'Gita in Daily Life' -- Personal God or Impersonal Absolute?

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Mayuresh and all.

 

You have rightly embarked on the Question No.210 (Level Two, Qn.10)

in your

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m25600.html

 

This question is a perennial one in the arena of Gita discussions.

But Krishna Himself gives us the hint:

XII - 5:

klesho'dhikarasteShAM avyaktaasakta-chetasAM /

avyaktA hi gatir-duHkhaM dehavadbhir-avApyate //

 

Greater is the trouble whose minds are set on the unmanifest; for

the goal, the unmanifest, is very hard for the embodied to reach.

 

So though the Ultimate is Impersonal, the easier route is through

the Personal Form and Name. It is interesting and educative to note

that great devotees from Shankara downwards have themselves extolled

the qualities and pleasures of Bhakti of the Personal God. Here is a

shloka from Shankara's Shivananda-lahari (#33):

 

nAlaM vA sakRRid-eva deva bhavataH sevA natir-vA nutiH

pUjA vA smaraNaM kathA-shravaNam-apy-AlokanaM mAdRRishAM /

swAmin-nasthira-devatAnu-saraNAy-Asena kiM labhyate

kA vA muktir-itaH kuto bhavati cet kiM prArthanIyaM tadA //

 

meaning, Oh God! For ordinary people like me (look who is speaking!)

what else is there in MokSha which is not there in Service to You

and Your creation, a namaskara, a stotra in Your glory, a ritual

pUjA, a recollection of Your names, meditation on Your beatifics, or

a darshan of Your Form? Is MokSha different from any of these? Even

if it is so, what else do I obtain by that?

 

I look forward to other opinions on this list regarding this topic.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Professorji, Mayureshji et al.

 

Due to several other pressing commitments, social as well as

personal, I am not able to participate in this discussion as much as

I want.

 

But this question on personal and impersonal calls attention.

 

I have a 'personal' deity - the Universal Mother. At the same time,

I would like to be called an advaitin too. How could these two

seemingly different positions be reconciled is the heart of the

matter?

 

Well, advaita doesn't permit any second entity. So, for me, the

advaitin, the Devi is everything. Every particle of my body is Devi

Lalita as is every star in yonder heavens. Everything thought is She

and every dream is She. Sleep is She. She is my ignorance too.

There is nothing other than Her. She alone remains. Where is the

She then as a third, nay second, person? Where is the question of a

# 2?

 

As long as I am backed by the water-tight logic of advaita, where is

there any need for me to fret about my having a 'personal' goddess.

The 'personal' has no meaning because I as a person is already She.

If the 'personal' can't remain, the 'impersonal' also goes away.

There is only the Goddess everywhere in everything and She is me. I

am an advaitin. Words like 'everything' and 'everywhere' are then

only a matter of speech. Call me Lalita please or call Her Brahman

for a change. Life then becomes a Soundarya Lahari with the seeming

difference between Shiva and Shakti totally undone.

 

That is japo jalpah shilpam... without any doer. The Devi is the

chanter, She herself is the one doing pradakshina around Her! Every

thing is at peace with everything else because there is no more any

difference between them. Calamitous tsunamis, the falling kitchen

roof slab of Kanchi Mutt, a comet crashing on earth and this body

that could perish in all these scenarios are all One - never born and

never dying. She alone remains ever smiling.

 

In my personal opinion, it is, therefore, better to have a 'personal'

deity after assimilating the logic of advaita. The klesha referred

to by Lord Krishna is much less that way.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

>

> Namaste, Mayuresh and all.

>

> You have rightly embarked on the Question No.210 (Level Two, Qn.10)

> in your

> http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m25600.html

>

> This question is a perennial one in the arena of Gita discussions.

> But Krishna Himself gives us the hint:

> XII - 5:

> klesho'dhikarasteShAM avyaktaasakta-chetasAM /

> avyaktA hi gatir-duHkhaM dehavadbhir-avApyate //

>

> Greater is the trouble whose minds are set on the unmanifest; for

> the goal, the unmanifest, is very hard for the embodied to reach.

>

> So though the Ultimate is Impersonal, the easier route is through

> the Personal Form and Name. It is interesting and educative to note

> that great devotees from Shankara downwards have themselves

extolled

> the qualities and pleasures of Bhakti of the Personal God. Here is

a

> shloka from Shankara's Shivananda-lahari (#33):

>

> nAlaM vA sakRRid-eva deva bhavataH sevA natir-vA nutiH

> pUjA vA smaraNaM kathA-shravaNam-apy-AlokanaM mAdRRishAM /

> swAmin-nasthira-devatAnu-saraNAy-Asena kiM labhyate

> kA vA muktir-itaH kuto bhavati cet kiM prArthanIyaM tadA //

>

> meaning, Oh God! For ordinary people like me (look who is speaking!)

