"Vedana and Veda"

April 3, 2004

Namaste, Balaji, and all,

I feel when Balaji says “first vedana came and then veda” there is certainly

some logic in that. All agree, the root for Veda, Vedana, etc. is “vid”. There

is no doubt about that. Here the question is not what is the root for Veda or

Vedana. The question is quite simple, what came first, Vedana or Veda. I also

feel, Vedana came first and then came Veda. It is like, whether cure came first

or disease. Certainly the disease must precede and then only the need arises to

cure. There was/is Vedana, and Veda came to remove the Vedana.

The purpose of Veda is to remove Vedana. Unless Vedana precedes, Veda cannot

come. If there is no Vedana, what is the use of Veda.

Remember the mantra in Mundaka Upanishad:

“Pareekshya lokaan karmachitaan brahmanaha

nirvedam ayat na asti krutahakruthena

tad vijnanartham saha gurum eva abhigached

samipadnihi srothriyam brahmanishtam”

--A brahmana should resort to renunciation after examining the worlds, acquired

through karma, with the help of this maxim “there is nothing (here) that is not

the result of karma; so what is the need for performing karma?” For knowing that

Reality he should go with sacrificial faggots in hand, to a teacher, versed in

the Vedas and absorbed in Brahman.--

Suppose the brahmana concerned was happy with whatever he got from karma, etc.,

he would not have had the necessity to go to a Teacher. The cause for his gong

to a Teacher was that he was in sorrow, even after getting the results of karma

he performed.

When one feels sick, he runs for the particular medicine already available in

the market; but at the same time, we should remember the particular medicine

itself was invented after seeing the sickness already existed /continue to

exist. If the sickness was not there, the medicine would not have been invented

at all.

Similarly, Veda came after seeing the sorrow of human beings as a remedy to

their sorrow. If there was no sorrow i.e. vedana for human beings, veda would

never have come.

So, I think Veda came from Vedana!

Hope I made my point clear.

Hari Om

Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

April 3, 2004

Namaste Mani-ji,

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

>

> The question is quite simple, what came first, Vedana or Veda.

> I also feel, Vedana came first and then came Veda. It is like,

> whether cure came first or disease. Certainly the disease must

> precede and then only the need arises to cure. There was/is

> Vedana, and Veda came to remove the Vedana.

>

> The purpose of Veda is to remove Vedana. Unless Vedana precedes,

> Veda cannot come. If there is no Vedana, what is the use of Veda.

This argument is not correct as it puts the eternal Veda into the

realm of time.

Regards,

Chittaranjan

April 4, 2004

Namaste all,

Chittranjanji wrote:

>

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

> >

> > The question is quite simple, what came first, Vedana or Veda.

> > I also feel, Vedana came first and then came Veda. It is like,

> > whether cure came first or disease. Certainly the disease must

> > precede and then only the need arises to cure. There was/is

> > Vedana, and Veda came to remove the Vedana.

> >

> > The purpose of Veda is to remove Vedana. Unless Vedana precedes,

> > Veda cannot come. If there is no Vedana, what is the use of Veda.

>

> This argument is not correct as it puts the eternal Veda into the

> realm of time.

>

> Regards,

> Chittaranjan

There is no doubt whatsoever that the Veda is eternal. We are

eternally that Brahman, ignorance being the only problem in our way.

But as long as that ignorance is there, how do we perceive the veda?

One must develop the faculty to perceive the veda, by perceiving the

true nature of sorrow first (because that is all that is actually

accessible to us now), know the nature of this sorrow, then allow it

to dawn on us that this sorrow is due to ignorance and when the

knowledge that we are eternally equanimous and sorrowless dawns, all

sorrow is removed (I would not say, we would BECOME blissful here,

since we ARE already that blissful nature, it is ignorance that does

not allow us to know that. Once removed we are left with the

knowledge of our true nature and hence there is no sorrow)

It is like this: We are initially afraid that we would sink in water

because deep in us there is the ignorance 'I cannot float' or 'I

don't know if I can float'. That we can float is evident from the

fact that so many people can swim. In spite of seeing this we have

this deep rooted ignorance. Once this ignorance is done away with, we

will be able to swim, which we could ALREADY do. If we could not do

so already, we would never have been able to do so even after the

ignorance is gone.

Now what I said is: Pure perception of vedana or complete knowledge

of the nature of sorrow would lead to cessation of all sorrow and

dawn of all knowledge.

This is eactly like what we do to train in swimming. The first lesson

is to try to keep the body afloat. This build the confidence and the

knowledge that 'I can float', leading to no fear of water. Here we

have tried to know the nature of our fear of water by purely

perceiving it in the presence of conditions that can lead to the fear

of water. But when we practice the act of floating, it slowly dawns

that it was a misconception that we cannot float.

Similarly, we purely perceive the nature of our ignorance of our true

nature. This perception of vedana leads to the dawn that we are not

ignorant since we now know the nature of this ignorance which itself

is an illusion. Once this happens, we donot feel any sorrow.

Well all said, it is easier said that done. It is not so easy to

perceive this ignorance in the wake of say desire, or anger. That is

why it is said (Gita ch.II):

Vishaya vinivartante niraharasya dehinah

Rasavarjam rosopyasya param drshtvaanivartate

He (a sthitaprajna) allows the senses to move to their objects

(vishaya), but does not (eat the wine or pleasure obtained thus)

undergo the emotions produces thereof. Thus he perceives the

knowledge of the supreme.

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

April 4, 2004

Dear Balaji,

> > This argument is not correct as it puts the eternal Veda into the

> > realm of time.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Chittaranjan

>

> There is no doubt whatsoever that the Veda is eternal. We are

> eternally that Brahman, ignorance being the only problem in

> our way. But as long as that ignorance is there, how do we

> perceive the veda?

Ignorance "isn't" there. What "isn't there" cannot "be" in our way.

There is no "way" to remove what "isn't there". Who is it that shows

the way and to whom? It is all Her Divine Leela. We can participate

in it joyously or we can cry about its unending sorrows. Flowing with

it is liberation, resistance to it is bondage. The strangeness of it

all is that we are always flowing with it. Do we see this? Seeing it

is the sublimation of the world and its sorrows. Liberation is not

running away from sorrow; it is the sacrifice of the self to bear the

greatest of sorrows. The self is the sacrificial offering on the

altar of Knowledge. That Knowledge is again Self. There is nothing to

get away from, nowhere to reach, nothing to attain.

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

April 4, 2004

Namaste Chittaranjanji

<<<<This argument is not correct as it puts the eternal Veda into the

realm of time.>>>>

When one says “Veda is Eternal” what exactly he means by the word “Veda”? Veda

means Knowledge per-se although we generally mean by Veda, the Four Vedas. If

you say that the Four Vedas are Eternal, one has to go into this statement. The

Vedas are useful only at Vyvaharik Level, and when Vyavaharik Level or State is

only a state, it is not eternal and therefore, the Four Vedas useful in that

particular state are equally not eternal. A thorn, embedded under your foot and

giving severe pain to you, is removed by you by using another thorn. Once the

thorn is removed, you throw away both the thorns. You remove the thorn not for

the sake of removal of the embedded thorn, nor for the sake of the thorn used

for removal of the embedded thorn, it is just for your own sake, to get relief

from sorrow or pain, i.e. “Atmanastu Kamaya Sarvam Priyam Bhavati”. The Vedas

are for Atma and not Atma is for the Vedas.

We generally say :-

“Vedas are Eternal”

“Vedas contain everything”

“Vedas have solutions for all our problems”

etc. etc.

These are all statements exalting the glory of the Four Vedas, and we should

leave it that.

I do not think these statements are correct.

Vedas deal with only those fields of knowledge, which are atheendriya vishayas

i.e. which cannot be known through our indriyas of jnanm, sense organs. In any

case, whether atheendriya vishayas or indriya vishayas, they deal with vishayas

i.e. objects, including the Ignorant Jeeva and ignorance, etc.

Yes, Vedas, i.e. the four Vedas are Universal, as the knowledge contained in

the Vedas are useful for human beings, wherever he is, and at any time, but at

Vyavaharik level only.

At Paramarthik Level (I say “level” only for differentiating it from Vyvaharik

Level) there is neither Vedas also, nor there any use for them.

Chapter XX of Ashtavakra Samhita deals with “Liberation in Life”

I quote a sloka :

Janaka says:

“Kka shastram kka atmavijnanam kka vaa nirvishayam manaha

kka thriptihi kka vithrushnaatwam gata dwandwasya me sada,

---Where are the SCRIPTURES, where is knowledge of the Self, where is the mind

not attached to sense objects, where is contentment, and where is

desirelessness, for me who am ever devoid of the sense of duality?---

Ashtavakra Samhita is not part of Vedas, but it is a sort of Prakarana Grantha,

and it reveals the Truth very well. Yes, Truth is not a subject for revelation,

as Truth is ever available, but one can be ignorant of It, or at least the

Swaroopa of It. The Upanishads also do the same thing, they are not revealing

the Truth, but they just remove the ignorance about the Truth, and that also

ignorance about the nature or Swaroopa of the Truth. One never misses the Truth,

as it is self evident, and when I say “I exist”, it is Truth that shines. It is

not necessary for me to say that, or acknowledge that, or recognize that, as

such acknowledgement, recognition, presuppose my existence.

However, I am ignorant about my nature, or swaroopa, not about my existence.

The Sruties only remove the cover and show what exactly is my Swaroopa or

nature, which otherwise I am incapable of knowing, as it is, i.e. the knowledge

of my swaroopa as Satyam Jnanam and Anantham, and therefore Aanandam; ateendra

vishya.

Hari Om

Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

Namaste Mani-ji,

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

>

> The question is quite simple, what came first, Vedana or Veda.

> I also feel, Vedana came first and then came Veda. It is like,

> whether cure came first or disease. Certainly the disease must

> precede and then only the need arises to cure. There was/is

> Vedana, and Veda came to remove the Vedana.

>

> The purpose of Veda is to remove Vedana. Unless Vedana precedes,

> Veda cannot come. If there is no Vedana, what is the use of Veda.

This argument is not correct as it puts the eternal Veda into the

realm of time.

Regards,

Chittaranjan

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

advaitin/

advaitin

Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

April 4, 2004

Namaste Mani-ji,

When I say that the Vedas are eternal, I mean that the Vedas are

eternal. The Vedas abide eternally in Brahman. In their para state

(and in paramarthika sathya) they are identical with Brahman. You

can't pull out the Vedas from Brahman and throw them away like a

thorn. It's not a question of whether there is any use of the Vedas

in paramarthika "level", it is a question of the nature of Brahman.

With regards,

Chittaranjan

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

> Namaste Chittaranjanji

> <<<<This argument is not correct as it puts the eternal Veda into

the

> realm of time.>>>>

>

> When one says "Veda is Eternal" what exactly he means by the

word "Veda"? Veda means Knowledge per-se although we generally mean

by Veda, the Four Vedas. If you say that the Four Vedas are Eternal,

one has to go into this statement. The Vedas are useful only at

Vyvaharik Level, and when Vyavaharik Level or State is only a state,

it is not eternal and therefore, the Four Vedas useful in that

particular state are equally not eternal. A thorn, embedded under

your foot and giving severe pain to you, is removed by you by using

another thorn. Once the thorn is removed, you throw away both the

thorns. You remove the thorn not for the sake of removal of the

embedded thorn, nor for the sake of the thorn used for removal of the

embedded thorn, it is just for your own sake, to get relief from

sorrow or pain, i.e. "Atmanastu Kamaya Sarvam Priyam Bhavati". The

Vedas are for Atma and not Atma is for the Vedas.

>

> We generally say :-

>

> "Vedas are Eternal"

>

> "Vedas contain everything"

>

> "Vedas have solutions for all our problems"

>

> etc. etc.

>

> These are all statements exalting the glory of the Four Vedas, and

we should leave it that.

>

> I do not think these statements are correct.

>

> Vedas deal with only those fields of knowledge, which are

atheendriya vishayas i.e. which cannot be known through our indriyas

of jnanm, sense organs. In any case, whether atheendriya vishayas or

indriya vishayas, they deal with vishayas i.e. objects, including the

Ignorant Jeeva and ignorance, etc.

>

> Yes, Vedas, i.e. the four Vedas are Universal, as the knowledge

contained in the Vedas are useful for human beings, wherever he is,

and at any time, but at Vyavaharik level only.

>

> At Paramarthik Level (I say "level" only for differentiating it

from Vyvaharik Level) there is neither Vedas also, nor there any use

for them.

>

> Chapter XX of Ashtavakra Samhita deals with "Liberation in Life"

>

> I quote a sloka :

>

> Janaka says:

>

> "Kka shastram kka atmavijnanam kka vaa nirvishayam manaha

>

> kka thriptihi kka vithrushnaatwam gata dwandwasya me sada,

>

> ---Where are the SCRIPTURES, where is knowledge of the Self, where

is the mind not attached to sense objects, where is contentment, and

where is desirelessness, for me who am ever devoid of the sense of

duality?---

>

> Ashtavakra Samhita is not part of Vedas, but it is a sort of

Prakarana Grantha, and it reveals the Truth very well. Yes, Truth is

not a subject for revelation, as Truth is ever available, but one can

be ignorant of It, or at least the Swaroopa of It. The Upanishads

also do the same thing, they are not revealing the Truth, but they

just remove the ignorance about the Truth, and that also ignorance

about the nature or Swaroopa of the Truth. One never misses the

Truth, as it is self evident, and when I say "I exist", it is Truth

that shines. It is not necessary for me to say that, or acknowledge

that, or recognize that, as such acknowledgement, recognition,

presuppose my existence.

>

> However, I am ignorant about my nature, or swaroopa, not about my

existence.

>

> The Sruties only remove the cover and show what exactly is my

Swaroopa or nature, which otherwise I am incapable of knowing, as it

is, i.e. the knowledge of my swaroopa as Satyam Jnanam and Anantham,

and therefore Aanandam; ateendra vishya.

>

> Hari Om

>

Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Namaste Mani-ji,

>

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

> >

> > The question is quite simple, what came first, Vedana or Veda.

> > I also feel, Vedana came first and then came Veda. It is like,

> > whether cure came first or disease. Certainly the disease must

> > precede and then only the need arises to cure. There was/is

> > Vedana, and Veda came to remove the Vedana.

> >

> > The purpose of Veda is to remove Vedana. Unless Vedana precedes,

> > Veda cannot come. If there is no Vedana, what is the use of Veda.

>

> This argument is not correct as it puts the eternal Veda into the

> realm of time.

>

> Regards,

> Chittaranjan

>

> 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

>

> Links

>

> advaitin/

>

> advaitin

>

> Terms of

Service.

>

> Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

>

April 4, 2004

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

I appreciate your profound understanding of it at an intellectual

level. I also appreciate your beautiful way of trying to correct my

point of view. However I don't think we are saying very different

things and I also think we are saying certain very different things.

> Ignorance "isn't" there. What "isn't there" cannot "be" in our way.

> There is no "way" to remove what "isn't there". Who is it that

shows

> the way and to whom?

True, ignorance is not there. If you read my earlier message

carefully, in one of those paragraphs, I have said that it is only an

illusion. But how it is an illusion is not very clear to you and me

alike. (I presume you are not a realizes soul, without meaning any

offense, for only he knows how exactly this ignorance is just an

illusion. We may at best make speculative guesses about it)

Hence I did not discuss it in detail, for that would lead just to

more confusion and more diversion from the main issue, that we really

have this ignorance now (if we do not, then we are eternally happy

and therefore need no knowledge at all)

I hope it becomes clear that I am saying just that we all (assuming

none among us is Sri Shankara or Swami Vivekananda or the like) still

ignorant. If we donot know this now, it is the worse for us.

Unfortunately we are so ignorant that we donot know how ignorant we

are. And when this ignorance is replaced with knowledge, we realize

that the ignorance never existed in the first place.

For example, after learning to ride a bicycle or after learning to

swim, do you feel that ignorance anymore. Do you think that that

ignorance was even there in the first place now? But to the one who

does not know to swim, this ignorance (verily being non-existent) is

incorrectly perceived by him as existent (which is itself stemmed

from ignorance. Why else does he incorrectly perceive such an

ignorance?) Once this ignorance is done away with, the ignorance has

no meaning to it. There was no ignorance in the first place thus.

If this ignorance of our true nature is not there (although

incorrectly perceived to be there) then why do we suffer so much? Why

aren't all of us enlightened? Why do we take birth? Why do we have

the fear of death(Let's face it we all fear death, as long as we are

not enlightened, whether we like to accept it or not)? If this

ignorance is not there, then why are we sorrowful? (True that we are

sorrowful is an illusion, but will you not feel sorrow when, God

forbid, any ailment affects someone beloved in your family.)

It is here that mental speculations such as those that you have made

lose. The fact is that we are ignorant now. We may do away with it by

perfect perception of this sorrow, knowing the nature of the sorrow,

knowing its cause (what we call ignorance) and removing it (since we

would know the nature of the whole universe then, we would have

perfect knowledge, which would lead to cessation of all sorrow)

What you have said is no doubt true, but it may lead to lethargy. Not

everyone has the right preparation to understand all this. Those who

are enlightened will not and should not confuse the ignorant people.

(Bhagavad Gita and Yogavasishtha)

It is all Her Divine Leela. We can participate

> in it joyously or we can cry about its unending sorrows. Flowing

with

> it is liberation, resistance to it is bondage. The strangeness of

it

> all is that we are always flowing with it. Do we see this?

Verily what I point out. We are perfect knowledge, alright. But we

still are ignorant of it. If we don't know it, how then are we

knowledge now? Therefore, this is a cycle of knowledge and ignorance

(a play beautifully called Leela)

Liberation is not

> running away from sorrow;

Did I say we should run away (palayanam) from it. I have always said

that we should boldly face it and try to know the nature of this

sorrow completely. Time and again I have said this. Please do not say

that I said that Liberation is running away from sorrow. I would

never do such disgrace to the brave liberated souls by saying

something that is outrightly calling them cowards.

it is the sacrifice of the self to bear the

> greatest of sorrows. The self is the sacrificial offering on the

> altar of Knowledge. That Knowledge is again Self.

A beautiful thing (from the Purusha Sukta) you have pointed out here.

True. But not so easy to perceive. It may lead to incorrect

understanding leading to questions such as 'Why a sacrifice? Does the

Self suffer in bearing the sorrows? Why should the sacrifice be made

at all?' I urge you to kindly write one separate post on this topic.

It is important for people to understand the meaning of 'Sacrifice'.

Please do write one post. I think, if it is liked (I'm sure we would

all like a product of your deep understanding) we shall put it in the

files' section. Again, let me appreciate the profundity of what you

have said. But let's understand that it is hard to follow. And even

if we follow it at an intellectual level, it will take great prayatna

to realize it.

There is nothing to

> get away from, nowhere to reach, nothing to attain.

Very true. Again very profound. Another topic to be discussed

separately. But perhaps not for the files section. But I can't say.

It may be for it as well.

Incidentally don't you see this 'nothingness' being repeated? What do

you think about shunyata of Mahayana? Well, let's not argue over it

again. I submit to you to have your own opinions on that matter. My

opinions are of course not affecting others' life. And opinions are

always immaterial. The truth is we are still not enlightened. We

should do something about it.

Anyway, thanks for that nice comment. You are right. But perhaps, we

should check if we have the authority to say 'Tat tvam asi', before

saying that? Exactly the same way we should check our authority to

say 'I am not ignorant. I am that self'

By the way, we are unnecessarily whiling our time away. I had

requested Sri Ranjeetji to post an article on the importance of

Sravana. I think, we have discussed enough of everything else. Well,

what about it? Why don't you post it? I would have if I had the

relevant texts with me. My grandpa has them and he did explain it to

me. But saying that without any reference (the way I post) would not

do enough justice to Sravana.

Please understand, my invitations for posts are sincere. I like

reading it and pondering over the profundity. But I hold that all

these n number of speculations will not lead us to the goal, we are

still not enlightened and liberated. We must take efforts for it.

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

April 4, 2004

Dear Balaji,

I may or may not agree with all that you say, but I must agree that

one must practice rather than be lethargic. :-)

One more thing - you asked me what I think about shunyata and

Mahayana. I think that Mahayana Buddhism is an off-shoot from the

soil of the Vedas. I believe that it is meant for people of a

different psyche than the mainstream Hindus. I also believe that its

origin on earth is part of a divine purpose. Of course, this is only

my personal opinion.

Regards,

Chittaranjan

advaitin, "Balaji Ramasubramanian"

<balajiramasubramanian> wrote:

> Namaste Chittaranjanji,

>

> I appreciate your profound understanding of it at an intellectual

> level. I also appreciate your beautiful way of trying to correct my

> point of view. However I don't think we are saying very different

> things and I also think we are saying certain very different

things.

>

> > Ignorance "isn't" there. What "isn't there" cannot "be" in our

way.

> > There is no "way" to remove what "isn't there". Who is it that

> shows

> > the way and to whom?

>

> True, ignorance is not there. If you read my earlier message

> carefully, in one of those paragraphs, I have said that it is only

an

> illusion. But how it is an illusion is not very clear to you and me

> alike. (I presume you are not a realizes soul, without meaning any

> offense, for only he knows how exactly this ignorance is just an

> illusion. We may at best make speculative guesses about it)

>

> Hence I did not discuss it in detail, for that would lead just to

> more confusion and more diversion from the main issue, that we

really

> have this ignorance now (if we do not, then we are eternally happy

> and therefore need no knowledge at all)

>

> I hope it becomes clear that I am saying just that we all (assuming

> none among us is Sri Shankara or Swami Vivekananda or the like)

still

> ignorant. If we donot know this now, it is the worse for us.

> Unfortunately we are so ignorant that we donot know how ignorant we

> are. And when this ignorance is replaced with knowledge, we realize

> that the ignorance never existed in the first place.

>

> For example, after learning to ride a bicycle or after learning to

> swim, do you feel that ignorance anymore. Do you think that that

> ignorance was even there in the first place now? But to the one who

> does not know to swim, this ignorance (verily being non-existent)

is

> incorrectly perceived by him as existent (which is itself stemmed

> from ignorance. Why else does he incorrectly perceive such an

> ignorance?) Once this ignorance is done away with, the ignorance

has

> no meaning to it. There was no ignorance in the first place thus.

>

> If this ignorance of our true nature is not there (although

> incorrectly perceived to be there) then why do we suffer so much?

Why

> aren't all of us enlightened? Why do we take birth? Why do we have

> the fear of death(Let's face it we all fear death, as long as we

are

> not enlightened, whether we like to accept it or not)? If this

> ignorance is not there, then why are we sorrowful? (True that we

are

> sorrowful is an illusion, but will you not feel sorrow when, God

> forbid, any ailment affects someone beloved in your family.)

>

> It is here that mental speculations such as those that you have

made

> lose. The fact is that we are ignorant now. We may do away with it

by

> perfect perception of this sorrow, knowing the nature of the

sorrow,

> knowing its cause (what we call ignorance) and removing it (since

we

> would know the nature of the whole universe then, we would have

> perfect knowledge, which would lead to cessation of all sorrow)

>

> What you have said is no doubt true, but it may lead to lethargy.

Not

> everyone has the right preparation to understand all this. Those

who

> are enlightened will not and should not confuse the ignorant

people.

> (Bhagavad Gita and Yogavasishtha)

>

> It is all Her Divine Leela. We can participate

> > in it joyously or we can cry about its unending sorrows. Flowing

> with

> > it is liberation, resistance to it is bondage. The strangeness of

> it

> > all is that we are always flowing with it. Do we see this?

>

> Verily what I point out. We are perfect knowledge, alright. But we

> still are ignorant of it. If we don't know it, how then are we

> knowledge now? Therefore, this is a cycle of knowledge and

ignorance

> (a play beautifully called Leela)

>

> Liberation is not

> > running away from sorrow;

>

> Did I say we should run away (palayanam) from it. I have always

said

> that we should boldly face it and try to know the nature of this

> sorrow completely. Time and again I have said this. Please do not

say

> that I said that Liberation is running away from sorrow. I would

> never do such disgrace to the brave liberated souls by saying

> something that is outrightly calling them cowards.

>

> it is the sacrifice of the self to bear the

> > greatest of sorrows. The self is the sacrificial offering on the

> > altar of Knowledge. That Knowledge is again Self.

>

> A beautiful thing (from the Purusha Sukta) you have pointed out

here.

> True. But not so easy to perceive. It may lead to incorrect

> understanding leading to questions such as 'Why a sacrifice? Does

the

> Self suffer in bearing the sorrows? Why should the sacrifice be

made

> at all?' I urge you to kindly write one separate post on this

topic.

> It is important for people to understand the meaning

of 'Sacrifice'.

> Please do write one post. I think, if it is liked (I'm sure we

would

> all like a product of your deep understanding) we shall put it in

the

> files' section. Again, let me appreciate the profundity of what you

> have said. But let's understand that it is hard to follow. And even

> if we follow it at an intellectual level, it will take great

prayatna

> to realize it.

>

> There is nothing to

> > get away from, nowhere to reach, nothing to attain.

>

> Very true. Again very profound. Another topic to be discussed

> separately. But perhaps not for the files section. But I can't say.

> It may be for it as well.

>

> Incidentally don't you see this 'nothingness' being repeated? What

do

> you think about shunyata of Mahayana? Well, let's not argue over it

> again. I submit to you to have your own opinions on that matter. My

> opinions are of course not affecting others' life. And opinions are

> always immaterial. The truth is we are still not enlightened. We

> should do something about it.

>

> Anyway, thanks for that nice comment. You are right. But perhaps,

we

> should check if we have the authority to say 'Tat tvam asi', before

> saying that? Exactly the same way we should check our authority to

> say 'I am not ignorant. I am that self'

>

> By the way, we are unnecessarily whiling our time away. I had

> requested Sri Ranjeetji to post an article on the importance of

> Sravana. I think, we have discussed enough of everything else.

Well,

> what about it? Why don't you post it? I would have if I had the

> relevant texts with me. My grandpa has them and he did explain it

to

> me. But saying that without any reference (the way I post) would

not

> do enough justice to Sravana.

>

> Please understand, my invitations for posts are sincere. I like

> reading it and pondering over the profundity. But I hold that all

> these n number of speculations will not lead us to the goal, we are

> still not enlightened and liberated. We must take efforts for it.

>

> Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

April 4, 2004

Bala-ji WRITES...

(I presume you are not a realizeD soul)To Chitranjanji

Dadiji responds

"It is ridiculous to say either 'I have not realized the Self' or 'I

have realized the Self'; are there two selves, for one to be the

object of the other's realization? It is a truth within the

experience of everyone that there is only one Self."

Ramana bhagwan

think about it !

April 4, 2004

Namaste all,

Somehow got disconnected from the network. Anyway, we were

discussing something that was seemingly going nowhere. However, let

me make certain points clear here. Hopefully it would make my stance

clear:

1. There are certain things we shall have to say in vyavaharika terms

when we are not enlightened. If we go on saying that we are already

truly the self and so on and so forth, it will lead nowhere. So when

I say, there is ignorance, I mean it from the standpoint of the

person who is yet not enlightened. If we were all already

enlightened, the very purpose of any scripture would be lost. So

generally, when I say 'you are ignorant', I donot mean the Self, I

mean the unenlightened you, which is an illusion alright. But if that

unenlightened you is an illusion, why do we feel so sorrowful when

say someone dies (no offense please) or say something catastophic

happens.

2. When I say the Veda is pramana, in the sense of evidence, i mean

it as evidence. For example, we can see so many people riding

bicycles. It is evidence that 'we can balance'. But even though we

accept this at the intellectual level, when coming to ride a bicycle,

the uninitiated still has the ignorance deep in his mind 'I cannot

balance'. This when done away with can help him do away with fear of

falling from a bicycle and hence ride a bicycle.

But this does not reduce the Vedas to anything lesser. The very fact

that they are evidence of true knowledge means that they are revered.

But they are somebody else's truth. Our own truth come's through our

own realization. This will surely not be different from their truth,

but we have realized it only now. It is just like, 'I can balance' is

true. But the truth is lived by those who can ride a bicycle. I will

live this truth too when I learn to balance. Till then of course, 'I

can balance' is true, but the fact remains that I am full of

ignorance.

Similarly, the evidence to the fact that 'Tat tvam asi' is in the

Shruthi. No doubt this is our true nature already, but we haven't yet

realized it.

Also, when I say evidence, I think it is being misinterpreted as

reference. Are they synonyms? Evidence is a fact. An embodiment of a

truth. A reference is used for verification. The reference may change

and evolve. But the evidence never changes, it is the embodiment of

the truth.

When I say you need a 'something else', I do not say that it is for

verification or checking my result. I mean that it must be realized,

and that too, for our own sake, not for the sake of verification.

3. When I point out something through an analogy, it must not be

construed to think that all arts when mastered will lead to knowledge

of the Self. It is wrong. The analogy is drawn just to give way to

understanding. Not to be thought of as method for realizing the

truth.

4. When ashtanga yoga is practiced, it is not that something is felt.

No I never said this. I said, this ashtanga yoga is necessary to

develop tranquility of the mind, which are necessary for realization.

The key word is develop. Isn't antahkarana shuddhi needed? Can

liberation come without it? Therefore it is essential.

Ashatanga yoga is not just asana and pranayama. Yoga has to be

understood better. Yoga is the practice that leads to samadhi, at

which point the mind becomes tranquil. But after that we need Prajna

(Anyone familiar with Patanjali's yogasutras, would know that the

first chapter is all about this samadhi)

5. It is well taken and understood that tranquility of the mind is

not realization. I never said that even before. I only said, it LEADS

to realization, for in the presence of an agitated mind one can never

perceive the truth. Therefore obviously one must first tranquillize

the mind. That does not mean that we are not eternally that blissful,

we are, but we don't know it, for which unenlightened souls must

accept the frame of time and say, 'first tranquility, then

realization'.

6. The point that Sravana can lead to realization if you are detached

is assuming that being detached is different from being enlightened.

True detachment does not come without enlightenment. Just renouncing

the object of desire (pratyahara) will not make you detached. What

makes you detached is when in presence of the object of desire, the

sense is in contact with the object, but you are still not swayed by

the emotions or you do not derive any enjoyment from it. (Vishaya

vinivartante niraharasya.... from BhagavadGita ch 2)

But if he is already detached, what does he need Sravana for? What is

mukti meant for? It is to know our true nature. Why should we know

our true nature? Are we trying to satisfy our curiosity here? No. We

should know our true nature to know that we are never sorrowful. This

knowledge itself is meant for doing away with sorrow. What is moksha

then? It is the knowledge that I am blissful. A person who is already

detached is already blissful, and he knows that too. If he does not,

he is not detached, for the sorrow (which arises from this ignorance)

is attached to him.

This knowledge of our true nature can come only if we develop the

faculty to be aware of the true nature of something (tranquility of

the mind). Once developed, we learn the true nature of sorrow and

suffering, and once we learn that these are borne out of ignorance,

we try to know the nature of ignorance, once that is done, we learn

that it is an illusion and that we were never ignorant, and hence no

sorrow. This is mukti. The part of knowing the nature of sorrow

onward is said to be very quick, once tranquility is acheived.

Therefore try to acheive transquility.

7. From this discussion, it should not be construed to think that we

are running away from sorrow. No, we are not. We are boldly facing

it, knowing its true nature and knowing that it is rooted in

ignorance, which is itself an illusion, we 'dismiss' it. Liberation

does not happen as a result of us running away from sorrow, but as a

result of us doing away with it.

9. Faith in the Shruthi is obviously there if they are regarded as

evidence. But this faith must not be thought to be regard for the

Shruthi as absolute. There is no room for the attitude 'shut up and

take them as they are.' They are evidence, alright. But their truths

need to be realized.

These truths cannot be realized by just Sravana. Just like we cannot

learn to ride a bicycle, by just noting the evidence that so many

people do so. Also we cannot learn to ride it by reading a book on

it.

This as many have pointed is because they are not direct knowledge.

This is alright. But what is direct knowledge? How do you define

direct knowledge? The answer to this is still not here. What is

direct knowledge and what is indirect knowledge? I fail to understand

how, just reading the Shruthi can enlighten an uninitiated person.

There are so many people in the worl who have read the Vedas and the

Upanishads. Are they all enlightened?

Now here you say, you need detachement for such enlightenment. But he

who is detached need no further enlightenment.

Anyway, in spite of all this. My invitation to Sri Ranjeet and Sri

Chittaranjan is still open. We are discussing everything else.

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

April 4, 2004

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

Another beautiful post the like of which we have all by now got addicted to.

Just some clarification to ensure that I understood you well.

You Wrote:

Liberation is not running away from sorrow; it is the sacrifice of the self to

bear the

greatest of sorrows. The self is the sacrificial offering on the altar of

knowledge. That Knowledge is again Self. There is nothing to get away from,

nowhere to reach, nothing to attain.

Venkat - M

"It is the sacrifice of the self ..." - This self is the ego.

"That knowledge is again self" - This self is our real nature that we have lost

sight of.

Please let me know if I got you right. Thanks and pranams,

Venkat - M

WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Mail Internet Cafe

Awards

April 5, 2004

Namaste, Chittaranjanji, and all learned members,

<<<When I say that the Vedas are eternal, I mean that the Vedas are eternal. The

Vedas abide eternally in Brahman. In their para state (and in paramarthika

sathya) they are identical with Brahman. You can't pull out the Vedas from

Brahman and throw them away like a thorn. It's not a question of whether there

is any use of the Vedas in paramarthika "level", it is a question of the nature

of Brahman.>>>

I am writing all these MORE FOR GETTING MY UNDERSTANDING CLEAR AND NOT WITH A

VIEW TO ENTER INTO ANY ARGUMENT OR DEBATE.

First of all, I do not want to be misunderstood, when I talked about Vedas being

not eternal. By saying this, in no way I had any intention to disrespect the

Vedas, i.e. the Four Vedas. All I wanted to say was the Vedas have their own

“place” in the context of Liberation.

Chittaranji is correct when he says, from the point of the Upanishadic dictum

“Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma”; that “the Vedas abide in Brahman”. However, from the

standpoint of Brahman,

Vedas are = Brahman is

Vedas are not = (still) Brahman is

(Like Necklace is = gold is, Necklace is not = (still) gold is). Better still,

Anatma is Atma, but Atma is not Anatma. I know these are all very basics and

known to everyone.

There is no doubt all abide in Brahman, but Brahman is free from all such

abiding, i.e. everything is Brahman or that Ultimate Truth, but Brahman is not

everything.

If this Knowledge is there in one, he is already ‘liberated’ and he has no need

for the Vedas.

One’s attachment to Shastra (Shastra eshana) is an obstacle for this knowledge,

like the other two eshanas, i.e. Vitta eshana and Loka esahana (attachment to

pleasurable objects, and attachment to Lokas, i.e. different plains of existence

including swarga, etc.)

The Vedas have a purpose, like any other knowledge. That purpose is Vedas are

Pramanam i.e. means of knowledge, for self knowledge, no doubt. They only

indicate the indicated, and they are not the indicated. They are only the means,

but not the end. The end is Liberation or Moksha.

Unless there is Vedana, even the thought of Liberation will not arise, as,

“Moksha or Liberation from ‘what’?”

Bandhana and Moksha are relatives, as one cannot exist without the other.

Whereas, Brahman, rather “Aham” is not relative, as It is Self Effulgent.

Though we all know, I may be permitted to mention, Adi Shankaracharya says in

Viveka Chudamani,

“atra anaatmani aham iti mati: bandha esha asya pumsa:

prapta: ajnaat jananamarana KLESHA sampatahetu:

yena eva ayam vapu: idam asat satyam iti atmabudhya

pushyati ukshati avati vishai: tantubhi:”

--Identifying the Self with non-Self, THIS IS THE BONDAGE OF MAN, which is due

to his ignorance, and brings in ITS TRAIN THE MISERIES OF BIRTH AND DEATH. It is

through this that one considers this evanescent body as real and identifying

oneself with it, nourishes, bathes, and preserves it by means of (agreeable)

sense objects, by which he becomes bund as the caterpillar by the threads of its

cocoon.---

The Bondage is due to the Dissatisfaction/or unhappiness/or dukha, due to

whatever may the cause, and the thirst for Moksha or Liberation is to remove

this Bondage. Till the Sastra came and told, I was not even aware that I had the

Ignorance, i.e. Ignorance of my own Self, i.e. though I know “I exist” (which is

Self Effulgent) I had no knowledge of the real nature or Swaroopa of that “I”.

And that led me to make an erroneous conclusion.

Shankaracharya continued to say ‘how this bandage’ can be destroyed:

“na astrai: na sastrai: anilena vahnina

chetum na sakhya: nacha karma kotibhi:

VIVEKA vijanana maha asina vina

Dhatu: prasadena shitena manjuna”

----This bondage can be destroyed neither by weapons nor by wing, nor by fire,

nor by millions of acts enjoyed by scriptures and done with motives, - by

nothing except the wonderful sword of knowledge that comes of discrimination,

sharpened by grace of the Lord---(Grace of the Lord means, Grace of Atma itself

or Atmakrupa, as Atma is nothing but Brahman, being the Ultimate Lord).

Viveka or intellectual discrimination, backed by self knowledge as unfolded by

the Upanishads and Taught by Guru, is very important for Liberation. So

intellect plays a very important role in the context of Liberation. It is

therefore not correct to say “one should go beyond the intellect to know the

self”. Any knowledge, even the knowledge of Jeeva Brahma Aikyam, like any other

knowledge, can take place only in intellect.

All what is said by me above is, no doubt, known to us all, but why I said all

these is just to place my understanding before the learned members that “Vedas

have their own place” and although They, the Vedas, like anything and

everything, abide in Brahman or the (ultimate) Truth, Brahman or Truth is not

Vedas.

It is only in this context that the analogy or example of “thorn” was mentioned,

and not in any way to disrespect the Vedas. I am still holding on to the tail of

the elephant only (not even tail only a hair on the tail) and I hope some day,

with the help of learned ones’ indicating, I can have the Vision of the

Elephant, the Indicated.

With warm regards and Hari Om

Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:Namaste Mani-ji,

When I say that the Vedas are eternal, I mean that the Vedas are

advaitin/

advaitin

Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

April 5, 2004

Namaste Venkatramanji,

Thank you for your kind words. Yes, that is what I meant.

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

advaitin, S Venkatraman <svenkat52> wrote:

>

> Namaste Chittaranjanji,

>

> "It is the sacrifice of the self ..." - This self is the ego.

>

> "That knowledge is again self" - This self is our real nature

> that we have lost sight of.

>

> Please let me know if I got you right. Thanks and pranams,

>

> Venkat - M

>

> WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Mail

Internet Cafe Awards

>

April 5, 2004

Hi Chittaranji,

In reply to Maniji, you said:

"When I say that the Vedas are eternal, I mean that the Vedas are

eternal. The Vedas abide eternally in Brahman. In their para state

(and in paramarthika sathya) they are identical with Brahman. You

can't pull out the Vedas from Brahman and throw them away like a

thorn. It's not a question of whether there is any use of the Vedas

in paramarthika "level", it is a question of the nature of Brahman."

I'm afraid I have to agree with Maniji here. The vedas are expressions of

concepts. Very profound concepts, to which one can refer with confidence as

a source of knowledge. But their understanding is at the level of mind only

and the mind must be transcended in order to reach the ultimate. As Maniji

says, it is like the thorn to remove the thorn. Once it has fulfilled its

purpose, both are discarded. The idea is that we absorb the essence of what

the shruti tells us in the same way that we digest food and extract the

goodness. The mere words are then 'excreted' (this metaphor from Sri

Atmananda). Their real value is to prompt one to find a guru, as I think you

implied in one of your earlier posts.

Ramana says: "The sacred lore is voluminous, different parts of it being

adapted to the needs of different kinds of seekers; each seeker successively

transcends portion after portion of it; that which he transcends then

becomes useless and even false; ultimately he transcends the whole of it."

(Quoted in 'Maha Yoga' by Sri K. Lakshmana Sarma)

(Excellent post on the meaning of words, incidentally!)

Best wishes,

Dennis

April 6, 2004

Namaste Dennisji,

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

>

> I'm afraid I have to agree with Maniji here. The vedas are

> expressions of concepts. Very profound concepts, to which one

> can refer with confidence as a source of knowledge. But their

> understanding is at the level of mind only and the mind must

> be transcended in order to reach the ultimate. As Maniji

> says, it is like the thorn to remove the thorn. Once it has

> fulfilled its purpose, both are discarded. The idea is that we

> absorb the essence of what the shruti tells us in the same way

> that we digest food and extract the goodness. The mere words

> are then 'excreted' (this metaphor from Sri Atmananda). Their

> real value is to prompt one to find a guru, as I think you

> implied in one of your earlier posts.

>

> Ramana says: "The sacred lore is voluminous, different parts of

> it being adapted to the needs of different kinds of seekers;

> each seeker successively transcends portion after portion of it;

> that which he transcends then becomes useless and even false;

> ultimately he transcends the whole of it."

> (Quoted in 'Maha Yoga' by Sri K. Lakshmana Sarma)

I am also in agreement with you and Maniji -- as far as the utility

of the Vedas go (utility being the context of Shri Ramana Maharshi's

words, I believe). By saying that the Vedas are eternal, I wasn't

speaking of their utility but of their existential status. I

understand the Vedas as being identical to Brahman. They arise from

Brahman - that is creation. They subside into Brahman - that is

dissolution. But all the time - in creation and dissolution - they

are Brahman. That is the way I understand the Poornam of Brahman.

(Perhaps Nairji would like to comment on whether my understanding of

poornam is correct.)

> The vedas are expressions of concepts. Very profound concepts,

> to which one can refer with confidence as a source of knowledge.

Vedas are the sphurana of Brahman, and the meaning of the Vedas is

the universe as the expression of Brahman.

> But their understanding is at the level of mind only and the

> mind must be transcended in order to reach the ultimate.

As you are aware, the meaning of the word "transcend" is quite

tricky. The transcendental is neither separate from nor identical to

that which it transcends. Once the mind is transcended, the mind is

nothing but Brahman. The wave is not different than the ocean.

To understand is to "stand under" and see. This standing under is to

transcend or be "separate from" and see. What is seen is one's own

nature, prakriti, which is "not separate" from the Self. To be

transcendental or to be immanental is all within the Leela of Brahman

only.

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

April 6, 2004

Namaste Chittaranjanji.

You are right, Sir. In fact, all creation is pUrNam if rightly

understood as I have endeavoured to elaborate in my reply to

Bhaskarji yesterday.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

__________________________

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Namaste Dennisji,....................

>

By saying that the Vedas are eternal, I wasn't

> speaking of their utility but of their existential status. I

> understand the Vedas as being identical to Brahman. They arise from

> Brahman - that is creation. They subside into Brahman - that is

> dissolution. But all the time - in creation and dissolution - they

> are Brahman. That is the way I understand the Poornam of Brahman.

> (Perhaps Nairji would like to comment on whether my understanding

of

> poornam is correct.)

April 6, 2004

Hi Chittaranjanji,

Regarding the status of the Vedas and their utility versus 'existential

status':

I suppose we probably do agree, in fact, but I feel there is that usual

element here of a vyavahAra versus paramArthika confusion. Obviously in

'reality' the Vedas are Brahman - but then everything is, so it seems that

nothing is really being said here, or needs to be. Surely, the only

relevance of the discussion is in the relative realm, in which sphere the

Vedas serve as a source of knowledge to enable a seeker to understand

(intellectually) the truth. Now, if you are saying that this *knowledge* is

Brahman, then I do not disagree with you. But, to my mind, the Vedas as such

are words which are very much in the realm of vyavahAra and function at the

level of the mind.

Do you now agree that we agree?

Best wishes,

Dennis

<<