God is with form as well as formless 2

[Guest guest]

Namaste Advaitins...

First, i'd like some explanation, please, as to the meaning of saluting each

other with namaste and ending the first names with "ji". I decided to greet

everyone with namaste because i'd rather be a "ji" than a mister... I am not

completely ignorant of Advaita, i have been studying and meditating on it for

about 3 or 4 years now, have read the major UpanishAds, B.G., all the work from

Ramana Maharshi i got my hands on, the BrahmA Sutra by Swami Sivananda and some

other material, but being brazilian i know nothing of sanskrit, not even the

meaning of namaste and "ji", so i ask if anyone would be so kindly to

enlighten-me on these subjects, as well as commentaries on how adequate the path

of my studying and the material i read may be. Also, i heard a lot about

Shankara's commentary on the Brahma Sutras, and mostly everything i heard (means

read on the web) was heard with great satisfaction, and which seemed to fit my

natural inclination to the perception of Advaita, however i don't seem to find

it to be downloaded anywhere, and it's needless to say that i will not find it

in bookstores here either, so if anyone could help me with this matter as well,

i would be forever gratefull...

 

Going straight to the point (sort of), i had a somewhat catholic upbringing

(as usual among catholics), and from the start i felt that there was something

wrong with the idea of "our father" being in heaven, far away from us, and that

somehow we might have been closer to the devil than to god, here on earth, given

our behaviour. Furthermore, i could never feel responsible for crucifying

Christ, since i believe in life above everything and am known to pick ants from

the dinner table and gently lay them on the ground outside, instead of smashing

them down with my hands. The notion of a conscious entity, deciding what's best

for each one of us, given the amount of prayer you set aside for an issue,

allways seemed kind of skewed to me. How can we consider any single desire

important enough so that this god would rather listen to your prayers than to

the other six billion? Calling upon the greatest power on earth so that your

football team would win seemed too much of an egoistic dellusion.

 

Gradually i developed an instinctive "fractal" like approach to feeling life

and the world, and as soon as i became a project of a jazzist, and had to start

dealing with improvisation and creation above the rational level, experimenting

with mind altering substances, seeking the void of thoughtlessness (which

rewarded me with the greatest music i could ever blissfully hear coming through

me), i came across Vedanta. As the visions became clearer, and as i read more

and more, Advaita presented itself to me, fitting perfectly in the vision i

naturally perceived before, more and more seeming to me like the natural path,

that where i am the closest to the original equation that generated me. If there

was any conscious effort to create myself, i dare not question, for it does not

concerns me, i am created already. And as for requesting anything from that

which created me, i pretty much can say i am done with that. Whatever comes my

way is right, even when i am wrong. And there's nothing else i could want from

here, for it would begin and end in the same place. "That wich has neither

beggining nor an end, cannot have a middle as well". Advaita fits my perception.

 

However, upon reading the B.G., one doubt has taken root in my intellect,

and since then, i can only prune it's leaves, but never take it down. In B.G.

7.24, Lord Krsna speaks (and i qoute):

"The ignorant think of Me, the Para-Brahman, as having no form or personality

and I can take (any physical) form; because (these) people are not being able to

comprehend My supreme imperishable and incomparable existence."

 

 

 

The translator's notes (and i quote again):

 

"The Para-Brahman or absolute consciousness is higher than both Brahman and the

unmanifest Prakriti. Para-Brahman (or Krishna) is imperishable, without any

origin and end. Para-Brahman is not formless. It has Divya Roopa, a

transcendental form and Supreme Personality. The ignorant think of the Lord as

formless because He is not visible."

 

 

 

So, here is the logical paradox, on which i stood before, and have been

waiting to start a thread on, that once again seemingly conveyed out of

nothingness (bearing in mind i can disregard completely the translator's notes).

The notion of a conscious entity creating everything out of will alone seems to

me dualistic. If there's will, there's purpose. If there's purpose, there's

duality, and i am right back where i started. However, in another verse of the

B.G., it's stated that, even though in the end it will be seen that "both the

chain and the gold of which it's made of" are only gold, the gold precedes the

chain. Hence, the material, or fabric precedes the conscience, in my view.

