Existence of Ishvara is not mAyA; or is it?

May 9, 2005

Namaste all.

This title and this post have been prompted by a private

conversation where the proponent, who 'advocates' advaita,

has the following opinion. The opinion proceeds from his

advaitic conclusion that everything is only the supreme Sat

(Existence) and anything that appears to be otherwise is

only mAyA.

Proceeding from this base, the proponent concludes that

Ishvara also is mAyA and so all worship, pUjA, divine will,

the concept of surrender, -- all these are non-existent. A

consequence of this is to deny

1. Existence of Ishvara

2. Concept of Divine will

3. Concept of Surrender.

According to me, the consequence of even one of these leads

to atheism. Advaita should not lead to an atheistic

attitude. So my answer to the above would go something like

this:

The statement "Ishvara exists only in the mAyic world" is a

statement true from the absolute point of view. It is a

statement which only the Absolute Supreme Brahman can say,

if at all it 'says'. Ourselves being in the mAyic world,

we cannot say that Ishvara is mAyA for us. In our

vyVavahAric state, just as we take care of our body

granting its existence, we have to grant that Ishvara

exists. This is why, I think, our teachers all insist that

advaita-learning should only follow an 'Astikya-buddhi'

(the conviction that Ishvara exists) and should not replace

'Astikya-buddhi'.

I would like members of the list to help me polish the

above paragraph of mine or correct me if I have defaulted

in the understanding of advaita.

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

New on my website, particularly for beginners in Hindu philosophy:

Empire of the Mind:

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/HNG/ManversusMind.html

Free will and Divine will - a dialogue:

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/HNG/FWDW.html

May 9, 2005

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

> Namaste all.

>

> This title and this post have been prompted by a private

> conversation where the proponent, who 'advocates' advaita,

> has the following opinion. The opinion proceeds from his

> advaitic conclusion that everything is only the supreme Sat

> (Existence) and anything that appears to be otherwise is

> only mAyA.

>

> Proceeding from this base, the proponent concludes that

> Ishvara also is mAyA and so all worship, pUjA, divine will,

> the concept of surrender, -- all these are non-existent. A

> consequence of this is to deny

> 1. Existence of Ishvara

> 2. Concept of Divine will

> 3. Concept of Surrender.

>

> According to me, the consequence of even one of these leads

> to atheism. Advaita should not lead to an atheistic

> attitude. So my answer to the above would go something like

> this:

> The statement "Ishvara exists only in the mAyic world" is a

> statement true from the absolute point of view. It is a

> statement which only the Absolute Supreme Brahman can say,

> if at all it 'says'. Ourselves being in the mAyic world,

> we cannot say that Ishvara is mAyA for us. In our

> vyVavahAric state, just as we take care of our body

> granting its existence, we have to grant that Ishvara

> exists. This is why, I think, our teachers all insist that

> advaita-learning should only follow an 'Astikya-buddhi'

> (the conviction that Ishvara exists) and should not replace

> 'Astikya-buddhi'.

Whether or not Ishvara actually exists, as individual

organisms making our way through the world, our existence

is always entirely dependent on our surroundings. In a way,

it's the same thing as Ishvara, an omnipotent being who

has complete power over us.

One doesn't necessarily need to accept that Ishvara

exists, but they must accept that their lives are always

subject to the whims of the world.

In such a case, why not be a devotee of this power?

Call it Ishvara, Kali, the universe; whatever suits

your purpose. From the regard of the absolute it's

moot, as you say, so it doesn't matter what you are

calling it.

--jody.

> I would like members of the list to help me polish the

> above paragraph of mine or correct me if I have defaulted

> in the understanding of advaita.

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins.

> profvk

>

> Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

>

> New on my website, particularly for beginners in Hindu philosophy:

> Empire of the Mind:

> http://www.geocities.com/profvk/HNG/ManversusMind.html

>

> Free will and Divine will - a dialogue:

> http://www.geocities.com/profvk/HNG/FWDW.html

May 10, 2005

Respected friends,

Namaste.

With reference to Prof.VK ji's post, here is what I feel (obviously all

these are from my level):

.. The absolute reality is one. One cannot experience this but one may

believe in this as a concept, towards better understanding of which, one

tries.

