The Meaning of Happiness - Part 1

[Guest guest]

The Meaning of Happiness

 

The general topic for March is identified as 'Happiness' but I would like to

allow related aspects to be discussed as people feel necessary. Thus, for

example, happiness is usually thought of as being a major aspect of what we

might say constitutes 'meaning' in our lives. Some might even say that the

ultimate 'purpose' of our lives is to be truly happy. There is often

confusion between the usage of the word 'pleasure' and that of 'happiness'.

This, too, needs clarification. Obviously we are primarily interested in how

the philosophy of Advaita interprets or explains all of this but, if you

believe that you have a concern related to happiness that you would like

addressed, feel free to raise it.

 

I will provide definitions for the key words as I see them. If everyone uses

them in the same way, we may avoid unnecessary confusion.

 

Meaning and Purpose

A useful metaphor for differentiating these would be a map. If you

understand how to use a map, how contour lines represent height above sea

level and how other symbols show lakes, forests and so on, then you

appreciate the *meaning* of a map and can make use of one when the need

arises. If you are going for a walk in strange territory and have to

navigate across hills and find your way through woods, then it is extremely

valuable to have a map of the area and a compass.

 

In such a situation, having a map serves a clear *purpose*, for helping you

to get from A to B. If you did not understand how to use it, you might

appreciate this purpose but the map would be without meaning. If you were

familiar with map reading, then you would appreciate the meaning of a map of

Borneo but it would serve no purpose in helping you to find your way out of

the New Forest.

 

To put this into context in the actual topic, we might say that our purpose

is to find everlasting happiness and we believe that the philosophy of

Advaita provides a map of this territory. The metaphor is a good one because

it reminds us that the concepts of Advaita are merely symbols in the same

way as are the shapes on the map. The metaphor is a bad one in that,

strictly speaking, we do not have to go anywhere in order to find

happiness - we are already there. What Advaita can do, if we 'follow' the

notional paths of the map, is to help us clear the mind of all the ignorance

that prevents us from recognising this.

 

Thus, for example, we have entirely false notions of what things are

important in life. We adorn the body with fashionable clothes, seek out

exotic tastes in food, undergo surgery to maintain an artificially young

appearance. We are ever seeking further promotion at work, working

abnormally long hours to gain prestige and recognition... and money - with

which to buy more and more material possessions to show off to friends and

with which to fill our decreasing amounts of free time. We desire X and fear

Y, thinking at one time that one thing is the most important aim in life and

at another time that it is something quite different.

 

We constantly worry about what others think of us, whether we are doing the

'right' thing, what has happened in the past and what might happen in the

future. And so on. There are many factors affecting all of this at the level

of our apparent existence as individuals in this world. Genetic influences,

together with those of family, education, television etc. all play a part in

driving our aspirations and behaviour in a purely mechanical manner and I

don't think there is any necessity to say much about these. What we are

interested in doing is understanding how Advaita can help us to accept all

of this and put ourselves beyond their influence.

 

So the usual way of going about life is to utilise a selection of standards

from the world, parents, society, science etc. to construct our sense of

meaning, the map that we will use to navigate through life. The particular

set that we choose is determined by our upbringing and to that extent is

somewhat arbitrary. Similarly, our purpose in life also tends to be

arbitrary, fixated, if at all, by the random happenings that we encounter as

we blunder through life - job, spouse, children, religion and so on.

 

We can tolerate the occasional glitch in the coherence of our current set of

meanings. If we admire someone, for example, and they do something that

undermines our regard for them, we may feel aggrieved but it is unlikely to

upset us for long. But if there are a series of happenings in our work, for

example, that repeatedly force us to ask ourselves whether we are in the

right job, there is likely to come a time when the accumulation of these

incidents suddenly 'tips the balance', as it were, and we decide to resign

or start looking for a new job. The entire 'meaning set' relating to the job

then has to be discarded and a new set begun - a sort of 'catastrophe'

effect if you like. A similar effect can occur within a marriage, forcing a

divorce when the balance is tipped, or within a religious belief, forcing a

complete re-evaluation of one's faith.

 

All of this shows that meaning is simply identification with a particular

set of ideas. If the set becomes untenable because of a sequence of events

that raises questions and causes conflict, then it has to be discarded. This

is obviously uncomfortable, especially if much of our lives revolved around

them, but it has nothing to do with who we really are. Ultimately, none of

this really matters.

 

Similarly, if we have a purpose, we are motivated and can act with

discipline and sacrifice, in single-minded pursuit of it. All very

positive... and allowing us to avoid confronting reality. Purposes tend to

become a problem when they are thwarted. If we realise that one can no

longer be achieved, we are likely to feel a failure or resentment at wasted

time and effort. If we discover that one was being sought in error, that its

achievement will not bring the satisfaction that was once envisaged, we may

be forced to re-evaluate all of our beliefs and have to reconstruct a new

sense of purpose from scratch.

