pUrNamadah pUrNamidam... revisited (April 04 topic)

May 4, 2004

Namaste Maniji.

I salute the clarity of your thoughts!

Namaste Sunderji and Stigji.

Due to several preoccupations, I am not able to do full justice to

the ongoing discussion. I am still pondering over Stigji's comments

and will answer him shortly. The month is already five days old.

Looks like this topic can last another fortnight.

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji.

Your passionate appeal for an 'amicable settlement' has been noted.

WOW! You have made it look like the Kashmir dispute! Disagreement

is the soul of debate. Let us not, therefore, do away with it

completely. It is your having a different opinion that made this

discussion last so long. I am extremely grateful to you for that,

whatever the ultimate resolution.

PraNAms to all.

Madathil Nair

____________________

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

> The sruti corrects the mithyajnana, and neti neti is for this

mithyagnana and not for the world itself. The world itself does not

bind anyone, it is the mithyagnana i.e. my happiness depends on the

world, that binds one. Moksha is nothing but getting oneself freed

from this mithyagnana. Punarabhijananm is not a problem. Samsara is

not a problem. The problem is Samsara makes me dukhi or I am dukhi

because of samsara. Desire to do is not problem, but desire to be

happy is problem, and that desire springs from mithyagnanam.

May 4, 2004

Your passionate appeal for an 'amicable settlement' has been noted.

WOW! You have made it look like the Kashmir dispute!

praNAm Sri Nair Prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Yes, this issue may look trifle to the senior scholars like you prabhuji.

But, naive students of advaita like me, it is as big as Kashmir dispute

or something more than that !! The matter of concern here is, even after

an elapse of more than thousand & odd years, we, advaitins more importantly

shankara sampradAya followers, cannot able to come to a common platform &

unanimously say, * see, this is shankara's advaita siddhAnta*!! what a

sorry state of affair it is prabhuji, dont you think this is a serious

problem prabhuji?? dont you think due to uncertainity among ourselves as

regards to ultimate siddhAnta of shankara, other schools taking undue

advantange of this & making us laghing stock before them?? (prabhuji, pls.

dont tell me * see yourself in their teasing smiles also* :-)) practically

if you see, we cannot deny the fact that still we have lot of issues to be

settled among ourselves before holding the advaita vedanta flag high in

the name shankara bhagavadpAda!!

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

PS : if you could permit me, I'd like to share my thoughts on your last

two mesgs. on the same thread. I dont know how long we can continue this

discussion.

May 4, 2004

Prabhuji, Namaste.

The sruti corrects the mithyajnana, and neti neti is for this mithyagnana

and not for the world itself. The world itself does not bind anyone, it is

the mithyagnana i.e. my happiness depends on the world, that binds one.

Moksha is nothing but getting oneself freed from this mithyagnana.

Punarabhijananm is not a problem. Samsara is not a problem. The problem is

Samsara makes me dukhi or I am dukhi because of samsara. Desire to do is

not problem, but desire to be happy is problem, and that desire springs

from mithyagnanam.

This is my understanding.

Hari Om

praNAm prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Just a brisk comment. I do vyAvahArically agree with whatever you said

above. But need to discriminate the socalled reality of the objective

world from shAstra drushti. We cannot use the word *reality* as we

commonly use in our day to day life. shAstra-s have given vital importance

when it is describing reality. It is emphatically saying *that alone is

real which exists unchanged and without intermission* This means things

whose existence is limited by time or space are not real. This is what

krishna also says in gIta nasato vidyate bhAvO nabhAvO vidyate sataH

existence never belongs to the unreal, nor does non existence belong to the

real. Speaking in the same lines, shankara's paramaguru Sri gaudapAda also

says the same this in kArika, whatever has no existence before and after

does not exist even now!!. It is quite obvious that a thing is not real

simply coz. it seems to exist at some time, coz. a thing that really exists

is never without existence. Hence a thing whihc begins to appear at some

time and ceases to appear afterwards is really non-existent all the time.

Prof. Sri V. Krishnamurthy prabhuji has explained this beautifully in one

of his mails taking three analogies i.e. rope & serpent, mirage & our dream

state. I think avasthA traya is the main tool in shankara prakriya in

determining the reality of the world. Just look at Sri Benjamin prabhuji's

quote of Atmananda on detachment. Here is the relevant portion for your

ready reference :

//quote//

But what happens to that attachment, when

>you go into the dream state? Likewise, what happens to

>the objects of the dream state, when you come back to

>the waking state? Leaving these two states, you go into

>the deep sleep state, where there are no objects at all.

//unquote//

In sushupti there is no objective duality of the world, no matter whether

it is sublated (bhAdita) jnAna of the dvaita prapancha or dvaita prapancha

in ignorance. The *world* which is appearing as outside reality in waking

state comes within the sphere of mental state in dream state & finally

disappears in deep sleep state due to absence of mind. Since world has

dependent reality & subject to change from one state to another it cannot

be called as pUrNa & satya on par with parabrahma svarUpa of ours which is

kEvala sAkshi to all the three states.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

May 4, 2004

>

> Brahman as we all know and assert is beyond attributes. If we,

> therefore, use terms such as saguna or nirguna, it is only for the

> purpose of elucidating ultimate attributelessness and not in the

> sense we normally say 'delicious food' and 'tasteless food'. So,

> brahman is always brahman whether saguna or nirguna. It will,

> therefore, be unfortunately inadvaitic if the two adjectives are

used

> to drive in a dichotomy.]

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

Namaste Madathilji

You have in such simple and elegant terms pointed out how even

adjectives must eventually be dropped in enquiry. I remember someone

explaining to me- ' when you say a Big Elephant, the bigness is

limited by the size of the elephant. If you say Big and keep quiet,

that is what big truly is.

I have enjoyed this enriching discussions on Purnamidam as a

spectator in the joyous crowd watching some great cricket. Carried

away by the spirit, one feels like coming in and playing just one

ball.

In our discussions, whenever a word is used, we can say it needs to

be transcended. For instance, there are three Gunas and one needs to

transcend and be Gunateetha. However, since Gunateetha is a word in

discussions, it could be perceieved as a state to be trancended too.

Thus you have three states and a Turiya state, but then there is a

Turiyateetha state as well. Similarly, while extreme desire for

liberation - mumukshutvam - is needed, at another level , even the

desire for liberation needs to be transcended. As you so very well

pointed out, all words and concepts need to be treated as

only 'directions' and not 'definitions' or 'destinations'. Thus with

wonderful words and revealed concepts our Rishis and Sadgurus give us

directions, following which we can soar into higher realms. It is

thus, I must concur with you that we could loose the sense of

direction if we insist on being imprisoned by the import/ definitions

of words.

Many thousand namaskarams to all advaitins

Sridhar

May 4, 2004

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji.

Please feel free to go ahead. You will be only enriching our

discussion with your learned comments. However, I may not have

anything more to add as it looks like I have exhausted my armoury.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

__________________

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

>

> PS : if you could permit me, I'd like to share my thoughts on

your last

> two mesgs. on the same thread. I dont know how long we can

continue this

> discussion

May 4, 2004

On 29th April I wrote the following :

> //quote//

> It is called mAyA (illusory appearance) clearly coz. it cannot

> be defined to be identical with Ishvara or brahman. This is

> where exactly anirvachanIya of prakruti comes into picture,

> which has been explained by shankara by giving example

> of foam which is not quite the same as water but yet not

> a different entity apart from water either. But this

> anirvachanIyatva of prakruti / mAyA has been explained as

> avidyAkalpita, avidyApratyupastApita, avidyAkruta etc. which

> in short mean that the objective appearance is due to avidyA.

> //unquote//

>

> I hope it is clear now prabhuji.

In reply, on 29th of April Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji wrote:

CN prabhuji:

No, Prabhuji, it is not clear.

bhaskar:

what I was trying to tell you here was, I've addressed your either case of

anirvachanIyatva of prakruti which you were objecting in your previous mail

that it is missed in my mail.

CN prabhuji:

Of course anirvacaniya arises only in avidya, for there cannot in truth be

something that is both real and unreal, but how to interpret the real from

the matrix of real-unreal is the question.

bhaskar :

Yes, if you notice, this question comes ONLY in explaining prakruti. Do we

have any ambiguous expressions on brahman like this prabhuji?? Atleast

this clearly shows there is some problem in explaining world as such in

clear terms. When we are not able to say whether this prakruti is *this* or

*that* how can we elevate the mAyA prakruti to pUrNatva status prabhuji??

pls. clarify.

CN prabhuji:

If you say that attributing existence to foam separately from the

water is avidya, I can understand it. But if you simply say that foam

is unreal, then I would request you to please explain how foam is

unreal when water is real.

bhaskar:

prabhuji, you are not getting my point here prabhuji. See, here, in this

analogy, what shankara trying to explain is, though foam is nothing but

water, question is, is this foamness of water has eternal existence in

water?? according to you, it seems you are telling foam in water is

eternal & pUrNa. But that is not the case here. Even without foam water

will be there forever, THERE IS A STATE WHERE foam IS NOT there & water

ALONE there. That is our true nature that is what we experience in

sushupti ...water without foam & waves. Since foam may be there sometime &

may not be there some other time. Whereas, water is/will be there forever

always without connecting itself neither with foam nor with waves. Since

foam & waves have temporary existence & limited on dEsha-kAla & nAma

rUpAtmaka we cannot say foam & waves have eternal reality in water.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

May 4, 2004

Namaste Sridharji.

Thanks for your 22569. It just triggered this thought in me.

When we call something miTyA, what do we actually mean? Let us take

this universe for example. What do we acknowledge in its miTyAtvam?

Its bigness the limits of which we know not, that it is expanding,

the large amount of matter and energy existing in it, etc. etc.

These virtually constitute a conglomerate of attributes that make the

universe perceivable to us or apparent to our perception. Sans the

attributes, the perceived has no perceivability. So, miTyAtwam in

effect is perceivability. Perceivability removed, all things miTyA

resolve into the perceiver. There is no duality then. This is what

happens in sleep and samAdhi, involuntarily in the former and

voluntarily in the latter.

With this understanding, let us now peep again into Sankara's

DakshinAmUrti StOtram:

bIjasyAntarivAnkurO jagadidam prAngnirvikalpam punah

mAyAkalpita dEsakAlakalanA vaicitryacitrIkritam

mAyAvIva vijrumbhyayatyapi mahAyOgIva yah svEcCayA

tasmai srIgurumUrtayE nama idam srIdakshiNAmUrtayE

The sage very effectively employs a simile here to drive home the

point that I myself am expanding on waking to be this universe of

diversity like a seed sprouting and taking the form of a tree. The

tree was seed. I am the One; I too am the *One* that appears as

many, i.e. the universe. What stands between me and this knowledge

of my Oneness? Just mityAtwam that now we understand as

perceivability. That perceivability is my apparent (and unfortunate)

division into the seer and seen! And, if I am expanding myself into

the universe, I am the one granting perceivability to the division!

MityA thus is not the univierse per se. It is its perceivability -

its seeming apart from me, but for which I wouldn't have any

difficulty in easily acknowleding that the universe is just me.

A sage of Kerala long back sang before Lord GuruvAyUrappan (Krishna):

"I can't describe the pain I suffered when I saw you, the One, as

two."

That is the pang of perceivability. Oh, Krishna! Why do we all have

to suffer from it so unremittingly?

Just wild thoughts on the outskirts of this big pUrNamidam! Correct

me please if I am wrong.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

May 4, 2004

Our most respected nairji writes...

" A sage of Kerala long back sang before Lord GuruvAyUrappan

(Krishna):

"I can't describe the pain I suffered when I saw you, the One, as

two."

oh nairji!!! by mentioning "GURUVAYURAPPAN" in front of a krishna

premi , you have sent me into a state of "tanmayata" - merging with

the Divine on this beautiful day of Spring !!

Saint- Poet , Narayana Bhattatiri,the author of "NARAYANEEYAM" is

conversing with the Lord of Guruvayoor at the famous Guruvayoor

temple.

here it goes ...

"Sandrananda" you are, O Lord of Guruvayoor,

You are nothing short of concentrated bliss,

the very awareness, the Infinite consciousness, the Brahman Supreme,

the ultimate goal of all human life,

beyond time and space, the Infinite, eternally free

and the one without a parallel!

While you are thus the formless and the absolute,

You are also simultaneously personal.

This Divine person is identified with Mahavishnu,

who has incarnated with all His powers and attributes as

Krishna in His Poornavatara - complete incarnation.

And this Krishna is explicitly manifest

in your image at Guruvayoor.

Is it not a rare blessing for mankind

that the very Impersonal Brahman,

difficult to be conceived and comprehended

even by sages has assumed this form

and is ever present and ever shining to give

spiritual solace to the devotees tormented

by the sufferings of the changing world.

O Lord, how to describe your glory and majesty!

While you fulfil all the desires of

those who seek you like the divine Kalpa tree,

You are quite different in that you give yourself

to those who identify with you.

O Lord, how blessed are we to have the easy availability

Of this rarest of human blessings!

Unfortunately, very few among men

understand the very presence of

this rarest of blessings at Guruvayoor.

Prompted by worldly desires,

they overlook your divine presence right

in their midst, so easily available and accessible.

But we are not like them.

We shall serve you, O Lord of Guruvayoor,

the very soul of all beings,

so that all our sufferings,

physical and spiritual are resolved.

Therefore, I meditate on your beautiful form.

Kindly excuse me, O Lord, due to my Ignorance earlier,

I had a wrong feeling that you created human beings

only for making them suffer.

Now I realize that had we not been born,

how could we experience the thrill of your form and your glory?

You possess all the six qualities (Bhaga)

that constitute a Bhagawan,

the Lord --- qualities like omnipotence,

prowess, fame, beauty and auspiciousness, omniscience,

and non-attachment. Hence, you are indeed a "Bhagawan"!

O Lord, let me have a closer view of

your beautiful form -- from your head to your lotus feet.

I see your shining crown, the forehead adorned with a tilaka,

eyes brimming with mercy, face lit up by a benevolent smile,

the beautiful nose, ears, the neck with the Kausthubha jewel

and your chest shining with Srivasta and garlands.

I also see your bracelets, finger rings

- your four arms holding the Gada, conch,

the chakra and the lotus flower.

Your Pitatamber (yellow silk garment)

is fastened to a golden chain at your waist.

Your feet resembling lotus flowers

remove the sufferings of your devotees.

You are more charming than the most charming.

You are an embodiment of beauty and sweetness.

Even Goddess Lakshmi does not like to be

away from you and always stays with you and your devotees.

O Lord, this form of thine captivates everyone

by its sheer beauty and sweetness

and thrills everyone with ecstasy of joy.

No wonder, this "Path of Bhakthi"

has been considered superior to

the other two paths of "Karma" and "Jnana"

as it caters to the nature of a great majority of men effortlessly.

O Lord of Guruvayoor, Due to my intense physical sufferings,

I do not even feel inclined to serve you

as my mind is pulled away by the intensity of physical pain.

Kindly remove my afflictions so that

my feet may be able to walk up to your temple,

my hands may be able to worship you,

my eyes may be able to have vision of you,

my nose may be able to smell the fragrance

of the Tulasi leaves offered at your feet

and my ears may hear your glories sung,

Many of your devotees like Narada freely move about.

Many who are not even your devotees

are seen leading a happy life.

But I, your devotee am undergoing various sufferings.

It is not a great thing for you to eradicate my ailments.

O Lord, may my devotion to you become perfect!

That alone can remove all my sufferings.

Therefore, O Lord of Guruvayoor,

I am not going to leave you.

Until I get your grace,

I shall serve you, worship you,

sing before you, serve

and seek your grace to the best of my ability.

Kindly eradicate my disease

and enable me to be the best of your devotees.

**********************************************************************

YES ! YES! YES!

) SALOKYAM- being present in the world of Krishna

2) samipyam- be in the presence of Krishna

3) Saroopyam - beinG the same form as Krishna

4) Saujyam-merge or be united with krishna

NOW, NAIRJI, please TELL THIS AUDIENCE HOW YOU CAN ATTAIN the state

of oneness - tanmayata?

bhakti, jnana, karma, raja yoga - all of this or one of these?

SALUTATIONS TO LORD GURVAYIRAPPA!!

May 4, 2004

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

of concern here is, even after

> an elapse of more than thousand & odd years, we, advaitins more

importantly

> shankara sampradAya followers, cannot able to come to a common

platform &

> unanimously say, * see, this is shankara's advaita siddhAnta*!!

what a

> sorry state of affair it is prabhuji, dont you think this is a

serious

> problem prabhuji?? dont you think due to uncertainity among

ourselves as

> regards to ultimate siddhAnta of shankara,

Namaste,

This may be a good time to re-visit the Files section file

"Shankara Sampradaya", Kanchi Paramacharya's dialogue with Prof.

Nakamura.

Krishna had anticipated the doctrinal disputes!

In Gita 2:52-53, he says the mind grappling with the

conflicting doctrines can be overcome only when one is steady in the

Self.

Regards,

Sunder

May 4, 2004

Namaste everyone,

I could find some time today, from my schedule. I'm sorry for my

erratic responses. I particularly likes Sri Stig's elaborate answer

to the question. (I never knew his name is Shivashankara, but what's

in a name!?)

I would just add a few points to Sri Stig's essay. Frankly, I think

he has given the best position in advaita vedAnta in this subject.

The question 'Is Brahman, the cause of this Universe or the same as

the Universe? Is Maya the cause of the Universe?' is in my opinion

disguised as suited to each person, and inadvertently everyone

arguring about it will shift his position conveniently, so subtly

that he his himself unaware of it. It amuses me to think that such a

person would be thwarted by Sri Shankara (I really wonder if he

would, he would show infinite love for such a man.) if he faces him

in a debate.

The question is also asked with a sense of third-partiness. One is

separating himself from Brahman and the Universe when asking such a

question. The question that one must answer is 'Is this world verily

mine? Does anything here belong to me? If it does not belong to me,

then how can it belong to Brahman? If it does belong to me, then the

ego and possessiveness is intact!' The situation is complicated, and

IMHO, the question is to be discarded.

This question is of no use, since it is not going to lead to our

liberation. When endowed with enough viveka, we must use it to see if

the question we ask is meaningful? Again there is the question 'If I

am that, the how am I ignorant?' is to be discarded. These questions

are asked out of ignorance and such questions will never lead to

liberation. Again there is the question 'Where did antahkaraNa

ashuddhi come from? Where did our actions come from? Where did

ignorance come from?' These are also to be discarded.

The fact is, that right now, we are apparently affected by these

vAsanas, these ashuddis etc. We have to find a way to do away with

them. 'AntahkaraNa shuddhi is not done by any karmas' says one, the

other says, 'we need karma for that'. They are both equivalently

right! To the one who looks at niShkAma karma as karma, it is said

that he does not comprehend the meaning of karma. When devoid of any

rAga and dveSha, a person is said to be doing no karma, even if

apparently he is performing something. Thus is the state of Samadhi,

where one is not in rAga or dveSha, but cultivates the awareness of

the truth, without indulging in any act. Samadhi is not always

practiced by sitting in a yogic posture and eyes closed etc. That's

only for beginners. Again, to the one who says that karma is required

to be done for antahkaraNa shuddhi (he means things like dAna etc.)

he is encouraged to do so, but with neither rAga nor dveSha towards

anything.

Again, the question of the Universe being same or derived from

Brahman is answered if one stops questioning so and asks 'Am I this

body?' or 'Does anything in this Universe belong to me?' When the

truth is realized, one realizes the meaning of Brahman manifesting

himself as the Universe. IMHO therefore, the matter is to be

postponed for after-realization effects and does not have any

meaning. Whether Brahman is the creator of the Universe or is the

same as the Universe is immaterial.

However, the matter is generally perceived as such - the self (ego)

is mithyA and the Universe seen by this self is all mithyA, but the

self (ever conscious Brahman) is the truth and the manifestations of

this Self is what is falsely percieved as the world. For example, we

say 'samsAra is sorrowful' But when we see that the samsAra seen by

our colored eyes of egotism is not true, we realize that the world is

truly full of knowledge.

I think there is some misinterpretation of the word knowledge as

intelligence running the world. For example, the notion that may be

present that an intelligent being runs the Universe is confused with

the word knowledgable Brahman. This confused notion leads to

questions such as unintelligent driving can lead me to accidents. But

this avidya and vidya have nothing to do with all that notion. I am

not sure if such a notion was held in the first place. The concept of

running the Universe etc. is akin only to modern popular Hinduism and

has nothing to do with Advaita.

Let me give an example:

'There is a banana' is unconditioned knowledge and clean.

'There is a rotten banana, I hate rotten bananas, but I have to eat

it. I am so sorrowful' is conditioned knowledge and avidya and

unclean.

'There is a good banana, I love ripe bananas, but someone else has

got it, I don't have it. I am so sorrowful' is also conditioned

knowledge and avidya and therefore unclean.