Furthermore, is it not will that is what ultimately bounds us in samsara? Is it

not will the most fundamental condition that defines human? Again, i feel right

back at the etno-centric place i strayed from, fearing from feeling the will of

man, and not god's, leading the way. The explanations given by Swami Sivananda,

regarding the degrees of knowledge, and how each (of these degrees) may be

suited to fill every different indivual needs for knowledge, seems to answer the

matter partially to me. Adding it up to Sri Ramakrsna's and his guru stories,

about how he first immersed himself in Bhakti, before being able to formless

meditate, also seem to tame my yearning for knowledge. However, i still could

not get a grip on a conclusive answer, and this is what i got from a disciple of

Datta Swami: http://www.yrec.info/sutra-p8073.html#8073. At this point, it was

already clear to me that there's some weird sort of clash between the other

schools of thought in hinduism and Advaita, which obviously is not taken up by

Advaita or Advaitins, for the sake of non-duality. But the notion that one

system of knowledge would attack another for seeing things differently, doesn't

seem fitting to me, even more when the B.G. is mainly a common ground between

all the major Schools of Thought. I also sensed that somehow, the BrahmA Sutras

are somewhat more important to Advaita than the B.G., but the issue on god's

form (or lack of) seems of the uttermost importance, since spawning from form we

would have humanization, which would lead to the perception of god from our

rational form, which in turn implies bondage, for it depends on aspects of human

rationality to function. It would be the same as the glass of water trying to

hold in it's belly the whole of the ocean. It may even hold some, but only as

much as it fits inside it's rim. I am not saying that these representation(s)

wouldn't bear a beacon leading to liberation, but as long as it would be in

human form, it would instantly be part of Maya also, possibly a doorway out, but

nevertheless composed of the same fabric that we see in the mirror.

 

What are your thoughts on this?

 

 

 

My warmest regards...

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Felipe A. Scolfaro Crema"

<fcrema> wrote:

>

> Namaste Advaitins...

> First, i'd like some explanation, please, as to the meaning of

saluting each other with namaste and ending the first names

with "ji". I decided to greet everyone with namaste because i'd

rather be a "ji" than a mister... I am not completely ignorant of

Advaita, i have been studying and meditating on it for about 3 or 4

years now, have read the major UpanishAds, B.G., all the work from

Ramana Maharshi i got my hands on, the BrahmA Sutra by Swami

Sivananda and some other material, but being brazilian i know

nothing of sanskrit, not even the meaning of namaste and "ji", so i

ask if anyone would be so kindly to enlighten-me on these subjects,

as well as commentaries on how adequate the path of my studying and

the material i read may be. Also, i heard a lot about Shankara's

commentary on the Brahma Sutras, and mostly everything i heard

(means read on the web) was heard with great satisfaction, and which

seemed to fit my natural inclination to the perception of Advaita,

however i don't seem to find it to be downloaded anywhere, and it's

needless to say that i will not find it in bookstores here either,

so if anyone could help me with this matter as well, i would be

forever gratefull...

 

Dear Felipe A. Scolfaro Crema Ji,

 

Think you have got the reply for the query regarding namaste etc. by

adi ma ji, With regard to your above request please not the address

of the Sri Ramakrihsna Arshrama Brazil branch. You can get there not

only Shankaracharya's works but also other treatises on Vedanta,

Bhakti and host of other religious literature.

 

SAO PAULO

Ramakrishna Vedanta Ashrama

Largo Senador Raul Cardoso

204 Vila Clementino

04021-070 Sao Paulo - SP

Brasil

Phone: 55-11-5572-0428

Email: vedantasp

WWW: http://www.vedanta.org.br

 

If you would like to you can speak to Swami Sunirmalanadaji who is

one of the monsatic memeber of the order.

 

HARI OM TAT SAT. ( You may ask what is this HARI OM TAT SAT :-) and

i think better persons are there to answer!)

 

Yours in the Lord,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Felipe A. Scolfaro Crema

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

7.24, Lord Krsna speaks (and i qoute):

"The ignorant think of Me, the Para-Brahman, as having no form or

personality and I can take (any physical) form; because (these)

people are not being able to comprehend My supreme imperishable and

incomparable existence."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

The translation provided by you appears to be incorrect as it is

saying the exact opposite of what the Lord seeks to convey. I

consulted at least 4 translations (Swami Sivananda ,Swami

Gambhirananda, Swami Chinmayananda and Winthrop). These translators

maintain that the Lord is Unmanifest, but people foolishly think of

him as being Manifest. The translation provided by you says the

opposite i.e. the Lord has form but people foolishly think that he

has no form.

