RE: pUrNamadah pUrNamidam... revisited (April 04 t opic)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Balaji

 

Antahkarana Shuddhi is gained by Karma Yoga alone. Karma Yoga is basically

the performance of one's Swadharma (Nitya Karmas, Naimittika Karmas &

Upasana) with the attitude of Ishwara Arpana Buddhi & Ishwara Prasada

Buddhi. Yogic disciplines can be included as part of Upasana.

 

best regards,

K Kathirasan

>

> Balaji Ramasubramanian [sMTP:balajiramasubramanian]

> Tuesday, April 13, 2004 2:28 AM

> advaitin

> Re: pUrNamadah pUrNamidam... revisited (April 04

> topic)

>

> Namaste Maniji,

>

> <<

> > I do not recollect my mentioning about "that prajna should be

> undertaken simultaneously along with Samadhi">>

>

>

> In your message numbered 22051, in the fourth para, you say:

>

> "In this context, the question of Anthakarana Shudhi is always

> brought up for Prama, i.e. knowledge to take place through Sabda

> Pramana i.e. knowledge of "Jeevabrahmaikyam" to take place. However,

> what is this degree of Anthakarana shudhi? I feel although antharana

> shudhi should be there to some extent, i.e. a mind free from

> prejudice, and full of Sradha for the words of the Shruties and

> the Guru, further anthakaranashudhi takes place side by side, slowly

> but certainly, as one proceeds with the assimilation of self

> knowledge. This assimilation requires not only one's own effort

> (Manana), but also guidance from a Guru and, and such guidance can be

> from the Bhashyas, and Bhashyakaras themselves are Gurus. The

> assimilation of the knowledge in my opinion, is very very important,

> without which though the knowledge is there, it will not help one to

> reach the goal."

>

> The 'Anthahkarana shuddhi', you have referred to here, takes place in

> two steps, pratyAhAra and samAdhi. The pratyahara step is simple

> abstention. It will not lead to complete antahkaraNa suddhi, in a new

> sadhak. He will require samadhi, to learn to keep his mind at peace

> whenever it drifts towards the object he abstains from. Also, at the

> same time, he requires, Prajna for two things - 1. for moving towards

> liberation, and knowing the true nature of oneself as perfectly

> equanimous and a non-doer. 2. for realizing that he loses nothing in

> abstention. These two have to go deep, penetrating to the roots of

> the mind.

>

> No matter how much manana we do, nothing much shall take place until

> prajna actually sets in. For example, after reading so much of

> advaita, all of us are ready to say: "This body is not me. I am the

> soul. I am boundless, infinite." etc. etc. But the moment a mosquito

> starts biting us, we kill it and say "Stupid mosquito, why doesn't it

> bite someone else?" or "Why does it have to bite?" or "Why do

> mosquitoes exist?" What happenned? You were just saying that the body

> is not you.....

>

> Manana can help only the upper levels of the mind called 'buddhi'.

> This knowledge must go deep to the deepest levels of the bodha

> consciousness and should become one with ourselves. For that, we need

> Prajna. Samadhi is to facillitate the process of Prajna. (The

> phrase, 'process of Prajna' must not be thought to be an action or

> karma. It is complete non-action. But again it is not inaction. It is

> best described as Infinite knowledge. Knowledge that penetrates the

> deepest levels of the mind.... The process itself is Prajna. It is

> referred to so, because to the beginning Sadhak, it appears like a

> process to him.)

>

> <<Even now, somehow, personally I have not understood what exactly

> this Samadhi is, and therefore, I could not have mentioned about

> it.>>>

>

> I concede, you did not mention Samadhi as it is. Nor did you

> mention 'Prajna', you mentioned 'antahkaraNa shuddhi'

> and 'knowledge'. But I thought you were referring to Samadhi while

> saying antahkaraNa shuddhi and Prajna while saying knowledge.

>

> <<You say "Thus Samadhi becomes an inevitable step. Unfortunately,

> not many even try out Samadhi, and they are attempting at Prajna!"

> Is it for release from all sorrows? >>

>

> Samadhi is not for release from all sorrows. This is something I held

> even earlier. But I did not know about Nrvikalpa Samadhi. I thought

> that it was more than just Samadhi, in fact I thought it is

> realization. But from what appears from Swami Dayananda's words and

> Bh. Ramana's words, Nirvikalpa Samadhi (NS) may not be Nirvana.

> Nirvana or Moksha as I used to think earlier also, should be

> acheivable only through Prajna (perfect knowledge, deeply

> penentrating the mind and revealing the Self) I am still not sure

> about NS. I have been told by many however, that it is the highest

> state of something something..... whatever it is irrelevent. My

> understanding of NS seems to be corrected. But I am still not worried

> about these understandings which are just at the level of the

> intellect 'buddhi'.

>

> <<Sri Sureshwaracharya in his commentary on Pancheekaranam (By

> Bhagavan Adi Shankaracharya) says

> > "aadimadhya avasaneshu dukham sarvam idam yataha,

> >

> > Tasmad sarvam parityajya tatwa nishtaha bhaved sadaa"

> > >>

>

> I liked this verse a lot. I can relate to it because of what I have

> been feeling for the last two three years now....

>

> > <<Regarding Prajna, in Mandukya Upanishad, Praajna is described as

> the "state" of consciousness associated with deep sleep. So, if I

> were to understand, with my background of knowledge of Praajna, when

> Parajna is there, it must be deep sleep state of the entity who

> was "awake". So, it cannot be Samadhi. >>

>

> Well, I think the word prajna over there is used in the context of

> sushupti. But it is also used as cognition in the vaishvanara and the

> taijasa states, in the same Upanishad. Just goes to show the

> Upanaishadic saying the self is Prajna always. (Here prajna refers to

> perfect knowledge)

>

> The word prajna has many meanings and is used according to different

> circumstances in the Upanishad. The literal meaning of the word

> prajna is understood by breaking it up as pra and jna. pra -

> pratyaksha, literally meaning, in front of our eyes, also meaning

> perfect, evident, evidence, etc. jna - JnAna, meaning knowledge.

>

> I am using the word prajna in the sense of "Perfect and evident

> knowledge" and not in the context of sushupti. If that were the case

> I would be branded as a person urging everyone to indulge in deep

> sleep and lethargy to attain Nirvana :-) something of a caravaka guy!

> And yes, it is not Samadhi.

>

> >

> > <<<If in reality (i.e. absolute), the world is full of sorrow, and

> also the entity who has sorrow, nothing can be done about it. If the

> reality of the world of sorrow, including the one who has sorrow, is

> just like the reality of the horns of a hare, again nothing need to

> be done. >>>

>

> No. We can still do something about it.... We can know it

> equanimously. The cessation of all sorrow comes from equanimity, our

> true nature also called Brahman. It is different from a tranquil and

> thoughtless mind.

>

> Anyway, the heart of the problem is not that. If the truth is that

> sorrow is inevitable and permanent, we shall not let it as it is. The

> problem is that there is sorrow. But we are burning in that sorrow.

> Why, I should not burn in it. If there is sorrow, so be it. It is my

> fault entirely that I am burning in it.

>

> If there is sorrow and it be permanent, I shall learn to face it

> boldly using Prajna, know its permanent nature, and not burn in it.

> If however, it is impermanent, we shall know even that. Again we face

> sorrow and suffering boldly, again through Prajna and know its

> impermanent nature and, therefore learn that there is no point in

> burning in something that is impermanent.

>

> But this knowledge of permanence or impermanence has to go to the

> deepest levels of the mind. Is anyone ready to test the

> statement 'Sorrow is impermanent.' Unfortunately, not many, for they

> think it would mean impudence and lack of faith in the scriptures. It

> is good to have placed one's faith in the words of great saints. But

> accepting them blindly is not good scientific spirit. One must test

> it ourselves. Why, the ancient gurus used to urge us to test it.

>

> You might think of it as skepticism. But it is not so. When we

> perform a laboratory experiment in electrical engineering, we have

> faith in the principles alright, but we test it, abandoning all

> beleifs for a while. When we test it, we donot lose faith in the

> principles. We gain more faith, when the results confirm theory. And

> if they do not, we are in the search for more knowledge to understand

> the underlying principles. (I don't know how many engineers we have

> here, but this happens very often when we are faced with Deep-sub-

> micron technology in VLSI. I am sure it happens elsewhere too. But we

> still have faith in these things.) I agree that in the case of

> spiritual knowledge one cannot realize anything different from the

> Truth, but an honest search for the truth can take place only if we

> abandon all our apprehensions of the truth.

>

> <<The whole problem is because of absence of knowledge about the

> nature of the reality of the world and I i.e. self. >>

>

> The problem is not to satisfy our curiosity of our true nature. But

> to know the nature of sorrow. In the process, we automatically come

> to know our nature as permanently blissful and devoid of sorrow. This

> knowledge of the self is consequential. The knowledge of the nature

> of ignorance and its impermanent, and therefore non-existent nature

> is primary. Note, the knowledge of the nature of ignorance is not

> Nirvana, but inevitable for the knowledge of our own self, which is

> Nirvana or Mukti.

>

> Your points on sanyas were very good. I am still however, thinking of

> other problems here.

>

> I think I must pray to the readers to understand my lack of good

> communication skills, which may lead to ambiguous statements being

> made. The sense in which I have used various terms here, should be

> first understood. However, please correct my language if it is found

> inappropriate. Please do furnish me with appropriate words or terms

> for things I am referring to. (For example prajna may be

> misunderstood, but the literal meaning of prajna is perfect

> knowledge.)

>

> I hope I haven't made any advise uncalled for. If they appear to you

> to be so, please mentally remove those portions on your own. They

> were not intended as advice. I am not qualified to advice people.

> (This is my own knowledge, nobody can qualify or disqualify me, I

> know that.)

>

> Any portion of the text here, if it did not appeal to you or did not

> satisfy you, you may:

> 1. Ask me to clarify

> 2. Dispose my words without giving it a second thought.

> My role is just to share my thoughts on the matter. May not whatever

> I say, be taken as advice.

>

> **************************************************************

>

> Namaste dadiji,

>

> You asked in your email to respond to your answer on Ramakrishna's

> idea of Samadhi. It however appears from there as though Samadhi is

> for giving up the body. So I decided to think more about it. If you

> think you can clarify it, please do so.

>

> Bh. Ramana's views on this and regarding Prarabdha are

> understandable.

>

> That message talks about 21 days and all that. Did the saints come

> back from Samadhi, just because they did not like to die? Or was it

> as Sri Ramakrishna says - to do good to the world.

>

> But isn't it possible to do good to the world only after realization?

> How come, nirvikalpa samadhi led to realization? Or is my

> understanding incorrect about NS?

>

> According to my understanding, Samadhi is not Moksha. But what is

> Nirvikalpa Samadhi? Is it Moksha? Is it the same as Samadhi or is it

> some special kind of samadhi, or is it realization itself?

>

> This is confusing. That is why I have said till now that I am not

> able to come to a satisfactory conclusion about it.

>

> Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

>

>

>

>

> 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

>

>

>

>