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

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kathirasanji,

 

Good of you to point out that karma yoga is necessary. I have dues

respect to Karma yoga and recognize that if one adheres to the four

pillars of Karma yoga, one can attain a clean mind.

 

However, Samadhi is the method normally adopted in the Jnana yoga

marga. I was advised about it by H H Sringeri Sharada peetham

himself, who understood my predicament very well. However certain

aspects of karma yoga have also been prescribed to me, for example

dana. Pure samadhi would not be be prescribed to anyone, I beleive.

But samadhi is extremely important.

 

However, I donot advice anyone else on it. I am not competent to

advise anyone. May not my statements be taken as advice.

 

I have a great regard for karma yoga also. Please let not the

importance of karma yoga, fizzle out. I do understand the importance

of Upasana, and Naimittika karma.

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji,

 

Shankara did comment on this Shanti Mantra found in the Brhadaranyaka

Upanishad. Have you found it?

 

 

bhaskar.yr [bhaskar.yr]

Monday, April 19, 2004 8:21 PM

advaitin

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

topic)

 

 

 

Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji wrote on 7th of April 2004:

 

Thus, Bhaskarji, in conclusion, jagat is sad-vastu misunderstood, like the

mis-seen tree, miscognized Devadatta and the mistaken snake on the rope. The

mis-seen, miscognized, mistaken, or misapprehended jagat is pUrNa as the

sad-vastu it really is. So, where is the change now. The contention that

the world changes is in fact as erroneous as the zig-zagness the astigmatic

imposes on the normal tree. I cannot go any farther than this. I hope I

have carried you with me.

 

praNAm Sri Nair prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

How long this business of seeing continue is my humble question to you

prabhuji?? is this seer & being seen in parabrahman continue for ever?? If

it get stopped at some point of time...when is it?? Pls. clarify.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

 

 

 

------------------------ Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy

Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer

at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.

http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511

http://us.click./mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/XUWolB/TM

---~->

 

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

[Guest guest]

advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...>

wrote:

> Namaste Bhaskarji,

>

> Shankara did comment on this Shanti Mantra found in the

Brhadaranyaka

> Upanishad.

 

Namaste,

 

Prof. Krishnamurthy-ji gave the reference: Brihadaranyaka V:i:1

(Message #22128)

 

Shankara-bhashya on this extends over 8 pages! (also translated by

Sw. Madhavananda).

 

Sw. Krishnananda's summary is at URL:

 

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brdup/brhad_V-01.html

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Prof. Krishnamurthy-ji gave the reference: Brihadaranyaka V:i:1

(Message #22128)

 

Shankara-bhashya on this extends over 8 pages! (also translated by

Sw. Madhavananda).

 

praNAm Sri Sunder prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Thats really great news for me. Thank you prabhuji. First, it is always

better to check what our achArya says on this, based on that we can always

construct our intellectual answers whichever way suits us!!!

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Naikji & Bhaskarji,

 

I am getting the feeling that both of you are discussing from two different

standpoints, 1) drshti-srshti vada & the other 2) srshti-drshti vada.

However from my understanding both will lead to Ajata Vada (which is

paramarthika drshti). I do feel that the seeker moves in this progression:

 

Srshti-drshti vada --> drshti-srshti vada --> ajata vada

 

 

Chittaranjan Naik [chittaranjan_naik]

Friday, May 07, 2004 2:27 PM

advaitin

Re: pUrNamadah pUrNamidam... revisited (April 04 topic)

 

 

Namaste Shri Bhaskarji,

 

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> bhaskar:

>

> AVIDYA according to my understanding:

>

> (1) avidyA is not a shakti & it does not have its own

> existence so, no question of its efficient & material cause

> in srushti prakriya.

>

> (2) Whenever I mention the word *avidyA* it is to be

> understood that it is natural (naisargikaH) to human mind.

>

> (3) The basic 3 natures of avidyA are firstly, non-perception

> or non-apprehension also called in sanskrit agrahaNa

> (tattvAgrahaNa), secondly, misconception or misunderstanding

> also famously called adhyAsa/anyatha grahaNa/ anyatha

> jnAna/viparIta grahaNa/mithyA pratyaya etc.etc. & finally

> doubting also called samShaya.

>

> (4) This avidyA which is quite natural to *human mind* & it

> has neither avaraNa nor vikShEpa shakti as mUlAvidyAvAdins say.

> So, no question of efficient & material cause either!!

 

 

CN:

 

Okay, let's see what your assertions lead to. This world is seen. It

needs no shruti to tell us that. Now, even if this world is an

illusion, the fact that there is illusion cannot be denied i.e., it

cannot be denied that there is a projection of world appearance.

Since avidya has no vikshepa shakti, avidya cannot be the origin of

this projection. What you call the first "nature" of avidya, i.e.,

non-perception, cannot generate the world appearance because non-

perception cannot present perceptions. The second nature,

misconception, cannot present the world appearance because

misconception has no power of presentation but only of misconceiving

presented things. The third "nature", doubt, cannot present the world

appearance because doubt can only flit between presented things and

not present the things themselves. So what is the origin of this

world appearance?

 

You say that avidya is not a shakti. Do you admit that there is

shakti at all?

