Happiness A Question

[Guest guest]

Hi Balaji,

 

You said:

 

"Try being happy without any deriving pleasure out of it. I have

interpreted happiness as the antonym of sorrow (duhkha) rather than

as the product of selflessness, which I'd rather refer to as

equanimity and tranquility of mind 'Vitrishna'. Possibly you are

confusing the two." And "There is no absolute happiness!"

 

I think in your discussion with Krishna Prasad that you are using your terms

in a non-standard way. As far as usage in the shruti is concerned, my

understanding is that sukha (pleasure, comfort) is the opposite of duHkha

(pain, sorrow).

 

Again, according to shruti, Ananda, which is what I am translating as

happiness, certainly does exist - it is an 'attribute' of our true nature. I

have not encountered vitRRiShNa (freedom from desire) before - it is

certainly not a term that is frequently used in discussions on advaita. I

would concede that it is a pre-requisite of Ananda but I don't think there

is any confusion.

 

As I explained in my opening posts on the subject, it is vital that we do

use the same terminology. Otherwise we are certain to disagree and our

discussions will not be of any value.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Have you read Bhaja Govindam by Shri Adi Shankara:

 

Moodha jahihi dhanadhama trishna, kuru sadbuddhim manasi vitrishna

yallabhase nija karmopattam cittam tena vinodya cittam' (I keep

confusing the last part - is it cittam or vittam or what is it?)

 

The last word of the first line is vitrishna. Anyway, I meant

happiness in the sense of sukha so the antonym of dukha. But, Ananda

which you term as happiness, someone else would term as bliss cannot

be explained. It cannot be worded. How could you do so. That it is

our very nature, is something I shall not comment about! I don't know

that - how can I say that! I have surely heard that Ananda is the

Self's very nature (our nature), but I don't know it.

 

What I wrote was from what I know - sukha is just disguised dukha.

Vitrishna or 'devoid of any desires' will surely be Ananda, so I have

heard. I don't know about it. Tell me do you get Ananda when devoid

of any desires? Have you experienced it? If yes, please answer.

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Balaji:

 

In your reply to Sri Dennis, the moderator of this month's discussion

on "The meaning of Happinees", you have raised the question - "Have

you read Bhaja Govindam by Shri Adi Shankara"

 

advaitin, "Balaji Ramasubramanian"

<balajiramasubramanian> wrote:

> Have you read Bhaja Govindam by Shri Adi Shankara:

> > Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

 

I want to assure you that Sri Dennis is a distinguished scholar in

Advaita and he has read Bhagovindam. I strongly recommend that you

visit his homepage: http://www.advaita.org.uk and also read his

book, "The Book of One: The Spiritual Path of Advaita."

 

I do agree with Sri Dennis that we all should try our level best to

follow the common familiar terminology instead of 'creating new

terminologies of our own.'

 

In your very first post to this list, you have made the following

observations:

 

advaitin, "Balaji Ramasubramanian"

<balajiramasubramanian> wrote:

>.......

> But one gnawing question still remains with me. Why all this

> discussion and all these complex theories of Ishwara, Atman,

Brahman

> and all that. Is there any worth in all that? Those who already are

> so well versed in the scriptures must be on the path of

realization.

> ........

>........

> I however, do not wish to stop these discussions, they would

inspire

> one to enter the truth. But please remeber that this is only

shrutha-

> maya-prajna and that bhavana-maya-prajna is still to be acheived

> only through experience.

 

I agree with your observations and as per your suggestion, let us

show some restraint and contemplate before posting random thoughts.

 

In several of your posts, you have raised the question - "Do you have

anubhuti sir? Could you teach me? I cannot take Sanyas right now, but

want to know only the truth." I remember, one of the visitors to

Ramanaswaram asked Ramana Maharishi the following question - "Have

you seen God? Can you show me?" Bhgawan Ramana replied something like

this - "Suppose if I show you the God, can you recognize Him?"

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Ramji,

 

My apologies for the error in wording my statement, which should have

said 'You must have read bhaja govindam.' instead of 'have you....'.

I regret having made any statements that could have hurt anyone

directly or inderectly even if it be unintentional. (In fact I have

made many such errors. I remeber one more instance where I did so. I

am sorry for my errors. I shall make sure that from now onwards, I

edit my posts thoroughly before pressing the send button unlike the

way I used to.)

 

I do recognize Sri Dennis's deep understanding and vast knowledge of

the works of Sri Shankara. My due respects to him and to all in this

group, as I noted in my very first post as well, that all of you are

very well learned.

 

With regard to your question on my enquiries about Anubhuti, please

understand that my question is different from that gentleman's who

asked Sri Ramana "Can you show me God?" My question is "Can you teach

me the path to realization of the ultimate Truth?" Please note the

following with regard to this question:

 

1. The question is a plea for help in anguish - is not out of

curiosity.

 

2. The distinction between the first and the second is that the first

demands revelation of God right away. My question asks only for the

path to realize the ultimate truth.

 

With regard to your further question:

 

"If I show you God, can you recognize him?"