 

Worse still, of course, is achieving a lifetime's ambition. Because then,

soon thereafter, may come the realisation that the fulfilling of this

purpose has not actually made any difference to anything. Your petty

concerns, pleasures and pains are found to continue exactly as before.

Nothing is really any different. This is also seen in those who devote

themselves entirely to their job. Their lives may 'fall apart' when they

retire or are made redundant because they no longer perceive any purpose.

Purposes, too, are only concepts in mind with which we identify - even if

this purpose is Self-realisation! (Though, of course, 'achievement' of this

does not have the same effect.)

 

The meaning that we find in our everyday life is something that we are

mentally imposing upon a presumed reality that is ultimately mistaken. We

delude ourselves into thinking that we are in control of anything - it is

all merely thoughts and dreams. And a sense of purpose that relies upon this

world being as we perceive it to be is certain to be misguided. We can

achieve nothing - we are neither doers nor enjoyers.

 

Whilst we believe that we are individuals living in a separate world, it is

inevitable that we want to do things, have an effect, achieve something.

Herein we will seek for meaning and purpose. We do not want to feel that our

lives have been in vain. Even though we can appreciate that our puny

presumed existence must be insignificant in the context of an infinite

universe and aeons of time, still we delude ourselves that our lives can

count for something.

 

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

> The Meaning of Happiness

> Advaita provides a map of this territory. The

> metaphor is a good one because

> it reminds us that the concepts of Advaita are

> merely symbols in the same

> way as are the shapes on the map. The metaphor is a

> bad one in that,

> strictly speaking, we do not have to go anywhere in

> order to find

> happiness - we are already there. What Advaita can

> do, if we 'follow' the

> notional paths of the map, is to help us clear the

> mind of all the ignorance

> that prevents us from recognising this.

 

Namaste Dennis et al,

As Ficino wrote, 'Do not move in order to touch me'.

There you are Dennis, that is your requested summary

of those letters.

Some years ago I carried out an etymological study on

the word 'happiness' and found links with the root

'ap' as in 'apt'. As a result of that study my

personal definition ap-peared as follows:

'Happiness arises in accordance with right (apt)

action.'

It is not something that can be claimed or produced as

it is present of itself in the essence of the event.

Happiness is commonly hidden by our supposed effort

and the egoistic/ahamkaric impositon of good and bad.

True (apt) action is effortless and in accordance with

the 'will' referred to by such statements as 'That One

desired to be many' or 'The Absolute desired to

experience Itself'......an alleged sruti quote that I

have never been able to precisely locate in the

Sanskrit.

That's a first offering but next step could be the

Gita.

 

Off to lunch,

 

Ken

 

 

 

 

New Photos - easier uploading and sharing.

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ken knight <anirvacaniya> wrote:

>

> --- Dennis Waite <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> > The Meaning of Happiness

>'That One

> desired to be many' or 'The Absolute desired to

> experience Itself'......an alleged sruti quote that I

> have never been able to precisely locate in the

> Sanskrit.

 

Namaste Ken-ji,

 

Are you perhaps referring to these?

 

tad aikShata, bahu syAm prajAyeyeti Chandogya 6:2:3

It thought, May I be many, may I grow forth.

 

so'kAmayata, bahu syAm prajAyeyeti Taittiriya 2:6:1

He desired, . Let me become many. Let me be born.

 

prajApatirvA eko'gre'tiShThat,

sa nAram ataikaH,

sotmAnam abhidhyAtvA bahvIH prajA asR^ijata Maitri 2:6

Verily, in the beginning Prajapati (the Lord of creatures,

stood alone. He had no happiness, being alone.

Then, meditating on himself, he created numerous offspring.

>

> Off to lunch,

 

te'annam Apnuvanti ye'nnam brahmopAsate Taittiriya 2:2:1

Those who worship Brahman as food, obtain all food. (!) :-)

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

--- Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote:

Namaste Sunderji,

 

Thank you for the quotes which I have previously

decided were probably the correct source of what is

probably a mistranslation into English. Dennis

referred to the SES organisation in the UK...I think

it is called the Philosophy Foundation in the

US....which had a connection to one of the competing

Shankaracharyas of Jyotir Math..HH Shantanand

Saraswati. In one of the public lectures of that

organisation I heard the expression: 'The Absolute

desired to experience itself' and found it to be a

neat formulation or attempt at explaining the

appearance of diversity while unity is unchanged. I

was told that it had a scriptural source but have

never tracked it down.

It has a resonance in a 'hadith'which I can reference.

A hadith is a saying or story from the time of

Mohammad that is not regarded as authentic by some and

hence is not in the Koran..similar to the Christians'

Apocrypha.

This hadith states:

'I was a hidden treasure and desired to be known, so I

created creation in order to be known.'

Again, the English is probably a distortion of the

Arabic.

 

I won't further this on this thread but these are of

interest if we are to consider that 'will' that

propels 'our' actions s Brahman and the appearance of

mechanisms such as love, grace etc.

> > Off to lunch,

>

> te'annam Apnuvanti ye'nnam brahmopAsate Taittiriya

> 2:2:1

> Those who worship Brahman as food, obtain all food.