 

English Translation - Swami Sivananda

 

 

7.24 The foolish think of Me, the Unmanifest, as having

manifestation, knowing not My higher, immutable and most excellent

nature.

 

 

 

English Translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary -

Swami Gambhirananda

 

 

7.24 Abuddhayah, the unintelligent, the non-discriminating ones;

ajanantah, unaware; mama, of My; param, supreme; bhavam, state, My

reality as the supreme Self; which is avyayam, immutable, undecaying;

and anuttanam, unsurpassable; manyante, think; mam, of Me; as

avyaktam, the unmanifest, the invisible; apannam, that has become;

vyaktim, manifest, visible, at present [At present, after being

embodied as an Incarnation.]-though I am the ever well-known God.

They think so because they are unaware of My reality. This is the

idea. What is the reason for their ignorance? This is being stated:

 

 

Swami Chinmayananda Trans. & Commentary

 

24. The foolish think of Me, the Unmanifest, as having come to

manifestation, not knowing My higher, immutable and peerless nature.

 

Men who lack discrimination and the capacity to perceive the subtle

Truth that shines in and through the vast disturbances of the endless

plurality, fail to realise the immutable and the peerless Self. In

their extreme preoccupation with the ever-changing glory of the

perceivable, the Prakriti, (VII-4 and 6) they do not understand

that "ALL THIS IS STRUNG IN ME AS A ROW OF PEARLS ON A STRING."

 

This fundamental Reality, that is the beam of brilliance in which

like dust-particles the Universes dance about, is termed as

the "Unmanifest." This term is to be understood in all its

philosophical implications. That which is called the MANIFEST is

available either for the perceptions of the sense-organs, or for the

feelings of the mind, or for the understanding of the intellect. That

which is not available for any one of these instruments of cognition,

feeling or understanding is considered as the UNMANIFEST.

 

The Self, indeed, should then be considered as the UNMANIFEST, for it

is the VITALITY behind the sense-organs, the FEELER --- potential in

the mind and the very LIGHT that illumines the intellect.

 

The distorted intellects of the extroverts, in their miscalculations,

come to the false judgement that the physical glory of the Prophet,

or of the incarnation, is all that is the Eternal Truth. The point-of-

concentration (Upasya) is to be considered, no doubt, as the symbol

of the Truth which the devotee is seeking, but it cannot IN ITSELF be

the Truth. If it were the Truth, then after carving out an idol, or

after approaching a Guru, the devotee has nothing more to do, since

he has gained the Truth! Idol worship is only a convenience for

gathering true concentration, for getting an initial momentum for the

final flight into themselves, to reach the Self and discover therein

their own oneness with It.

 

This stanza gives us a clear insight into the futility of mistaking

the bottle for the medicine, the physical form for the Guru, the idol

for the God! All white-wood is not the fragrant sandal-wood. Any

bright light high up in the sky, however resplendent it might be, is

not a star. Some men of incomparable foolishness may come to declare

that the light from a tower is the Sun, but no wise man of the town

will accept it. The idea of Divine Incarnation is accepted in

Hinduism, and according to its theory, EVERYONE IS AN INCARNATION-TO-

A-DEGREE! The same Truth pervades all, and is in each. It expresses

through the enveloping layers of the mind-and-intellect. The clearer

the mind and the purer the intellect, the greater is the effulgence

of the Divine that beams out through them.

 

When the Self in anyone beams out through the steadied and purified

mind and intellect completely sublimating his lower nature

(Prakriti), he becomes a Prophet, a Sage. Krishna, Rama, Christ,

Mohammed, Buddha, Mahavira are some of the examples. These Men-of-

realisation, discovering their Self, understood and lived every

moment of their lives in the Self, as the Self of all. To mistake

their physical structure, or the lingering traces of their mind, or

the film of their intellectual personality, for the very Essence of

Truth, which these God-men were, is to make as miserable a mistake as

taking the waves to be the ocean!

 

Naturally, therefore, Krishna uses here a severe term, to indicate

such deluded men of superstitious false understanding,

as "UNINTELLIGENT FOOLS" (A-Buddhayah).

 

rgds

Hersh

[Guest guest]

Namaste. So many good people to address, i'll post individual answers,

for my gratitude to you all builds up everyday, sharing the light of

knowledge with anyone willing to accept it.

 

 

Namaste Adiji! Thanks for making me feel welcome, most of the time not

even presential conversation bears the same warmth i felt through reading

your reply. Ultimately, i think that seeing the divine spark in everyone of

us is what drove me to Advaita. Namaste. Feeling that god is much closer to

us than conditional heaven... I'm just not certain if i am worthy of being

called "ji", since i am neither old nor learned enough. And yes, our coffee

is the best! Every afternoon, i carefully prepare my own, making sure the

water doesn't boils (boiling water burns off the powder - here's a

brazilian's coffee tip...). Muito obrigado (thanks a lot) for your very

considerate reply! Regards.

 

Namaste Michaelji, i never felt compelled to talk back to those who

oppose my beliefs (at least the recent, higher natured advaitic ones), but

certainly allways felt perplexed that someone would step aside their own

paths to look negatively upon and disregard someone else's! Regards.

 

Namaste Hershji! Thank's a lot for correcting the translation i had of

the B.G.! It was not making logical sense with the rest of everything else

i've read. I had this recurring thought, how could one scripture contradict

the others directly? And i had felt suspicious, from the time i laid my eyes

on that particular verse, that it was tampered by someone of those people

who call Advaitins "possible demons"... Even the writing style seemed

different from the other verses, and i froze upon reading it, it blocked

away everything prior and after that. Like with my earlier religious

experience, feeling the hand of man leading the way, instead of gods' ...

Had to put that verse on hold, now i know i have to look for another version

of the B.G. and read it again. As for the rest of the reply, now i can say i

got a conclusive answer on that matter! I kinda felt that way before, but

needed the confirmation from someone more knowledgeable than me. I don't

know if you followed the link i posted, but if you did, what do you make of

the last answer about Advaita? Is that person also trying to distort and

give a different interpretation, in order to acomodate something in his

beliefs that is beyond particular points of view (that's what i felt in the

first place...)? Regards.

 

Namaste Vinayakaji, thanks for the directions! I went in that place in

2001, after i started searching for guidance to a wider comprehension.

Talked a little to the Swami, was invited to dinner, enjoyed a nice

vegetarian dinner and got a little book from Swami Vijoyananda, and went on

searching the internet to a more suiting view of what i felt to be the

truth. I wound up thinking that the followers of the Ramakrsna order

belonged to a different school of thought, for worshiping a guru. But as it

turns out now it seems that it may not be so, as i found out a few days ago

that Sri Ramakrsna himself was finally an Advaitin! I will return there

soon, thanks a lot for your reply! Regards.

 

Namaste Professorji, very complete answers and directions to deeper

study of the B.G.!I don't know if they were aimed at me, but they fit my

questions deeply, and helped quench my thirst for knowledge, specially the

two part article on "The Formfull and the Formless"! Regards.

 

Namaste to all!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____

Acesso Grátis: Internet rápida e grátis.

Instale o discador agora!

http://br.acesso./

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Felipe Scolfaro Crema-ji,

 

advaitin, "Felipe A. Scolfaro Crema"

<fcrema> wrote:

 

 

The deep questions you ask cannot be given definite answers through

the limitedness of speech and conception. If speech and conception

must approach the Truth, it must forever grow, constantly growing as

far as the horizons of speech and conception grows.... and yet there

will be no sign of the horizon ever coming to an end. What is forever

growing is Brahman. The word 'Brahman' comes from the Sanksrit

root 'brh' which means 'to grow'. And this Brahman that is growing is

at the same time Akshara – It is The Immutable. Brahman is the

Unchanging that embraces the Changing in Its Eternal Unchanging

Nature.

 

The Eternal Unchanging Nature of Brahman is Para Prakriti –it is Its

Higher Nature.

 

The Changing Nature of Brahman is Apara Prakriti – it is Its Lower

Nature.

 

The Higher Nature of Brahman wholly subsumes the Lower Nature of

Brahman so much so that when the Higher Nature is known there is no

other Lower Nature than the Higher Nature to be known. The Higher

Nature is Prajnanam – Consciousness. It is the beginning and the end,

the alpha and the omega.

 

The Higher Nature alone is, and Its Being is the being of the Lower

Nature. The Lower Nature is not a being that is also a being but is

the Being that is the Higher Nature Itself which is the One without a

second.