 

My answer is:

 

"Don't show me any God. I don't want to see any God. Show me only the

path to see that Ultimate Truth. I know, I must tread this path

myself, perhaps with some help from you, but ultimately it has to be

my own effort. And I assure you, I will recognize that Ultimate

Truth, when I see it. Just show me the path."

 

With regard to the above, I wish to draw your attention to the

following:

 

1. I am not interested in God.

 

2. I donot know right away if that Ultimate Truth is God himself. I

donot wish to comment on it. Ask me and I say, 'I don't know any

God.' I may sound like an atheist, but I am just telling you the

truth that I perceive at the moment. 'I donot know any God.' What is

wrong if I am ignorant? Can't you help me out?

 

3. That I am ignorant is something I have come to realize, through

the realization of the noble truth (that I perceive right

now): 'There is sorrow in this world.' But I donot know how ignorant

I am? Do you see my level of ignorance? Do you see the deep trouble

in which I am? Do you think you can help me? Does your heart melt

down and want to help me come out of the muck?

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

[Guest guest]

Hi Balaji,

 

The quotation from bhaja govindaM is:

 

mUdha jahIhi dhanAgamatRRiShNam

kuru sabuddhiM manasi vitRRiShNAm .

yallabhase nijakarmopAttaM

vittaM tena vinodaya chittam ..

 

I think that vitRRiShNa here is an attribute of the mind - i.e. a mind free

from desire. As such, it cannot be the same as Ananda. I agree that sukha

and duHkha are opposite ends of what is essentially the same thing - namely

the mind limited or interpreted experience. Whilst we still harbour desire,

these will be the extent of our 'fruit of action'. If we can simply accept

what ever happens (yallabhase) and thereby cultivate a mind free from

desire, then we may begin to see the truth. This is effectively karma yoga.

 

But none of this affects the fact that Ananda is our true nature (nothing at

all to do with the mind) and we can catch glimpses of this at any time, no

matter how entrenched we are in the illusion. Brahman cannot be explained.

The shruti use the 'attribute' of Ananda as an attempt to provide some

partial insight. It is not that Ananda cannot be explained. So, yes, to the

extent that I am occasionally devoid of desire, I experience something of

Ananda. So do you.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Dennisji,

 

Thanks for the correct statement of Bhajagovindam's verses. What is

that capitalization all about? I don't know that. I have read this

only in the devanagri script.

 

That vitrishna is a state of the mind is something I don't know

about. I just quoted the saints who say that when all desire dies,

the identity of the self melts into peace. This peace is possibly the

Ananda you are referring to. Vitrishna from what I understood from my

school-knowledge of Sanskrit is the opposite of Trishna (desire).

 

Satyameve Jayate Naanrtam

[Guest guest]

Hi Balaji,

 

You asked: "Thanks for the correct statement of Bhajagovindam's verses. What

is that capitalization all about? I don't know that. I have read this only

in the devanagri script."

 

mUdha jahIhi dhanAgamatRRiShNam

kuru sabuddhiM manasi vitRRiShNAm .

yallabhase nijakarmopAttaM

vittaM tena vinodaya chittam

 

The text is in ITRANS, a transliteration scheme developed for use on the

Internet so that people could represent correct Sanskrit using the ordinary

keyboard of a computer. Thus the capital M stands for an anusvAra (note the

long A = aa in anusvAra). Please see the page at my website for full details

and links to more information. www.advaita.org.uk/itrans.htm .

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Hari OM!

 

Dear Balaji-ji,

 

Great! You are right in the sense of you are not seen GOD.

 

Any way, GOD is the power in you who makes to you to think and to

write these emails, He is the power in me, who makes me to write to

you this email. And he is the eye of the eye. You can only

experience him, like the sweetness of sugar.

 

Still you say I do not know GOD, then try to know HIM then you can

definitely see HIM.

 

Nobody can explain GOD because he is the power beyond explanation.

YOu can only stand under him, even if you do not want to you are

standing under HIM. Because YOU ARE GOD himself. Without the

knowledge of it for now.

 

With Love & OM!

 

Krishna Prasad

 

advaitin, "Balaji Ramasubramanian"

<balajiramasubramanian> wrote:

> Have you read Bhaja Govindam by Shri Adi Shankara:

>

> Moodha jahihi dhanadhama trishna, kuru sadbuddhim manasi vitrishna

> yallabhase nija karmopattam cittam tena vinodya cittam' (I keep

> confusing the last part - is it cittam or vittam or what is it?)

>

> The last word of the first line is vitrishna. Anyway, I meant

> happiness in the sense of sukha so the antonym of dukha. But,

Ananda

> which you term as happiness, someone else would term as bliss

cannot

> be explained. It cannot be worded. How could you do so. That it is

> our very nature, is something I shall not comment about! I don't

know

> that - how can I say that! I have surely heard that Ananda is the

> Self's very nature (our nature), but I don't know it.

>

> What I wrote was from what I know - sukha is just disguised dukha.

> Vitrishna or 'devoid of any desires' will surely be Ananda, so I

have

> heard. I don't know about it. Tell me do you get Ananda when

devoid

> of any desires? Have you experienced it? If yes, please answer.

>

> Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam