an illusion, it could be

with

> the intention of focussing the seekers attention on the Self within

> to the exclusion of the 'world outside' to which all the senses are

> clamouring to go.

>

> They know that this statement is not harmful to the discriminating

> seeker either- such a one has any way started deriving the joy of

> going inwards in an effort to understand reality.

>

> The problem comes when several seekers instead of going inwards

start

> getting attached to the 'intellectual' pleasures of analysing,

> presenting, debating, winning etc. They miss the spirit of the what

> the Acharyas are advocating and start applying the ego-attached

> intellect to these statements.

>

> To my mind, it is not really an issue whether the world is real or

> whether it is an illusion of this type or that. All that Acharyas

are

> trying to say is that if you allow yourself to be carried away the

> world and its objects, you may not find the answers you are seeking.

>

> Many Pranams to all

[Guest guest]

Namaste to All,

 

"Now why should we Advaitins be excluded from this if we too think

the world is an illusion?"

 

When I posted these words, I did not mean any disrespect to those who

hold different views to my own. I am aware that there are a number of

books like the Yoga Vashista, Avadhuta Gita, Tripura Rahasya, etc

which speak about the world being unreal. I was trying to separate

the descriptive from the prescriptive, and perhaps got carried away

in my enthusiasm. My apologies if I have offended anyone of our

respected members.

 

With respect and regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Respected Members,

 

Namaste,

 

In spite of the knowledge that “I” am Consciousness i.e. I am Brahman, and that

“I thought” i.e. Ahambhava and Ahankara, is only a thought floating on the mind,

which itself is a projection of Consciousness, having no absolute reality; in

the Waking State, which is also a State only for the “I thought”, do we not feel

thirsty? Though we know, the feeling of thirst is also false or illusion,

because it is again a thought, do we not go for a glass of water (now a days

many go for a coke), knowing fully well that water itself and the glass holding

the water also are just objects projected on Consciousness? We do give some sort

reality to these. May I say, very humbly, even Jagadguru Adi Shankaracharya,

including all known and unknown Jeevanmuktas, must have felt thirst and must

have taken a glass of water to quench their thirst, knowing fully well that even

the quenching itself is just a thought floating on the mind, which again is a

projection on Consciousness. It is in this context

that “Eswara”, being responsible, with the “help” of His own Power Maya; for

creation of all such falsities, is given reality, the same reality we give to

“thirst” “going for water” “water” “glass” “drinking of water” and “satisfaction

of quenching the thirst”, etc.

 

To my very little knowledge, the message of Advaita Vedanta is “Ananda need not

be sought, as It is One’s Swaroopa” and if one runs or engages himself in

pravrutti and nivrutti for getting Ananda, he is making a mistake.

 

What we actually seek is not happiness i.e. vishaya-ananda, but bliss or Ananda

itself. Happiness is Ananda or Bliss, but Ananda or Bliss is not happiness as we

know, because the so-called happiness is conditioned and limited by object, time

and space, whereas Ananda is not conditional, as it is our own Swaroopa. It is

this Ananda one “experiences” during deep sleep. It should not be misunderstood

that it is conditioned by deep sleep, because even in waking state one does get

the taste of such Ananda, now and then, when one accepts himself, and the

surroundings, expecting nothing to change from what they are. What happens is,

the I thought and the subsequent world of objects seems to confront that I

thought, and thus seem to cover the Swaroopa of I, i.e. Ananda, just like clouds

seem to cover the mighty sun. Once self-acceptance takes place, as a result of

self-knowledge, acceptance of Idam and Eswara follows, because my Self is the

same Self of Idam and Eswara, rather the same Self

that I am is also Idam and Eswara.

 

In this context, I would be grateful if the learned members could give their

“views” on the following:

 

a) What is “Moksha”? Is it the soul going, after the fall of the body, to

Goloka, Vaikuntha, Kailasa, or some other plains as very strongly believed by a

lot of people? If so, how long such souls will remain there? Is it different

from Jeevanmukti, and if so what is the difference?

 

b) What is “Jeevanmukti” i.e. the state, (is it a state?) of Jeevanmuktas?

 

c) Do we, the students of Advaita Vedanta, strive for “Moksha” or

“Jeevanmkti”?

 

d) One of the most important pre-requisites, as mentioned in Sadhana

Chatushtayam, etc., for self-enquiry is “severe thirst for Moksha”. Before

going for self-enquiry and self-knowledge, how many of us did really have this

“severe thirst for Moksha or Liberation”? Why did we feel that “severe thirst

for Moksha” if at all we felt that?

 

Learned members may kindly pardon me for raising such questions, but for me

answers to these questions are very important.

 

With respectful regards and Hari Om

 

R.S.Mani

 

 

asridhar19 <asridhar19 wrote:Pranams Chittaranjanji and all

> Now why should we Advaitins be excluded from this if we

Sponsor

 

 

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Maniji

I quite like your questions. Gives me a chance to articulate my

understanding and have it suitably corrected by learned group members.

This is my third post today... i promise to go easy going forward:).

What is below is my understanding, open to corrections.

 

advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote:

> a) What is "Moksha"? Is it the soul going, after the fall of

the body, to Goloka, Vaikuntha, Kailasa, or some other plains as very

strongly believed by a lot of people? If so, how long such souls will

remain there? Is it different from Jeevanmukti, and if so what is the

difference?

 

Moksha is liberation ( For good and for all times to come). there

will be no more bondage. Unlike a jeevan Muktha, if a person at the

very end of life remembers the lord, his progression to Moksha is

through some 18 steps - involves transiting from one loka to another

( vaikuntha etc.)

 

In these intermediate states there may be nothing to be very thrilled

about. There also there will be seekers and Swamis who explain how to

attain the highest and probably virtual groups too! However

progression towards attaining Brahman is guaranteed.

>

> b) What is "Jeevanmukti" i.e. the state, (is it a state?) of

Jeevanmuktas?

 

Jeevan Muktahs become fully realized even before the death of the

body. Even after realization the Sharira may be around for doing

prarabdha Karma, such as guiding disciples, followers, providing

insights into Vedanta etc. To a common man such a jeevan Muktha may

seem to be moving around doing things but the jnanai has no body

consciousness and is firmly rooted in Brahman.

>

> c) Do we, the students of Advaita Vedanta, strive for "Moksha"

or "Jeevanmkti"?

 

There is a saying in Tamil, loosely translated ,' When there is ripe

fruit who will be interested in the raw one?' My preference is for

Jeevanmukthi. Getting it today is better than getting it tomorrow.

Now is better than later today.

>

> d) One of the most important pre-requisites, as mentioned in

Sadhana Chatushtayam, etc., for self-enquiry is "severe thirst for

Moksha". Before going for self-enquiry and self-knowledge, how many

of us did really have this "severe thirst for Moksha or Liberation"?

Why did we feel that "severe thirst for Moksha" if at all we felt

that?

>

My personal experience if it helps.

To answer your question directly - If one can feel great, intense and

severe thirst for Moksha, One would get Moksha that very instant!!!

The reason why one is still basking in ignorance is that the

intensity is not 100%

I will outline my low-intensity experience.

I must admit it started with the feeling of ' I need to get away from

all this' etc. There have been moments while chanting Vishnu

Sahasranama when I have had this feeling of a higher experiencing of

the divine. When I started going to Chinmaya Mission Sat Sanghs

recently, I learnt the importance of understanding the unreal and

transient nature of the happiness and sorrow we experience in

everyday life. The fact that a lot of suffering is due to wrong

attitude in connecting with objects, relationships etc. The

importance of susubstituting Mundane pursuits with , reading about

lives of great saints,japa, prayers, vichara etc. also dawned on me.

The experience of higher divinity in Japa and Vichara have encouraged

me to practise them more and more. Hopefully the process will take

over sometime and make me a Jivan Muktha.

> Learned members may kindly pardon me for raising such questions,

but for me answers to these questions are very important.

 

Your questions are very helpful

 

Many Many Pranams to all Advaitins

 

Sridhar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Maniji and sridhar ji

 

Sridharji, I complete agree with you.

 

But, moksha is not something that has to be earned. It is always present. Only

that we are unaware of if.

Even if you know or not -- you are pure Consciousness and Brahman of the nature

of Sat(Existence), Chit(Consciousness) and Ananda (Bliss).

The only thing that one needs to do is Reduce the latent tendencies(Vasanas) of

the mind and lo behold!!! one can see the Brahman shining.

 

The aim of a Vedantin is Self Realization and not Self-Attainment. It is just

enquiring "Who I am?" and realizing that "I am that Supreme Brahman of the

nature of Advaita(non-duality)". As Uddalaka says to Svetaketu in Chandogya

Upanishad "Tat Tvam Asi" - "That Thou Art".

 

As Adi Sankaracharya says in his Vedanta Prakarana Grantha of NirvanaShatkam

 

Na Dharmo Na chaartho Na Kamo Na Mokshah

Chidaananda Rupah Shivoham Shivoham

 

Pranams to one and all

Hariram S

 

 

asridhar19 [asridhar19]

Thursday, January 29, 2004 11:25 PM

advaitin

Re: Fwd: [Advaita-l] Doubt on Ishwara

 

 

Namaste Maniji

I quite like your questions. Gives me a chance to articulate my

understanding and have it suitably corrected by learned group members.

This is my third post today... i promise to go easy going forward:).

What is below is my understanding, open to corrections.

 

advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote:

> a) What is "Moksha"? Is it the soul going, after the fall of

the body, to Goloka, Vaikuntha, Kailasa, or some other plains as very

strongly believed by a lot of people? If so, how long such souls will

remain there? Is it different from Jeevanmukti, and if so what is the

difference?

 

Moksha is liberation ( For good and for all times to come). there

will be no more bondage. Unlike a jeevan Muktha, if a person at the

very end of life remembers the lord, his progression to Moksha is

through some 18 steps - involves transiting from one loka to another

( vaikuntha etc.)

 

In these intermediate states there may be nothing to be very thrilled

about. There also there will be seekers and Swamis who explain how to

attain the highest and probably virtual groups too! However

progression towards attaining Brahman is guaranteed.

>

> b) What is "Jeevanmukti" i.e. the state, (is it a state?) of

Jeevanmuktas?

 

Jeevan Muktahs become fully realized even before the death of the

body. Even after realization the Sharira may be around for doing

prarabdha Karma, such as guiding disciples, followers, providing

insights into Vedanta etc. To a common man such a jeevan Muktha may

seem to be moving around doing things but the jnanai has no body

consciousness and is firmly rooted in Brahman.

>

> c) Do we, the students of Advaita Vedanta, strive for "Moksha"

or "Jeevanmkti"?

 

There is a saying in Tamil, loosely translated ,' When there is ripe

fruit who will be interested in the raw one?' My preference is for

Jeevanmukthi. Getting it today is better than getting it tomorrow.

Now is better than later today.

>

> d) One of the most important pre-requisites, as mentioned in

Sadhana Chatushtayam, etc., for self-enquiry is "severe thirst for

Moksha". Before going for self-enquiry and self-knowledge, how many

of us did really have this "severe thirst for Moksha or Liberation"?

Why did we feel that "severe thirst for Moksha" if at all we felt

that?

>

My personal experience if it helps.

To answer your question directly - If one can feel great, intense and

severe thirst for Moksha, One would get Moksha that very instant!!!

The reason why one is still basking in ignorance is that the

intensity is not 100%

I will outline my low-intensity experience.

I must admit it started with the feeling of ' I need to get away from

all this' etc. There have been moments while chanting Vishnu

Sahasranama when I have had this feeling of a higher experiencing of

the divine. When I started going to Chinmaya Mission Sat Sanghs

recently, I learnt the importance of understanding the unreal and

transient nature of the happiness and sorrow we experience in

everyday life. The fact that a lot of suffering is due to wrong

attitude in connecting with objects, relationships etc. The

importance of susubstituting Mundane pursuits with , reading about

lives of great saints,japa, prayers, vichara etc. also dawned on me.

The experience of higher divinity in Japa and Vichara have encouraged

me to practise them more and more. Hopefully the process will take

over sometime and make me a Jivan Muktha.

> Learned members may kindly pardon me for raising such questions,

but for me answers to these questions are very important.

 

Your questions are very helpful

 

Many Many Pranams to all Advaitins

 

Sridhar

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

<http://rd./SIG=12cl0fest/M=267637.4116732.5333197.1261774/D=egroupweb/\

S=1705075991:HM/EXP=1075485364/A=1945638/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqs\

o=60178383&partid=4116732> click here

<http://us.adserver./l?M=267637.4116732.5333197.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=\

:HM/A=1945638/rand=186953619>

 

 

_____

 

 

*

advaitin/

 

 

*

advaitin

<advaitin?subject=Un>

 

 

* Terms of Service

<> .

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Hariramji,

 

Hariram_Subramonia <Hariram_Subramonia wrote:

 

<<But, moksha is not something that has to be earned. It is always present.>>

 

So long as one has the notion that Bondage is there, Moksha has to be earned.

What is Bondage? People say it is Samsara and the world that confront them. It

is not samsara nor the world that causes any bondage, but our attitudes, based

on notions, towards them. Once we start accepting samsara and the world without

expecting any change in them, just like we accept the sea, or a mountain, or

stars, moon, etc., both samsara and world are fields on Ananda. Such a

Jeevanmuta is not bothered by “Punarapi jananam, punarapi maranam”.

 

<< The only thing that one needs to do is Reduce the latent tendencies(Vasanas)

of the mind and lo behold!!! one can see the Brahman shining.>>

 

What are these Vasanas? We conclude things on certain notions we gather, and

stick to our conclusions, without any idea that notions, the foundation, are

themselves subject to change. So what is required is Knowledge about our own

Self, WHICH IS ABSOLUTE AND NOT SUBJECT TO ANY CHANGE, which in turn takes care

of everything.

 

<<The aim of a Vedantin is Self Realization and not Self-Attainment. It is just

enquiring "Who I am?" and realizing that>>

 

Vedanta, particularly Advaita, is the Pramana for knowledge about one’s own

self. It is like any other knowledge, and once this knowledge removes the

self-ignorance and ignorance of Idam and Eswara, one’s attitudes towards his own

self i.e. Aham, and also Idam and Eswara, change based on the absolute

knowledge. He knows Bondage was created by his own mind, full of notions, and

the so called bondage now disappears for him.

 

<<Na Dharmo Na chaartho Na Kamo Na Mokshah

 

Chidaananda Rupah Shivoham Shivoham>>

 

The Purusharthas are meanligless to a person who is free from notions, as they

are just the means and not the end. Even the Moksha, if it means going to other

plains, such as Goloka, Vaikuntha, Kailasa, etc. will continue to be a source of

“bondage” for a person, till he is not able to accept them as what they are, and

till he is free from the notions about these Lokas. FOR THAT “AHAM” EVERYTHING

IS AUSPICIOUS OR MANGALAM, INCLUDING HIM. AND THEREFORE “SIVA: AHAM”

 

This is my very humble understanding of the whole subject.

 

Hari om and Pranams

 

R.S.Mani

 

 

 

 

 

 

SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thanks Hariramji...

 

Yes. It should be that when ignorance is dispeeld and all vasanas are

roasted/ burnt by the fire of knowledge there is nothing but the

Self/ Brahman- which is our true nature.

I would think that even in the other special Lokas there is

bondage... the jivas(?)there may be Ultra Sattvic but bound

nevertheless. For instance, Could be it be that say Saint 'Narada'

keeps the Sattvic desire of always singing the Lords Praise?

 

Many Pranams

Sridhar

 

advaitin, "Hariram_Subramonia"

<Hariram_Subramonia@i...> wrote:

> Namaste Maniji and sridhar ji

>

> Sridharji, I complete agree with you.

>

> But, moksha is not something that has to be earned. It is always

present. Only that we are unaware of if.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Sridharji,

 

<<Moksha is liberation ( For good and for all times to come). there

 

will be no more bondage. Unlike a jeevan Muktha, if a person at the >>

 

 

 

Thank you for your posting in response to mine.

 

Since then, there was a posting by Sri Hariramji and I have tried to give my

observations on some of the points, which are more or less the same in your

posting, and so, I do not want to waste time by going over them again.

 

I may be permitted to make one point, which in my experience; most of the people

have not appreciated.

 

We are striving neither for Moksha nor Jeenmukti. All our pursuits are for

Shanti, which is neither happiness nor sorrow, but Anandam, resulting from our

Poornatwa, translated as bliss in English, itself, which is our own swaroopa.

This we are doing knowingly or unknowingly, because we want to be in our real

swaroopa all the time, like water always trying to come back to its coolness,

its swaroopa, though sometimes it appears as vapour and at some other times as

solid ice.

 

Pranam and Hari Om

 

R.S.Mani

 

 

 

 

asridhar19 <asridhar19 wrote:Namaste Maniji

I quite like your questions. Gives me a chance to

Sponsor

 

 

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!

 

 

[Guest guest]

> We are striving neither for Moksha nor Jeenmukti. All our pursuits

are for Shanti, which is neither happiness nor sorrow, but Anandam,

resulting from our Poornatwa, translated as bliss in English, itself,

which is our own swaroopa. This we are doing knowingly or

unknowingly, because we want to be in our real swaroopa all the time,

like water always trying to come back to its coolness, its swaroopa,

though sometimes it appears as vapour and at some other times as

solid ice.

>

Namaste Maniji, but of course. Put this way by great Jnanis it all

seems so simple. One just has TO BE. Is it not amazing that

accomplishing this, ' remembering our True Swaroopa' is more

difficult than bringing memory back to an Amnesiac. How many

lifetimes have come and gone, how many things learnt and lost and yet

we do not how to be our ' True Selves'.

Many Many Pranams to all

Sridhar