> what else is there in MokSha which is not there in Service to You

> and Your creation, a namaskara, a stotra in Your glory, a ritual

> pUjA, a recollection of Your names, meditation on Your beatifics,

or

> a darshan of Your Form? Is MokSha different from any of these? Even

> if it is so, what else do I obtain by that?

>

> I look forward to other opinions on this list regarding this topic.

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins

> profvk

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>>>

> As long as I am backed by the water-tight logic of advaita, where

is

> there any need for me to fret about my having a 'personal'

goddess.

> The 'personal' has no meaning because I as a person is already

She.

> If the 'personal' can't remain, the 'impersonal' also goes away.

> There is only the Goddess everywhere in everything and She is me.

I

> am an advaitin. Words like 'everything' and 'everywhere' are then

> only a matter of speech. Call me Lalita please or call Her

Brahman

> for a change. Life then becomes a Soundarya Lahari with the

seeming

> difference between Shiva and Shakti totally undone.

>

> That is japo jalpah shilpam... without any doer. The Devi is the

> chanter, She herself is the one doing pradakshina around Her!

Every

> thing is at peace with everything else because there is no more

any

> difference between them. Calamitous tsunamis, the falling kitchen

> roof slab of Kanchi Mutt, a comet crashing on earth and this body

> that could perish in all these scenarios are all One - never born

and

> never dying. She alone remains ever smiling.

>

> In my personal opinion, it is, therefore, better to have

a 'personal'

> deity after assimilating the logic of advaita. The klesha

referred

> to by Lord Krishna is much less that way.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

Namaste , Nair-ji, Wonderfully said!

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji,

 

Thank you very much for clearing this up. This has been a question for me

always. However after reading and understanding I have some more problems to

understand.

 

1.As we see everything is consciousness, actually there is only consciousness,

what is the need of consciousness worshipping consciousness?

2. Why do we name consciousness as Lord Krishna, Lord Shiva , Mother Shanty and

say everything is Lord so and so ? Is it by meditating on these we want to be

like them ( free, limitless).

3. How does prayer work? I know that prayer works and I have seen that in my

life. We pray before beginning of any work to remove hidden obstacles. We can

call them our Hidden Karma also. So who is removing these? Is it me creating All

Karmas and removing them through Prayer ?

 

I will really appreciate if dear gurus clear my doubts.

 

love all,

santosh

 

 

 

 

-

Madathil Rajendran Nair

advaitin

Monday, May 02, 2005 5:20 AM

Re: 'Gita in Daily Life' -- Personal God or Impersonal

Absolute?

 

 

 

 

That is japo jalpah shilpam... without any doer. The Devi is the

chanter, She herself is the one doing pradakshina around Her! Every

thing is at peace with everything else because there is no more any

difference between them. Calamitous tsunamis, the falling kitchen

roof slab of Kanchi Mutt, a comet crashing on earth and this body

that could perish in all these scenarios are all One - never born and

never dying. She alone remains ever smiling.

 

In my personal opinion, it is, therefore, better to have a 'personal'

deity after assimilating the logic of advaita. The klesha referred

to by Lord Krishna is much less that way.

 

PraNAms.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Shri Santoshji,

 

 

 

I humbly state below about the three doubts raised by you, based on my own

understanding.

 

 

 

1. Consciousness is the seed of nescience. This seed emerges as the decisive

mind or intelligence. One can therefore, experience the consciousness clearly in

his mind. (Refer- Pancadashi 6/154) Worship is a karma. Geeta says all karmas

end in 'jnan' and hence, worship is a ‘dwaitabhas’ (illusionary dualism).

 

 

 

2. Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna are accepted by shastras as “Divya-vibhuti”.

These deities are “Mayik” (created out of Avidya) and hence ‘badhak’ for the

experience of Adwaita. However it is true that the great Indian saints have

written about the miraculous ‘darshan’ and ‘sakshatkar’ of these deities. Since

these are “Mayik” deities, these are experienced by seekers with the human

senses (five), while experience of 'Adwaita' is beyond human senses. Generally

for all the people and particularly in the initial stages of seekers of

devotional path or Yoga path, worship of these or any devotees help to gain

concentration of mind (ekagrata), and help to create faith in God. Any of the

deities is taken as ‘Ishta’ or ‘Alambhana’ for progress in “Adhyatmashastra”.

