God is with form as well as formless

[Guest guest]

Dear Advaitings,

 

All the greatest sages of mankind like Adi Shankara, Sri Ramakrishna,

Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, Sadashiva Brahmendra, Samartha Ramadas all

have told that god is having attributes as well as his is nirguna also.

 

These two are different poles altogether. If we take god as a formless

one without any attributes how will he respond to our prayers how can

he be compassionate to the beings? and if he is with form or is with

attributes how can he be nirguna? Sri Ramkrishana has said that "god is

with form and without form and who knows what else". But i am unable to

reconcile these two.

 

But one thing i have noticed wherever there is full knowledge there is

full devotion and whenever devotion reaches its culmination knowledge

dawns. Sri Shankaracharya himself accepts Krishna as a incarnation of

god taken form for the welfare of mankind.

 

Any views on this topic?

 

HARI OM TAT SAT

 

Yours in the Lord,

 

Br. vinayaka

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Vinayakaji:

 

The metaphysical assertions by the great sages can not verified and we

have to learn to trust their assessments. All our perceptions through

the sense organs have forms and names. The nirguna Brahman is beyond

sensual perception where as Saguna Brahman is the intellectual

comprehension based on sensual perceptions.

 

Some analogies can help us to reconcile:

(1) Movie screen before and after a movie in the theater.

(2) Electricity (nirguna) and light, fan, etc,.

(3) seed (unmanifested) and tree (manifested)

 

Bhagavad Gita chapter 9 Verses 4 and 5 explain how God could be both

Saguna and Nirguna. The entire chapter 10 describes the Saguna Brahman.

 

Harih Om!

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Vinayaka N.S." <vinayaka_ns>

wrote:

>

>

>

> Dear Advaitings,

>

> All the greatest sages of mankind like Adi Shankara, Sri Ramakrishna,

> Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, Sadashiva Brahmendra, Samartha Ramadas all

> have told that god is having attributes as well as his is nirguna

also.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Shree Br. Vijayaka

 

Bhagavan Ramana answered your question very simply: If you think you

have a form and you have attributes, then God has a form and attributes

as well. Then sadhana and Bhakti all have their roles. If you realize

that you are formless and eternal then so is God. There cannot be two

formless eternal entities. That is the culmination of the Sadhana.

 

When you take yourself to be limited with all the atributes of the

limited upaadhis are taken as your attribtutes then God out there also

has infinite attributes with Transcendental form - ananta kalyaana guNa

aashrayam - the locus of infinite auspecious qualities - that is the

definition of the Lord.

 

When one recognizes the infinite is beyond the conception of the mind,

the guNas as well as forms are transcended into one homogeneous mass of

consciousness-existence and unlimited. Transendence is the transcendence

of the mental concepts which includes forms and attributes, and bhakti,

bhakta and object of bhakti.

 

The great Shiva bhaka - Shree Dattaatreya says in avadhuuta giita:

 

I donot know Shiva - how can I talk about HIm

I donot know Shiva - how can I pray to Him

I am that Shiva - who is the supreme

I am that Shiva - who is supreme, eternal and unlimited.

 

So my friend have the all devotion you want towards your ishTa devata

until the devotee, devoted and devotion all merge into one. Bhakti

should culminate into correct knowledge of the reality, which is beyond

any forms or any conceptualizations.

 

Adi Shankara was not only a great master of advaita but a great teacher

who camedown to the level of the students to uplift them to the highest

reality. He recognized that Bhakti is essential to gain jnaana. But

ultimately as Krishna emphasizes that of all bhaktaas, jnaani is the

supreme.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

--- "Vinayaka N.S." <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

> All the greatest sages of mankind like Adi Shankara, Sri Ramakrishna,

> Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, Sadashiva Brahmendra, Samartha Ramadas all

> have told that god is having attributes as well as his is nirguna

> also.

>

> These two are different poles altogether.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Vinayaka N.S." <vinayaka_ns>

wrote:

>

>

>

> Namaste,

 

God may appear with form or without form

 

however the appearence is, it is bliss

 

this bliss....is maybe the nature of God....

 

difficult to describe this bliss

 

because in bliss....form and formless being are melting in One....

 

different spirit

 

 

 

Regards and love

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

Yakta Kinchit Jagat Sarvam Drusyathe Sruyatetpiva

Antar Bahitch Tat Sarvam Vyapya Narayana stitaha

 

When you think that there is Nothing with out God, your doubts will

vanish, and To Top on it, you should realize God is Everything also.