> (!) :-)

 

'How wonderful, How wonderful, How wonderful, I am the

food, I am the food, I am the food; I am the food

eater, I am the food eater, I am the food eater.'

Sorry, but cannot remember the ref. (Br.Up. maybe.)

 

Does that define happiness???

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

 

New Photos - easier uploading and sharing.

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ken knight <anirvacaniya> wrote:

>

> 'How wonderful, How wonderful, How wonderful, I am the

> food, I am the food, I am the food; I am the food

> eater, I am the food eater, I am the food eater.'

> Sorry, but cannot remember the ref. (Br.Up. maybe.)

>

> Does that define happiness???

 

Namaste,

 

Taittiriya 3:10:6

 

ahamannamahamannamahamannam.h .

ahamannaado3.ahamannaado3.aahamannaadaH .

 

[aha{\m+} shlokakR^idaha{\m+} shlokakR^idaha{\m+} shlokakR^it.h .

ahamasmi prathamajaa R^itaa3sya .

puurvaM devebhyo.amR^itasya naa3bhaayi .

yo maa dadaati sa ideva maa3.a.avaaH .

ahamannamannamadantamaa3dmi .

ahaM vishvaM bhuvanamabhyabhavaa3m.h .

suvarna jyotiiH . ya evaM veda . ityupanishhat.h .]

 

"This is a song of joy. The manifold diversity of life is attuned to

a single harmony..............."

S. Radhakrishnan - The Principal Upanishads.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

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

> The Meaning of Happiness

>

> The general topic for March is identified as 'Happiness' but I

would like to

> allow related aspects to be discussed as people feel necessary.

 

Namaste Dennis-ji,

 

Thanks for a stimulating start! You have echoed in modern

terms what Yama told Nachiketas in the Katha Upanishad [1:2:2] :

 

2

"The good is one thing, and the pleasant quite another.

Both of these with different purposes bind a person.

Of these two, well is it for the one who takes the good;

failure of aim is it for the one who chooses the pleasant.

The good and the pleasant come to a person.

The thoughtful mind looking all around them discriminates.

The wise chooses the good in preference to the pleasant.

The fool out of getting and having prefers the pleasant.

You, Nachiketas, having examined desires that are pleasant

and that seem to be pleasing, have rejected them.

You have not taken that chain of wealth

in which many mortals sink down.

 

"Opposite and widely divergent are these two:

ignorance and what is known as knowledge.

I think Nachiketas desires knowledge,

for many desires do not distract you.

Those who are in ignorance,

thinking themselves wise and learned,

running here and there, go around deluded

like the blind led by one who is blind.

 

"The passing-on is not clear to the childish or careless

or those deluded by the glamour of wealth.

Thinking 'This is the world; there is no other;'

they fall again and again into my power.

This which cannot even be heard of by many,

that many even hearing do not know,

wonderful is the one who can teach this,

and skillful the one who can learn it,

wonderful the one who knows even when proficiently taught.

This taught by an inferior person is not well understood,

being considered in many ways.

Unless taught by another, there is no going to it,

for it is inconceivably more subtle than the subtle.

Not by reasoning is this thought to be attained.

Taught by another, it is well understood, dear friend.

You have obtained it, holding fast to the truth.

May we find an inquirer like you, Nachiketas."

 

"I know that riches are impermanent,

and that stability is not attained by the unstable.

Therefore the Nachiketas fire has been laid by me,

and by sacrificing the impermanent

I have reached the eternal."

 

"The obtaining of desire, the foundation of the world,

the endlessness of power, the other shore of fearlessness,

the greatness of fame, the wide expanses, the foundation,

you, wise Nachiketas, have steadily let them go.

That which is hard to see, entering the hidden,

set in the secret place, dwelling in the primal depth,

by meditating on this as God through the uniting of the soul,

the wise person leaves joy and sorrow behind.

Hearing this and comprehending,

a mortal extracting what is concerned with virtue,

and subtly taking this, rejoices,

having attained the source of joy.

I know that such a home is open to Nachiketas."

(tr. Sanderson Beck.)

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

--- Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote:

>

> Thanks for a stimulating start! You have

> echoed in modern

> terms what Yama told Nachiketas in the Katha

> Upanishad [1:2:2] :

 

 

Namaste all,

That impulse, that fire, that divine will or whatever

name we wish to give it, results in the appearance of

action and because we have sticky fingers from the

last doughnut ....(is that donut in the US?)...we get

stuck with a false sweetness, as Yama and Dennis have

said.

However there are 'fruits of an

action'...karmaphala... but it is the impulse or

motive for the action...hetus...that requires

discrimination to wash away the stickiness on the

fingers.