The worship of the “divya-vibhuti” helps one to achieve “sadhan chatushtaya” and

purity of ‘Chitta’ for gain of ‘jnan’. However, for the direct experience of

Adwita, (aparokshanubhuti) one has to give up any name and form at

the proper stage, say the saints and wise men.

 

 

 

 

 

3. Prayer : Strictly as per the doctrines of Adwaita, whom one can pray

when nothing exists other than Parmatma ?

 

 

 

A great ‘jnan-yogee’ saint from Vidarbha region who entered samadhi in 2003, and

with whom I was lucky to have close relations for about fifteen years and

respected like my Guru used to tell us a story.

 

 

 

“A young man entered the temple with all Puja material, worshipped God idol and

after performing puja bowed before God for a minute. When he came out of temple

there was a smile on his face.”

 

Saint would cease for a minute and ask a question, “tell me whether God promised

something to that young man? Why then was he happy and smiling ?

 

 

 

“Everything comes from within” he would explain. "All karmas and karma-phalas

are in your mind" Baba used to say.

 

 

 

mistakes if any are mine,

 

 

 

Anil

 

 

 

 

santysharma- <santysharma wrote:Namaste Nairji,

 

Thank you very much for clearing this up. This has been a question for me

always. However after reading and understanding I have some more problems to

understand.

 

1.As we see everything is consciousness, actually there is only consciousness,

what is the need of consciousness worshipping consciousness?

2. Why do we name consciousness as Lord Krishna, Lord Shiva , Mother Shanty and

say everything is Lord so and so ? Is it by meditating on these we want to be

like them ( free, limitless).

3. How does prayer work? I know that prayer works and I have seen that in my

life. We pray before beginning of any work to remove hidden obstacles. We can

call them our Hidden Karma also. So who is removing these? Is it me creating All

Karmas and removing them through Prayer ?

 

I will really appreciate if dear gurus clear my doubts.

 

love all,

santosh

 

 

 

 

-

Madathil Rajendran Nair

advaitin

Monday, May 02, 2005 5:20 AM

Re: 'Gita in Daily Life' -- Personal God or Impersonal

Absolute?

 

 

 

 

That is japo jalpah shilpam... without any doer. The Devi is the

chanter, She herself is the one doing pradakshina around Her! Every

thing is at peace with everything else because there is no more any

difference between them. Calamitous tsunamis, the falling kitchen

roof slab of Kanchi Mutt, a comet crashing on earth and this body

that could perish in all these scenarios are all One - never born and

never dying. She alone remains ever smiling.

 

In my personal opinion, it is, therefore, better to have a 'personal'

deity after assimilating the logic of advaita. The klesha referred

to by Lord Krishna is much less that way.

 

PraNAms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Santosh,

 

thank you for your questions...

 

to 1)

As there is only This One consciousness.....means, One Being.....

there is just a "normal, or natural life".....or if you prefer to

use "worshipping"...

 

i once heared about some "Gurus" who are sitting whole day long

around with a great smile and even laughing ...

 

i think there are endless possibilities to enjoy Consciousness....

 

but yes....it's more effectif to choose an occupation which let This

wonderful Unity....inner peace....remaining what it IS.....

 

there is no inner peace?.....

 

i remember the discussion about Dharma.....

Dharma is usefull to "discover" what one is ....and always has

been......and to keep Oneness "alive"....

 

to 2:

the essence of All is "Lord Krishna", "Lord Shiva", "Mother

Shanty".......

how could one "wish" to find this essence....to search for it.....to

be like them....?....if the essence of All is already Them

 

to 3)

Karma is related to the "individual mind"....

how to remove Karma?....

yes....praying to the deepest inner Self.....in "giving up" the body

mind intellect for some moments and time.....to remove so, the

illusion of being seperated to All.......

there is some effect ......the effect of removing illusions....and

so, also Karma.....

 

this are few words and thoughts only.....

in trying to find some answers....

 

Regards

 

love and peace

 

Marc

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "santysharma-"

<santysharma> wrote:

> Namaste Nairji,

>

> Thank you very much for clearing this up. This has been a question

for me always. However after reading and understanding I have some

more problems to understand.

>

> 1.As we see everything is consciousness, actually there is only

consciousness, what is the need of consciousness worshipping

consciousness?

> 2. Why do we name consciousness as Lord Krishna, Lord Shiva ,

Mother Shanty and say everything is Lord so and so ? Is it by

meditating on these we want to be like them ( free, limitless).

> 3. How does prayer work? I know that prayer works and I have seen

that in my life. We pray before beginning of any work to remove

hidden obstacles. We can call them our Hidden Karma also. So who is

removing these? Is it me creating All Karmas and removing them

through Prayer ?

>

> I will really appreciate if dear gurus clear my doubts.

>

> love all,

> santosh

>

>

>

>

> -

> Madathil Rajendran Nair

> advaitin

> Monday, May 02, 2005 5:20 AM

> Re: 'Gita in Daily Life' -- Personal God or

Impersonal Absolute?

>

>

>

>

> That is japo jalpah shilpam... without any doer. The Devi is the

> chanter, She herself is the one doing pradakshina around Her!

Every

> thing is at peace with everything else because there is no more

any

> difference between them. Calamitous tsunamis, the falling

kitchen

> roof slab of Kanchi Mutt, a comet crashing on earth and this body

> that could perish in all these scenarios are all One - never born

and

> never dying. She alone remains ever smiling.

>

> In my personal opinion, it is, therefore, better to have

a 'personal'

> deity after assimilating the logic of advaita. The klesha

referred

> to by Lord Krishna is much less that way.

>

> PraNAms.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

namskaar santosh ji,

just felt like saying something on what u asked santosh ji & could

put it in the following manner just by the His grace -

consciousness has no name or all names are that of consciousness. in

fact, Krishna himself tells arjuna in Gita in the beginning of

chapter 12 that for man worshipping the unmaniferted is really

difficult, while surrendering to manifested is comparatively

easier.Becoming the slave of the Lord, surrendering everything to

him & in fact, losing his personal identity.This is what we all wish

for.A bhakta is not seperate from His Lord.I usually take it in this

way. A bhakta is one who is not Vibhakta(seperate) that means bhakta

itself meaning one with His Lord. Narada also says in His bhakti

sutras that a bhakta should never be considered seperate from His

lord. And ya,u said right to some extent,meditating upon them we

just don't be like them but, we come to know that we are them. And

then only one comes to know that everything is consciousness, as

madathil ji said Mata eats, Mata drinks, Mata is me, Mata is

everything.

As for the prayer santosh ji, an advaitin prays to God just to

surrender to Him everything which He has done or going to do without

going for any type of worldly desire & accepts everything whether

good or bad, even obstacles as the play of the three modes of

prakriti.

 

 

Pranaams

Gautam.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Santoshji.

 

Sorry for the delay. As I said before, I was in the midst of a lot

of other activities.

 

My comments are in .

_____________________

 

advaitin, "santysharma-" >

> 1.As we see everything is consciousness, actually there is only

consciousness, what is the need of consciousness worshipping

consciousness?

 

[Nothing is worshipping anything as worship itself is Consciousness.

When I said the Devi Herself is the One doning pradakshiNa around

Her, I thought it was understood that the pradakshiNa itself is the

Devi. I hope you will appreciate that the scenario sketched out in

my post was an attempt to annul our concepts of 'personal'

and 'impersonal' (Consciousness can't be either as the two terms

denote only opposites in the transactional.) and to do away with the

bothersome # 2.]

> 2. Why do we name consciousness as Lord Krishna, Lord Shiva ,

Mother Shanty and say everything is Lord so and so ? Is it by

meditating on these we want to be like them ( free, limitless).

 

[Whatever name you call It by, the right understanding is important.

That is why I concluded it is better to take to a 'personal' God

after assimilating the logic of advaita. With that logic, you at

least know what you really are (the message of BG Ch. 2). The

identification then helps in the transactional. At least in my case,

it definitely has.]

> 3. How does prayer work? I know that prayer works and I have seen

that in my life. We pray before beginning of any work to remove

hidden obstacles. We can call them our Hidden Karma also. So who is

removing these? Is it me creating All Karmas and removing them

through Prayer ?

 

[in my scenario, each syllable of the prayer is She, each touch of

the tip of the tongue against the palate is She, each sensation

anywhere in the body is She. There is no 'prayer' (the one praying)

because he/she also is She. That is prayer without 'prayership'. It

sounds tricky but not very difficult in practice. Every moment is a

prayer then. There is then no time to bother about issues like past

karma, hidden karma etc. Where is the need to remove them then?