To put it in advaitik philosophy

There is Nothing But GOD (Ekam Advitiyam Brahma)

 

So He is Guna, NirGuna, Guna Moola, and He is the only thing. Because

we have five Indriyas, we perceive him in five ways. But he is the same.

 

Thanks

Prashanth.K

 

 

 

-

> > All the greatest sages of mankind like Adi Shankara, Sri Ramakrishna,

> > Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, Sadashiva Brahmendra, Samartha Ramadas all

> > have told that god is having attributes as well as his is nirguna

> > also.

> >

> > These two are different poles altogether.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Prashanth.K,

 

 

you write:

 

"When you think that there is Nothing with out God, your doubts will

> vanish, and To Top on it, you should realize God is Everything also.

> To put it in advaitik philosophy

> There is Nothing But GOD (Ekam Advitiyam Brahma)"

 

 

.....the sugar get dissolved in the water....

 

this take some "time"....

 

after this had "happened"....maybe there is no more "time"

 

and the "unification" or "past seperation" appear....like never realy

happened

 

at whatever moment of "time"....it's possible to "see".....timeless

Oneness......

or the "appearend seperation".....

 

only by the (formless) energy of God.....whatever perception

or "appearences" are possible

 

 

only few thoughts

 

Regards and love

 

Marc

 

 

 

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Vinayaka-ji,

 

advaitin, "Vinayaka N.S." <vinayaka_ns>

wrote:

> All the greatest sages of mankind like Adi Shankara, Sri

> Ramakrishna, Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, Sadashiva Brahmendra,

> Samartha Ramadas all have told that god is having attributes

> as well as his is nirguna also.

>

> These two are different poles altogether. If we take god as

> a formless one without any attributes how will he respond to

> our prayers how can he be compassionate to the beings? and if

> he is with form or is with attributes how can he be nirguna?

> Sri Ramkrishana has said that "god is with form and without

> form and who knows what else". But i am unable to reconcile

> these two.

> But one thing i have noticed wherever there is full knowledge

> there is full devotion and whenever devotion reaches its

> culmination knowledge dawns. Sri Shankaracharya himself

> accepts Krishna as a incarnation of god taken form for the

> welfare of mankind.

 

 

The tears of bhakti is the melting of duality. The profuse love for

God that the soul feels is its door to non-duality. Union is another

name for Advaita.

 

I would say Vinayaka-ji that you are fortunate in not being able to

reconcile God with forms and God without forms. My heart says that

you have preserved the Great Gift given to us by God by not negating

one in favour of another.

 

I am of the conviction that the profound darshana of Advaita Vedanta

effortlessly subsumes all forms into Nirguna Brahman, and that this

great vision of Advaita has often been masked by the intellectual

inability to grasp the mystical Truth whereby the intellect gets

fixated in the idea that the world is something to be cleaned off

from the slate of a passive Consciousness. I am convinced that the

profound vision of Advaita, which can never be put into words, is

often reduced by the incomprehending intellect into something that is

not Advaita truly. The vision of Advaita is the embracing of the

paradox of Reality in an unbounded and inexpressible vision of non-

duality that is eternally natural - sahaja - and is not merely the

vision brought to us by nirvikalpa samadhi. The ash that Lord Shiva

wears on His nirakara nature is the ash of duality, not the ash of

the world. How is it possible to speak of this Truth that does not

lie in the realm of speech? Nirguna Brahman is nirvisesha because

Brahman who is of the essence of Pure Knowledge cannot be described

through forms for Pure Knowledge has no form whatsoever. But Pure

Knowledge is not the negation of forms; it is the negation of any

kind of description attributed to Brahman for Brahman is neither this

nor that that the intellect and mind may conceive it to be. But forms

are there 'in' Brahman - it is the great paradox of Reality that is

to grasped if Advaita is to be truly understood. To intellectually

negate the paradox during our search for the Truth is to negate the

very Gift that Reality has given to us for finding the Truth - the

Gift of wonder, the Great Guide of the Heart that prevents us from

getting fixated in any idea that Truth is only this or that. In my

eyes, this is the true purport of adhyaropa and apavada, the profound

method of the ancient tradition of Advaita. (I had once tried to

write on adhyaropa and apavada and if you are interested it is

available in message 25659 titled 'Adhyaropa Apavada - The Gateway to

Mystery'). Adhyaropapavada is the dialectical device to leap into the

great abyss that has no intellectual support; it is a leap from which

the soul emerges into the Light of the ineffable Truth that is beyond

expression - a Truth that preserves the entire universe of forms in

Brahman that is Nirguna.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Vinayaka-ji,

>

> advaitin, "Vinayaka N.S."