________________

> CN:

>

> Do you realise what you are asserting? It is like saying "All

> of this world, including all the sentences I speak, are false,

> but this statement is true!".

>

> bhaskar:

>

> I am not telling this or that statement is true, I am tellin

> ONLY parabrahman is true & which is beyond our speech &

> mind..yatO vAcho....

 

CN:

 

When you say "I am telling ONLY parabrahman is true", it is still in

the realm of speech and is therefore false because you claim that the

entire world including all sentences are false. Based on your own

position, even statements asserting the existence of Self also become

false. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, you are a kind of a

nihilist.

__________________

 

 

We will discuss the other things in your post after we resolve the

two issues presented above.

 

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

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Kathirasan-ji,

 

advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...>

wrote:

> Namaste Naikji & Bhaskarji,

>

> I am getting the feeling that both of you are discussing

> from two different standpoints, 1) drshti-srshti vada &

> the other 2) srshti-drshti vada. However from my understanding

> both will lead to Ajata Vada (which is paramarthika drshti).

> I do feel that the seeker moves in this progression:

>

> Srshti-drshti vada --> drshti-srshti vada --> ajata vada

 

 

Thank you for your post Kathirasanji because it gives me an

opportunity to clarify what I am saying without getting into an

endless debate.

 

I am approaching this discussion through shrshti-drshti-vada i.e.,

that, as far as the jiva is concerned, there is creation. The jiva

can never authentically state that only what is perceived is what is

existing. When I (a jiva) see a tree, the back side of the tree

exists. The tree also exists when I am not perceiving it. In the

revelation of truth, the tree disappears as an independent existence

and is seen to be not other than Self (Brahman) itself. In the

revelation of Truth it is seen that there is no creation because from

the standpoint of Brahman there is nothing other than Him. The

statement that there is no creation does not mean that the world

vanishes; it is merely the recognition that this world is not other

than Brahman. It is always existent undifferentiated from Brahman.

Brahman is eternally and unchangingly purna.

 

As regards non-creation, I would rather use the word "vivartavada"

instead of "ajativada". There is nothing created, nothing destroyed,

because everything is pre-existent eternally in Brahman. How can that

which is pre-existent in the cause be born again? The realm of nama-

rupa is not false, but the illusion of difference and change that it

portrays is false. Everything always is. In realisation, the world

doesn't go away -- for realisation is the pratyabhijna that the world

is not other than Brahman. All talk of adhyasa is only in the

illusion of duality wherein the vision of paramarthika sathya is

ungraspable by the mind and is often mistakenly imagined to be like

deep sleep. The description of paramarthika sathya from the

standpoint of vyavaharika is necessarily tinged with the language of

the mystical. In the mystic weave of anirvacaniya, the world is not,

and the world is.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

i am reminded of the following Subhashita (a wise saying) after

reading all these interesting discussions on .....

PURNAMIDAM ........'

 

 

Kakaha Krishnaha Pikaha Krishnaha

 

Ko bhedaha ? Pikaha Kakaha?

 

Vasantha samaye Prapte

 

Kakaha kakaha Pikaha pikaha !

 

 

The crow is black, and the cuckoo is black.

 

What is the difference between the two ?

 

It is when spring arrives that the crow is identified as the crow, and

the cuckoo, the cuckoo.

 

Enjoy The weather!

 

love and blessings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- In advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...>

wrote:

> Namaste Naikji & Bhaskarji,

>

> I am getting the feeling that both of you are discussing from two

different

> standpoints, 1) drshti-srshti vada & the other 2) srshti-drshti

vada.

> However from my understanding both will lead to Ajata Vada (which is

> paramarthika drshti). I do feel that the seeker moves in this

progression:

>

> Srshti-drshti vada --> drshti-srshti vada --> ajata vada

>

>

> Chittaranjan Naik [chittaranjan_naik]

> Friday, May 07, 2004 2:27 PM

> advaitin

> Re: pUrNamadah pUrNamidam... revisited (April

04 topic)

>

>

> Namaste Shri Bhaskarji,

>

>

> advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

> > bhaskar:

> >

> > AVIDYA according to my understanding:

> >

> > (1) avidyA is not a shakti & it does not have its own

> > existence so, no question of its efficient & material cause

> > in srushti prakriya.

> >

> > (2) Whenever I mention the word *avidyA* it is to be

> > understood that it is natural (naisargikaH) to human mind.

> >

> > (3) The basic 3 natures of avidyA are firstly, non-perception

> > or non-apprehension also called in sanskrit agrahaNa

> > (tattvAgrahaNa), secondly, misconception or misunderstanding

> > also famously called adhyAsa/anyatha grahaNa/ anyatha

> > jnAna/viparIta grahaNa/mithyA pratyaya etc.etc. & finally

> > doubting also called samShaya.

> >

> > (4) This avidyA which is quite natural to *human mind* & it

> > has neither avaraNa nor vikShEpa shakti as mUlAvidyAvAdins say.

> > So, no question of efficient & material cause either!!

>

>

> CN:

>

> Okay, let's see what your assertions lead to. This world is seen.

It

> needs no shruti to tell us that. Now, even if this world is an

> illusion, the fact that there is illusion cannot be denied i.e., it

> cannot be denied that there is a projection of world appearance.

> Since avidya has no vikshepa shakti, avidya cannot be the origin of

> this projection. What you call the first "nature" of avidya, i.e.,

> non-perception, cannot generate the world appearance because non-

> perception cannot present perceptions. The second nature,

> misconception, cannot present the world appearance because

> misconception has no power of presentation but only of

misconceiving

> presented things. The third "nature", doubt, cannot present the

world

> appearance because doubt can only flit between presented things and

> not present the things themselves. So what is the origin of this

> world appearance?

>

> You say that avidya is not a shakti. Do you admit that there is

> shakti at all?

> ________________

>

> > CN:

> >

> > Do you realise what you are asserting? It is like saying "All

> > of this world, including all the sentences I speak, are false,

> > but this statement is true!".

> >

> > bhaskar:

> >

> > I am not telling this or that statement is true, I am tellin

> > ONLY parabrahman is true & which is beyond our speech &

> > mind..yatO vAcho....

>

> CN:

>

> When you say "I am telling ONLY parabrahman is true", it is still

in

> the realm of speech and is therefore false because you claim that

the

> entire world including all sentences are false. Based on your own

> position, even statements asserting the existence of Self also

become

> false. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, you are a kind of a

> nihilist.

> __________________

>

>

> We will discuss the other things in your post after we resolve the

> two issues presented above.

>

> 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

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kathirasanji.

 

In my opinion, bringing in theories of creation constitutes a

digression. Bhaskarji's disagreement will vanish if he can accept

the following:

>From tat twam asi and aham brahmAsmi, we derive I AM THAT and, THAT

being the Consciousness of Advaita, I AM CONSCIOUSNESS.

Jagat appears as an objectification in Consciousness. All the

objects of the world are in Consciousness or Awareness.

Consciousness being Fullness is not divisible. It cannot have parts.

It cannot therefore appear as plurality. If the world therefore

appears as objects and experiences, then that appearance is against

advaitic logic and, therefore, an error. When the error is seen

through, the world, which constitutes the limited seer and diverse

seen, resolves into a single Oneness that is Fullness and, therefore,

Me. That is the essential pUrNatwa of the jagat that seems divided

through error but is not actually other than Me, the THAT and Brahman

of the mahAvAkyAs.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________

 

advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...>

wrote:

> I am getting the feeling that both of you are discussing from two

different

> standpoints, 1) drshti-srshti vada & the other 2) srshti-drshti

vada.

> However from my understanding both will lead to Ajata Vada (which is

> paramarthika drshti). I do feel that the seeker moves in this

progression:

>

> Srshti-drshti vada --> drshti-srshti vada --> ajata vada

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Kathirasanji.

>

> In my opinion, bringing in theories of creation constitutes a

> digression. Bhaskarji's disagreement will vanish if he can accept

> the following:

>

> From tat twam asi and aham brahmAsmi, we derive I AM THAT and,

THAT

> being the Consciousness of Advaita, I AM CONSCIOUSNESS.

> Jagat appears as an objectification in Consciousness. All the

> objects of the world are in Consciousness or Awareness.

> Consciousness being Fullness is not divisible. It cannot have

parts.

> It cannot therefore appear as plurality. If the world therefore

> appears as objects and experiences, then that appearance is

against

> advaitic logic and, therefore, an error. When the error is seen

> through, the world, which constitutes the limited seer and

diverse

> seen, resolves into a single Oneness that is Fullness and,

therefore,

> Me. That is the essential pUrNatwa of the jagat that seems

divided

> through error but is not actually other than Me, the THAT and

Brahman

> of the mahAvAkyAs.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ______________________

 

 

Namaste Sri Nairji,

 

I think Sri Kathiresanji is right in his views, which also means you

are right in your views but Bhaskarji is more right in his views

than you are.

 

I tell myself enough is enough, all that has to be said has been

said, but each time I see your arguments, I feel I can't let it go

at that, just so that a future reader will not take away a false

impression from the discussion. Sri Bhaskarji has kept up his

relentless pursuit of truth by quoting so many scriptural

injunctions so far - my sincere praNAms to him. Here is my last

attempt at trying to make some sense on this topic.

 

What is the standard by which you are judging this teaching about

aatman and the jagat? The external world alone, as we

perceive/conceive it would be our universe if we limit ourselves to

the senses, the mind and the intellect. It seems you are talking

from this perspective. This is a partial view of the common man -

loka-dRshTi, vyavahAra dRshTi, the empirical view. This view is

based on observation, experimentation and to some extent logic, this

is what your argument looks like. The adjectives fullness,

indivisible, without parts, are all still very empirical - a strong

dependence on reason and logic.

 

Atman, the real I in us is very distinct from the ego according to

the upanishads. There is nothing beyond it, there is nothing that

doesn't come under its purview - ALL triadic transactions -

perceiver/perception/percepts, conceiver/conception/concepts,

experiencer/experience/experienced - all these are transacted in its

embrace. Where then is the question of fullness, indivisibility,

etc.? The world is at best "A manifestation of brahman", not its

pAramArthic reality. So the most you can say of it is it

is "seemingly real" when in its sthiti state, it has a pralaya state

in which is completely imperceptible. It is mitya. However, the

empirical world of thoughts, words and objects does not exist apart

from brahman. It is an appearance essentially one with brahman.

 

Are you ready to state that the world (jagat) is the ultimate

reality or parabrahman itself? If so, everything else is really real

too - including all inert senses, body, intellect, etc. (We know

that can't be true, as all these are visibly fleeting.) That which

is anitya is apUrNa. How do you reconcile nityA-anitya-vastu viveka

as one of the sAdhana catushtaya sampathi if all there is is only

brahman? Or, for that matter what is the point of adhyAsa bhAshya of

the brahma sUtras if all there is is only brahman?

 

The shAstra dRshTi or the paramArtha dRshTi is the really real view

point of the vedAnta shAstras of the upanishads. This view takes

into account the whole of reality, not only those accessible to the

mind, senses and the intellect. All states are considered - waking,

dream and deep sleep, as also sRshTi, sthiti and pralaya. The

ultimate standards used to judge in this view point are Intuition

and common experience. Intuition is the faculty of knowing without

the use of rational processes.

 

Besides, brahman of the upanishads is unobjectifiable by thought or

word, yet it is to be instructed and suggested as this is the topic

of the upanishads! Several methods are in vogue in the upanishads to

teach the ultimate reality, the most important one being adhyAropa

apavAda (method of super-imposition and rescission). For a novice

like me it would be hard to decipher the method employed - whether a

universal truth is narrated straight without any techniques, or if a

truth is couched in the guise of an adhyAropa (super-imposition),

only later to be rescinded (apavAda)and truth arrived at. Similarly,

it is sometimes hard to decipher whether a revelation is from the

pAramArthic view or from a vyAvahAric view, or is it a jnAna vAkya

or a upAsanA vAkya, is it about sa-upAdhika brahman or nirguNa

brahman. This is precisely why an eligible student has to be

systematically taught by a brahmanishTa to really see the light of

the upanishads. Otherwise, each one interprets it in his own way -

according to his own eligibility. The best we can do is to reconcile

all upanishadic truths to the best of our ability with the tools we

have. With that said, the world is super-imposed on the

attributeless brahman, and that sa-upAdhika brahman is what is

described as "idam" in this shloka. We can only guess that the Guru

may lead the aspirant through the rescission further and teach the

nirguNa brahman. How else can you reconcile this with other

pAramArthic truths mentioned in this thread earlier?

 

This is my sincere attempts to help the dead-lock in the thread.

Hope it helps somewhat. Sorry if I sound like a broken record.

Please also refer to message# 22442 from Prof. KrishNamUrthy where

he confirms what Sri.Kanchi paramAchArya says about jagat being only

seemingly real.

 

Regards,

Savithri

>

> advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...>

> wrote:

> > I am getting the feeling that both of you are discussing from

two

> different

> > standpoints, 1) drshti-srshti vada & the other 2) srshti-drshti

> vada.

> > However from my understanding both will lead to Ajata Vada

(which is

> > paramarthika drshti). I do feel that the seeker moves in this

> progression:

> >

> > Srshti-drshti vada --> drshti-srshti vada --> ajata vada

[Guest guest]

Namaste Savitriji.

 

I notice that you are worked up for no reason and biased too. I

wouldn't, therefore, like to have any further exchanges with you at

least on this subject. I know that many others on this List have

shared my frequency and that itself is a chastening thought. They

may answer you if they so desire.

 

Please don't worry - your post is already there for posterity to read

and be led in the proper direction.

 

I am supposed to be leading a discussion. I am, therefore, really

sorry to have inadvertently given the impression of arguing

unnecessarily. If I have commented on Kanchi Paramacharya's

commentary or Prof. Krishnamurhyji's post, I have also offered the

logic for it. It was not a sign of disrespect to anyone. Please let

me therefore pack up peacefully and disappear.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________________

 

 

advaitin, "savithri_devaraj" >

 

I tell myself enough is enough, all that has to be said has been

> said, but each time I see your arguments, I feel I can't let it go

> at that, just so that a future reader will not take away a false

> impression from the discussion................

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Savithriji, and All,

 

With reference to “Idam” in the Mantra Poornamadaha. . . . . . .”

 

I see a lot of debates going on, and sometimes, I am afraid, such debates, seem

to have a basis on one’s deep respect/attachment for some particular teachers.

 

Why I write this mail is purely because my understanding of the mantra, as also

my approach to advaita, gets shaken, when I read some of the mails, and with

this background, I would like to refresh a bit:

 

When “Idam” is also Poornam, what exactly I understand is, Poornatwa rests not

with the attributes of Idam, but with its nature, i.e. not with Tatastha

Lakshana, but with Swaroopa. Tatasta Lalkshana always change on the changeless

Swaroopa of Idam. Reality is that which is not subject to vyabhicharitwam, i.e.

change, and not only that it has no beginning and it has also no end. That is

how reality is understood in the context of Advaita.

 

“Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahama” itself conveys “Idam” is also Brahman, which is

Poornam. So, may I say, IMHO, “Idam” stripped off its “nama and roopa” is

Brahman only, and Poornam only. Even with its attributes, Idam is Poornam.

 

How can thee be two/more than two Poornams? In fact there is only Poornam, (not

even one, but only Poornam), but “nama and roopa” apparently superimposes many

appearances on the same Poornam. Water appears in many places, a lake, a pond, a

river, a sea, and an ocean, etc. However, every drop of water is water only.

When one drop of water is taken from a mass of water, “waterness” both in the

mass of water and in the drop does not get affected. Similarly, when one drop of

water is added to a mass of water also, Waterness does not get affected in the

drop being added and also in the mass of water to which the drop is added.

Waterness has no connection with where or how the water appears. Similar is the

case of Poornam.

 

When we come across many teachers commenting on various aspects of Advaita,

IMHO, before accepting them, we should analyze their commentaries not only from

our understanding of the Sruti “Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma”, etc., but more than

that, whether such commentaries have also logic. Unless my intellect approaches

the commentaries with no bias, it is my humble opinion, we will miss the boat.

Instead of giving our heart we should give our head to whatever we come across,

and that only will amount to “getting taught”, otherwise it will mean “getting

preached”. In Advaita, and for that matter in any philosophy, preaching does

not work, as we are handling “Knowledge” and the place for Knowledge is head and

not heart.

 

Hope, I will not be misunderstood, but again may I say, we advaitins should be

open to all, but accept only that which our head can accept, i.e. Hamsabudhi.

 

Savithriji said, in her mail to Nairji:

 

<<<<< I think Sri Kathiresanji is right in his views, which also means you are

right in your views but Bhaskarji is more right in his views than you are.>>>>

 

I am afraid, ours is not a platform where we are supposed to judge that one is

good, the other is better and yet another is best. We are concerned with the

knowledge, and not views, and how it is presented is though important, what

ultimately counts is the knowledge itself. This is my humble “view”, and I hope

I am not hurting anybody, but at the same time, we should rather refrain from

making such comparison, as it does not help in our goal, rather it can become an

obstacle to our goal.

 

<<< What is the standard by which you are judging this teaching about aatman and

the jagat? The external world alone, as we perceive/conceive it would be our

universe if we limit ourselves to the senses, the mind and the intellect. It

seems you are talking from this perspective. This is a partial view of the

common man-

 

loka-dRshTi, vyavahAra dRshTi, the empirical view. This view is based on

observation, experimentation and to some extent logic, this is what your

argument looks like. The adjectives fullness, indivisible, without parts, are

all still very empirical - a strong

 

dependence on reason and logic. >>>>

 

Savithriji, First of all, we cannot go beyond mind, and it appears from your

above postings, that we should not rely on the vyvaharic world that appears

before us. We all know, for Dattareya the jagat or the world was his guru; he

found a guru in everything, from an ant to an elephant and even in a blade of

grass. As a matter of fact, the whole Advaitic knowledge is for only knowing the

jagat in the right way, and that, though I need not mention, logically and

intellectually, and not for rejecting the world in total. Otherwise, as you will

appreciate, Advaita also will be just another “ism” where everything is just

belief and faith. Advaita is Knowledge, and intellect and logic play a very

important part for one to appreciate and assimilate that knowledge. “TatwamAsi”

and Aham Brahmasi” though revelations, it is a Knowledge for me only when I use

my intellect and logic, with the help of my guru. It is not just because my guru

said or Veda says. Yes, we should have Sradha in Guru and

Veda, but that does not mean a blind sradha.

 

It is jagat that is useful to us all, and everything in this jagat has some use,

and it is created that way. Moreover, other than the Jagat what is there where I

can base my approach to the Teaching. What is said in the Sruties and by the

Seers, must be tested with what appears before me, and then only it becomes

useful to me. Whether the world is a projection on Brahman or not, for both

jnanis and agjnanis, the world is there to encounter. I hope jnanis and my

advaitin friends will agree with this.

 

The message of Vedanta, particularly Advaita, (IMHO!) is that world is not the

source of one’s happiness, rather freedom from suffering, i.e. one’s happiness

does not depend on the world. It does not say that the world or jagat is

useless. In fact Mithya is more useful to us than Satyam, so long as we continue

our journey.

 

I find there is nothing wrong in bringing the world while we try to unfold the

self. In fact, if the world is not there, who is there to unfold and unfold

what.

 

This is something I think we should appreciate.

 

<<<< Are you ready to state that the world (jagat) is the ultimate reality or

parabrahman itself? If so, everything else is really real too - including all

inert senses, body, intellect, etc. (We know that can't be true, as all these

are visibly fleeting.) That which is anitya is apUrNa. How do you reconcile

nityA-anitya-vastu viveka as one of the sAdhana catushtaya sampathi if all there

is is only

 

brahman? Or, for that matter what is the point of adhyAsa bhAshya of the brahma

sUtras if all there is is only brahman?>>>>

 

“Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma” unfolds everything seen and unseen is Brahman or

Parabrahman. That is why we worship even a rock, the sea, the trees, etc. That

is the beauty of Sanatana Dharma. It is not that “there is one God only”, for

us, and that is also the fact, “THERE IS ONLY GOD”.

 

<<<<<NityA-anitya-vastu viveka as one of the sAdhana catushtaya sampathi if all

there is is only

 

brahman? >>>>

 

Here itself, Viveka is given importance, i.e. one’s wisdom or discriminating

capacity which is one’s intellect itself. NityA-anitya-vastu viveka does not

mean we should totally reject the anitya, which, as a matter of fact we cannot

do. To me, it means Nitya vastu itself is Happiness, which is “I” and anitya

vastu is not a source of happiness. Or, whatever happiness one seems to get from

Anitya vastu is also Anitya.

 

Adhyasabhashya only corrects one’s knowledge about the seen jagat. Here again,

the Adhyasabhashya itself IS an analysis of the Jagat and not Brahman. If the

jagat was not there, there was no necessity for writing Adhyasa Bhashya.

 

<<< The shAstra dRshTi or the paramArtha dRshTi is the really real view point of

the vedAnta shAstras of the upanishads. This view takes into account the whole

of reality, not only those accessible to the

 

mind, senses and the intellect. All states are considered - waking, dream and

deep sleep, as also sRshTi, sthiti and pralaya. The ultimate standards used to

judge in this view point are Intuition and common experience. Intuition is the

faculty of knowing without the use of rational processes. >>>>

 

Common experience itself is possible only in vyvahara i.e. Jagat. We can take

into account only those accessible to the mind and intellect. Even Sastra take

them into account to arrive at the Ultimate Reaity. The prakriya “neti neti” is

used for that purpose. Here also, “neti neti” is for correcting the Knowledge,

AND not for negating or rejecting the object of knowledge.

 

<<< With that said, the world is super-imposed on the

 

attributeless brahman, and that sa-upAdhika brahman is what is described as

"idam" in this shloka. We can only guess that the Guru may lead the aspirant

through the rescission further and teach the nirguNa brahman. How else can you

reconcile this with other pAramArthic truths mentioned in this thread

earlier?>>>>

 

Attributeless Brahman, Saupadhika Brahman, Saguna Brahman, Nirguna Brahman, etc.

etc. all depends on what? If “I” is not there, where they will rest. In deep

sleep, are they there, where do they go, and how and why do they come? “I am

only there” or “Only I is there” this is the ultimate Knowledge. In the absence

of “I” nothing is there. That “I” is Pure Consciousness. This is Paramartha.

 

<<<< Please also refer to message# 22442 from Prof. KrishNamUrthy where he

confirms what Sri.Kanchi paramAchArya says about jagat being only seemingly

real.>>>>>

 

The question is whether Jagat is Poorna, and not whether real or unreal. My

understanding says, everything is Poorna in itself. Even an ant is poorna as it

has Kriya Shakti, Jnana Shakti and Ichha Shakti, to the extent it requires. It

can carry a sugar grain or a rice grain, and that Shakti is Poorna for it. It

need not desire to carry a big coconut, and that is not necessary for it. An

elephant eats 100 kilo of food every day, and I eat only 1 kilo everyday. I

need not eat 100 kilo, and even if I can eat 100 kilo, that does not change my

poornatwam. The Mantra says “Poornam Idam” and even with the attributes when you

look at it this way everything that appears in the Jagat is Poornam. The

Srushit is perfect in every sense, i.e. Poorna. It is only for us human beings

everything is imperfect, because we are self conscious. That is why the Sastra,

Guru, Nityanityaviveka etc. are only for Human Beings and not for animals etc.

 

A Fact is a Fact, because it is a Fact. Not because somebody said it. Who says

is important, but that importance is because of the fact they say; it is not the

other way, i.e. the fact is a fact because somebody said it. That may be the

reason why Vedas are silent about the authors; otherwise, people will worship

the authors and they may not care much for what is said by them. This is how

Bhakti is. People worship Krishna not because what He Taught. Most of the

Krishna Bhaktas do not even know anything about Gita. This is a sorry state of

affairs. I hope there is no misunderstanding when I write all these. I say all

these because, I notice we are always very fond of quoting Seers. There is

nothing wrong, but more often than not, the quoting reflects the quoter’s

attachment to the particular seer, and not on what he said. One is asked to

accept a statement, because so and so said it. This to my mind amounts to

emotional attachment, and in pursuing Knowledge, emotion is a great

obstacle. We have so many cults, isms, faiths, beliefs, etc. all just because

of this emotional attachment. A mind totally free from any bias or prejudice

only can see or know the Truth.

 

I earnestly request my learned members to feel free to correct my understanding,

as we are all in the group to learn. At the same time, I also apologize if any

of my statements hurt anyone in any manner.

 

Hari Om

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

savithri_devaraj <savithri_devaraj wrote:--- In

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Kathirasanji.

>

 

 

 

 

Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at HotJobs

 

 

[Guest guest]

My dear Maniji.

 

Your post 22740.

 

Having greedily read it over and over again, I now feel that you

should rightfully have led the discussion on pUrNamadah.. Thank you

very much for seeing idam in its proper perspective and also

elaborating on it so wonderfully.

 

My humble praNAms to you, your lofty thoughts and prolific pen.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste all ,

Maniji, an echo from me on what madathilji says.

There are just too many pearls in there and i hope i have the grace

to get them all. Somehow, it almost feels like, for the first time, I

am getting a clear perspective of how to use everything in the jagat

(rather than run away from them or dismiss them as illusion). Thanks

for the Dattatreya example ( digressing- reminds me of ekalavya who

had the bhava that dronacharya is his guru and became a master archer

without even dronaji being aware- knowledge can come from anything

and anywhere!), the water drop analogy,the example of an ant carrying

that bit of sugar being purna and all the many other treausres in a

mere one page. let me revel for a moment in the sense of fullness

 

Many thousand namaskarams to all advaitins

sridhar

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> My dear Maniji.

>

> Your post 22740.

>

> Having greedily read it over and over again, I now feel that you

> should rightfully have led the discussion on pUrNamadah.. Thank

you

> very much for seeing idam in its proper perspective and also

> elaborating on it so wonderfully.

>

> My humble praNAms to you, your lofty thoughts and prolific pen.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sridharji.

 

Kindly read Sw. Dayananda Saraswathiji to go ecstatic on this verse.

If you don't have a copy of his interpretation, I am prepared to type

out and send the whole text to you off-list just for the thrill of it

and my love for vEdAnta. It is so poetic and overpowering.

 

In fact,if there are no copyright violations involved, I would like

to do that for the whole list. Sunderji, kindly advise.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________________________

 

advaitin, "asridhar19" <asridhar19> wrote:

> There are just too many pearls in there and i hope i have the grace

> to get them all. Somehow, it almost feels like, for the first time,

I

> am getting a clear perspective of how to use everything in the

jagat

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> In fact,if there are no copyright violations involved, I would like

> to do that for the whole list.

 

Namaste,

 

If I recall correctly, Sw. Dayanandaji had given permission to

Ramchandranji to post any of his writings on this list. An extract

from one of these writings would certainly be in conformity with his

wish to propagate Vedanta, without violation of the copyright.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

namaste. It is nice to be back on the List again after

a satisfying six-month pilgrimage through spiritual

India. I have missed the full discussion on pUrNamadaH

pUrNamidam .. As some closing remarks are still being

made by the moderator (of the discussion) and still

some to- and fro- comments being made by the members,

I hope my comment below will not be considered too

late. If these points were already made earlier, my

apologies for stating them again. I did not go through

the full discussion on this topic yet, which I hope to

do in the next few weeks. The following is my understanding

of the first line of this mantra.

 

The question is what is adaH and what is idam ? It is likely

this mantra is part of samvAda at a gurukulam between a

guru and the disciples and the guru is explaining. The

disciples are all blessed with sAdhana catuShTayam so that

they can very well relate to some presence outside sensual

perception. The guru is using the word adaH to refer to

what is beyond the sensual perception and inference and the

word idam to what can be inferred, grasped by the senses.

We can visualize the guru's gesticulation by hands in

chanting this mantra. The word adaH refers to brahman,

the Absolute. The word idam is used to refer to everything

which the senses can perceive, infer using the six means

of knowledge.

 

The guru is saying: What is beyond the senses is infinite

or full. (All of us on the List are accepting this.)

The guru is further saying: What we can infer, know from

the senses is also infinite or full. Here, there seem

to be a difference of view, some saying that what is

inferred (necessarily, the jagat) is limited.

 

I think such cannot be the case for the following reasons:

 

1. If we say the jagat is limited, it means our senses

have inferred what all they can infer and there is nothing

beyond to be known or inferred. That would not hold because

everyday our sensual perception, both microscopically and

macroscopically, is increasing and more and more things are

added to the idam. Thus idam has also to be infinite.

 

2. Let us say for a moment that jagat (idam) is limited.

The idam has for its substratum the adaH and this forms

the latter half of line one of this mantra (pUrNAt

pUrNamudacyate). That is, from an infinite substratum,

the limited jagat arose. If the jagat is limited and the

substratum is infinite, there have to be a series of finite

idams arising. Such cannot be the case as idam can also be

one and infinite.

 

Our vedAnta is not concerned about increasing our intellectual

perceptions. vedAnta is arguing that whatever is inferred or

known by the senses, however infinite it is, they all owe their

existence to adaH. Without adaH, idam is not there. Further,

adaH is beyond the senses and is known only through idam,

by names and forms. Brahman can only be visualized through the

upAdhI-s only. Without upAdhI-s, adaH can never be known.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "gmurthy_99" <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

> namaste. It is nice to be back on the List again after

> a satisfying six-month pilgrimage through spiritual

> India

 

Namaste Gummuluruji,

 

A most cordial welcome back! Your rejuvenated vigor is already

evident!

 

Looking forward to stories of your pilgrimage also.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Welcome back Murthyji!

 

Love to all

Harsha

_____

 

gmurthy_99 [gmurthy]

Monday, May 10, 2004 4:25 PM

advaitin

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

 

 

 

namaste. It is nice to be back on the List again after

a satisfying six-month pilgrimage through spiritual

India.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "gmurthy_99" <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

>

> Our vedAnta is not concerned about increasing our intellectual

> perceptions. vedAnta is arguing that whatever is inferred or

> known by the senses, however infinite it is, they all owe their

> existence to adaH. Without adaH, idam is not there. Further,

> adaH is beyond the senses and is known only through idam,

> by names and forms. Brahman can only be visualized through the

> upAdhI-s only. Without upAdhI-s, adaH can never be known.

>

 

Namaste!

 

In this context, I wanted to share a shloka from shri NIlakanTha

DIkshita's AnandasAgarastva.

 

sattasi.akhanda sukha samvidasi trilokI

sarga sthiti pratihatiShvapi nirvyapeksha|

tvAmantareNa shiva ityavashishyate kim

ardham shivasya bhavatItyanabhijnavAdah|| 102

 

"You are Existence; You are Bliss and Consciousness; You are

independent in the acts of creation, sustenance and dissolution of

the three worlds; without you, what is left to be called shiva? It is

only the ignorant who say you are (only) half of shiva"

 

shri dIkshita indicates here that the Supreme Brahman can only be

recognized by means of tatasthalakShaNa i.e., the acts of creation,

etc. which pertain to shakti.

 

Harih Om!

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Murthyji.

 

A very very hearty welcome back. Immense thanks for your crisp and

insightful comments.

 

This discussion owes a lot to you, as you are the one who sent me a

copy of Sw. Dayananda Saraswathiji's interpretation of the verse from

Pune, without re-reading which I wouldn't have dared touch on the

topic. I, therefore, personally missed you at the beginning of this

discussion. I intend to type out and post that interpretation at the

List thorugh the coming weekend.

 

PraNAms and warmest regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Murthyji.

>

> topic. I, therefore, personally missed you at the beginning of this

> discussion. I intend to type out and post that interpretation at

the

> List thorugh the coming weekend.

>

> PraNAms and warmest regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

Namaste Madathilji and all Advaitins

 

I could not yet find Swami Dayananda Saraswathiji's commentary on

this nectarine verse. Your eagerness to share reminds me of the saint

who was given a mantra by his Guru with a warning that he was

supposed to keep it a complete secret and use it only for own

sadhana. Our sage, like a good disciple, agreed and the moment he

heard the mantra, filled with ecstatic joy ran out to the village and

started telling all and sundry ' here is the key to liberation. just

utter this wonderful mantra once- Om Namo Narayanaya namaha'.

 

If I can help in some way let me know. If you could e-mail me a

scanned image of the pages i could run it through OCR or type it out.

 

Below, a small and delighting excerpt from Swami Chinmayanda's

commentary on the verse from his book ' Isavasya Upanisad' - pages

64 , 65.

 

"A disciple, after living life fully and vitally, in the maturity of

his observations upon life's fleeting panorama and its endless pains,

seeks a Master to enquire of him if the goal of life be only pain and

death! He asks the Master there 1s not a greater goal to be achieved

in life than this meaningless hiking through pain to the abyss of

death!! As far as that young seeker's intellect is concerned, it

could never independently rip open the rag of matter and peep at the

Truth, if any, within.

 

Now the Master explains - and his explanation should necessarily be

indicative about the great goal of life - the secret of nature's

activities. It is to indicate that goal of life to the disciple that

the Master is using here the common pronoun 'That '; 'That goal of

life, O Disciple, about which you had been asking me, that is

whole. ' All Upanisads are attempts at indicating "That ' Infinite,

Eternal Goal through the finite language.

 

The Supreme Reality is a homogeneous, one entire 'Whole'. Since the

apparent appearances of multiple plurality are nothing but super-

impositions upon the Truth, they also constitute nothing but

the 'Whole'. Certainly, 'this Whole ' rises from 'that Whole. ' "

 

Swami chinmayanda's commentary on this verse runs to a delightful

four pages. Hope this excerpt gives a cool whiff of the total.

 

My love for this verse stems from the connect it offers a seeker, of

his inner attitude with all the perceptions that come and fall into

him. 40 odd days into the list and the discussions are still so young

and vibrant.

 

Many thousand namaskarams to all advaitins

Sridhar Aravamudhan

[Guest guest]

Dear Nairji, Harshaji, and other members

 

It is very nice of you to have gone through my posting. I know there were

portions in that mail, which may not have been appreciated by many. However, may

I say, it was written only in Advaitic Spirit, and I had no intention at all to

hurt the feelings of anybody.

 

I must also say, my joining this Group has been of great help to me, as I find

it is a platform where I can express myself fully, and also get clarifications

/get myself corrected.

 

Now days I am not able to attend any Satsangas, but I find our Group equally a

Satsanga.

 

Warm regards to all and Hari Om

 

 

 

 

 

Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at HotJobs

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Maniji:

 

I can't speak for Nairji but my feelings were not hurt.

Actually, I don't know Sanskrit and can't follow the verses in the original.

 

So you are all way beyond me in that league.

 

Shruti has such overwhelming beauty and it makes sense to me. I enjoy

reading the English translations.

 

I have my own home baked (not half-baked) views based on Sri Ramana's

teachings, the Upanishads, and my experience.

 

Sometimes I share them.

 

But no hurt feelings at all because I know most everyone here is very

sincere and I can agree with diverse point of views.

 

In Self, all views disappear completely.

 

Love to all

Harsha

_____

 

R.S.MANI [r_s_mani]

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 2:03 PM

advaitin

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

opic)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Nairji, Harshaji, and other members

 

It is very nice of you to have gone through my posting. I know there were

portions in that mail, which may not have been appreciated by many. However,

may I say, it was written only in Advaitic Spirit, and I had no intention at

all to hurt the feelings of anybody.

 

I must also say, my joining this Group has been of great help to me, as I

find it is a platform where I can express myself fully, and also get

clarifications /get myself corrected.

 

Now days I am not able to attend any Satsangas, but I find our Group equally

a Satsanga.

 

Warm regards to all and Hari Om