To the jnAnin the rotten and ripe bananas are the same. That is why

the Bhagawad Gita says that a jnAnin views both gold and clay

equivalently.

Without indulging in any arguements, the ignorance is not a creator,

but the samsara as we perceive it right now is is incorrectly

cognized and hence it is the cause of our suffereing. But if there is

ignorance, the Universe appears conditioned by positives and

negatives thus leading to dukkha. This does not mean that ignorance

is a creator. But without ignorance such a perception does not exist.

The ignorance is not a material here. Its very existence is actually

false, but so ignorant are we that we don't know how ignorant we are!

I hope I do not hurt anyone's sentiments. But such complex theories

of the soul and the Brahman are useless. AcharNa is important. (I am

sorry moderators, when such meaningless questions are raised, that is

the best answer one could give. I am not trying to advice anyone.

Please don't misunderstand me. Even after this you are free to ask

the same question, but I will still maintain that it is useless to

ask. I will not answer these questions in any case, and neither am I

going to post again on the subject)

Finally a note to the moderators, I will not be able to comment on

the subject of the month if such a pointless thing is being

discussed. I think one must search for the truth within and know the

truth by following Dharma. rAga and dveSha are to be abandoned.

That's the best I can say on this. The subject is better discussed in

the sense of 'what is pUrNa', not 'whether the Universe is also

pUrNa'. The second is better understood only after enlightenment.

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

May 4, 2004

Namaste Balaji,

I understand very little of what enters this list, but I keep

trying--especially to translate the comments into things that I can use

in my daily life.

In that spirit, I ask how your two sets of comments (separated by my

added line) can be reconciled, i.e., if someone views "gold" and "clay"

equally, will he then find so much to be for and against in the context

of a simple email list?

Believe me, I am well beyond you in petty concerns about the world;

however, I need to understand this issue.

I know that you will take my comments well; I don't wish to give advice

to anyone!

Bob Freed,am

Balaji Ramasubramanian wrote:

>

> To the jnAnin the rotten and ripe bananas are the same. That is why

> the Bhagawad Gita says that a jnAnin views both gold and clay

> equivalently.

---------

(I am

> sorry moderators, when such meaningless questions are raised, that is

> the best answer one could give. I am not trying to advice anyone.

> Please don't misunderstand me. Even after this you are free to ask

> the same question, but I will still maintain that it is useless to

> ask. I will not answer these questions in any case, and neither am I

> going to post again on the subject)

>

> Finally a note to the moderators, I will not be able to comment on

> the subject of the month if such a pointless thing is being

> discussed. I think one must search for the truth within and know the

> truth by following Dharma. rAga and dveSha are to be abandoned.

> That's the best I can say on this. The subject is better discussed in

> the sense of 'what is pUrNa', not 'whether the Universe is also

> pUrNa'. The second is better understood only after enlightenment.

>

> 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

>

May 4, 2004

Namaste Sri Stig,

>

> But this is completely contra the standpoints of Adi Shankara,

> Sureshvara and traditional Advaita. Of course, it is not

> mandatory to to their standpoints, but one can hardly

> put them outside the core of Sanatana Dharma. This is their

> standpoint regarding the Vedas and Self-knowledge:

>

I see your points are well supported with arguements from Sri

Shankara's texts.

You are fairly correct in pointing out that it is possible to know

the supreme by shravaNa alone. But that it is impossible without

shravaNa is something I will not accept. How then did the first rishi

come to know of the knowledge. It is very convenient to say that the

veda is eternal. But the text of veda is not eternal, it is only the

knowledge in the veda that is eternal. Evidently, the text is not

eternal. We have historical proof that at the time of the Buddha only

three vedas were known. The fourth veda was later found in some

remote areas of GandhAra desha (present Afghanistan).

Again that the shruti is apourusheya is questionable in the sense

that if it is so, then how come there is the description of Bhrgu

getting enlightened. Obviously, then that upaniShad came only after

Bhrgu. That Bhrgu was God himself is something anyone would question

since he kept asking VaruNa for help. If he were God, then why did he

need varuNa? How come varuNa is his father if he is God. Therefore,

this upanishad and therefore the other vedic textx also obviously

came only after these rishis.

If the text is apourusheya, then why is it in a human language and

that too understandable by a human. The meaning of apourusheya should

not be confused. It only means that the knowledge of the self is

apourusheya and not created by anyone else. It is already within a

person. The very nature of the person is the veda and he requires no

other means to know this. He just needs to know Himself. Apourusheya

does not mean written by God or some supernatural phenomena. Such

things don't exist. The knowledge of the self is supreme and is

already within a person. This knowledge is apourusheya veda. ShravaNa

alone of this knowledge will surely lead to liberation as pointed

out. Only apourusheya veda can lead to liberation. Hence the

knowledge of the self alone can lead to liberation. This is the

meaning of the statement 'SharvaNa alone can lead to liberation.'

If you disagree with this interpretation, then kindly point out, how

you could consider the vedic texts to be apourusheya. Let's say that

I disagree that the vedic text is apourusheya, but the knowledge in

the veda is already in everyone and hence is apourusheya.

If that the truth of the self is there within everyone is not part of

core Sanatana Dharma, I withdraw my arguement, in IMHO, it is one of

the greatest aspects of sanatana Dharma. The word sanatana Dharma

itself says that the nature of one's self is eternal (the Atman is

eternal or that The knowledge of the self is eternal or apourusheya).