<vinayaka_ns>

> wrote:

>

> > All the greatest sages of mankind like Adi Shankara, Sri

> > Ramakrishna, Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, Sadashiva Brahmendra,

> > Samartha Ramadas all have told that god is having attributes

> > as well as his is nirguna also.

> >

> > These two are different poles altogether. If we take god as

> > a formless one without any attributes how will he respond to

> > our prayers how can he be compassionate to the beings? and if

> > he is with form or is with attributes how can he be nirguna?

> > Sri Ramkrishana has said that "god is with form and without

> > form and who knows what else". But i am unable to reconcile

> > these two.

>

> > But one thing i have noticed wherever there is full knowledge

> > there is full devotion and whenever devotion reaches its

> > culmination knowledge dawns. Sri Shankaracharya himself

> > accepts Krishna as a incarnation of god taken form for the

> > welfare of mankind.

>

>

> The tears of bhakti is the melting of duality. The profuse love

for

> God that the soul feels is its door to non-duality. Union is

another

> name for Advaita.

>

> I would say Vinayaka-ji that you are fortunate in not being able

to

> reconcile God with forms and God without forms. My heart says that

> you have preserved the Great Gift given to us by God by not

negating

> one in favour of another.

 

Dear Chittaranjanji,

 

Here is Sri Ramakrishna's Explantion of the Harmony between the two

aspects of God.

 

Sri Ramakrishna had a group of devotees who followed the immature

formless aspect as a result of their western education. The master

forbade this group to act like a people belonging to particular sect

and criticize those who think of god with form or to hate those who

worship god in the images and callthem "Idoaltors", "blind

believers" and so on. He said Look, god is with form and again

formless. Who knows what else he is besides these? Do you know what

god with from is like? It is like water and ice. When water freezes,

it becomes ice--which inside and outside is water only. Ice is

nothing but water. But look, water does not have any particular

form, whereas ice does. Similarly, through the cooling influence of

the devotees' love the ocean of the indivisible satchidananda

freezes and takes various forms, as does ice. Sri Ramarkrishna's

explanation gave peace to the minds of so many people by convincing

them that it is possible for both form and formless aspect of God to

exist at the same time.

 

HARI OM TAT SAT

 

Yours in the lord,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Vinayaka-ji,

 

advaitin, "Vinayaka N.S." <vinayaka_ns>

wrote:

> Dear Chittaranjanji,

>

> Here is Sri Ramakrishna's Explantion of the Harmony between the two

> aspects of God.

>

> Do you know what god with from is like? It is like water and

> ice. When water freezes, it becomes ice--which inside and

> outside is water only. Ice is nothing but water. But look,

> water does not have any particular form, whereas ice does.

> Similarly, through the cooling influence of the devotees'

> love the ocean of the indivisible satchidananda freezes and

> takes various forms, as does ice.

 

 

Yes, this is a very beautiful explanation. I had quoted these same

words of Sri Ramakrishna in my article on Universalism in Hinduism.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

This is a two-part article on the subject

"The Formful and the Formless".

 

Part I:

 

The discussion on “God is with form as well as formless”

is an ever-recurring discussion in any Hindu spiritual

gathering or forum. And it always brings forth new and

newer insights into light. It is not just a binary choice

between the ‘formful’ and the ‘formless’. Each one of us

moves from one level of understanding to another thus

evolving through a whole spectrum of understanding. In my

own growth (?) I think I can describe some of these

levels. This post is, in that sense, an autobiographical

report and it evolved during 45 minutes of walk this

morning when I did some ‘nididhyasan’ of this topic!

 

The religious Sanskrit literature of the Hindu Faith is

replete with verses that present these different levels. As

I remember only seven, I quote them below in a certain

order (the order is individualized – because it is

dependent on my own way of thinking about the evolution).

The verses go back to some of our great towering giants

of spirituality like Veda-Vyasa, Adi Shankara, Madhusudana

Saraswati and Bhattatiri. The order in which I list them

below is in a certain ascending order of steps of spiritual

evolution of my own understanding as I grew up:

 

1. Doubt.

2. Wonder.

3. Logic.

4. Failure of Logic and Joy of Miracle of the Perceptible

Universe.