.. The rituals, bhakti, pooja, etc. are all required. Any earnest effort

put in this direction will benefit, if nothing else, in balancing life

better. I have known people who have sailed through life full of

difficulties with a smile on their face, by sheer power of their

spiritual beliefs.

.. Prayers, Bhakti, Puja towards an idol (personal god) and belief in

nirguna brahman are not mutually exclusive. I think the following shloka

balances these seeming opposites very well. I can't percieve any

contradictions in this.

aciMtyA vyaktarUpAya nirguNAya guNAtmanE

samasta jagadAdhAra mUrtayE brahmaNE namaH

Rough translation (would appreciate if someone can provide a better

translation):

Having a percievable form while being beyond thinking; full of good

attributes while being attributeless; the supporter of the entire

universe; to the idol; to brahman; I bow.

Best regards,

KBS Ramachandra

May 10, 2005

Namaste!

At first. I would like to ask about forgiveness, because I can be wrong.

I would like to add some about my anderstanding, if I'm wrong, please, correct

me.

We can't say anything about Brahman...Brahman is Unmanifest Absolute, which we

can only

conditionally

call as Brahman, Absolute, Unmanifest Absolute...Why? Because this cannot be

explained in terms of

any manifest reality, neither mundane nor transcendent. We can't explaining,

because Brahman is

not in object our Universe, Brahman is out of atributes and terms Univerese. If

Brahman is

unknowable and formless, how we can speak about it? We can,t!!! Because all our

terms will be

object our mind and consuisness, Brhamn is out these, Brhaman is avyakta and

acintya...

In Vedic scriptures we can find term - neti neti - not this not this-all our

image or speaks will

be neti neti...Brahman is out of form, object, sence, action, it is

transcententality Reality.

Ishvara is Saguna Brahman, Manifest Absolute with form and atributes. These

forms started from

Maya or Power...Why we can say about Isvar as about maya product, because we can

speak about forms

and atributes, because our mind and sence can explaning these. If we can

differenting these form

it is not transvedent. It is relation between object and subject. Brahman is out

of any relation,

because it transcendetal.If we can say and image this, it is maya...If Brahman

is avyakta, how we

can speak about this? If Brahman is acintya, how we can image and recognizes

this? If Brahman is

timeless and bordlees, how we can understant with our mind formless? Brahman is

unknowable,

undefinable, unfathomable, immutable, timeless, spaceless, indivisible

Transcentetal Reality.

Truth is only One, but for our ahankara it is no one, it is different...brahman

is Unitarity and

only One.

I think, that Isvat is maya in one sence, when he have forms and atributes...but

inner is

Brahman...

I think that this forms and object-subject relations is only in our mind,

because for us Isvar is

maya...for Brahman it is One...Brahman is not separation...Separation is only in

our mind and

ahankara...

Isvar is maya only for our ahankara. When Brahman will be relize as our self,

will be not Isvar

and myself - is only Brahman.

For us Isvar have forms, because we thinking that forms is reality, when forms

will be break and

when our ahankara will be break - will be only One.

>From our mind Isvar and Brahman is different...For One is only One Reality...

Isvara is maya, because we take to this form and atributes...How we can image

silence? How we can

say about silence? It is impossible! We can speak about silens aonly as

different from sound,

where sount has start - from silence. How we can find start and end of ring? Is

it possible?

------------------

I'm sorry for my English and my mistakes.

Shiv Anurag.

Mail Mobile

Take Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

http://mobile./learn/mail

May 10, 2005

advaitin, "K.B.S. Ramachandra" <ram@m...> wrote:

> I think the following shloka

> balances these seeming opposites very well. I can't percieve any

> contradictions in this.

>

> aciMtyA vyaktarUpAya nirguNAya guNAtmanE

> samasta jagadAdhAra mUrtayE brahmaNE namaH

>

> Rough translation (would appreciate if someone can provide a better

> translation):

> Having a percievable form while being beyond thinking; full of good

> attributes while being attributeless; the supporter of the entire

> universe; to the idol; to brahman; I bow.

>

Namaste, Ramachandra-ji, and all

The shloka you are quoting is interesting; but where is it from?

There seems to be a correction needed for the partitioning of words in

the shloka in the way you have written it. Let me try below:

acintya-avyakta-rUpAya nirgunAya guNAtmane/

samasta-jagad-AdhAra-mUrtaye brahmaNe namaH //

Note that *acintyAvyakta* has to be broken as *acintya + avyakta*.

Now the meaning would go as follows:

To Brahman, which has an unimaginably unmanifest form, which is

attributeless, which is the core of all guNas, and which is the basis

(AdhAra-mUrti) or substratum of all the universe - to that Brahman,

my prostrations.

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

May 10, 2005

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. Follow

how it is being done here. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

> Namaste all.

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins.

> profvk

>

> Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

Namaste,VK,IMHO,

Isvara is the sum total of all the Jivas, it is a concept as real as

oneself.

If you believe in Devas then for you there are Devas.

There really is no 'Divine Will' interfering, everything is Karma

and Prana only and that is illusion also. Surrender means just

accepting one's karma as one cannot change it anyway. The only thing

we seem to be able to change is our 'attitude' to events.

I firmly believe that it never happened and there is only Nirguna,

is being a contradictory verb in this case.

Because Nirguna is beyond all concepts, beyond Sat-Cit-Ananda and

all attributes, doesn't make one an atheist, if that is what one

accepts. One just has to accept the non being, unborn,

incomprehensible. It is all still karma but essentially the only

beings that can help one are Saints, Sages and Avatars. God does no

action, makes no judgements and really doesn't hear any prayers.

I can understand though that if some people have this need for

a 'God' doing something it can cause some to become atheists or be

demoralised, if they knew the truth but couldn't accept it. If they

didn't have that level of purification or understanding in their

vijnanamayakosa. That is why Sankar said 'Bhaja Govindam'

I personally accept my truth that it didn't happen at all, if it did

it would be seen in deep sleep, samadhi and moksha-it isn't..No

snake and no rope!...ONS..Tony.

May 10, 2005

Honorable Prof. V. Krishnamurthy,

I am a new entrant and probably a most Alpadhnya person in this great group of

masters of Adwaita siddhant. You invited the opinions on your post with your

following sentence.

“I would like members of the list to help me polish the above paragraph of mine

or correct me if I have defaulted in the understanding of advaita.”

I submit my opinion in this respect.

1. Your said,” consequence of this is to deny

1. Existence of Ishvara

2. Concept of Divine will

3. Concept of Surrender.

Opinion : You deny an existence of Ishwara in “Adwaita”, but call Parmatma as

Sarvadhnya. So, your mind before realization of self attributes all the

functions of Ishwara to Brahma and you do not think that you have denied the

existence of Ishwara.

Once you make determination and accept the world to be an illusion, the question

of fate and freewill does not arise in your mind. Even while in Vyutthan, (not

in the thoughts of Brahma) if you feel some event in life to be fortunate or

unfortunate, within no time you come back again to your original determination.

The event fails to give you any impression of Sukha or Dukkha. You achieve

Samatwa.

Sarvatmakabhava is a surrender is Adwaita, also Nishchayatmika Buddhi, that I

am not a Deha is a surrender to Brahma.

2. You said, “According to me, the consequence of even one of these leads to

atheism. Advaita should not lead to an atheistic”

Opinion : The mind of the seeker of Adwaita accepts Brahma to be “doer” though

he knows nothing is being done. If he thinks of “Ishwara” to be the “doer”,

there will be a loss to his Nishta for “Adwiata”. Accepting Brahma as Karta,

prevents the Pravrittis of sadhaka to be atheist.

3. Your said,” we cannot say that Ishvara is mAyA for us. In our

vyVavahAric state, just as we take care of our body granting its existence, we

have to grant that Ishvara

exists.”

Opinion : Once a faith of the seeker is created in “adwaita” he has no

problem calling Ishwara to be Mayik, because sastra say it. His mind should be

determined that nothing exists other than Brahma.

“TrunarchakadiYoganta Ishware Bhrrantimashrrita”

In Panchadasi, Vidyaranya Muni has said that from worshiping Grass leaf (to any

form like idol of God) to all the Yoga Shastra is based on the Bhranta of

Ishwara.

Why then to insist on “Bhranta” knowingly and worship Ishwara who does not exist

as per “Adwaita”? This will keep the Shraddha shaky, and shall not ultimately

help in self realization. Dhnyottar Bhakti is a different matter.

Even in Vyawaharik state the sadhak could be fully determined that the body

which is being taken care is Bhranta and shall disappear one day. He must also

be

determined that what is happening around is only a scene

like one observes in TV. This becomes a habit of the

sadhaka if he tries for this.

4. You said, : “This is why, I think, our teachers all insist that

advaita-learning should only follow an 'Astikya-buddhi' (the conviction that

Ishvara exists) and should not replace 'Astikya-buddhi'.”

Opinion : In the word Astikaya, “Asti” refers to the existence of Brahma and

not to Ishwar. Brahma is the Adhistan for Ishwara and hence in “Gouna” vritti,

acceptance of Ishwara is called Astikaya.

There is no Astikya Buddhi like that of an Adwaitin because he accepts the

Vedas.

In fact the Sanskars in home for many years (till one takes up “Adwaita” for

study), do not leave the mind of sadhaka due to Vrittis of Smruti.Hence he is

afraid of leaving the worship of God idols. True Guru drives away the timidity

and all doubts and cleans the mind of Sadhaka. True, what is said, “Guru Kripa

Hi Kewalam”

Yours

Anil

May 11, 2005

Dear ProfVK ji,

> acintya-avyakta-rUpAya nirgunAya guNAtmane/

> samasta-jagad-AdhAra-mUrtaye brahmaNe namaH //

>

This has been recited by my father (and maybe his father too) during

daily pooja for a long time.

Recently, I was told by a learned member on another list that this is

the first shloka of "Soorya Siddhanta" -- a treatise on astronomy

Best regards,

Ramachandra

May 11, 2005

Namaste Ramachandraji.

That is not surprising.

In fact, the whole Adityahridayam of Ramayana is vedanta! The Indians

have seen the same Truth in everything! What a blessing to look east

and recite it every morning!

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

_________________

advaitin, "K.B.S. Ramachandra" <ram@m...> wrote:

> Dear ProfVK ji,

>

> > acintya-avyakta-rUpAya nirgunAya guNAtmane/

> > samasta-jagad-AdhAra-mUrtaye brahmaNe namaH //

> >

>

> This has been recited by my father (and maybe his father too) during

> daily pooja for a long time.

>

> Recently, I was told by a learned member on another list that this is

> the first shloka of "Soorya Siddhanta" -- a treatise on astronomy

May 11, 2005

Shri Jody.

My opinion on your post (pasted at the foot) is as below.:

I invite your kind attention to the sloka of Sankshep-Sharirak-Kar Sarvadhnyat

Muni.

Alpam Rupam Bandhanam PratyaGatma

BaddhoAnen Swaccha Chaitanya Murthy |

Swatmadhnyanam karanam Bandhanasya

SwatmadhnyanatNivritishcha Muktih ||

“Parichhinnata” (limiting of Rupa ) is Bandhanam. This Bandhanam binds the

Kutastha (Nirvikar) and creates Anartha (the life of penuries and shallow

pleasure, and birth cycles).

I have not explained the sloka because we all know its meaning, its simple.

I have to state that after knowing “Sarvatmanam Pashyati”, ”Mruttiketyeva

Satyam” or “Atma Wa Idameka Evagra Asit”, it will create a hurdle in achieving

one-nesss with Nirguna Nirakar if one goes back to Rupa worship.

Worship is a Karma. “NatsyaKrut Kruten” say mother Shruti. “Akrut” is moksha.

Moksha is not achieved by Kruti (action or karma). Mother Shruti is very

specific. Hence there is no Bhakti recommended by with “Pradhanatwa” for the

"advaitins".

“Dependence on surrounding” as told in the post is true in life, but as we know

it is gross Adhnyan. One shall have to practice the “Dwaita Nivritti” from mind

though involved in routine life.

“Lives are subject to whims of world” is also true as long as we have desires.

However, there is no other way but to try to give up desires gradually. It is

experience that with full determination of mind about the principles of

“Adwaita” (Shraddha and Nishta) one can ignore the whims or the effects of the

whims.

There is absolutely no necessity of going back to devotion of deity if one has

left it after study of Vedanta. We know that the profounder of Bhakti, Bhagwan

Narad had to approach Sanatkumar with complaint of Mental Tension and had to

seek “Atmadhnyan”. Shri Ramkrishna Paramhansa had to approach Shri Totapuri

Mahraraj with the request that his mind does not become Nirvikar, though he was

Kaali Bhakta. Mother Shruti has told us that “Gods do not like their animals

leaving herds and they create problems”. Once you accept the idol worship it is

very difficult to switch over to Nirguna from Saguna.

This is my opinion that with the knowledge of Shruti, Smriti and Sutras,

resorting to the way of Bhakti is like traveling to US by a marine ship from

Mumbai although having purchased the first class air ticket.

There is no way but to bring “Adwaita” knowledge in true life with the guidance

from shastra and Guru. Ulimately, we know that this “samshaya” could be removed

by Guru only and none else, say Sastra. True, what is said, Guru

Kripa Hi Kewalam.

Yours

Anil

---------

Whether or not Ishvara actually exists, as individual organisms making our way

through the world, our existence is always entirely dependent on our

surroundings. In a way,it's the same thing as Ishvara, an omnipotent being who

has complete power over us.

One doesn't necessarily need to accept that Ishvara exists, but they must accept

that their lives are always subject to the whims of the world.

In such a case, why not be a devotee of this power? Call it Ishvara, Kali, the

universe; whatever suits your purpose. From the regard of the absolute it's

moot, as you say, so it doesn't matter what you are

calling it.

--jody.

Discover

Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news & more. Check it out!

May 11, 2005

--- jodyrrr <jodyrrr wrote:

>

> Whether or not Ishvara actually exists, as individual

> organisms making our way through the world, our existence

> is always entirely dependent on our surroundings. In a way,

> it's the same thing as Ishvara, an omnipotent being who

> has complete power over us.

Judy you are not saying anything different- if in your words, the world

exists and we are surrounded by it and are controlled by it and by you

calling it Iswara; you might as well assume that Iswara exists who has

power over us.

World being inert, it is difficult to imagine that it is having a power

of its own to control us. Our existence does not depend on the

surroundings. I cannot say I exist because the world exists. I exist

independent of the world as in dream state or deep sleep states. In

fact if one looks carefully the world exists because I exist and not the

other way around.

Since world is an ordered system, it has to be a creation and there has

to be intelligence cause which is Iswara - that is how Vedas define

brahman too - and Brahmasuutra give a stamp - janmaadyasya yataH - as

the definition of Brahman or Iswara. gatiH barthaa prabhuH saakshii -

prabhavaH pralayaH sthaanam - says Krishna. He is the source for the

world, sustainer and annihilator too.

Hence, as long as the world is considered real, since as you say that it

has power of control, Iswara exists as real as the world. They go

together. I cannot have a creation that is separate from me yet dismiss

the creator -Iswara and therefore Bhakti and all other yogas follow.

Bhagavaan is there that is the one who has 'bhaga' or the glories. He

exists, unborn and eternal as long as the manifestations are considered

real.

All the discussions are only at this level.

>

> One doesn't necessarily need to accept that Ishwara

> exists, but they must accept that their lives are always

> subject to the whims of the world.

Acceptance of the world implies the acceptance of the Iswara too. That

the world exists and it has power over me but there is no Iswara border

to a belief in the non-belief than any wisdom involved.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

>

> In such a case, why not be a devotee of this power?

> Call it Ishvara, Kali, the universe; whatever suits

> your purpose. From the regard of the absolute it's

> moot, as you say, so it doesn't matter what you are

> calling it.

>

> --jody.

>

> > I would like members of the list to help me polish the

> > above paragraph of mine or correct me if I have defaulted

> > in the understanding of advaita.

> >

> > PraNAms to all advaitins.

> > profvk

> >

> > Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

> >

> > New on my website, particularly for beginners in Hindu philosophy:

> > Empire of the Mind:

> > http://www.geocities.com/profvk/HNG/ManversusMind.html

> >

> > Free will and Divine will - a dialogue:

> > http://www.geocities.com/profvk/HNG/FWDW.html

>

What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort.

Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only

the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda

May 11, 2005

Namaste Sri Anil:

First, I want congratulate your for your enthusiasm to participate in

the list discussions and expressing your view points with courage. I

do also want to make you aware that several of your postings

including this one give the impression that you don't have strong

conviction to Vedas or Vedanta. Whenever any of us (including you and

me) post a message in this spiritual list, we need to maintain

strong conviction to the advaita philosophy as envisioned by Sri

Sankara. If we post a message without that conviction, the message

doesn't come from our heart and consequently instead of helping our

fellow members, we will likely confuse with half-baked ideas

opinions. Such messages that do not reflect what is in our heart can

potentially become hindrance to our and other members' spiritual

progress. It is our duty to pay attention to what we post and also

to make sure what we post a message with a mixture of Truth, untruth

and half-truth.

Now let me turn my attention to your remarks regarding the existence

of Ishwara. If you take sometime to contemplate on who you really

are, you will be able to recognize the existence of "Ishwara" with

the awareness of your own existence!

Those who want to become aware of the existence of `nirguna brahaman'

should focus their attention totally away from their `body-mind-

intellect' to their inner `Atman.' As long as they exhibit `gunas

(tamasik or rajastik or satvik) they can never recognize their true

identity. To solve this puzzle on the identification of one's true

identity, our Sastras and especially Bhagavad Gita provide us with

all the clues. Our primary problem is worshiping our body, mind and

intellect by indulging in activities to please them! Actually

worshiping Ishwara is one of the best way to change our attention

from the unreal body, mind, intellect to our true Self. Our biggest

hurdle is paying too much attention to our body, mind and intellect

and Ishwara the horse can help us jump over the hurdle!

Those who conducts their `karma' as a punishment or on the basis of

their expectation on its outcome can never achieve liberation. This

may explain why Bhagavad Gita recommends the seeker to conduct

their `karma' with the Yagna spirit. In other words, Gita asks us to

change our mental attitude while conducting karma, by

treating `karma' as our dharma. Our dharma is conduct `karma yoga'

and not karma. With this change in attitude, we are able to avoid the

bondage, a bye product of karma. With adaptation of karma yoga, the

ill effects of karma are avoided and we are able to enjoy our life

journey with less bondage and more peace. Your statement, "Moksha is

not achieved by karma" is valid only when actions are conducted with

the sole focus on the outcome.

Let me stop right here so that we can all take a deep breath and

contemplate within.

Warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin, Anil Bharatey <selfanil> wrote:

>

> Shri Jody.

> .....

> I have to state that after knowing "Sarvatmanam

Pashyati", "Mruttiketyeva Satyam" or "Atma Wa Idameka Evagra Asit",

it will create a hurdle in achieving one-nesss with Nirguna Nirakar

if one goes back to Rupa worship.

>

> Worship is a Karma. "NatsyaKrut Kruten" say mother Shruti. "Akrut"

is moksha. Moksha is not achieved by Kruti (action or karma).

Mother Shruti is very specific. Hence there is no Bhakti recommended

by with "Pradhanatwa" for the "advaitins".

>

May 12, 2005

advaitin, Anil Bharatey <selfanil> wrote:

>

> This is my opinion that with the knowledge of Shruti, Smriti and

Sutras, resorting to the way of Bhakti is like traveling to US by a

marine ship from Mumbai although having purchased the first class air

ticket.

>

____________

Namaste.

Yes. If bhakti is something other than jnAna! To an advaitin, jnAna

and bhakti are not different.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

May 13, 2005

Most Respected Shri Ram Chandran Ji,

I am obliged to you to give me advice in most respected way. In future also if I

make mistakes you can scold me in any words you like. This is AmritPan for me.

I am really thankful to you. As far as my conviction to Veda and Jagatguru is

concerned, I think you people are the better judges. I appreciate the kind words

you have written.

Most of the seekers find it difficult to give up worship of God even after

understanding “Shabdadhnyan”. Everybody understands, “Neh Nanasti Kinchan” and

“NaTu TadDwityamAsti” but is unable to make up mind (Nishchaya) that “Dhnyate

Dwaitam Na Vidhyate”.

How many times the word Bhakti appers in Upanishadas ? (commented by Bhagwan

Acharya). Which are those deities who mother Shruti ask us to worship ? Despite

these facts, Bhagwan Acharya has advised us, “Bhaj Govindam”. The reason is that

“Beej-Naash” is very difficult for those who are not “Sanyasi”. Once this state

is achieved (Beej-Naash), mother Shruti says, “Na Punah Kwachit Rati Karoti”.

