RE: Meaing of Happiness

[Guest guest]

On the subject of 'degrees of happiness', R. S. Mani continues:

 

"i.e. relative pleasure is a particular manifestation of a modicum of bliss

caused by difference in mental state generated by a contact with objects.

(Other beings live on a particle of this very bliss - Br.Up)."

 

I don't think we are really in disagreement about this. The above is

actually restating what I said in an earlier post, namely that there is

actually only happiness/bliss but that the 'sliding lid' of the mind allows

varying amounts of it to shine through. Thus, pleasure is a 'modicum of

bliss' caused by a 'difference in mental state'. Pleasure is thus 'relative'

(to the mind) and the bliss is absolute (i.e. once the ego/mind has been

dissolved).

 

With reference to the quotation: "...the quality of our lives does not

depend only on how we accumulate, save, and spend our money. True

(financial) freedom lies in defining ourselves by who and what we are, not

by what we do or do not have. You are the person you are right now. We

cannot measure our self-worth by our net worth." Suze Orman:

 

Using the perspective of Advaita, one can see some truth in this, though I

doubt that an Advaitic interpretation was intended. What really gives it

away is the sentence 'You are the person you are right now.' A person is

decidedly what we are not!

 

Also, I am not entirely happy with your other quote: "That which is

consistent with rational thinking ought to be accepted whether proceeding

from a boy or even from a parrot". There seem to be two problems here.

Firstly, anyone who has studied this teaching for some time can come out

with statements that sound authentic - hence the increasing number of

dubious spiritual teachers. Secondly, however, no matter who says it, the

understanding (or not) is in the listener's mind. Therefore, the acceptance

is usually through the filter of our own (so-called) knowledge. What is

really needed is for the words to be emitted by a true sage and for us to

listen without the intermediary of the mind.

 

Excellent summary of dharma from Ranjeet Sankar. In the west today, of

course, the self (with a very small 's') is used as the value base so that

the principal duty is usually seen as being to this. Thus we have 'you owe

it to yourself', 'look after number one' and so on. If the marriage is a bit

shaky, instead of trying to resolve the problems and think of one's spouse

and children, we 'owe it to ourselves' to seek a divorce and look for

fulfilment elsewhere. And so on, in all other aspects of life. All very sad!

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

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

 

Thus, pleasure is a 'modicum of

> bliss' caused by a 'difference in mental state'. Pleasure is

thus 'relative'

> (to the mind) and the bliss is absolute (i.e. once the ego/mind has

been

> dissolved).

 

Namaste,

 

The Brahmasutra Bhashya of Shankara discusses Ananda

in:

 

http://swami-krishnananda.org/bs_1/1-1-06.html

 

 

CHAPTER I

SAMANVAYA ADHYAYA

 

SECTION 1

Anandamayadhikaranam: Topic 6 (Sutras 12-19)

 

Anandamaya is Para Brahman

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Dennisji and other learned members,

 

Sri Dennisji said:

 

<<A person is decidedly what we are not!>>

 

By person, what I understood was one without the personality. Personality is

Person plus the attributes, i.e. swabhava. Therefore, when one talks of just

Person, it can mean the Atma. We are all person(s) plus the Upadhies i.e. BMI

plus individual attributes/traits, both of which are just Tatashta Lakshnanas

i.e. Swabhava or apparent nature of the Person. The permanent nature, if I can

call it nature, as the correct word is Swaroopa, of a Person is Consciousness

and therefore Purna, and Satyam, Gnanam, Aanandam.

 

<< I am not entirely happy with your other quote: "That which is consistent with

rational thinking ought to be accepted whether proceeding from a boy or even

from a parrot". There seem to be two problems here. Firstly, anyone who has

studied this teaching for some time can come out with statements that sound

authentic - hence the increasing number of dubious spiritual teachers. Secondly,

however, no matter who says it, the

 

understanding (or not) is in the listener's mind. Therefore, the acceptance is

usually through the filter of our own (so-called) knowledge. *What is really

needed is for the words to be emitted by a true sage and for us to listen

without the intermediary of the mind*.>>

 

I am not trying to argue, but how will one know a True Sage? Here comes the

importance of not only Knowledge of the Teacher, but Acharanam by the Teacher,

i.e. day today behavior/conduct of the Sage reflecting the Knowledge. One cannot

be a dubious teacher if he has realized (I am using this word only for

communicating the idea) the Self. A Real or True Sage, knower of Self, will

never ask any one to do this, do that, perform such Pooja, worship such deity

etc. He only unfolds the Knowledge of Self in the Traditional way (Parampara

Prakriya). He will never promise you any ways and means for any material

achievements, but he will unfold you your Real Swaroopa.

 

For some, whatever is said by the Teacher becomes acceptable only after a deep

analysis by their intellect, without any prejudice, and only because of that,

the Teacher is important to them, and worshipped by them. Whereas for some the

Teacher is important and therefore whatever is said by him is acceptable to them

irrespective of the fact whether it is acceptable to their intellect or not.

 

The former category gives first their head to their teacher and then their heart

and the latter gives their heart first to their teacher and then their head. The

problem with most of the religions or Schools of Thoughts is because they belong

to the latter category. On the one hand they believe “God is love” because their

teacher said so and on the other hand they indulge in killing animals (and

eating them), and indulge in terrorism etc. We see a lot of madness amongst

people in the name of Worship/ Devotion to God. In many parts of Madras

State,even today people cut the throats of goats and hens by biting and drink

warm blood when they are in the height of devotion to their god. Can you imagine

such things are happening even amongst Hindus(?)?

 

Many Teachers have said “Karma Kanda is generally for Mandabudhies

(dull-witted)” and maybe because of that animal sacrifices are justified by

those who follow Karma Kanda of the Vedas.

 

I may cite one particular example. Some time ago, one of my friends, a girl,

belonging to a particular religion, visited my house. We offered her tea,

biscuits and some Vadas (a snack made of Dal-paste by deep frying it). She ate

the biscuits and asked where did we get the vadas, i.e. whether made at home or

bought from some shop. We told her the Vadas were Prasad from the Hanuman

temple. Immediately, she moved the plate away as she did not like even our

placing the vadas before her. When we asked what was the problem, she said that

they were not supposed to eat anything coming from any Altar other than their

God’s Altar, as they were from Satan. She is very religious and never misses

visiting her religious worshipping place on Sundays. This is their idea of God!

One can only pity for their ignorance. Why did she behave like that? Because she

gave her heart only to what she was taught. She definitely knew, if she could

eat the biscuits, there was nothing wrong in eating the vadas

also whether it came from her place of worship or any other place let alone any

other place of worship. It is surprising that her religion does not bar her and

others from killing and eating all that fly (of course other than the

airplanes), all with four legs (other than chairs and tables), all that swim

(pardon my saying other than human beings), but bar them from eating a snack

just because it comes from a Temple!

 

One of the disciples rather devotees of Swami Chimayananda was massaging

Swamiji’s legs when Swamiji was bedridden after a heart attack. Swamiji found

him weeping and asked him what was the matter. He said, he was very sad, as

Swamiji would soon leave him and others because his illness was so serious.

Swamiji told him “Do you love the filthy bucket that I am carrying around and

what will happen if I kick off the bucket. You study Advaita, and it seems you

love Swami Chinmayananda and give importance to Swami Chinmayananda, i.e. his

physical presence through his body, and not the Gnanam that Swami Chinmayananda

unfolds”. (I heard this from one of the Brahmacharis and I do not know whether

it actually happened or not. However that is not very important.)

 

The Mahavakyas like “Tatwamasi” are accepted by us not because it is said in the

Upanishads but it is, as unfolded by our Teachers, is intellectually acceptable

to us. If similar statements appear anywhere else we will, but accept. Advaita

Vedanta accepts everything in its fold provided it is acceptable to the

intellect free from any prejudice.

 

The shruti says, “Atma va are drastavya:, shrotavya:, manthavya:,

nidhidhyasitavya:” The shruti did not stop at “shrotavya:”. It continued saying

“manthavya:, nidhidhyasitavya:”. “Manthavya” i.e. analysis by one’s intellect

free from any prejudice, is very very important after “Drastavya:” and

“Shrotavya:”.

 

People belonging to most of the religions, why even in Hindu religion, do not

give importance to “Manthavya:”

 

In this connection, “Manana” is defined as follows by Adi Shankaracharya in his

Prakarana Grandha “Sarva Vedanta Siddhanta Samgraham”:

 

“shrutasya eva adwiteeyasya vastuna: pratyagatmana:

 

vedantavakyanuguna yuktibhi: anuchintanam

 

mananam tat shruta arthasya sakshatkarana karanam”

 

i.e. the Analysis of the REAL, one without a second, and which is the essence of

everything, by Yukti in line with the Upanishad statements, till the meaning of

what is heard is very clear to the hearer, is Manana.

 

As one can see, YUKTI is very important in Self-knowledge.

 

Any Knowledge takes place only in the Intellect, and when it comes to Self

Knowledge, the intellect should be pure i.e. Anthakaranashuddhi. Yukti used for

analyzing whatever is heard should be by the person who has anthakaranashudhi

i.e. a mind or intellect free of any prejudice.

 

Advaita Vedanta is attractive not because Upanishads unfolds it nor taught by a

particular Guru or Teacher, but because it is acceptable to one’s intellect, as

the most preferable (shreyas). I may also add, “Yukti” is much more than logic

or rational thinking, so loosely translated so. Suppose my mother shows a

photograph and tells me “it is the photograph of my great-great-great

grandfather”, my intellect accepts it not because of rational thinking alone,

but because I have “Shradha” in my mother’s words. However, if some unknown

person shows me a photograph and tells the same thing, though I know I must have

had a great-great-great grandfather, my intellect may not accept it. Suppose my

mother also says that “this Personal Computer” was inherited by your

great-great-great grandfather, from his father”, would it be accepted by my

intellect, though I have Shradha in my mother’s words.

 

My understanding is open for clarifications/corrections by our learned members

of the Group

 

Warm regards and Hari Om

 

Mani

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:On the subject of 'degrees of

happiness', R. S. Mani continues:

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Search - Find what you’re looking for faster.