5. Mischief of Maya.

6. ‘Formless’ behind the Form.

7. ‘Formless’ originates Form.

 

Now for the details.

 

1. DOUBT: Even as I was a teen-ager I had sometimes

wondered about the question “Why all this suffering in this

world? Why creation? Why God? If He is nirguNa then what is

all this universe about? Who did all this mischief of

Creation? For what purpose?” . Several years later, when I

had crossed seventy, I found this shloka in Narayaneeyam

which echoed my question and which seemed to answer it:

 

NArAyaNIyaM : 1 – 7:

 

kaShTA te sR^iShTi-ceShTA bahutara-bhava-khedAvahA

jIva-bhAjAm-

ity-evaM pUrvam-Alocitam-ajita mayA naivam-ady-AbhijAne /

no cej-jIvAH kathaM vA madhura-taram-idaM

tvad-vapush-cid-rasArdraM

netraiH shrotraishca pItvA parama-rasa-sudh-Ambhodhi-pUre

rameran //

 

Tr. Oh Supreme Being! Once I thought that Thy creative

activity is a tragic sport, as it inflicts various forms of

suffering on embodied beings involved in the cycle of

births and deaths, but now I do not think so. For, if there

were no creation and therefore no embodied beings, who

would have been there to revel in the ocean of unparalleled

joy derived from the experience of seeing this Form of

Thine replete with Consciousness and of hearing

descriptions of Thy glory?

 

Comment. God ‘descends’ from His pedestal of perfection and

assumes an imperfection in terms of a name and form so that

we mortals may be guided from our extremities of

imperfection onto the path towards perfection. This descent

of the Divine from its divine pedestal is called an

Avatara. The complete such Avatara is Krishna. What appears

before us as a deity in the form of an image is not just an

image but it is itself the personification of that

Transcendental Absolute. Such divine Images for worship in

temples are called ‘archAvatAras’ in Vaishnava theology.

Great saints and seers (from Prahlada and Ambarisha of yore

down to Sage Ramakrishna of modern times) have actually

experienced the presence of the Absolute in such

‘archAvatAras’.

 

2. WONDER: The following shloka of Adi Shankara from

Shivananda-lahari, wonders what the objective could be in

imagining a nirguna Absolute, which is not already reached

in worshipping a saguna form:

 

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

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

swAmin-nasthira-devatA-nusaraNA-yAsena kiM labhyate

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

 

Tr: For people like me, is it not enough to serve Him, to

bow to Him, to sing praises of glory, to worship Him, to

remember Him, and to listen to stories of Him or to be

having darshan of Him? By catering to deities of

impermanent causes what do we obtain ? What is there in

Moksha beyond this? And what, if at all, do I pray for?

 

Comment: Here the 'deities of impermanent causes' includes

all mundane desires, wishes and material objectives, in

addition to supernatural deities which just satisfy mundane

needs.

 

3. LOGIC: Bhattatiri, gives a logic, that though the

Ultimate is nirguNa, it is unattainable for us of limited

understanding and therefore we have to worship Him with

Form:

 

avyaktaM te svarUpaM duradhigama-tamaM tattu

shuddhaika-satvaM

vyaktaM cApy-etad-eva

sphuTam-amR^ita-rasAmbhodhi-kallola-tulyaM

/

sarv-otkR^iShTAm-abhIShTAM tad-iha guNa-rasen-aiva cittaM

harantIM

mUrtiM te samshraye’haM pavanapura-pate pAhi mAM kR^iShNa

rogAt

//( NArAyaNIyaM : 99 - 10)

 

 

Tr. Thy nature as Absolute Being is not manifest to the

senses or the intellect. It is therefore difficult to grasp

or attain. But Thy Being manifest in shuddha-satva

(spiritual purity) as Krishna is like the wavy surface of

the ocean of Blissful Spirit, definite, clear and easy to

grasp. Therefore I resort to the worship of this form of

Thine which is superior to anything manifested and which is

lovable and enchanting by its sweet beauty and other

blessed attributes. Oh Krishna, Resident of Guruvayoor!

Deign to free me from my ailments.

 

Comment. This is the explanation why followers of advaita

have no reservation about the worship of the saguNa form of

God while striving to comprehend the nirguNa concept of

Godhead. Bhattatiri, through this sloka, sets at nought

all the nagging dilemmas of a doubting advaitin, in regard

to worship of the Formful. The real Nature of the Absolute

Godhead is ‘duradhigama-tamaM’, that is, to reach out to it

is most difficult, almost impossible. Recall, Gita Ch.XII –

5: Greater is the trouble of those whose minds are set on

the manifest; for the goal, the unmanifest, is very hard

for the embodied to reach.

 

The philosophy of advaita has two facets. One is the

'kevala-advaitam' and the other is 'bheda-abheda-advaitam'.

The former one will not even talk of any attribute-ful

form, as a possibility in the absolute sense. In other

words, even Ishvara belongs to a lower reality than the

Absolute. And because, everything other than the Absolute

is non-real, Ishvara has to be non-real. But the

bheda-abheda-advaitam says that the wavy surface of the

ocean even though it appears as if it can be distinguished

from the ocean, IS the ocean. There is no distinction

between them. If we have to make a distinction between them

that distinction is one ‘without a difference’. In other

words, bheda (difference, distinction) appears ‘without a

real difference’. God is the highest being in devotional

thought and He must therefore be Absolute also, even as the

wavy surface and the ocean are one and the same in spite of

the apparent difference. Bhattatiri’s advaitic leanings are

in this category.

 

4. FAILURE OF LOGIC. JOY OF MIRACLE OF THIS PERCEPTIBLE

UNIVERSE: Madhusudana Saraswati, an advaitic stalwart,

was also a towering devotee, and here is what looks like

his ‘choice’!:

 

dhyAnAvasthita-tad-gatena manasA taM nirguNaM nishhkriyaM

jyotiH kiMcana yogino yadi punaH pashyanti pashyantu te /

asmAkaM to tadeva locana-camatkArAya bhUyAc-ciraM

kAlindI-pulineshhu yat kimapi taM nIlaM tamo dhAvati //

 

Tr.: By their concentration fixed in meditation, the yogis

are said to be seeing through their inner vision that

Effulgence which is attributeless and actionless. Let them

keep seeing that Light or whatever! For us may that Bluish

One that roams about in the waters of Kalindi do this

miracle of becoming visible to our eyes, for long.

 

Comment: Madhusudana Saraswati refers to Lord Krishna as

"kimapi nIlaM tamaH" -- something that is of bluish hue

 

5. MAYA’S MISCHIEF: In spite of the fact one takes pleasure

in living with the created universe and the beauties of

Nature, an advaitin knows that the Ultimate is non-dual;

however the mAyic effect is so unconquerable that every one

of us does fall a prey to it. Bhattatiri’s following verse

freom NarayaneeyaM clinches this issue:

 

bhItir-nAma dvitIyAd-bhavati nanu manH kalpitaM ca dvitIyaM

 

tenaikyA-bhyAsa-shIlo hR^idayam-iha yathAshakti buddhyA

nirundhyAM /

mAyAviddhe tu tasmin punarapi na tathA bhAti mAyAdhi-nAthaM

 

tat-tvAM bhaktyA mahatyA satatam-anubhajan-nIsha bhItiM

vijahyAM

//( nArAyaNIyaM : 91 - 3)

 

 

Tr. Fear arises from the consciousness of a second (thing)

different from oneself. This consciousness of (such) a

second is indeed an imaginary super-imposition of the mind.

Therefore I am trying my best through discrimi-nation to

discipline the mind in the consciousness of oneness. But

when this power of discrimination is overpowered by Thy

mAyA, no amount of effort is of any avail in getting

established in Unitary Consciousness. Therefore Oh Lord, I

am trying to overcome the fear of samsAra by constant and

devoted worship of Thee, the Master of mAyA.

 

Comment. This is one of the key slokas in devotional

literature that trumpets the highest advaita concept. The

sentence ‘manaH-kalpitam dvitIyaM’ (The consciousness of a

second object is an imaginary superimposition by the mind)

constitutes the ‘brahma-sUtra’ of advaita. Bhattatiri

clearly makes the point that the unity of the jIva with the

supreme Spirit is the ultimate goal. But he hastens to add

that the same is not reachable by any one directly but only

through the love and service of Him and His Grace. It is

only by God’s Grace that non-dual consciousness is

obtained. The devotee merges in His Being by His grace, The

‘I’ disappears in Him and ‘He’ is left. The becoming merges

in the Being. It is not vice versa. This is what one might

call Realistic advaita, to be subtly contrasted with

‘kevala-advaita’.

 

(To be continued and concluded in Part II)

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

This is the second and final part of the article on ‘The

Form and the Formless’.

 

Part II.

 

6. THE ‘FORMLESS’ BEHIND THE FORM:

 

Adi Shankara, in verse # 97 of his Soundaryalahari, brings

this dramatically:

 

girAm Ahur-devIM druhiNa-gRhiNIM Agamavido

hareH patnIM padmAM hara-saha-carIM adri-tanayAM /

turIyA kApi tvaM duradhigama-nissIma-mahimA

mahAmAyA vishvaM bhramayasi para-brahma-mahishhI //

 

Tr. Those who know the scriptures declare (You) as the

Goddess of Speech, the wife of Brahma the Creator (as

well) as Lakshmi, the wife of Lord Vishnu (and as well)

as Parvati, the daughter of Mountain-King, the Consort of

Lord Shiva. (But) You, (on the other hand), are the fourth

(higher than the other three), not to be delimited as This

or That, of unique glory that is both unfathomable and

limitless, (in fact) the Queen-Consort of the Absolute

brahman : (being) the great Cosmic mAyA revolving and

compering the entire universe.

 

Comments (By Kanchi Maha-Swamigal): The very first thought

of the shloka is to clear any distinction between deities.

It is to ambaa he says “You are the One who is known as

Sarasvati the Goddess of Speech, and You are the One who is

also known as Mother Lakshmi”. This is not a casual

statement from him, says he. The knowers of the Vedas

themselves say so (“AgamavidaH AhuH”), he adds humbly.

And then it is You who is also Parvati, the wife of Rudra.

All are parAshakti. And this is nothing but advaita. And

this advaita prompts him to mention the turIyam, the

Fourth.

 

According to ShAkta philosophy and also according to

Shaivam, there are Divinities for the Five Cosmic

Functions. The Absolute Truth is beyond. Not like this in

advaita. Vedic authentication of advaita comes from

Mandukya Upanishad. The dream state of every jIva is

Creation, the waking state is Sthiti (Sustenation) and the

sleeping state is Dissolution; and that which is still

awake even in that sleep state is the Fourth, that is

brahman. In the same strain, in this shloka, the Acharya

goes to the ‘turIyaM’ after mentioning the three shaktis of

the Triad; he does not go to the other two of the cosmic

functions.

 

The ‘Shakti of brahman’ is not specially talked about by

him in advaita. Nor can we say it is never talked about.

Right in the commentary of the very first sUtra, in

Brahma-sutra-bhAshhya, The Acharya, detailing the

‘lakshaNa’ of brahman in the words

“nitya-shuddha-buddha-mukta-svabhAvaM” , he adds

“sarvajnaM”; by this addition it is therefore accepted that

this ‘One’ (ekaM) also admits of ‘sarvaM’ ( a multiplicity)

and all that is ‘known’ by This. Later, more explicitly,

he adds another lakshaNa: “sarva-shakti-samanvitaM”

(possessing all powers). Further in the commentary on

II-1-30, “sarvopetA ca tad-darshanAt”, the duality status

is recognised and he says brahman has a varied shakti-yoga.

Here ‘shakti-yoga’ means that which coeexists with shakti.

This is what becomes the “para-brahma-mahishhI” in the

language of ShAktaM, as in this shloka of Soundaryalahari.

 

One direct disciple of the Acharya was SarvajnAtman. He

was the last disciple. He is one of the leading exponents

of advaita. Listen to him in ‘Samkshhepa-ShArIrakaM’

III-228, 229. “In Shuddha-advaita there is nothing like

Shakti, leelaa or creation. However, even for those with

such faith, there is a place for karma and upAsanA. Seen

from that vyavahAra perspective, the cit (Brahman,

Consciousness) takes a role of shakti and with its inert

mAya-avidyA power, creates the universe”. Yet, in the

advaita works of the Acharya the aim is not to direct

attention to this dance of Shakti. Without giving any

importance to Brahma-shakti, he always discards creation as

the work of mAyA and calls on us to think of the

turiya-brahman beyond. Mostly he does not even refer to the

shakti or energy that is beyond a gender specification.

When that is so, what to talk of Her as the ‘patni’ of

brahman!

 

But the same Acharya, the teacher of brahma-vidyA, now

talks as the teacher of Shri Vidya and shows the way to

those who have a taste in this direction. And the way is

KAmeshvari, the ‘para-brahma-mahishhI’. The Shri Vidya

tantra also has the same aim as advaita-sAyujyaM. Thus he

combines the turIya at the goal of the jnAna path of

advaita and the Shiva-Shakti concept in the Bhakti path.

 

Incidentally when he says ‘turIyA’ in the feminine, not

only does that mean the parAshakti beyond the three of

Sarasvati, Lakshmi and Parvati, it also means that ‘turIyA’

is the patni of the ‘turIyaM’ that is brahman.

 

Notice that there is a unification of advaita Vedanta with

ShAktam here. The parAshakti of the ShAkta philosophy is

identified with the mAyA of advaita Vedanta. When it is

spoken of as ‘duradhigama-nissIma-mahimA’ (of unfathomable

and boundless glory) the language is of ShAktam. For in

advaita mAyA is considered to be ‘tuchhaM’ and therefore to

be discarded as an incomprehensible anirvacanIyaM. But here

it is the glorious parAshakti!

 

In the beginning he talked about the capability of Shakti

making the first prompting that makes Him move. And now at

the end he makes the same Shakti as the prime mover of

everything in the universe: “vishvam bhramayasi”. Naturally

this compering and revolving includes all the motion of the

universe. Krishna in the Gita talked only of the movement

of the living when He said: “bhrAmayan sarva-bhUtAni”. By

that He meant only the movement of the minds of living

beings. But here the Acharya has included the movement of

not only the living (cetana) but also of the non-living

(acetana), by the use of the word “vishvaM”.

 

7. ‘FORMLESS’ ORIGINATES THE FORM: And, finally we come to

the destination of this search of the Formless. This

shloka is at the apex of Vyasa’s Shrimad Bhagavatam. It is

the very first shloka (I – 1 – 1). It propitiates the

Absolute Truth on the lines of the Gayatri:

 

janmAdy-asya yato’nvayAd-itaratsh-chArtheshh-vabijnaH

svarAT

tene brahma hRRidA ya Adi-kavaye muhyanti yat sUrayaH /

tejo vari mRRidAM yathA vinimayo yatra trisargo mRRishhA

dhAmnA svena sadA nirasta-kuhakaM satyaM paraM dhImahi //

 

Tr. It is from That Absolute that everything in the

universe gets born, sustained and finally absorbed in. It

is both the material and instrumental cause of the universe

as inferred by anvaya and by vyatireka from what we see

before us. It is That which is immanent in everything. It

is the Conscious entity that is conscious of everything

everywhere. It is Self-illuminating. Even great sages fail

to see it in its Fullness. That is what is in the Vedas,

revealed, just by Will, by The Very Absolute to the

Creator Brahma. All this universe that appears as earth,

water and fire is only the appearance of The Absolute. It

is That which by its own Effulgence shines without blemish

in everything and everywhere. Let us meditate on that

Absolute Truth – ‘satyaM paraM dhImahi’.

 

Comment. This one shloka is enough to take us all the way

from the Gods and Deities with attributes to the Formless

which is behind and which is the substratum for everything

gross and subtle.

 

(Concluded)

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Dear spiritual, respected, and very valuable brothers and sisters,

 

I wish every moment shower of peace, happiness, and purity is coming

from God Father forever to all.

 

No one is formless. All souls and Supreme Soul are having their own

original form that is point of light.

 

This World is a Drama and that is divided in four stages that are

Golden Age, Silver Age, Copper Age and Iron Age.

 

All souls actually in Diamond state, but when they enter in corporeal

medium that is body, for act, their stage come down to Golden Age in beginning

then Silver Age, Copper Age, and Iron Age. And occupy the body through out his

or her lifetime. And every birth we are changing this corporeal body, until,

there is end of Drama.

 

First, without the help of Supreme Soul, not a single soul can

achieve their original Diamond state or cannot go back to our home that is

Soul-World. In purity, holiness, spiritual, every soul including Deities,

religious fathers, Messengers, Saints, and so on are coming down birth by birth

that is the proof we can see in our surrounding atmosphere of the world. In

fact, who is taking his own body he has to come downwards. That is why God

father (Supreme Soul) is telling that for all souls He has to come on this

earth.