( For an explanation of stickiness maybe a look at

Shankara's commentary on Gita 9.4 would be useful. On

the word avasthitaH (resting, abiding, standing) he

comments:

 

surtavat saMSleshAbhAvena AkAShasya api antaratamo hi

ahaM|

na hi asaMsargi vastu kvachiD AdheyabhAvena avasthitaM

bhavati ||

( Can someone please correct my transliteration there

as I have been too lazy in learning the correct

formats)

'Since I am the Self in all beings, the ignorant think

as though I dwell in them. Therefore I say, I do not

dwell in these beings for without any contact which

all objects with form have, I am the inner (essential)

factor even of Akasa. An unconnected thing can never

remain anywhere as though in a container.'

As I have used the Gita here, maybe the following ref.

to 'fruits of action' may be of interest in the search

for happiness:

Bhagavad Gita

2.47. Thy right is to work only, but never to its

fruits; let not the fruit-of-action be thy motive, nor

let thy attachment be to inaction.

2.51. The wise, possessed of knowledge, having

abandoned the fruits of their actions, freed from the

fetters of birth, go to the State which is beyond all

evil.

4.14. Actions do not taint Me, nor have I any desire

for the fruits-of-actions. He who knows Me thus is not

bound by his actions.

4.20. Having abandoned attachment to the

fruits-of-action, ever-content, depending on nothing,

he does not do anything, though engaged in actions.

5.14. Neither agency nor actions does the Lord create

for the world, nor union with the fruits of actions.

But it is Nature that acts.

6.1 The Blessed Lord said: He who performs his

bounden duty without depending on the

fruits-of-actions --- he is a SAMNYASIN and a YOGIN ;

not he who (has renounced) is without fire and without

action.

9.28. Thus shall you be freed from the

bonds-of-actions yielding good and evil "fruits" ;

with the mind steadfast in the YOGA of renunciation,

and liberated, you shall come unto Me.

10.33. Among letters I am the letter 'A' ; among all

compounds I am the dual (co-ordinates) ; I am verily,

the inexhaustible, or the everlasting time; I am the

(All-faced) dispenser (of fruits of actions) having

faces in all directions.

12.11. If you are unable to do even this, then taking

refuge in Me, self-controlled, renounce the

fruits-of-all-actions.

12.12. 'Knowledge' is indeed better than 'practice' ;

'meditation' is better than 'knowledge' ;

'renunciation of the fruits-of-actions' is better than

'meditation' ; peace immediately follows

'renunciation. '

17.25. Uttering "TAT" without aiming at the fruits,

are the acts of sacrifice and austerity and the

various acts of gift performed by the seekers of

liberation.

18.2 The Blessed Lord said: The Sages understand

SAMNYASA to be "the renunciation of works with desire"

; the wise declare "the abandonment of the fruits of

all actions" as TYAAGA.

18.6. But even these actions should be performed

leaving aside attachment and the fruits, O Partha;

this is my certain and best belief.

18.11. Verily, it is not possible for an embodied

being to abandon actions entirely, but he who

relinquishes "the fruits of actions" is verily called

a 'relinquisher' (TYAAGI) .

18.27. Passionate, desiring to gain the

fruits-of-actions, greedy, harmful, impure, full of

delight and grief, such an "agent" is said to be

RAJASIC (passionate) .

18.34. But the "fortitude, " O Arjuna, by which one

holds fast to duty, pleasure and wealth, from

attachment and craving for the fruits-of-actions, that

"fortitude, " O Partha, is RAJASIC (passionate) .

 

Finally maybe, while on the Gita,

 

2.66. There is no knowledge (of the Self) to the

unsteady; and to the unsteady no meditation; and to

the unmeditative no peace; to the peaceless, how can

there be happiness (sukham)?

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Photos - easier uploading and sharing.

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Ken,

 

Re your comments on 'ap-iness':

 

I don't disagree with what you said about 'right action', though the next

parts of the topic will not specifically address this since it is only one

aspect and I am trying to go direct to the root of the matter.

 

You say: "It is not something that can be claimed or produced as it is

present of itself in the essence of the event." I would rather say that the

'event' is beside the point. The key is the claiming. It is the ego that

covers up the happiness and, whenever this disappears, the natural happiness

is always there. More in Parts 2 and 3.

 

As regards the quote about 'The Absolute desired to experience Itself',

that's Alan Watts isn't it?

 

Food eating? Yes, that's happiness - as long as you don't have second and

third helpings...

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji, Kenji and Sunderji.

 

We have philosophies of happiness in Epicureanism, Hedonism,

Eudaimonianism and Utilitarianism.

 

Our Indian CharvAkAs preached an analogue of Epicureanism.

 

However, the profoundest philosophy yet of happiness is advaita.

 

Pleasure is often defined as a source of happiness. One seeks

pleasure in order to be happy. The definition of happiness is said

to be one of the greatest philosophical quandaries. However, it is

heartening to see that one of the accepted definitions in our

dictionaries is advaitic, i.e. freedom from want, desires and

distress. That is the Ananda of advaita if it is understood as

Fullness.

 

Pleasure and happiness are so mundane that they cannot be without

antonyms. Thus, we have words like pain, unhappiness, sorrow,

suffering, sadness, grief, anger etc.