(He never loves anything again). There are always “Lakshyarth” and “Yogyartha”

(hints to Yogees) apart from “Wachyartha” (straight meaning of the words)to the

words of Shastras and to the words of Rishi,Shastra-Vetta and saints, because

they understand that there are always readers from all walks of life. The

experienced people understand the messages from these words.

Like in “Bhaja Govindam”, a Bhajan most liked by all the people, Bhagwan Acharya

has intelligently addressed the advice only to the “Mandamati” people. He has

told, “Bhaja Govindam Mudhamate” and not “Bhaja Govindam Buddhamate or

Shuddhamate”. So, reciting this Bhajan is recommended to “MandaBuddhi”, not to

the people who understand Upanishadas.

In Bhagwat Gita Bhashya, kind Acharya has hinted many times, “Not to go after

“Wachyartha” of Geeta and not to understand that everything is for everybody”.

He has recommended the clear division of Dhnyan Nishta and Karma Nishta.

“Pushpam Patram” (Chapter 9 )is not advised to the seekers of the grade of

“Dhnyan Nishta”, otherwise, the greatest master Pujyapada Shankara would have

definitely commented on it for the benefit of the students of Brahmavidya. His

“no comments” hints the senior Sadhakas that it does not concern them.

Also, in “Ishwasya” commentary Bhagwan Acharya has very very earnestly advised

the seekers to understand as to why there is contradiction in the Smriti Wakya.

“Ten Tykten Bhunjitha” is an advice to the Sanyasis and is clear order to give

up the desires. In the next sloka, Smriti takes “about turn” and say,

“Kurvanneha …. . . .”. ( Desire to live hundred years performing the karmas).

So, the seekers like me should try to understand the “Manogat” of Mahatmas and

the hidden meaning of the words.

Bhagwan Acharya has hinted the seekers of the Vedanta in mild words and defined

Bhakti in the sloka 32 of Vivekachudamani. “Swarupaanusandhanam” is the only

Bhakti for seekers of “Moksha”, he has made very clear. He did not ask to

worship lord Krishna or Rama, because it is not necessary in the later state of

sadhaka.

Bhagwan Acharya has intelligently called this

“Dhnyan-Karma-Sammuchaya-Wad” and has vehemently attacked the tendencies of

mixing up Dhnyan and Bhakti (and KarmaKand) in almost all his Bhashyas and

Prakaran and Prasadik Granthas. In Upadesh Sahastri, “Ishwaratma Prakarnam”,

Acharya has very explicitly advised us that there is no need of separately

recognizing Ishwara. (Also kindly refer intial Bhashya on Chapter 3 of Geeta).

“Ahmatma Gudakesh” is a hint by Smriti to the seekers of Brahma Vidhya, if one

wants to understand Geeta in its perspective. Since Bhagwat Geeta is a part of

Prasthan Trayee, it could be the only objective before Geeta to advocate Brahma

Vidya to the readers and not the Karmas. There is always Pradhantwa and

Gounatwa in advice. The Karma Yoga is recommended only for Chitta Shuddhi, and

for emergence of “Dhnyan” and not for Moksha. This has been repeatedly said by

many wise men.

There is a praise of Karma Yoga in Geeta for benefit of the people of Karma

Nishta and not Dhnyan Nishta.

“Astmat ……. . . .DnyanKarmanoh SamuchchyaNupPattih.. . . . Eshah Artho

Nishchito Gitasu Sarvopanishatsu Cha.” (Bhashya – Chapter 3). This is very

clear. There can not be any “Tatparya” than Dhnyan in Geeta or Shruti. All

other things naturally are with “Gounatwa” for the MandaBuddhi devotees. At the

end of every Adhyaya of Geeta, the objective of Geeta is made clear by writing

“Brhamavidyam Yogashastre”.

Shri Ram Chandran

However, the fact remains that has been pointed out in the message by Shri Ram

Chandran to me. He wrote,” Actually worshiping Ishwara is one of the best way to

change our attention from the unreal body, mind, intellect to our true Self. Our

biggest

hurdle is paying too much attention to our body, mind and intellect and Ishwara

the horse can help us jump over the hurdle!”

I understand sitting here, that these true and cool words of Hon. Ram Chandran

Ji could only come out of earnest desire of Kalyan of the people, and not from

any Ahamkari person.

I have already written it in one of my posts that the people on this list have

the Purva, otherwise, it is impossible to get attracted to Tatwa or Adwaita.

The blind saint Gulabrao Maharaj, (He became blind at the age of 9 months. He

wrote 230 books on the various subjects including Nyaya, Yoga and Prasthan

Trayee. He died at the age of 34.)has written, that the attraction to the

subject like “Adwaita” is Dukha Maya. Why? If one highly intelligent person

watching a India-Pakisthan Cricket Match on TV and if his Guru asks him to close

TV and read Bhashya or Mandukya Karika, he will be unhappy. (Dukhi). The reason

is the extremely tight grip of the Vikshepa vritti going away from the Chitta.

Under these circumstances, when one is too much involved in body, mind and

intellect but has the “Shabdadhnyan” of Shruti, and also if he is brilliant

person, Dhastra and the elders have recommended Pratiprasav and Pratipaksha

methods to come over the problems. This does not mean that one should renounce

the world and come out of his Samsar, but he must achieve the Ekagrata of mind

for getting the experience of what he has learnt. In the opinion of a foolish

person like me, worshipping God images could not be recommended to the

intelligent people. It is necessarily for Mandabuddhi masses. There is only

one exception, that if a person has a enlightened Guru from Bhakti Marg, he must

listen only to his Guru till he attains Dhnyan and should continue with Bhajan,

Pujan, Pushpam-Patram, ignoring even Shastras.

To conclude this long letter, it will not be out of place to write my own

experience, which is generally not allowed to me, but I always do it stupidly.

There is no intention of some kind of boasting, but only a desire that some

people may get some directions due to this Atmakathan.

I had taken Anugraha of Jyeshta Saint of Datta Sampraday PP Nana Maharaj

Taranekar of Indore in the year 1982 and entered Sadhak state with Ishta Devata,

mantra and worship. My Ishta was Ganesh and I liked the deity too much. I had

26 idols and photo of Lord Ganesha brought from different places including Ashta

Vinayaka. I would worship daily for four hours, and used to offer red flowers to

each of Ganesha photo and idol daily. Whenever, I would not get 26 red flowers,

I used to weep and felt very very bad. I would think that the Ganesh idols that

could not get a red flower will be annoyed with me. I was very much an emotional

devotee.

In the year 1990, a great Dhnyanyogee saint Khapti Mahraj, who used to live in

“Taran Sthiti” for almost 24 hours, suddenly entered my life. (My-Jupiter

vargottam in Sagittarius in the eleventh house) His age was 100 years that time

and he was Trikaal Dhnyani. He came to my home and told me to immediately stop

worship. I expressed the indignant protest; even for a moment I thought whether

he was a saint or Hiranya Kashyapu or a Chandal ?. I tried to remain silent and

thought, that the saint was an authority on Brahma Vidhya, he could not have

given me a wrong advice. He was angry old man like Jamdagni, and no questions

were allowed.

I did not give up worship but tried my best to understand the Nirgun existence

of Parmatma by intensive reading and closely observing the great saint. I used

to be very close to him. After few days I understood my stupidity of crying

when I could not offer a red flower to each of Ganesha, and my timidity that a

Ganesha idol that did not receive a red flower shall be annoyed with me and

shall curse me. I made up my mind, worshipped last for my beloved God, and

immersed all the 26 photo and idols in river Narmada. (1991). I prayed lord

Ganeshs that I wanted to pray him as “Twam Dhnyanmayo Vidhnyan Mayo Aasi.”

After giving up the idol worship my love for all the deities surprisingly

increased. I like Lord Krishna very much. I became more theist. But only

difference is that the Bheda Dhnyan vanished completely and I started receiving

experience those could not be depicted.

I request to excuse me for this writing this non-sense. The similar letters I

have written like 21 experience of "Adwaita". In fact those were my own

experiences and not of any Great Maharashi.

Aplogizing again,

Yours

Anil

Shri Ram Chandra's letter is given below :

------------