Wherever you are, you are on Her protective lap. If you look for

yourself on the lap, you end up seeing only Her - no lap, no you. I

can't express it better.]

 

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Thanks Nairji,

 

The point I am stuck on is

----

That is why I concluded it is better to take to a 'personal' God after

assimilating the logic of advaita. With that logic, you at least know what you

really are (the message of BG Ch. 2). The identification then helps in the

transactional. At least in my case,it definitely has.]

-----

 

can you elaborate it further?

 

Thanks again,

 

 

santosh

 

 

-

Madathil Rajendran Nair

advaitin

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 4:37 AM

Re: 'Gita in Daily Life' -- Personal God or Impersonal

Absolute?

 

 

Namaste Santoshji.

 

Sorry for the delay. As I said before, I was in the midst of a lot

of other activities.

 

My comments are in .

_____________________

 

advaitin, "santysharma-" >

> 2. Why do we name consciousness as Lord Krishna, Lord Shiva ,

Mother Shanty and say everything is Lord so and so ? Is it by

meditating on these we want to be like them ( free, limitless).

 

[Whatever name you call It by, the right understanding is important.

That is why I concluded it is better to take to a 'personal' God

after assimilating the logic of advaita. With that logic, you at

least know what you really are (the message of BG Ch. 2). The

identification then helps in the transactional. At least in my case,

it definitely has.]

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "santysharma-" <> The point I

am stuck on is

> ----

> That is why I concluded it is better to take to a 'personal' God

after assimilating the logic of advaita. With that logic, you at

least know what you really are (the message of BG Ch. 2). The

identification then helps in the transactional. At least in my

case,it definitely has.]

> -----

>

> can you elaborate it further?

_

 

Namaste Santoshiji.

 

Sorry again for the delay due to lack of time.

 

Hope this explanation will dissolve the glue:

 

Sankara and other masters have sung glories of deities. I believe

that itself confirms that ishtadevatAs are not excluded in advaita.

 

Secondly, an advaitin plays several roles in the transactional. He

is a father, brother, friend, employee etc. etc. With an ishtadevatA

in, he becomes a devotee. This brings about a quantum

transformation. He is then a devotee-father, devotee brother,

devotee-friend, devotee employee and devotee-what-not, in all of

which devotee is the common denominator. The different roles have

now been integrated on the devotee fulcrum. The devotee remains

devotee whatever the roles he gets into to perform his dharma. Such

an integration of roles is very beneficial to an aspiring advaitin.

This is Sw. Dayanandaji's point of view. Among our current

vedantins, I have the highest of regards for him.

 

You may here intervene and say that all roles are already integrated

on the advaitic substratum – Brahman. But, the difference is that

the devotee fulcrum is substantial and fully belongs to the

transactional where we operate day in and day out. The devotee is

uniquely tangible unlike the ineffable Brahman, although in final

analysis, both merge in Aham BrahmAsmi.

 

Now to come to my personal track commencing with the above

understanding gained from our masters - I am integrated in all my

roles as a devotee. Yet, I interact with numerous other entities

like my own family members, friends, animate and inanimate entities,

thoughts, ideas, etc. Why not integrate them too on to a fulcrum -

into a totality?

 

Swamiji often advises his disciples to live the knowledge they have

acquired. Advaita teaches me that I am everything. It is not enough

for me to say I am Brahman and Brahman is ineffable, ungraspable

etc. I am living in a universe of diversity. Therefore, if I am to

practise my knowledge, I have to do that right here with these

diverse manifestations around me. How do I do that?

 

For me, and I am sure for many other too, my ishtadevata has come in

very handy here. Why not visualize Her in all that I experience with

my senses, whereby even the senses, body, mind, intellect, ego etc.

all become Her. And, if only She remains in the process, isn't that

advaita?

 

One of the four dhyanashlokAs of the sacred LalitA sahasra nAmavali,

which I chant irrespective of when and where, ends with the

words "ahamityeva vibhavaye bhavAnim" (I visualize BhavAni as

myself.) (Of course, there is a variation here – some people

chant `maheshim' instead of `bhavAnim'. I prefer the latter because

the meaning of that name, BhavAni, perfectly suits my situation.).

BhavAni is the totality that manifests as the diversity of this

universe (bhava). So, it is not mental transvestism that is

suggested in `ahamityeva vibhavaye bhavAnim'. (I know many ardent

male devotees of the Devi who go into trances wearing female attire

and ornaments.) I am expected to visualize this diversity as

BhavAni and, therefore, myself. In other words, I have to see

everything as my BhavAni, first deliberately till that `seeing'

becomes spontaneous.

 

I used to often wonder why Mata Amritanandamayi Devi hugs everyone

She comes across. The answer lies in what I explained above. She is

spontaneous in Her total identification with BhavAni. She is,

therefore, taking everything to Her motherly oceanic bosom where they

rightly belong. None is spared – business tycoons, beggars, lepers,

animals, snakes and insects join that incessant procession into Her.

She is a living universe.

 

I draw consolation and hope from the thought that if She can be one

hundred percent universe, I could at least be one percent. If that

happens, then my advaita has more than served its purpose in this

life. I am more than convinced the process I am in helps. That is

the unshakable faith BhavAni grants.

 

Thus, each thought of mine is BhavAni, the glow of Consciousness,

each sensation on my body, the Sun, Moon, planets, the distant stars,

insects that crawl and fly – all are BhavAni. This visualization

removes separation, alienation and above all fear. The world, which

is blamed for all its evils, becomes more and more acceptable. The

sense organs lose their tyrannical grip because in the process of

visualization one becomes slowly aware of the fact that they are add-

ins brought in to explain our separation from the objects perceived

and that we don't actually need them to `experience' the world

because the world is ourselves. Mind and intellect lose their

unfortunate individual identity in the Universal. Ego flees for he

has no more any role to play with comparison undone. Ultimately,

Bhavani alone shines, diversity having crashed into Her bosom as an

offering.

 

PraNAms to Her and all of you, who are none other than Her.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Nairji,

 

Thank you very much in making this very clear at last.My mind being like tube

light it takes some to light up.

 

So this is what I understand so far:

 

There are two views, one absolute where there is only pure consciousness and

nothing else. Second is relative with all its diversity. In reality same

"Nirguna Brahman" appears, as it were, as many because of my ignorance. I will

continue to see this world of many until this knowledge of oneness becomes

spontaneous.

what this concept of Personal Iswara gives me is twofold benefit. First, it

helps me to remind my true nature ( of being pure consciousness) all the time,

thus making my belief strong day by day in non-duality. Second, it shows me the

way how live in this world with ease as Devotee friend, Devotee father etc.

I think its all clear now, just need to reflect more and more till it sinks in.

 

Thanks again,

 

santosh

 

 

 

-

Madathil Rajendran Nair

 

 

 

 

Swamiji often advises his disciples to live the knowledge they have

acquired. Advaita teaches me that I am everything. It is not enough

for me to say I am Brahman and Brahman is ineffable, ungraspable

etc. I am living in a universe of diversity. Therefore, if I am to

practise my knowledge, I have to do that right here with these

diverse manifestations around me. How do I do that?

 

For me, and I am sure for many other too, my ishtadevata has come in

very handy here. Why not visualize Her in all that I experience with

my senses, whereby even the senses, body, mind, intellect, ego etc.

all become Her. And, if only She remains in the process, isn't that

advaita?

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <>

> For me, and I am sure for many other too, my ishtadevata has come in

> very handy here. Why not visualize Her in all that I experience

with

> my senses, whereby even the senses, body, mind, intellect, ego etc.

> all become Her. And, if only She remains in the process, isn't that

> advaita?

>

> >

> PraNAms to Her and all of you, who are none other than Her.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

Namaste, Nair-ji

 

Congratulations on a masterly handling of this knotty question!

Particularly the above paragraph of yours will provide the right prop

for every one who has doubts on advaita-bhakti! May Her blessing be

always with you.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

List Moderator's Note:

Inspite of our repeated requests, you (also several other members) continue to

include the entire message of the previous posting while sending your

replies.Please be cooperate and help us by just deleting the unnecessary parts.

This message has been edited appropriately so that members can follow how it is

being done here. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 

 

Dear Professor,

 

The article you referred to in a previous posting,

Jnaneshvara's Approach to Bhakti, was very helpful to

me since I did not want to

throw out this dimension of the spiritual life out and

I

was having problems understanding certain statements

which seemed to make advaita and bhakti mutually

exclusive.

 

Thank you for this and for your excellent and lucid

postings.

 

Dennis Ebel

Long Beach, California

 

 

 

--- "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote:

> advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran

> Nair" <>

> > For me, and I am sure for many other too, my

> ishtadevata has come in