Finally, I may not have enough time to respond to this thread. So

please excuse me if I disappear for a few more days.

-Balaji

May 4, 2004

Namaste Sri Bob,

Thanks for responding today itself. I have a little more time off

right now, but may have to get going soon. Well, when I said I shall

not post on the subject again, I meant that I shall not answer the

question 'Is Brahman the same as the Universe?' Besides, I am not

really any jnAnin or something.... so I am really susceptible to

mistakes, and will be glad to correct myself, when pointed out.

It is surely a great inspiration from you that I must draw in the

sense that you try to translate things on the list to things you

could use in your life. And yes, please be sure your words are never

taken in a wrong spirit. I like it when people advise with

jurisdiction and correct me over matters.

Thanks for pointing out. Please, it appears from my post that I am

frustrated with the posts on the issue, but I am rather just trying

to tell people that the questions like those asked are useless and

pointless. If they really need answers to such questions, then they

will need the introduction of concept of mAyA and many don't like the

concept for the reason that it is not part of the shruti and there

are many complications in the matter.

I shall as I have finally pointed out, surely comment (as and when

time permits - I am sorry, without acting high-handed I humbly

request time for answering some posts.) if we discuss 'what is pUrNa'

rather than if the universe is pUrNa. I beleive, self-knowledge is

more important than all these complex theories of the Universe and

the soul.

-Balaji

>

> I understand very little of what enters this list, but I keep

> trying--especially to translate the comments into things that I can

use

> in my daily life.

>

> In that spirit, I ask how your two sets of comments (separated by

my

> added line) can be reconciled, i.e., if someone views "gold"

and "clay"

> equally, will he then find so much to be for and against in the

context

> of a simple email list?

>

> Believe me, I am well beyond you in petty concerns about the world;

> however, I need to understand this issue.

>

> I know that you will take my comments well; I don't wish to give

advice

> to anyone!

>

> Bob Freed,am

>

> Balaji Ramasubramanian wrote:

> >

> > To the jnAnin the rotten and ripe bananas are the same. That is

why

> > the Bhagawad Gita says that a jnAnin views both gold and clay

> > equivalently.

>

> --

-------

> (I am

> > sorry moderators, when such meaningless questions are raised,

that is

> > the best answer one could give. I am not trying to advice anyone.

> > Please don't misunderstand me. Even after this you are free to

ask

> > the same question, but I will still maintain that it is useless

to

> > ask. I will not answer these questions in any case, and neither

am I

> > going to post again on the subject)

> >

> > Finally a note to the moderators, I will not be able to comment

on

> > the subject of the month if such a pointless thing is being

> > discussed. I think one must search for the truth within and know

the

> > truth by following Dharma. rAga and dveSha are to be abandoned.

> > That's the best I can say on this. The subject is better

discussed in

> > the sense of 'what is pUrNa', not 'whether the Universe is also

> > pUrNa'. The second is better understood only after enlightenment.

> >

> > 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

> >

May 4, 2004

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

>

> Yes, this issue may look trifle to the senior scholars like you

prabhuji.

> But, naive students of advaita like me, it is as big as Kashmir

dispute

> or something more than that !! The matter of concern here is,

even after

> an elapse of more than thousand & odd years, we, advaitins more

importantly

> shankara sampradAya followers, cannot able to come to a common

platform &

> unanimously say, * see, this is shankara's advaita siddhAnta*!!

what a

> sorry state of affair it is prabhuji, dont you think this is a

serious

> problem prabhuji?? dont you think due to uncertainity among

ourselves as

> regards to ultimate siddhAnta of shankara, other schools taking

undue

> advantange of this & making us laghing stock before them??

(prabhuji, pls.

> dont tell me * see yourself in their teasing smiles also* :-))

practically

> if you see, we cannot deny the fact that still we have lot of

issues to be

> settled among ourselves before holding the advaita vedanta flag

high in

> the name shankara bhagavadpAda!!

>

Namaste Sri Bhaskar-ji,

I completely agree with you, Bhaskar-ji. Isn't this why we have so

many commentaries on the Upanishads and so many commentaries on the

commentaries? The subject matter is not something trivial

that can be looked at objectively. It is the very subject him-self!

The beauty of advaita is the stress it lays on anubhava and yukti.

We are told again and again not to take anything without rubbing it

against the touchstone of intellect and experience. The depth of the

philosophical statements can be reconciled at the various levels of

the sAdhaka. That is why we come up with so many different

interpretations for these statements. Our innate personality is

questioned sometimes – how we look at things, how we assimilate

knowledge, the very core of our personality is shaken. The near and

dear assumptions which we never questioned, but which play such a

vital role in every thought of ours, is sometimes uprooted. The

method of vedAnta is truly an exercise in personality

rehabilitation - a shift from a world-centric view to a subject-

centric view.

These predicaments also suggests why it is so important to study

under the guidance of a Guru. As you know, there is a central tenet

to advaita in general, and a core teaching to each Upanishad, no

matter how contrary it may seem. A guru interprets all statements,

examples, sidebars etc.in the light of the core teaching. This is

true of all major vedantic works. I know I don't need to tell you

this, but I am just writing as I think. When we study on our own or

in groups like this, we only look at certain shlokas or vAkyAs

without the integrating knowledge of a brahmanishTa to guide us by

the light of the main teaching. The result is we get side tracked,

we see controversies, and all it does is generate a lot of

dissatisfaction and frustration.

With this topic on the mityatva/pUrNatva of the world, we are at the

very brink of mAya – that which is not Brahman or apart from it.

It's a tricky topic, and all is not lost if we disagree on this.

With accepting the pUrNatva of the world, we are tending more

towards bhakti and saguNopAsana and with firmly believing in the

mityatva of the world, we are tending more towards the jnAna aspect

or nirguNa brahman. Practically, at the stage we are (or atleast I

am) in, it might not matter a whole lot.

Personally, I like the avasthAtraya prakriya. It is really an all-

encompassing practical tool in my opinion - all-encompassing in

terms of all states considered, all life-forms included. It somehow

appeals to my intellect and to my experience. The subject is no more

limited entity that exists in an objective world, but the very

creator who lends existence to his or her fleeting worlds. Sri

RamaNa Maharshi is often quoted as asking the questioner something

to the effect of where the question was in his sleep.

Sri Nairji,

you remarked:

>"> This is a very simplistic view. Maybe I will revisit it some

>other

>> time."

>[You are welcome to revisit. The word simplistic also

>means 'affectedly simple' and, therefore, unfortunate. The BG verse

>concerned was discussed threadbare last year and I, among others,

>had

>commented on it at length. The relevant reference is there in our

>archives.]

Like I said above, these philosophical statements appeal to each

sadhaka differently, and can be reconciled at various different

levels. Your explanation of bhagavAn's sayings in chapter 9 to the

indivisibility and fullness to Brahman seemed simpler than the

avasthAtraya explanation I had in mind. Hence the remark. I hope you

take it in that light. I didn't mean to offend you at all. Yes, I

remember the exchanges on that thread.

Regards,

Savithri

May 4, 2004

Please, it appears from my post that I am

frustrated with the posts on the issue, but I am rather just trying

to tell people that the questions like those asked are useless and

pointless.

praNAm prabhuji

Hare Krishna

I dont think these issues are useless/ pointless when these questions are

being asked from genuine seekers of truth. Spiritual aspirants do come

across somany doubts initially about the reality of the world, brahma

pUrNatva, avidyA, kArya -kAraNatva of nirviShEsha brahman etc.etc.

especially, when they are approaching the truth from advaita perspective.

Why shruti telling us about srushti, its cause etc. why shankara had to

write no. of pages on these issues, if it is worthless & useless to the

true advaita jnAna?? So, IMHO nothing is worthless if our intention is to

learn the doctrinal issues involved in siddhAnta with sincere earnestness.

Ofcourse, if *you know* the pUrNatva of pUrNa there will be nothing for you

to discuss about pUrNa. tadviddhi praNipAtEna pari prashnEya sevaya says

krishna in gIta. That is what we are doing here in electronic media

prabhuji. If you feel these questions are baseless/needless, you always

have the liberty of pressing the *del* button in key board without trying

your head in the ongoing discussion. Finally, anyway, our learned

moderators are their to adjudge whether a particular topic is relevant in

advaitins' forum or not for discussion. So, let us leave it to their

discretion prabhuji. Hope you take this in the right spirit.

Humble praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

May 4, 2004

Namaste Savitriji.

Reference your very elegant reply to Bhaskarji, wherein you stated:

"Personally, I like the avasthAtraya prakriya. It is really an all-

encompassing practical tool in my opinion - all-encompassing in

terms of all states considered, all life-forms included. It somehow

appeals to my intellect and to my experience. The subject is no more

limited entity that exists in an objective world, but the very

creator who lends existence to his or her fleeting worlds."

Could you kindly summarise your understanding for us? I and most

certainly most of us on this List would like to listen to you on the

topic? From what you have stated above, it looks like what you have

to say may not be much different from my current point of view as I

don't also consider the subject to be a limited entity. Hence, this

curiosity and request to elaborate.

Also, if I am not asking for too much, when time permits, kindly

present your avastAtraya understanding of the BG9 verse in question.

I am not offended. Thanks for your excellent input.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

______________________

Smt. Savitri Devraj wrote:

> Like I said above, these philosophical statements appeal to each

> sadhaka differently, and can be reconciled at various different

> levels. Your explanation of bhagavAn's sayings in chapter 9 to the

> indivisibility and fullness to Brahman seemed simpler than the

> avasthAtraya explanation I had in mind. Hence the remark. I hope

you

> take it in that light. I didn't mean to offend you at all. Yes, I

> remember the exchanges on that thread.

>

> Regards,

> Savithri

May 4, 2004

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji.

I thought, with Sunderji's post 22459, at least this pUrNamidam

dispute was resolved. We now have the Acharya's own words on the

issue together with a reliable translation. It was you who requested

it. It is, therefore, strange that you haven't uttered even a word

about it.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

______________________________

> But, naive students of advaita like me, it is as big as Kashmir

dispute

> or something more than that !! The matter of concern here is, even

after

> an elapse of more than thousand & odd years, we, advaitins more

importantly

> shankara sampradAya followers, cannot able to come to a common

platform &

> unanimously say, * see, this is shankara's advaita siddhAnta*!!

what a

> sorry state of affair it is ............

May 4, 2004

It was you who requested

it. It is, therefore, strange that you haven't uttered even a word

about it.

praNAms Sri Nair prabhuji

Hare Krishna

prabhuji frankly speaking, I dont know, how come you are telling like this.

Infact, I was the one first posted my understanding of shankara's bhAshya

on pUrNamadaH mantra in khila kAnda. Kindly refer my mail on 22nd of April

2004 ( I dont know how to pick the mesg. no.) in the same thread.

Shankara's dvaitAdvaita khandana of bhartruhari is the highlight of his

bhAshya. I once again quote here relevant portion of the same :

//quote//

Now, we have come to the very important stage in which shankara takes us to

the theories now floating about jagat satyatva in parabrahman. In short,

what we have heard sofar in this list is parabrahman is pAramArthika satya

& in brahman, kArya rUpa jagat with names & forms is also real & vyavahAra

between kAraNa-kAryatva in brahman eternal. This souds like bharthru

prapancha's dvaitAdvaita school which shankara has taken for refutation in

the subsequent commentary on the same mantra. Since this mail already

getting lengthy, I'd not go into the details of it. Shankara says here

others (dvaitAdvaita vAdins) describe this mantra ( atra yekE varNayanti)

& say from pUrNa (cause-kAraNa) of parabrahman, pUrNa (effect-kArya) jagat

will come. That which has come from pUrNa at present even in duality pUrNa

only. ( pUrNAt kAraNAt pUrNam kAryaM udrichyate! udriktam kAryaM vartamAna

kAlEpi pUrNamEva paramArtha vastu bhutam dvaita rUpENa!) So, it is clear

that if we hold both jagat & brahma satyatva eternally it is not advaita,

it is theory of dvaitAdvaita school propagated by Bhartru prapancha etc.

Further, shankara narrates the dvaitAdvaita school view that even in

srushti, sthiti, laya in all three times this pUrNatva of parabrahman will

be there in bhEda rUpa. & for the sake of convenient teaching ONE & ONLY

parabrahman described as pUrNa in kArya & kAraNa. exp : water, waves,

bubbles, foam etc. in ocean. This is more or less similar to *purNamidaM*-

jagat in this thread. But shankara categorically refutes this view by

saying this is totally contradictory to shruti-s & it is like throwing

away shruti vAkya-s such as brahman has neither inside, nor outside, it is

astUla, anaNu etc. (sarvAh samudre prakshiptAH syuH!!).

//unquote//

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

May 5, 2004

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji.

I am honestly confused.

I have read your quote and your understanding of it several times.

It relates to Sankara's refutation of some one else's point of view

(atra yekE varNayanti), whereas I am asking you about what you would

say to the text (Sankara's own) and translation about pUrnamidam as

quoted by Sunderji.

Will you say Sankara made two contradictory statements?

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

________________________

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

>

> It was you who requested

> it. It is, therefore, strange that you haven't uttered even a word

> about it.

>

> praNAms Sri Nair prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> prabhuji frankly speaking, I dont know, how come you are telling

like this.

> Infact, I was the one first posted my understanding of shankara's

bhAshya

> on pUrNamadaH mantra in khila kAnda. Kindly refer my mail on 22nd

of April

> 2004 ( I dont know how to pick the mesg. no.) in the same thread.

> Shankara's dvaitAdvaita khandana of bhartruhari is the highlight of

his

> bhAshya. I once again quote here relevant portion of the same :

May 5, 2004

Namaste,

Bhasker Prabhuji wrote:

<<<< Why shruti telling us about srushti, its cause etc. why shankara had to

write no. of pages on these issues, if it is worthless & useless to the true

advaita jnAna?? So, IMHO nothing is worthless if our intention is to learn the

doctrinal issues involved in siddhAnta with sincere earnestness.>>>>

Discussions on Shrushti in the Sruties, IMHO (does it mean ‘in my humble

opinion’? As I find this abbreviated word appears quite often in the posts), are

just “prasangavasad” i.e. just in the context. Moreover, I may be wrong,

different versions are there in the Upanishads as far as Shrushti is concerned.

It only indicates, there is no unity in understanding the Shrushti. Again in my

opinion, Advaita does not address “how Shrushti came into being” and/or “who is

behind this Shrushti” etc., because the single and sole purpose of Advaita

Vedanta is to unfold “Jeeva Brahmaaikyam”.

In vyvahara, which, in my opinion, we can never “transcend” (though we can

certainly end our trance resulting from self-ignorance) so long as we are in

this world, our problem is not because a Shrushti is there or how and why the

Shrushti came into being. Our problem concerns with our conclusion that it is

Shrushti that is responsible for my suffering or unhappiness, or to be more

precise I am bound by this world. We have taken a snake due to ignorance as a

rope. This is a dangerous situation. That rope will not only serve my purpose,

but on the other hand it can kill me any time. This is how self-ignorance has

blindfolded us. Advaita indirectly conveys that it is a wrong conclusion, as it

is based on mithyajnana, and by unfolding “tatwam asi”, removes that wrong

conclusion. Once that correction takes place, whether Shrushti is there or not,

“I” remains in total peace.

With this background, I have not given much importance to maya, how Shrushti

came into being, etc. It is okay from purely academic aspect, but it does not

help much towards the end I am seeking.

If my understanding needs to be corrected, most humbly I seek guidance of my

learned members,

With Hari Om

Mani

bhaskar.yr wrote: