Is there God after enlightenment in Vedanta

[Guest guest]

Dear members,

 

I am glad to see such a large number of responses to my questions. I

am humbled by your knowledge about various things in Buddhist

teachings as well. However I find that perhaps my questions seem to be

critical of Hindu beleifs because of which I only find people

defending themselves or pointing a finger at another school of

thought, rather than explaining one's own position in an unbiased

manner. Let me go step by step. In this mail I discuss the answers to

the first question and the difficulties I face in understanding them.

 

One can say that one views the truth incorrectly before enlightenment.

But then why teach openly that there exists God to those who are not

enlightened and wait for them to realize themselves that there really

IS NO God! I don't think we teach children 1 + 1 = 3 in school and

teach them that it is actually 2 in University. Do you mean to say

that the teachers of Advaita relish in keeping people in ignorance for

a long while till they themselves realize the truth?

 

With regard to this I think there are two different viewpoints

prevelent - One that God does not vanish, another that God does vanish

after enlightenment. Sankara has written that "to an enlightened being

there is no God" and some here seem to recognize that, while others

donot - or they wish to defend their theism through some special

interpretation.

 

However, being culturally different and not knowing Sanskrit I have a

few problems.

 

a. I don't beleive that anything (including Nirvana) is beyond

understanding, given the right efforts.

b. I don't see the need to beleive in a God if ultimately one is going

to realize, that there exists no God. Do Hindus beleive in ghosts

also, and through some sort of effort realize that ghosts donot exist?

Why this outbound embrace of ignorance? Isn't ignorance the cause of

all misery?

c. If however you say that God exists even after enlightenment, then

why not let the person disbelieve in God first and slowly through

experience realize it.

 

The last part of my question is because of a cultural background that

I have. In Buddhist thought, there is no scripture that is regarded as

gospel. The Buddha's teachings recorded in the Pali Canon are not

regarded as holy, but are viewed with doubt and initial disbeleif. It

is only when we realize through our own experience, after testing it

that we accept even the Buddha's words. In fact the Buddha has himself

said:

 

"Donot beleive in what you have heard, donot beleive in doctrines

because they have been handed down to you through generations, donot

beleive in anything because it is followed blindly by many, donot

beleive because some old sage makes a statement, donot beleive in

truths to which you have become attached by habit, donot beleive

merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Oh katakavas,

donot beleive even my words or any other Buddha's/Brahmana's words.

Have deliberation and analyze, and when the result agrees with reason

and conduces to the good of one and all, accept it and live up to it."

 

I understand that this might be very heretic to the Vedic people, but

to me it appears perfectly reasonable. That one can question beleifs

is probably very wrong for Hindus, but question and inquiry is the

method of realizing the truth for those following the Arya Dhamma.

>From the nature of your statements it appears that beleiving in God is

a must for those who don't know that there actually exists no God.

Isn't it ironical?

 

Finally I have little or no knowledge of Sanskrit. I request that

terms that are in Sanskrit be translated for my benefit. I could also

write in Pali or Burmese. The question is how many would understand.

>From the answers to this question I can only conclude that - Beleif in

God is a personal choice that Hindus force themselves to make for some

reason I don't understand. While they enjoy discussing metaphysics and

interpreting things to make their religion appear great, they fail to

be sincere to the truth of the moment. However, some Indian saints

have also taught the contrary - perhaps, they were not so popular in

their own lands as they are respected elsewhere.

 

"If one does not know God at this moment, he may as well sincerely

admit that he knows no God, and that he does not beleive in Him." -

Swami Vivekananda

 

or

 

"An atheist is atleast sincere in accepting the truth. What good is

there in beleiving in God, if ethical living cannot be part of you?" -

Swami Vivekananda

 

I think the answer to this question lies nowhere, since different

people among Vedantists beleive different things.

 

-Bhikku Yogi

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Bhikkuyogi:

 

 

Here is what you have stated in your long introduction with some

questions:

 

"I know little about Advaita in general and shall mostly be silent on

the group. I understand that Hindus (even if they claim to be

Vedantists) generally donot like Buddhists, or the method of

enlightenment of the Buddha as against their idea of God realization,

but I hope that you can tolerate the "presence" of a silent spectator,

who promises not to indulge in your personal beleifs.

 

I may have some incorrect notions about Advaita, and beg you to

correct me if I am wrong. I have some doubts which I shall be grateful

to get clarified. I shall be mum while reading - please donot think

that absence of replies indicate any disagreement or disinterest."

 

Your this and recent other posts strongly indicate that you are not

a 'silent' learner, but rather a loud and vocal preacher.

 

Many of the questions that you have raised in these posts have beein

discussed previously in the list and they are available in the list

archives. At times, we do entertain people with strong supporters of

Buddhism to briefly express their view points. When you visit the

archives, you will notice long and lengthy discussions on the various

matters that you have addressed. I recommend that you spend sometime

reading (and grasping) through postings in the list archives on the

topics that you have questions. The style of your questions does

indicate that you have wrong presumptions about Sankara, Vedas,

Vedanta and Hinduism. First, you should get rid of those prejuidices

with an open mind if you readlly want to learn. Also please

understand thare are clear distinctions between "questinoning" and

enquiring. A seeker who wants to learn only enquires and do not

question the sincerity of the answerer.

 

Though you claim that you want to learn and understand Advaita, you

are spending more of your time preaching about Buddha and Buddhism.

May I request you to resubmit your questions (most importantly

briefly) with the right attitude.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "bhikkuyogi" <bhikkuyogi> wrote:

> Dear members,

>

However I find that perhaps my questions seem to be

> critical of Hindu beleifs because of which I only find people

> defending themselves or pointing a finger at another school of

> thought, rather than explaining one's own position in an unbiased

> manner. Let me go step by step. In this mail I discuss the answers

to

> the first question and the difficulties I face in understanding

them.

>

[Guest guest]

Humble praNAm-s,

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

.... because of which I only find people defending themselves or pointing a

finger at another school of thought.

 

praveen:

Sorry if any such feeling came up, but I personally haven't seen anyone

pointing at the other religion in the thread; except on the *claim* that

Buddhism writes ahimsa/vegetarianism in stone. In any case, apologies for

whats said and whats not.

 

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

But then why teach openly that there exists God to those who are not

enlightened and wait for them to realize themselves that there really IS NO

God! I don't think we teach children 1 + 1 = 3 in school

 

praveen:

No one teaches 1+1=3 is because no one believes so either. Again, do we

teach our children rocket science in std 1, or more appropriately, exactly

how do children take birth? IMHO, "God exists" is as true as one's own

"individual ego does". As long as one can say that s/he is seperate from

others, God exists as much, with or without belief.

 

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

Sankara has written that "to an enlightened being there is no God" and some

here seem to recognize that, while others donot - or they wish to defend

their theism through some special interpretation.

 

praveen:

Thats just half the statement, since for an enlightened being there may be

no *thing* beyond him, God just being one of the *things*!

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

a. I don't beleive that anything (including Nirvana) is beyond

understanding, given the right efforts.

 

praveen:

Same with Vedanta.

 

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

b. I don't see the need to beleive in a God if ultimately one is going to

realize, that there exists no God. Do Hindus beleive in ghosts also, and

through some sort of effort realize that ghosts donot exist? Why this

outbound embrace of ignorance?

 

praveen:

The embrace of ignorance is since birth; does anyone have a choice there?

Ghosts are also just one of the *things* as talked of above.

 

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

c. If however you say that God exists even after enlightenment, then why not

let the person disbelieve in God first and slowly through experience realize

it.

 

praveen:

You seem to be mixing up a lot of things. The attitude should be "why so"

and not "why not so" here? When you follow Buddhism, you say that you start

by questioning Buddha and slowly agreeing there (of course, if all goes well

with that conclusive thought). We follow a different method... that is all.

 

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

Buddha has himself said: "Donot beleive in what you have heard, donot

beleive in doctrines ..."

 

praveen:

So did Sankara say that just because he says, if he says so, one needn't

think that fire is cold. Now a very interesting thing that I notice is that

you seem to have assumed that entire Veda/Vedanta is only on beliefs.

There's a *scientific* process called shravaNa-manana-nidhidhyaasana

(listening-inquiry-contemplation loosely translated).

 

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

I understand that this might be very heretic to the Vedic people, but to me

it appears perfectly reasonable.

 

praveen:

I hope by now you know its not so to the Vedic people either; where else do

you think so many paths came from?

 

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

>From the answers to this question I can only conclude that - Beleif in God

is a personal choice that Hindus force themselves to make for some reason I

don't understand.

 

praveen:

I fail to understand how beliefs can be forced? btw: Hinduism, broadly

speaking, also housed Chaarvaak philosophy thats basically atheism and

Sankara talks of it, in passing!

 

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

While they enjoy discussing metaphysics and interpreting things to make

their religion appear great, they fail to be sincere to the truth of the

moment.

 

praveen:

Should I feel offended? Do you think that if what you said was true,

you'll really find *true* answers on this list then?

 

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

However, some Indian saints have also taught the contrary - perhaps, they

were not so popular in their own lands as they are respected elsewhere.

 

praveen:

for example?

 

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

"If one does not know God at this moment, he may as well sincerely admit

that he knows no God, and that he does not beleive in Him." - Swami

Vivekananda

 

or

 

"An atheist is atleast sincere in accepting the truth. What good is there in

beleiving in God, if ethical living cannot be part of you?" - Swami

Vivekananda

 

praveen:

Was SV an example then? You have your own answers.

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

I think the answer to this question lies nowhere, since different people

among Vedantists beleive different things.

 

praveen:

There you go!

 

jai bajrangabali,

--praveeN

[Guest guest]

List Moderator's Note: List wants to thank the members for their continued

support to list policies and guidelines. Please do not include the previous

posters' messages in the tail end (or in the beginning) of your message while

sending your replies. Both the new members and other members do seem to continue

to repeat doing this. The list appreciates your cooperation in keeping the

message crisp and clear by removing all unnecessary parts of previous messages.

(As it was done in this message!)

 

 

Dear All,

 

I agree with Praveenji here. God exists as a symbol to realize the Self.

 

Hinduism gives prime importance to Bhakthi Yoga, that is Union with the

Absolute Self as Love. Jnana Yoga averrs that the Absolute Self alone is

absolutely real; the Universe in only Relative Reality. So, for the

Particular to unite with the Universal, Universal Love is necessary and this

is only possible via Bhakthi Yoga. We will define the 4 yogas

 

Bhakti Yoga - Union via Love

Jnana Yoga - Union via Wisdom

Karma Yoga - Union via Action

Raja Yoga - Union via Psychic Control.

 

Sri Aurubindo propagated Integral Yoga, a blend of all 4 yogas !

 

G Kumar Astro Scholar, Philosopher & Programmer

www.e.com

 

 

-

<praveen.r.bhat

<advaitin>

> praveen:

> Sorry if any such feeling came up, but I personally haven't seen anyone

> pointing at the other religion in the thread; except on the *claim* that

> Buddhism writes ahimsa/vegetarianism in stone. In any case, apologies for

> whats said and whats not.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "-Bhikku Yogi

 

Namaste Bhikku Yogi,

 

your question let me think of another question...

"After the sugar is dissolved in the tea....is there no more sugar

(inside)?"

 

the water, the tea, the sugar......are One

(the truth)

 

The ego-mind let one "dream" in being a seperated

being......seperated to "God" too........

when the ego-mind disappear....there is the real Self appearing....

 

in this case...."God" is a thought (question).....like endless other

thoughts........are coming and going

 

some people have a "God" in mind....some people have no "God" in

mind......

both kind of people get the energy of having something

(or "nothingness") in mind....by the same truth.....

means, by pure Consciousness

 

 

few words....

excuse me if my words are not directly related to a detailed text

(scripture) or religion or....

 

 

Regards

 

love and peace

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "bhikkuyogi" <bhikkuyogi> wrote:

> Dear members,

>

> >

> One can say that one views the truth incorrectly before

enlightenment.

> But then why teach openly that there exists God to those who are not

> enlightened and wait for them to realize themselves that there

really

> IS NO God! I don't think we teach children 1 + 1 = 3 in school and

> teach them that it is actually 2 in University. Do you mean to say

> that the teachers of Advaita relish in keeping people in ignorance

for

> a long while till they themselves realize the truth?

>

>

> -Bhikku Yogi

 

Namaste:

 

I my view and the practice of advaita:

 

When there is there is no "2", then there the original "1" is only

part and parcel of the same one "1".

 

Even if one practices the bhakti-yoga: The realization of "avibhaktam

vibhakeshu", "ananya bhakti" can be practiced as bhakta & bhagavaana

even at a vyavahaarika level. Saint J~naaneshvara, Saint Raamadaasa,

Saint Tukaaraam practiced such advaita through their chosen bhakti-

marga.

 

If the Saints wanted to keep the realization to themselves then they

would not have preached their practice. Reading, understand and

practicing what they have said is the real path for success.

 

Example of such prqactice at vyaavahaarika level:

 

If there is a dedicated worker who gives more than 200% towards his

organization. Then he is practicing his duty religiously and the

management also recognizes such dedication. Here karma is substituted

with bhakti and the "Organization" represents Gods.

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "bhikkuyogi" <bhikkuyogi> wrote:

>

> One can say that one views the truth incorrectly before

enlightenment.

> But then why teach openly that there exists God to those who are not

> enlightened and wait for them to realize themselves that there

really

> IS NO God!

 

Namaste

Who said that there is no God after enlightenment? Enlightenment

itself means that you are yourself that Absolute Turth, that is GOD.

Here don't misinterpret my 'you' or the word 'GOD' and start arguing.

If you want to know the meaning of 'you' here go to

 

advaitin/message/652

 

I would appreciate your response after you have read it and after you

have assimilated what Praveenji and Ram Chandranji and Sadaji are

saying in their recent posts.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

[Guest guest]

The thought that has occured to me about Advaita is -

if everything is "God" - then there is no "God" as popularly

understood.

 

It seems to me that the word "God" is used with differing

semantics in different contexts. Surely, no vedantin or bouddha

or a jaina believes in "God" as understood by a christian or

a jewish person. I dont think Shankara was thinking of the

meaning of "God" as is popularly understood today.

 

So it may be better to refer to the actual Samskritam or Pali

words - then atleast one can understand the other persons

view better.

 

Regards,

Subrahmanya

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

For a Gnani God is there, but Not As An Object. For

him the Subject of all Objects is itself God.

Gnani if objectifies God, there is a distance between

Gnani himself and the God. What is this distance? It

is space. Where does the space exist? It is in

Knowledge or Consciousness, as one cannot objectify

space per se. The Gnani himself exists in

consciousness or Awareness and the object God also in

Awareness. Since I or Gnani cannot be separate from

Awareness or Consciousness; it is in Consciousness or

Awareness alone Gnani, the subject objectifying, and

God, the object, the space that appears to separate

the Gnani from the God, and the knowledge itself of

God, all exist. For the Gnani it is this Awareness or

Consciousness that is the Ultimate God.

The Mahavakyas unfolds as follows:

Pragnanam Brahma – The Consciousness is Brahman

Ayam Atma Brahma – This Atma (I) is Brahman

Tat Twam Asi – You are that Brahman

Aham Brahmasi – I am Brahman

For Gnani the ultimate Reality or God is Brahman and

he knows that Brahman alone his Self, and the Self of

all seen and unseen.

Warm Regards

 

 

 

 

 

__

Start your day with - make it your home page

http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

Oohhhh Mahaprabhu Bhikku Yogiji,

 

I witness such good inquisitive health and an accepting

spirit in your search and inquiry, and wish you no blame

in any realm for arriving at a sublime understanding of

the satya from and of which this universe and each and

every being manifests. The eternal kiss of sublime ananda

is forever licking at our hearts drawing us back from the

myriad distractions and reensconses us into the blissful

singularity of all that is and that which precedes it all.

Reclaiming this unification, of necessity, is causative of

an inquiring mind, from learning how a plant tastes,

nourishes and heals to exploring other planets as part of

our boundless home, to finding and experiencing this

joyous love in all places and in every flavor as we

journey back, in this sea of subject and objects, back to

the core of all things and the unmanifest from which it

all permeates.

 

Advaeta is far older than Shankarism, his being a flavor

of advaeta, not the sole origination. Many people develop

or modify an ideology, in an effort to, at least

seemingly, improve upon it and make it more contemporary,

or to exploit it and confiscate the dignity, wellbeing,

livelihood and forward progress of others for their own

personal and sectarian gains. From our relationship of

why we are here, why we are alive, to our relationship

with each and every being, present, past and future, near

and far, there's a singular source and cumulative

envelopment from which and within which each and all of us

eminate and are contained, and will continue to exist even

long after any one of us attains moksa, as did Buddah.

We're still here, right, working our way, knowingly or

unknowingly towards that same desideratum?

 

Thus, something "pre-us", something before any one of us

exists, and will continue to exist after our final

incarnation, has perhaps predicated our inception into

this universe. It also exists, and having created us is

integrally a part of every realm of us. As has been said

that desire creates the mind and our existence, this is

one of the ways of saying the subtle, primitive and more

accurate statement that the manifest universe begins, and

unit minds are conceived, with the individuation of subject

and object -- internally, becoming aware of one's own

existence by the very objectivisation of one's self

awareness, both within and without. This is true for us,

as beings, and it is true for the universe as the

singularity inclusive of all that exists which, in doing

so, manifests all that exists in every realm.

 

In progressive advaetist perspective, it can be said that

the proper philosophical understanding of reality should

be "advaita-dvaita-advaita" -- "All come from one, evolves

through the world of duality, then returns to oneness."

It is the perspective, more or less, that God is truth and

the manifest world is relative truth. Shaivism's

philosophical view of reality is advaeta and so is that of

most other schools of tantra and mysticism. The

development of advaeta is independent of Shaivism. Most

contemporary forms of advaeta would be characterized as

modified non-dualism. Even in the subtle realms of the

mind there can be distractions from samdhi, dharma,

desideratum, though those same elements can also

contribute to our liberation, as a frog that, having

fallen into a huge vat of milk, continues to pedal

furiously to escape from the deep vat, only to have

pedaled so hard that it churns the milk into solidified

curd and, by doing so, is able to leap from the vat's

confines. The journey toward liberation can be

accelerated or enhanced by developing an intimate personal

relationship with the desideratum -- from it we are

conceptualized, hence we are 'made in its image', and by

returning that reflection to its source, our intimate

conjugations, which again are reflected from it into our

personal lives through family -- we return back to our

source through the same method of sublime intimacy.

 

The extroversion of this process by materialistic minds is

what results in the establishment of and deterioration

through religions -- extroversive by nature and

disingenuous in spirit. This is the cause of why Buddah

disavowed the existence of a godhead -- for it led to

extroversion, insincerity and deceit in the lives of those

whose sincerity was led astray by unconscionable moral

retards and others of mistaken direction.

 

In personal lives we may be blessed with precious journeys

in our wakeful hours, in our sa'dhana or in our sleep of

traipsing through the universe within the hiran'maya

kos'a, a blessing indeed, yet at times while doing so we

still may not feel the presence of god, love or

compassion, though sometimes this may be due to the vast

expanse of the realm in contrast to our usual state of

mind. Having attained sama'dhi, where subject and object

have consumated back into their singular whole, the

flutterings of the verities of the world are but tender

caresses of mutual love between subject and object --

between lover and beloved. The sadhaka hears an eternal

chant in their native tongue of "NOW", a perpetual bliss,

ready insight into their own personal problems, which have

now ceased, while the eternal moment of a perpetual

"now" is also the centerpoint of knowing past, present and

future of their life, and the lives of others,

clairaudience of everyone's thoughts, including those

jealous sorts whose self-dialogue is an argument with god

as to why you and not they, the ultimate ass-kisser, have

attained samadhi. Having attained ensconsement in the

subtle bliss of the universe, there is no longer a need to

pursue the things of "inspiration" nor make the obligatory

ostentations as others do, for there's no need to act like

you're longing for something you've just already attained

-- chopping wood and carry water continue as before, yet

with far more bliss in every breath and motion.

 

Shankara'charya was an erudite scholar. He had over-thrown

Buddhism and revived Brahmanya religion, but there was a

lack of full harmony between his principles and practices.

He had said that god is everywhere, yet insisted upon

taking baths in the Ganges to assure liberation. Once

after having a dip in the Ganges at Kashii, he was

returning towards the road and he saw an untouchable

walking with a number of dogs. For fear of his body being

touched he attempted to bypass them. Then the untouchable

said : "O Lord ! Is this the result of your principle that

there is only Brahma and nothing else? You are known by

the name Brahmajina'ni. The feeling of differentiation is

developed even by treating a pariah as mean."

 

Ordinarily sectisms terminate in the Ma'nomaya Kos'a.

Idolatry can elevate a person up to the A'tima'nas Kos'a,

but no further. Many persons aspire to achieve happiness

by devoting themselves to idolatry. They do not aspire to

get absorbed in Paramatman and remain close to Him.

Buddhism rises above this, since it also provides for the

annihilation of samska'ra. Annihilation of the "I" feelng

is called merging into the Supreme. Buddhism does not

recognize the soul, but speaks of annihilation of the ego;

but who will annihilate the ego? It is the ego which will

obliterate the "I" feeling. So egoism then, must be

considered as the subtlest expression of mind.

 

The subtlest expression of mind is in the Hiran'maya

Kos'a, which is the first expression of Mahattattva.

Establishment in this Kos'a in a universal manner is

Savikalpa Sama'dhi. When after emerging from the

Sams'kara, the Hiran'yamaya merges in attributeless

Brahma, then this is called Nirvikalpa Sama'dhi.

 

Since the sincere practice of Buddhist principles

ensconces one in the vijina'nmaya kos'a, among all the

world's major religions, Buddhist practitioners reach

toward the subtlest realm of all of them, thus it can be

said that, currently, Buddhism is the world's subtlest of

the major religions. Yet there's one more kosha to go.

 

The Paincakos'as [five realms of mind] shall have to be

perfected, but how is it possible? They can be consummated

only through the practice of Yama and Niyama. The Annamaya

Kos'a is perfected through A'sanas (physical postures).

Yama and Niyama Sa'dhana perfect the Ka'mamaya Kos'a. The

Manomaya Kos'a is perfected through Pra'na'ya'ma. Through

Pratya'hara the Atima'nas Kos'a is perfected. The

Vijina'nmaya Kos'a is perfected through Dha'rana' and the

Hiran'maya Kos'a through Dhya'na. Only Dhya'na Sama'dhi

gives access to the soul. Pious persons are those who are

earnest in their efforts to perfect the Paincakos'a. Human

existence consists of the five kos'as and spiritual

practice is eightfold. This spiritual practice is Dharma.

That which does not provide for the explanation of the

Paincakos'a is not Dharma, but sectism.

 

Why is As't'aunga Yoga called Dharma? The purpose of

Dharma is to attain perfect happiness and perfect

happiness is the attainment of the soul, there being only

partial happiness in each Kos'a. So long as the soul is

not attained every Kos'a has to be perfected. Each Kos'a

has to be taken care of. One Kos'a cannot be perfected to

the exclusion of the rest. Where there is perfect

happiness there is Dharma. Everything else yields only

partial happiness and is therefore sectism. Sectism leads

to preya (superficial and immediate gains) and only Dharma

leads to Shreya (ultimate and real gains.) Everything else

leads to crudeness. Dharma leads to Supreme Consciousness

and only that which upholds and sustains the soul is

Dharma. The Dharma of fire is to burn and the Dharma of

living beings is to attain happiness. Where there is

pursuit of Preya there is Avidya'ma'ya. The happiness of

heaven and the fear of hell are creations of the mind.

Dharma has no fear since through Dharma one attains the

original state. Tantra Sa'dhana alone is Dharma and all

the rest are sectisms.

 

It has been said that due to Buddah's indomitable veracity

to achieve his goal, Taraka Brahma most certainly

annointed him permanent nirvikalpa sama'dhi. We should

indeed follow the superlative excellence of this true

tantrika guru. We are forever in his debt for showing us

the way, as well as to others whose sacrifice and love for

humanity have made for a more sublime opportunity for

human life for us all. The proof is ours through the

laboratory of our own minds in daily practice alone and

among others.

 

Regardless of one's geo-social paradigm or socio-spiritual

affinities, the science that delivers us from our

sams'karas, from this sea of samsara pervades the

universe, is true for us one and all, and upon achieving

samadhi is consciously conspicuous to each and every such

blessed being, of which 'everyone' is inevitably blessed,

everyone. Why not now?

 

For this to become a reality for us all at the soonest

possible moment, it is imperative for basic necessities to

be guaranteed for all and the instruments of exploitation

be made unavailable while society is entrusted to morally

tenacious and spirtually progressive people determined to

serve humanity. Naysayers damn humanity to more death,

destruction and continued himsa.

 

http://PROUT-Ananlysis-Synthesis.latest-info.com

 

Human society is at a vital new juncture,

the decrepit skeleton of things tried and

proven false is rapidly being rent assunder.

Today we are on the precipice of a glorious

new dawn in human evolution. Embrace this

crimson dawn of the glorious new day.

>

>

> Flourishingly,

 

Dharma Mitra

DharmaMitra2 AT gmail.com <http://gmail.com>

 

Helping you "Say It With Panache!"

 

Because, how you say it can be, and often is,

as important as what you want to convey,

and what you have to say is

very important to you.

 

- Copywriting - Editing - Publishing - Publicity -

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

List Moderator's Note: List wants to thank the members for their continued

support to list policies and guidelines. Please do not include the previous

posters' messages in the tail end (or in the beginning) of your message while

sending your replies. Both the new members and other members do seem to continue

to repeat doing this. The list appreciates your cooperation in keeping the

message crisp and clear by removing all unnecessary parts of previous messages.

(As it was done in this message!)

 

Actually, i really dont understand the modern day proclamation of 4 yogas....

and the so called synthesis. Gita, which they quote often clearly says only

2 - the Karma and the Jnana. Bhakthi & Dhayana (or Upasana) is considered as

equally necessary in karma itself. In other words, Bhakti & Dhayana are not

necessarily a path in themselves, but in separably present in the Karma Yoga

itself. there is no karma Yoga without Bhakti & in a higher state of mind -

something like Dhayana.

 

is my understanding correct.

 

e <e wrote:

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Venkata Subrahmanyanji.

 

Your understanding is absolutely right.

 

It is very distrubing to see posts such as the one containing the

following paragraph:

 

QUOTE

 

Shankara'charya was an erudite scholar. He had over-thrown

Buddhism and revived Brahmanya religion, but there was a

lack of full harmony between his principles and practices.

He had said that god is everywhere, yet insisted upon

taking baths in the Ganges to assure liberation. Once

after having a dip in the Ganges at Kashii, he was

returning towards the road and he saw an untouchable

walking with a number of dogs. For fear of his body being

touched he attempted to bypass them. Then the untouchable

said : "O Lord ! Is this the result of your principle that

there is only Brahma and nothing else? You are known by

the name Brahmajina'ni. The feeling of differentiation is

developed even by treating a pariah as mean."

 

UNQUOTE

 

Imagine such things being written about a sage who proclaimed at the

end of his very basic work "Tatwabodha" that it doesn't matter a wee

bit to a realized person where he casts off his mortal frame - be it

an untouchable's hearth or a luxurious palace (The translation may

not be ok as I am relying on very old memory). Such messages are

extremely disconcerting to a generation that respects both Buddha and

Sankara equally. I wish those who write such gibberish had studied

advaita first in its proper perspective.

 

I, therefore, wholeheartedly endorse the guidelines set by Shri

Madhav Mundlyeji in his post today. I also recommend that those who

understand advaita ignore such posts in future so that the writers

are not enthused to enter into unncessary long-winding debates to

prove their point.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

praNAm all,

 

Madathil Nair-ji wrote:

I also recommend that those who understand advaita ignore such posts in

future so that the writers are not enthused to enter into unncessary

long-winding debates to prove their point.

 

praveen:

Perfect.

 

People seem to have done superficial reading on the pariah incident, if at

all. Sankara had a point to make and that was done there! I'm sure they know

neither who the pariah was nor Sankara.

 

shivam shaantam advaitam,

--praveen