 

Second, all souls are not coming at a time for act in Drama, some in

beginning, middle, and end of Drama. Those souls, came for act during the time

of Golden Age and Silver Age, because of purity in them, they were called as

Deities. Souls who came for act, in middle or at the end of Drama, but at that

time, their act was just beginning, so naturally their state was Golden Age, and

because of this reason, they showed some astonishing act just like they gave

fruit of people’s prayers, real love, respect, help to remove pain, support,

bliss, closeness, sympathy as compare to others. Due to their special act,

people accepted them either as a God, Goddess or Saint or Religious father, or

Messenger.

 

Actually, all Deities, Saints, Religious fathers, and Messengers are souls

but due to their Golden Age, they showed extraordinary act and due to this

reason people called them as Gods or incarnation of God in them. But all has

taken birth by entering in body of foetus (very small child) inside mother’s

womb. To this phenomenon we can use word birth. But Supreme Soul never takes

birth like them.

 

Supreme Soul (God Father) is always remaining in His original form. When

all the souls are coming in Iron Age and this World also becomes Iron Age,

nobody is able to change this world, at that time Supreme Soul incarnate on this

earth to change all souls in their original Diamond state and to the World

Golden Age. We can use word incarnation only for God Father (Supreme Soul)

because He is not taking birth like Deity or human being or any other soul. He

enters in one person’s body for His work and, He will keep that person’s name as

PRAJAPITA BRAHMA. During Supreme Soul’s act in that person’s body, soul of that

body also will be there inside the body. This way, He is coming for the change

of Drama in Golden Age. But He is not taking His own body any time. That is why

people are telling about Him, that He is free from birth and death of bodily

form.

 

During Copper Age and Iron Age, He is giving fruit of our prayers by

Pure Souls; they are Deities, meaning so-called God, Goddess, Family Gods, or

Religious Fathers, Messengers, Saints, and so on. However, at the end of Drama,

there is absence of purity in such Souls, so Supreme Soul has to come on earth

to fulfil our prayers. But He is not having His own bodily form in Drama. That

is why people are telling that God is doing everything but always He remains

behind the curtain. At present Supreme soul is acting as Supreme Father, Supreme

Teacher, and Supreme Guru. He is giving respond to our prayers and He is giving

knowledge of Mukti and Jivanmukati. That is why People (Souls) are praying to

God Father that please show the way to sightless and here sightless meaning

without knowledge. Even in scripture people has written that when God Father is

coming on this earth very few people are able to recognise Him. This is because

of body-conscious; we believe self as body, so our

thought process will work in same direction to believe God Father also as

bodily form. Realize the fact is right or false, one should try to connect

(non-physically) mind (non-physical) and intellect (non-physical) with Supreme

Soul. If method is right than you will get positive result.

 

Wave lengths of soul-conscious state and body-conscious state both

are quite different. Soul-conscious person can understand both wave lengths, so

he will go in that direction. You see, in Radio if wave length is right than

only you will be able to catch that particular station. Same way, if you are in

soul-conscious state you will be able to catch signals from God Father. He is

not doing any partiality to any person (soul) but to get signals from Him, one

should do effort to develop one’s own state.

 

 

"Vinayaka N.S." <vinayaka_ns wrote:

 

 

Dear Advaitings,

 

All the greatest sages of mankind like Adi Shankara, Sri Ramakrishna,

Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, Sadashiva Brahmendra, Samartha Ramadas all

have told that god is having attributes as well as his is nirguna also.

[Guest guest]

On 11/12/05, Sri Tribhuvan Pabari wrote:

> No one is formless. All souls and Supreme Soul are having their

> own original form that is point of light.

>

> This World is a Drama and that is divided in four stages that

> are Golden Age, Silver Age, Copper Age and Iron Age.

>

> All souls actually in Diamond state, but when they enter in

> corporeal medium that is body, for act, their stage come down to Golden Age

> in beginning then Silver Age, Copper Age, and Iron Age.

 

I beg to disagree. There are infact six ages including Lead and Nickle

in addition to the four you have mentioned. Moreover, not all souls

are in Diamond state in the beginning. Some are in Diamond1 state and

others in Diamond2. I agree that the soul is not formles but it is not

the point shaped either as you wrote. Actually, the true shape of soul

is tetrahedron with gloden blue color....

 

The point is that I am free to believe what I want to. But as long as

our discussion is not based on any mutually accepted pramANa, no

meaningful communication is possible. Let us therefore agree on our

pramANas before further discussion. Otherwise, it is your word against

mine or my word against you.

 

praNAm