 

However, the Fullness of Advaita called Ananda cannot have any

antonyms by the very fact that it represents pUrNatA or pUrNatwam.

There is no second there. So, the question of an antonym doesn't

arise.

 

Thus, the Happiness of advaita is entirely different from our

transient happiness. The latter is continuously threatened by its

opposites like a bubble placed on thorns, while the former is that

Substratum known by its other synonyms Sat and Chit.

 

This means that dwandAtItA Happiness IS, dwandA happiness and

unhappiness ARE.

 

Advaitic sAdhanA thus is a process of relating and resolving both

happiness and unhappiness to their essential substratum – Happiness.

To a person who has achieved this, there is no difference between

agony and ecstasy. He is both pain and pleasure. He can't thus be

faulted of being unhappy or happy like ordinary mortals, for, by

being pain, he is not agonized, and, by being pleasure, he doesn't go

ecstatic. He remains Happiness. Does that not then resonate well

with I am the food, I am the food,.... I am the food-eater, I am the

food-eater? I am everything but never two or too many; I am the one

Happiness!

 

The only proof for this is the words of great souls, the scriptures

and our own growing conviction as we progress on the path of Self-

Unfoldment.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________________

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> advaitin, ken knight <anirvacaniya>

wrote:

> >

>

> > 'How wonderful, How wonderful, How wonderful, I am the

> > food, I am the food, I am the food; I am the food

> > eater, I am the food eater, I am the food eater.'

> > Sorry, but cannot remember the ref. (Br.Up. maybe.)

> >

> > Does that define happiness???

>

> Namaste,

>

> Taittiriya 3:10:6

>

> ahamannamahamannamahamannam.h .

> ahamannaado3.ahamannaado3.aahamannaadaH .

[Guest guest]

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

> Hi Ken,

> Food eating? Yes, that's happiness - as long as you don't have

second and

> third helpings...

>

 

Namaste,

 

Even the first helping should be just enough to sustain the body

for spiritual practice only! ('laghvAshI', 'na ati ashnataH',

yuktAhAraH', in the words of Gita).

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Here are some thoughts on happiness.

 

I believe that poets are better suited to describe 'happiness' than

philosophers. In Ramayana Rama, (personification of the presence of

divinity in human nature)symbolizes what true happiness really

means. The poets - Valmiki, Tulsidas, Kambar and others took every

opportunity to describe the 'meaning of happiness' through the

expressions of Rama. Rama and happiness became synonimous and the

presence of Rama implied a shower of happiness. To a larger extent,

happiness can only stay with those who keep strong faith in its

presence even though they can't see, touch, feel, taste or prove!

This may explain why poets were able to capture a glimpse of

happiness and present it those who deserve to see!

 

Kamabar in Ramayana describes the happy face of Rama to a blooming

lotus flower. With that happy face Rama went to see his mother

Kaikeyi to get her blessings. Kaikeyi instead blessing Rama, tells

him that King Dasaratha has awarded the kingdom to Rama's younger

brother Bharathan and further the king desires that Rama should go

to the forest and leaving Ayodhya for 14 years. When Rama heard this

news, Rama's face turned brighter and looked like a first-time

blooming lotus flower! He tells Kaikeyi that he was extremely happy

to hear that his younger brother will be the new king of Ayodhya.

Also he tells Kaikeyi, if my father wants me to go to the forest, I

will go right away with delaying any further! I am so blessed to

fulfill the wishes of my dear father and especially when that wish

delivered by my dearest mother! The Tamil verses by Kambar

describing this is very beautiful and it is impossible for me or

anyone to translate its depth.

 

True happiness comes by giving up possessions (as beautifully

illustrated by Rama) and also happiness is undisturbed with more,

less or no responsibilities. And that is true liberation and the

soul of Rama is ever liberated, though the body, mind and intellect

have to act as time and circumstances demand!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

praNAm prabhujis

Hare Krishna

 

Here is my understanding of Happiness. Happiness is within, it is our own

nature. After the dawn of pure knowledge (paripUrNa jnAna) we realise that

our eternal pure nature is pUrNa which is sat-chit-ananda. But due to

ajnAna, we search happiness in external objects. We, all through our lives

strive very hard to catch this happiness always out side of us due to

instinctive outgoing nature of indriya-s. But after the dawn of knowledge

gained through shAstra, we realise that the real source of happiness is

within. Shruti says, it is not for the sake of the child is the child dear

but the child is dear for the sake of the Self. It is not for the sake of

the wife is wife dear but the wife is dear for the sake of the Self, it is

not for the sake of the husband is husband dear, but the husband is dear

for the sake of the Self. Because it is our own self which shines in all

these, looks like giving us the happiness. But in reality, no way, these

body, senses, mind, intellect, objects, relatives, kith & kins can fetch us

the ultimate happiness, it is only pUrNAnubhava (svarUpa jnAna) that gives

us the brahmAnanda.

 

That is the reason why shruti giving its verdict that all happiness is

within us, seek happiness not in the objects of sense; realize that

happiness is within ourselves ....satchidAnanda rUpaH shivOhaM shivOham.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

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

> The Meaning of Happiness

>

> The general topic for March is identified as 'Happiness' but I

would like to

> allow related aspects to be discussed as people feel necessary. >

 

Namaste, Dennis-ji and all,

 

Thank you for a wonderful beginning for the discussion on Happiness.

I wish I had the benefit of your article and the succeeding articles

three months before, when I started a series of twelve lectures

on "Live happily, the Gita Way" here in Portland, Oregon. This

series was delivered to a group of Chinmaya followers here (who were

studying the lectures of Swami Paramarthananda), every Sunday. The

series came to an end just last Sunday the 29th of February. A

slight elaboration of the first 11 lectures have been put on the web

by me at

 

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/contentsbeach11.html

 

The 12th, the final one, is in the process of being readied for the

web this week. On the whole, I have attempted to 'show'

how 'following the Gita' means Happiness.

 

Dennisji, I am looking forward to reading your posts carefully and

assimilating them. Nowadays the advaitin list has become so rich and

so vast (and fast) in its posts that I find it hard to keep up with

what is going on. Glory to the advaitins!

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji,

 

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

> The Meaning of Happiness

> To put this into context in the actual topic, we might say that

> our purpose is to find everlasting happiness and we believe

> that the philosophy of Advaita provides a map of this territory.

> The metaphor is a good one because it reminds us that the

> concepts of Advaita are merely symbols in the same way as are

> the shapes on the map. The metaphor is a bad one in that,

> strictly speaking, we do not have to go anywhere in order to

> find happiness - we are already there. What Advaita can do,

> if we 'follow' the notional paths of the map, is to help us

> clear the mind of all the ignorance that prevents us from

> recognising this.

 

 

That is an excellent post Dennisji. It reminds me of what Sri Ramana

Maharshi used to say on this topic. I don't remember the exact words,

but they are in effect something like this: Happiness is our own

state. We go after happiness because we already know what it is,

because we can't be going after something that is completely unknown

to us. Every moment of our lives, and in everything we go after, we

are looking for our own natural state of happiness. Even the thief

who steals and the murderer who kills are looking for that same

happiness through their misguided actions. Happy is the man who

abides by the Self.

 

A few thoughts on the subject....

 

Why is it that our own natural state of happiness remains unknown to

us? I believe there is no answer to this question for it is that same

unanswerable question about the beggininglessness of avidya -- for it

is avidya that conceals the truth from our eyes. We are not other

than Brahman, and Brahman is full. But strangely we are not full and

that is our "separation" from Brahman. This lack of fullness is the

privation that makes us go after objects, and "the going after" is

the fever of passion that hides the bliss of happiness, for fever

covers over the bliss as it were. When we obtain the object, the

fever subsides for a brief moment and the happiness of Self shines

through the placidity of a feverless mind. We have obtained the

object and we are happy, and we correlate the happiness with the

object. But how shortlived is this happiness! As long as avidya hides

our true nature, the feeling of privation drives us again and again

to fill the vaccuum with objects and purposes and a hundred things

into which we put meanings. How strange is our mind that even when

nothing needs to be done, we still suffer from the fever of boredom!

Happy is the man who learns to abide in the silence of solitude. It

is the wise man that does not run after objects, or purposes, or

meanings. He resides in himself, and lets that natural happiness

shine through the serene lake of his solitude.

 

How sad and funny that human progress is leaving happiness behind to

create more and more things for happiness!

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Dear Ken, Dennis,

 

Ken wrote:

>>Some years ago I carried out an etymological study on the word

'happiness' and found links with the root 'ap' as in 'apt'. As a

result of that study my personal definition appeared as follows:

'Happiness arises in accordance with right (apt) action.'

>>

 

On the face of it, the word 'happy' seems to be related to the words

'hap' and 'happening'. Thus, to be 'happy' would seem to mean to be

'at one with hap' or 'at one with what happens'. And to be 'unhappy'

would correspondingly mean to be 'at odds with hap or with what

happens'.

 

Could you say something more about a further etymological connection

between 'hap' and 'apt'? Eric Partridges "Origins" says that the

English 'apt' comes from the Latin 'aptus' (meaning 'fastened' or

'well-fitted') and is related to the Sanskrit 'apta' (meaning

'attained', 'complete', 'apt', 'fit' -- from the verbal root 'ap-'

meanining to 'attain').

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Reminds me of this saying:

 

"One who eats thrice daily is a ROgI, twice a bhOgI and once a yOgI."

 

PraNAms.

 

MN

___________________

 

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> Even the first helping should be just enough to sustain the

body

> for spiritual practice only! ('laghvAshI', 'na ati ashnataH',

> yuktAhAraH', in the words of Gita).

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

In the Mantra quoted of Br.Up., there is no mention "mother is dear for the son

not for the same of mother but for his own sake, and son is dear to the mother

nor for the son's sake, but for her own sake".

Why this particular relationship has not been included? Is it for some

particular purpose, or the other models quoted in the mantra will apply to this

relationship also. I always used to wonder on this point.

Hope the learned member can help to clarify this.

Hari Om

Mani

 

bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

<<<< Shruti says, it is not for the sake of the child is the child dear

but the child is dear for the sake of the Self. It is not for the sake of

the wife is wife dear but the wife is dear for the sake of the Self, it is

not for the sake of the husband is husband dear, but the husband is dear

for the sake of the Self. Because it is our own self which shines in all

these, looks like giving us the happiness. But in reality, no way, these

body, senses, mind, intellect, objects, relatives, kith & kins can fetch us

the ultimate happiness, it is only pUrNAnubhava (svarUpa jnAna) that gives

us the brahmAnanda.

 

That is the reason why shruti giving its verdict that all happiness is

within us, seek happiness not in the objects of sense; realize that

happiness is within ourselves ....satchidAnanda rUpaH shivOhaM shivOham.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Sponsor

Click Here

 

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

Search - Find what you’re looking for faster.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

In the Mantra quoted of Br.Up., there is no mention "mother is dear for the

son not for the same of mother but for his own sake, and son is dear to the

mother nor for the son's sake, but for her own sake".

Why this particular relationship has not been included? Is it for some

particular purpose, or the other models quoted in the mantra will apply to

this relationship also. I always used to wonder on this point.

Hope the learned member can help to clarify this.

 

praNAm Mani prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I can understand how important *mAtru vAtsalya towards her son* is. But,

here shruti's lakshyArtha is just to say us that *self* is the source of

all external relations & not defining the importance of relationships per

sec, otherwise list goes on & on about relationship Vs self. This is how

I take the above shruti purports, I humbly request other members to

enlighten us more in this regard.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Bhaskerji,

Let us hope, we will get this clarified by some of the learned members sooner or

later.

Hari Om

Mani

 

bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

Namaste,

In the Mantra quoted of Br.Up., there is no mention "mother is dear for the

son not for the same of mother but for his own sake, and son is dear to the

mother nor for the son's sake, but for her own sake".

Why this particular relationship has not been included? Is it for some

particular purpose, or the other models quoted in the mantra will apply to

this relationship also. I always used to wonder on this point.

Hope the learned member can help to clarify this.

 

praNAm Mani prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I can understand how important *mAtru vAtsalya towards her son* is. But,

here shruti's lakshyArtha is just to say us that *self* is the source of

all external relations & not defining the importance of relationships per

sec, otherwise list goes on & on about relationship Vs self. This is how

I take the above shruti purports, I humbly request other members to

enlighten us more in this regard.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

bhaskar

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Sponsor

Click Here

 

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

Search - Find what you’re looking for faster.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Madathil-Ji:

 

Coincidentally only these three categories (rogii, bhigii & yogii,)

stay awake at night !

 

On "yuktAhAraH"

 

food is defined as the what we eat "yat adyate tat annama"

 

However, it is also said that "yat attii tat annam" (what eats you is

also food. We eat mushrooms on pizza but after all it is fungi.

 

For yogi - shiva samhita advises the consumption of "ghee" -

"aayurvai ghritam", however, ghee being a saturated fat can only

result in the elevation your Cholesterol, which will clog the

arteries. (The Good, Bad, Ugly and the deadly).

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste.

>

> Reminds me of this saying:

>

> "One who eats thrice daily is a ROgI, twice a bhOgI and once a

yOgI."

>

> PraNAms.

>

> MN

> ___________________

>

>

> advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

> wrote:

> > Even the first helping should be just enough to sustain the

> body

> > for spiritual practice only! ('laghvAshI', 'na ati ashnataH',

> > yuktAhAraH', in the words of Gita).

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote: (#21196)

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

wrote:

> > The Meaning of Happiness

> >

> > The general topic for March is identified as 'Happiness' but I

> would like to

> > allow related aspects to be discussed as people feel necessary.

>

>

> Namaste, Dennis-ji and all,

>

>

.. A

> slight elaboration of the first 11 lectures have been put on the

web

> by me at

>

> http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/contentsbeach11.html

>

> The 12th, the final one, is in the process of being readied for

the

> web this week. On the whole, I have attempted to 'show'

> how 'following the Gita' means Happiness.

> profvk

 

Namaste, all

 

I have just posted the twelfth lecture also. Incidentally there is a

chart attached to this last lecture. The chart is intended to give a

five-minute overview of How to live happily, the Gita Way. It is at

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/LHGWchart3.html

 

Since we are on the subject of Happiness, I would appreciate readers

to have a quick look at this chart and criticize it, for my benefit.

Thank you.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Here is my brief comments about your chart. The final correct

conclusion that you derived through the chart is quite illuminating -

Everyone who do all actions without assuming doership is always

happy! This is the very essence of Gita and also advaita vedanta. My

only suggestion to the chart (if the goal is to explain happiness)

is simplify with fewer than 6 boxes. As a mathematics professor,

you want to be rigorous and the chart explains your systematic

approach to Vedanta philosophy. But complicated a chart may sometime

become a diversion and some balance may be needed. But the chart

does highlight the creative ability of our mind and you have

demonstrated that age is never a constraint for creativity and

thinking. I hope the members of the list visit and enjoy your

creation!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

>

> Namaste, all

>

> I have just posted the twelfth lecture also. Incidentally there is

a

> chart attached to this last lecture. The chart is intended to give

a

> five-minute overview of How to live happily, the Gita Way. It is at

> http://www.geocities.com/profvk/LHGWchart3.html

>

[Guest guest]

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

> Namaste,

> In the Mantra quoted of Br.Up., there is no mention "mother is dear

for the son not for the same of mother but for his own sake, and son

is dear to the mother nor for the son's sake, but for her own sake".

> Why this particular relationship has not been included? Is it for

some particular purpose, or the other models quoted in the mantra

will apply to this relationship also. I always used to wonder on this

point.

 

Namaste,

 

Br. Upan. 2:4:5 refers to this: " Verily, not for the sake

of the sons are the sons dear but the sons are dear for the sake of

the Self....." The filial relationship is the essence, not the

specific mention of mother, father, daughter, etc.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

There is a lot that could be written about happiness and the

advaitin's attitude to happiness. The shAstras are full of this.

Without anticipaing what Dennisji, with his grand beginning, is

going to write in his further posts, let me draw attention to three

verses in the Gita (Chapter 18: 37,38,39) on Happiness per se, which

it classifies into satvic happiness, rAjasic happiness and tAmasic

happiness. I have adapted them (below) into three categories

of `attitudes to happiness' so that each one of us may analyse

ourselves at any point of time and put ourselves exclusively into

one of these categories for that point of time; then do this at

several points of time in our own lives. And, over a period of time

by doing some averaging in our own minds, we may arrive at some

conclusions over our own general attitude to happiness. The comments

that follow are intended to throw more light on these three

categories.

An individual may have the attitude to pleasure or happiness that

does not care for the initial unhappiness knowing full well that it

will lead to ultimate happiness.(Shloka 37)

OR

One may have the attitude that wants instantaneous pleasure that

finally ends up with the disgust and disappointment of unhappiness.

(Shloka 38)

OR

One may be simply satisfied with the dull inertial happiness of

sleep, stupor, laziness, error and sin. (Shloka 39)

 

Comments: Every one is certainly after happiness and all our

activities are motivated by the pursuit of happiness. But all the

debate and discussion is about what is happiness. The scriptures say

that happiness is not to be sought outside. The Upanishads are never

tired of declaring that happiness is one's natural state of being.

If you start chasing it you become unhappy. The moment you think

happiness is outside you, you have implanted the seeds of

unhappiness in your mind. The unhappiness is not in the absence of

things, but it is in our wanting them and searching for it. This is

not a cynical way of looking at things, but it is a positive

assertion. Looking for pleasure in the material sense as an end-in-

itself leads to real unhappiness. Happiness, pleasure, bliss are

always with us in the initial state. Whenever we want something, we

move from this initial state. When our want is fulfilled, we go back

to our initial state. Therefore happiness is not what was given to

us by the thing we thought we obtained, but it is our natural state.

Unhappiness arises out of grief, fear or delusion. Grief is always

about a happening in the past. We are unhappy of something which we

had and which we have now lost; it could be money, possessions,

kith and kin, peace, anything. We think we had it; actually it was

not ours, it was His. This misplaced vision makes us grieve about

our past. Sometimes we are unhappy because we are fearful of the

future. What will happen if I lose what I have now? What will happen

if nobody comes to my rescue? What will happen if I die? -- all this

is fear about the future. In between the past (which creates grief)

and the future (which creates fear) there is the present in which we

are deluded by our present attachments. The delusion caused by

attachment is the reason for the dilemmas into which we always land

ourselves: whether we take this alternative or that, both being

important for us because each is interlinked with something in which

we have placed our attachment. We are attached to the present. We do

not want the present happiness to become the past. That is delusion,

for it cannot be so. Present happiness will surely pass and become

the past. On the other hand, we think sometimes that the present

unhappiness will continue in the future; and that is also a

delusion. The happiness given by the senses carries along with it

the bitterness of disappointment when the pleasure does not

continue, the satiety of fulfillment because we know the pleasure

will cave down the next moment, and sometimes also a disgust born

out of the satiety. The flimsy happiness obtained by sense-

indulgence, arising out of changing appetites of the flesh and the

mind, is a fleeting joy, whereas the joy arising out of an inner

self-control and a sense of perfection is permanent. One's sleep

also looks like happiness. But it is born out of inertia and

ignorance. This happiness is totally oblivious to the higher calls

of Man. The only happiness that is not transient is the state of

being the Self. It is pure and unsullied. We are told by the Seers

that the state of samAdhi (= yogic trance)is like this.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk