Guest guest Posted April 18, 2004 Report Share Posted April 18, 2004 Namaste, All, Some very important, though basic, issues are surfacing from the recent postings. I would like to add my two cents: Balaji said <<<This however appears to be, some vague belief or some story cooked up by some Hindu fanatics. Nevertheless, even if it is true, it is not of any great value, that we feel proud that Hinduism is the 'mother' of all other religions. It shall not lead to liberation. It is Dharma alone that leads to liberation. All religions are not born from this Dharma. They ARE this Dharma.>>> Most of the “Hindus” are happy with such cooked up stories. They never ponder into the real issue. “Instead of catching the horns, one catches the tail of a mad cow, to bring it under control” With the result the fellow gets dragged by the cow, and neither the cow is controlled, nor, not only he is not successful in controlling it, but he suffers more. He is “afraid” of catching the “horns” of the cow! By the way Balaji, what exactly is the meaning of Dharma. Somehow I cannot fully understand its meaning and implications. Siddhartha, who was born and bought up in luxury, who had never seen any suffering, never experienced any pain; on seeing suffering and pain all around, when he was exposed to the world at large, immediately went in search of Truth. This is what I learnt from many books dealing with the life of Budha. Instead of trying to mitigate the suffering and pain of the people around, which he could have done in a very big way, being the King himself, by following the Dharma of a King, he immediately left the scene and went for Truth. After suffering himself also for years at a stretch, when he found That Truth, he had nothing to convey to the people through words, but after becoming Budha, he lived every moment in Dharma. So, I think to live a life of Dharma, one must know what exactly is Dharma, i.e. knowledge of dharma. This Siddhartha did not know; otherwise he would not have gone for Truth instead of helping the people, as a king, to alleviate their sufferings. At the same time, what did Sri Rama do? On hearing the complaint of a washer man, to uphold the king’s dharma, he even banished his beloved wife, while he failed in his dharma as a husband. “Dharma sankata” i.e. confusion about dharma, which dharma one should uphold even at the cost of drifting away from another dharma is something we all face. If these lines hurt the feeling of anyone, I apologize, but I mention them only to understand intricacies in the context of Dharma. Sri Krishna Praasad said <<<Actually Brahmin means only Jati Brahmin as per your email, really all of us are Brahmins because we have Adavaita vasana! And most of us are Guna Brahmins. Not one who puts the Yagyobavidham but the quality of the mind should be Brahmin.>>> Birth into a Brahmin family, is like getting admission into a class-one school. Whether one studies there well or not, all depends on the fellow. For “Hindus” as a whole, Gita is a great blessing. However, the sacredness is for the book and not for what it says/teaches. All worship Gita; how many really wants to get taught by Gita! Every Christian has some idea of Bible and so is with Muslims. I know even people of old age, who are very particular about performing rituals, following “achara”, etc. etc. but they have no idea of the purpose of our Scriptures. They are satisfied with that. I am not attempting to criticize them, but they seem to have taken the means for the end. <<<<The GODs which Jati Brahmin's worship are not jati Brahmins! Lord Krishna was a Yadava according to jati Lord Rama was a Kshatriya according to jati Veda Vyasa was born for a fisherwoman, and Lord Shiva luckily nobody knows his religion.>>> This sort of bringing religion/caste even for Gods, is the result of ignorance. One worships “these” Gods, not because they are Rama, Krishna, Shiva, etc., but for what They stood for, what They wanted to communicate to us. ‘Nedam yaditam upasate’. Instead of trying to elevate ourselves to the level of Gods, actually we seem to bring down Gods to our level. We even seem to dictate, when our Gods should get up in the morning, what raga should we play for that, what They should have for Breakfast, What they should have for lunch, What cloths they should wear, etc. <<<<Proper understanding of Vedanta and its principles and practice of Vedanta in daily life, is sure to bring peace, solace and happiness to a world distracted by war, communal strives, petty quarrels and religious fights.>>>>>>>> I think the whole purpose of Vedanta is this. Change in the attitude, consequent to the knowledge of God, towards one’s own self and others, including the various religions, etc. in what is required. People say “we are God fearing people”, instead of saying “we are God loving people”. The fear is because we do not know what exactly this God is. Advaita aims at correcting our knowledge about our self, about idam, (other than the self) and Eswara. At present we are all acting/reacting with mithyajnana, and once this mithyajana is rectified, we will act with jnana of Truth, which never changes, “na vyabhicharati”. Balaji said <<<<<You are talking about the supreme consciousness. The word consciousness here refers to the others levels of consciousness. You see, there are four types of consciousness: 1. vaishvAnara - the state of awake, but unenlightened 2. taijasa - the dreaming 3. prAjna - the one in deep sleep 4. turIya - the undescribable, the Atman, the Brahman>>>>>> I may be wrong, but are there various levels of consciousness? Consciousness is homogenous, immutable, Infinite or Poorna. It cannot be conditioned by time, space, and objects, as all these are within/rather pervaded by Consciousness/Gnanam. The three states mentioned above, are the states of Jiva, and its apparent association with consciousness. The said three states, shines after the Consciousness and the Consciousness does not shine after them. It is like different apparent states of space, i.e. room space, hall space, etc. The space does not get associated with the limiting walls, etc. but the limiting walls appear to limit/restrict the space. The limiting walls are also in space. So, how can they limit the space. Similar is the position with the Consciousness. In Turiya, the Jeeva is there but free from Jeevatwa or Jeev-ness, i.e. what makes jeeva a jeeva, and shining itself as consciousness per-se, or gnanam per se. This means Jeeva is nothing but Atma alone. In absolute reality, Atma shines always (“Aham asmi sada bhami”) and everything shines after Atma, i.e. Brahman. <<<<<When the body has just become unclean, why make even your mind unclean? The truly virtuous brahmin would say "Shiva Shiva" and simply leave, without any frustration or anger. However, this is not to be found in the present day brahmins, who in the name of AchAra make their minds unclean, by allowing krodha to enter.>>>> This is emotional maturity, i.e. accepting everything as “Shiva Shiva” without allowing any agitation taking place in the mind. This acceptance can come only when one knows what this “Shiva” is. Now a days “Achara” comes from already unclean mind, always swayed by the shad urmies. Moreover, Acharas are followed more because of fear, i.e. fear of being nobody, or greed to be somebody. That is why I feel following Achara including rites, etc. cannot bring any anthakarana-shudhi. It can result in further pollution of the mind already polluted. I may be wrong again. In my understanding, the ashudhi in the anthakarana can be removed only by knowing the causes for such ashudhi. The anthakarana-ashudhi is due to ignorance of the real nature of anthakarana. No action can result in anthakarana-shudhi, as result of any action will be time bound and any shudhi so takes place as a result of any action will also be time bound. <<<< This has become the center of AchAra nowadays, unfortunately. What was originally sadAchAra, which had cleanliness as an important part, has now deteriorated. Thus AchAra in itself has come to mean something else. This leads to only ego-appraisal. This was not what AchAra used to mean.>>> Not only Achara, even performance of rituals, poojas, etc., leads to only ego-appraisal. I remember, when I was in Sabarimala some years ago, one Kanniayyappan, who happened to be a great devotee of also Krishna, called out “Hare Krishna”, on hearing this the (self-declared) “Guruswami” reacted immediately “you fellows do not know, why do you call Krishna here, say Saranamayyappa”. I do not mean any ill feeling to anybody, but this is how we understand and he calls himself “Guruswami” and expects others to recognize him as such, because he has visited Sabarimala for around eighteen years. I have come across many such things during my pilgrimages to other places also, and also in my day today observations, and each and every action/reaction I see is ego-centered and for ego-appraisal. Balaji said <<<This impermanent nature of everything in the Universe, when realized leads to disgust and disenchantment from all worldly pleasures, thus leading to liberation cessation of all sorrow. >>>> I feel I have not understood what you have to convey. I think, it is only my understanding, liberation is not cessation of all sorrow, but the cessation of the notion that “I am sorrowful”. It is growing over both the sorrow and its opposite. Mind alone is the cause for bondage and liberation. I think the first thing we should know is for who this bondage and liberation are. I think one’s attitude towards sorrow/pleasure, etc. alone makes him liberated or bound. The jeeva in the Jagarad avasta alone seems to suffer from sorrow. Same jeeva while in Sushupti avasta, experiences neither happiness nor unhappiness. Again in dream state, though the same jeeva suffers/enjoys, on waking to the jagrad avasta, it negates everything in the dream as false. Here one more point. The negation or “neti, neti” is not of the object, but the mithyjnanam or the wrong knowledge of the object is to be negated. One need nor one can negate the object itself. We need not negate the objects, and we should start looking at them objectively. Take gold as gold, but “my happiness depends on amassing gold” is mithyajnanam of both gold and about my happiness. What exactly is complete freedom of that consciousness? Is consciousness ever bound? If so when and how? <<<< Such a person has no further birth, and death is but just a matter of complete freedom of that consciousness.>>>>>>>> This I understand as “for such a person who has known what is to be known, there is no going back to the earlier notions, mithyajnanam, he had, and acting/reacting again fully loaded with such notions. I understand “sa na punaravartate” this way. I may be wrong again. <<<This happens when one observes the nature of vAsana, that he had accumulated in the past through action and when he stops generating any further vAsana. The fact that we had incorrectly identified these vAsanas with ourselves, is called ignorance and when we start looking at (observing) their nature and realize their impermanence and hence non-belonging to the self and hence not the self, we gain spiritual knowledge of (neti). This is Brahmavidya.>>>>> Ignorance led to vasanas or the other way around, needs a little more analysis. In my understanding, ignorance alone is the cause for vasanas, and vasanakshaya takes place along with rising of knowledge, slowly but definitely. <<<<Hence Achara means 'right practice'. Which is what I used to say, not just practice.>>>>> After “practicing” of swimming for some time, no more practice, but only swimming. Practicing is not the end, whether right practice or not, in due course one must start swimming. I think Achara is faking for making, but that making never takes place, that is the real problem. We are satisfied with the faking, as the end itself, which we all have been doing over and over again. It seems we only want to practice swimming all the time, and we never want to swim. Sri Mohanji said <<<<This brings us to the point regarding `practice' made by Sri Balaji and my attempt to elaborate on `learning to swim' as an analogy or example for this point. The English word `practice' is multi-faceted. It can mean `repeated trying until skill is achieved', ( the German word Ubung… the famous statement `Ubung macht den Meister') The other meaning is `application of knowledge `. Although I am not at all knowledgeable in Sanskrit, I believe the word `Achara ` connotes the second meaning of `practice'.>>>> Once “practicing of swimming is over” one no more practices swimming, he just swims. Through practice one learns; once the learning is over, there is no more practice. Whatever is learnt through practice reflects in one’s not only behavior, but more than that in one’s attitude. “Abhyasena Kauntheya” our beloved Lord said in Gita. Please do correct me. Warm regards to all and hari om Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2004 Report Share Posted April 18, 2004 Namaste Sri Maniji, I donot think there is anything to correct here. Why have you labelled this message so? It is surely a sense of maturity that you show, when presenting perfectly valid arguements. Let my comments not be misunderstood as disagreement/advice. I fully agree with you. <<< By the way Balaji, what exactly is the meaning of Dharma. Somehow I cannot fully understand its meaning and implications. >>> Dharma is the most simple words is: 'That which can free one from all bondages.' The knowledge of the self is surely Dharma. It is sanAtana. If the self is sanAtana and so is Dharma, then they cannot be different. sanAtana Dharma consists of three essential parts, that lead to realization. 1. Yama-niyama - the foundation of Dharma, this includes sadAchAra 2. Samadhi - right concentration, built for the cultivation of prajnA or knowledge 3. prajnA - right knowledge. Knowledge is the only thing that actually leads to liberation. Samadhi is just a facilitator. Without tranquility of mind, one cannot realize the truth. Hence the necessity of Samadhi. Smadhi must be done not for attainment of siddhis but for prajnA. Anything beyond this is not sanAtana and Universal. It is not Dharma! It may be given such a name for some other reasons, but the original meaning of Dharma - nisargasya niyama is this only. You had discussed the life of Siddhartha Gautama. While it should really not matter to us, (since another person's being enlightened or not, should not affect our enlightenment - many Hindus beleive that the Buddha was not enlightened!) let me clarify for the record. Siddhartha was born as a prince in the Shakya family and was kept away from sorrow and suffering by his father who did not want him to become a sanyasin (There was apparently a prophecy that he would do so). However, Siddhartha was still in touch with people's sorrow, and suffering. Due to his love and compassion, he felt sympathy for the people and also felt the need to know the rising of such sorrow. He got married and was enjoying the birth of an issue they named as Rahula. However, still Siddhartha was disillusioned in material posessions and pleasures. Shuddhodana, his father apparently did not want his son to leave the kingdom, but was very clearly aware of the restlessness and delusion of Siddhartha. He therefore asked some learned members of the Sangha (apparently, the king did not have absolute authority in the Shakya clan. The constitution called the Sangha had learned people deciding many matters with the king, and also sometimes exercise veto over the king. Later the Buddha was to use the same name for a monastic order) to teach Gautama all the vedas (Apparently, only three of the four vedas were available at that time. History records him as having read only three vedas. Somehow I recall having read somewhere that Atharva veda was lost for some while and was later found in some remote areas of Gandhara desha. However I am not sure of this.), the Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras, the Gita and so forth. However Gautama questioned the very first assumption: 'How do I accept that I am verily Brahman?', he asked. Hence disillusioned with all the knowledge that these people gave him, he learnt many absorptive practices. Siddhartha Gautama learnt thus the jhanas (the Sanskrit word dhyana) and learnt eight techniques to enter Samadhi. However, he still said that there was no cessation of sorrow attained thought samadhi. Disillusioned with all this, he left home in search of the Truth (Knowledge, to do away with ignorance) He searched for the truth in all external things first and when he did not find a satisfactory answer, used his jhanas to know the nature of himself. Years of practice taught him, how to maintain Samadhi and to observe objectively every phenomenon and thus know its intrinsic impermanent nature. This he came to know was true of everything in the Universe except the bodhi itself that everything is impermanent. This is what he called Anitya Bodha - Anicca >From anicca he learnt Anatma bodha - not me, not the self, anatta. Which meant, 'that which is impermanent is not the self'. This was known through bodha of the impermanent nature, of all that was assumed to be the self - the body, the feelings, the perception, the fabrications, the (so called divided) consciousness, and he went beyond this consciousness to realize the undivided consciousness, which he described as vijnanam anidarshanam - described as turIya and Brahman in the Upanishad. This he called the bodha consciousness and therefore said that this is the true and the only guru - again proclaimed in Hinduism - '...the Self must choose to reveal itself to the one...' In spite of the fact that he taught only Dharma, he was disliked by many people, for certain reasons: 1. The brahmins (not brAhmaNa) of those days had resorted to performing rituals at a cost and hence for a living. With the Buddha's teachings being so attractive, since it was truly making people more mature and soon liberating many people, the brahmins were extremely angry with him. Their means of living was snatched away. However, still many brahmins did go to the Buddha for learning Dharma. 2. The Buddha said - 'Do not blindly beleive whatever sages say, just because it is accepted as a tradition. Think about it, reason it, and when such truths make sense, live up to it.' However, such questioning of the vedas and the Upanishads was considered immoral due to the overly conservative situation of those days. Many rebels grew and dissent with the brahmin ritualists became a forte of the followers of the Buddha. 3. The Buddha refused to talk of the existence of a Self. When in one instance, a learned brahmin quoted the Upanishad and asked if such an Atman existed, the Buddha categorically discarded such questions. He said that without proper understanding of the Upanishads, if one pursues them it would lead to imaginative concepts and speculation of Brahman and therefore false identification with the self, which was the original root of the problem. Hence he said that such questions would not lead to the cessation of sorrow. He however maintained that there was an absolute Truth to be realized. 4. Centuries after the Buddha's death (or what the Buddhists call as Mahaparinibbana! God knows why such a long name, he himself called it only death and was not afraid to call it so.) many Buddhists started speculating about the absolute truth as nothingness and therefore as 'void'. This they imagined through speculation and falsely identified with the self and therefore remained unenlightened. The Buddha seems to have had foresight of this and hence had warned his disciples against any beleif of 'voidness and emptiness' and hence 'self identification born out of emptiness' However, many of his suttas were rejected at around 5th century AD, when the Madhyamika school of thought flourished under the influence of Nagarjuna. (However, what concept of emptiness Nagarjuna had was apparently different from our understanding of it too. Sometimes it surprises me why people indulge in so much metaphysics.) 5. The Buddha rejected the caste system to be a basis for division of Dharma. He held the view thet Dharma is indivisible. He said that while karma could be divided among the society for the proper running of samsAra, when we grow above samsAra, the importance of varNa is completely lost, and hence the importance of karma should be known to be lesser. The fact that he treated brahmnins at par with people of other castes was somehow displeasing the brahmins. By that time itself many had started using sampradaya (which was to a large extent based on karmas) to be a synonym for Dharma. Thanks to the use of the ever confusing word 'svadharma' in the Bhagavad Gita, the situation worsened. These are some of the apparent reasons for the rise of a new religion called Buddhism in India, according to many sources like the Burmese and Ceylon (Sri Lanka) Buddhist schools. > > At the same time, what did Sri Rama do? On hearing the complaint of a washer man, to uphold the king's dharma, he even banished his beloved wife, while he failed in his dharma as a husband. "Dharma sankata" i.e. confusion about dharma, which dharma one should uphold even at the cost of drifting away from another dharma is something we all face. If these lines hurt the feeling of anyone, I apologize, but I mention them only to understand intricacies in the context of Dharma. > What Sri Rama did was different from that of Buddha. We should not compare them. maryAdA puruShottama Rama was setting an example for everyone to follow: A king should be taintless. It must not be misconstrued to think: One should abandon one's pregnant wife in a forest. Such a thing is rather less important that the fact that he held that the people must have a king to look up to, because 'yathA rAjA, tathA prajA'. A rule of thumb for anyone to understand Sri Rama and to know how to tackle dhrama sankata: Do only that which leads to your liberation if in bondage, or if you are liberated, do that which can help in the liberation of others. Such is the simple principle of Dharma that liberation is the only result of it. Sree Rama's act was surely for the liberation of others so that one would learn from his life and wish to become like him. Again that is why the Buddha taught Dharma till the very end of his life. <<<One worships "these" Gods, not because they are Rama, Krishna, Shiva, etc., but for what They stood for, what They wanted to communicate to us. `Nedam yaditam upasate'.>>> Good. Again the point that they represented ideals to be followed is reflected here. <<<<<Balaji: You are talking about the supreme consciousness. The word consciousness here refers to the others levels of consciousness. You see, there are four types of consciousness: > > 1. vaishvAnara - the state of awake, but unenlightened > > 2. taijasa - the dreaming > > 3. prAjna - the one in deep sleep > > 4. turIya - the undescribable, the Atman, the Brahman>>>>>> > > Maniji: I may be wrong, but are there various levels of consciousness? Consciousness is homogenous, immutable,>>>>> Whether consciouness has levels to it will possibly be best answered by you yourself when you start observing the nature of the first four aggregates: form, feelings, perception and fabrications (vAsana). These along with the first three levels of consciousness are said to constitute the false identification of the self. <<<The three states mentioned above, are the states of Jiva, and its apparent association with consciousness. The said three states, shines after the Consciousness and the Consciousness does not shine after them. It is like different apparent states of space, i.e. room space, hall space, etc. The space does not get associated with the limiting walls, etc. but the limiting walls appear to limit/restrict the space. The limiting walls are also in space. So, how can they limit the space. Similar is the position with the Consciousness.>>> Again I agree with you. But that the first three levels of consciousness are impermanent, sorrowful and thus not the Self has to be realized. Without such realization (the last realization of neti), one cannot realize the Atman. <<<The anthakarana-ashudhi is due to ignorance of the real nature of anthakarana. No action can result in anthakarana-shudhi, as result of any action will be time bound and any shudhi so takes place as a result of any action will also be time bound. >>>> But such a realization of the real nature of antahkaraNa cannot come without samAdhi in the first place! Where do you get such perfect concentration from? Among the six necessary things for liberation, along with mumukshutvam, dhyana is also prescribed, by Sri Shankara also. <<<This impermanent nature of everything in the Universe, when realized leads to disgust and disenchantment from all worldly pleasures, thus leading to liberation cessation of all sorrow. >>>> > > I feel I have not understood what you have to convey. >>>> When I said 'disgust of worldly pleasures' I meant the 'disgust of the enjoyment of worldly pleasures'. <<<I think, it is only my understanding, liberation is not cessation of all sorrow, but the cessation of the notion that "I am sorrowful". >>> There is not much difference. Obviously, if there exists some sorrow even after the false notion vanishes, then the notion cannot vanish at all! How did it vanish in the first place? It would have only if all sorrow cease. <<<< Such a person has no further birth, and death is but just a matter of complete freedom of that consciousness.>>>>>>>> Just a figurative way of saying, so to say. There is no bondage/freedom for the undivided consciousness. <<<Ignorance led to vasanas or the other way around, needs a little more analysis. In my understanding, ignorance alone is the cause for vasanas, and vasanakshaya takes place along with rising of knowledge, slowly but definitely. >>>> It hardly matters. The fact that currently you perceive your vAsanas as your self (deep inside all of us, this is the case) has to be simply analyzed. If that is impermanent, then the false self- identification melts. Even when we say 'the body is not the self', we are surely joking! Why, can we allow a person to conduct a surgery on us without anasthesia? Why, can we allow the body to suffer in disease and say 'I am not suffering, it is the body.'? If not, we still firmly hold deep inside us the false notion that we are this body. When through prajnA this false self-identification melts off, we get what is called the jnAna of 'bhagna sharIra'. When one realizes the truths 'bhagna sharIra', 'bhagna chitta', 'bhagna vAsanA', 'bhagna ahamkara', he is referred to as Bhagawan. -Balaji Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.