 

When the paradox of the Unchanging and the Changing is embraced in

the One Unchanging, the Truth shines. Brahman is the Great

Inexpressible because speech does not reach this Truth.

 

The Truth shines from inside; no answer from outside can give to the

questioning soul the noetic rest that its deep disquiet seeks. The

disquiet must come to rest in the ceasing of the questions and not in

the answering of the questions because the answering is the extending

of the horizons of the Lower Nature..... but in the Higher Nature of

the Great Being everything is always resting silently.

 

> However, upon reading the B.G., one doubt has taken root in

> my intellect, an since then, i can only prune it's leaves,

> but never take it down. In B.G. 7.24, Lord Krsna speaks

> (and i qoute):

> "The ignorant think of Me, the Para-Brahman, as having no form

> or personality and I can take (any physical) form; because

> (these) people are not being able to comprehend My supreme

> imperishable and incomparable existence."

> So, here is the logical paradox, on which i stood before, and

> have been waiting to start a thread on, that once again

> seemingly conveyed out of nothingness (bearing in mind i can

> disregard completely the translator's notes). The notion

> of a conscious entity creating everything out of will alone

> seems to me dualistic. If there's will, there's purpose. If

> there's purpose, there's duality, and i am right back where

> i started.

 

Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita that one who sees action in

inaction and inaction in action is the one who sees truly.

The 'purpose' that we see behind creation is dependent on the prism

through which we see. The Lord does not create. The Lord has no

purpose. The Lord's action is the convex of the concave generated by

the inclination of the individual that is inclined. The convex and

the concave are only separated as a duality by the prism through

which the One is seen. The concave and the convex are One.

 

> However, in another verse of the B.G., it's stated that, even

> though in the end it will be seen that "both the chain and the

> gold of which it's made of" are only gold, the gold precedes

> the chain. Hence, the material, or fabric precedes the

> conscience, in my view.

 

Even now - not only at the end - it can be seen that both the gold

and chain are one. Precedence 'happens' through the hiddenness of

ignorance. When the hiddenness goes, what proceeds is what it

precedes from. Hiddenness is the darkness of the Maya of Time. Time

casts its magic spell on the prismatic eye that gazes at Eternity --

Time is that which shows and hides things from the Wells of Eternity.

The coming into being of a thing is its coming forth from the

darkness of hiddenness into the light of showing forth within the

clearing of consciousness. The clearing is the boundary of the

individual's consciousness. The boundary is ignorance. In Reality,

there is no boundary and no individual.

 

> Furthermore, is it not will that is what ultimately bounds us

> in samsara? Is it not will the most fundamental condition that

> defines human?

 

The Will is unbounded and One. The human will that binds us to

samsara is the neurosis in which it sees its individual will

discordant with the One Will. When the neurosis of the individual

will dissolves in its attunement to the One Will, there is release

from samsara.

 

> Again, i feel right back at the etno-centric place i strayed

> from, fearing from feeling the will of man, and not god's,

> leading the way.

 

Only when there are men to follow can there be men to lead. The Way

to God is not to follow but to unfold and blossom. It is to open

one's self to the unbounded sky of Consciousness and to allow one's

will to acquiesce to the music of the Will of the One Self that is

within and without. Then will God be born through one's self like a

lotus unfurling into a thousand blossoms of song and play for then

one's will will be the One Will of God. The Guru is not one who leads

the disciple, but one who ignites the spark in the heart of the

disciple.

 

> At this point, it was already clear to me that there's some

> weird sort of clash between the other schools of thought in

> hinduism and Advaita, which obviously is not taken up by

> Advaita or Advaitins, for the sake of non-duality.

 

Advaita has taken it up and then the other schools have taken it up

and then Advaita has again taken it up and....

 

> But the notion that one system of knowledge would attack

> another for seeing things differently, doesn't seem fitting

> to me,

 

It is quite fitting if you would look at it as Advaita would. Doubts

exist in Reality. A doubt is an ontological entity like an apple or a

chair. Just as an apple or a chair comes into the sphere of our

consciousness, doubts also come into the sphere of our consciousness.

The field of Vedic culture, in which one finds all these polemics as

a prevalent feature, is a field for dissolving the doubts in the path

of the soul's journey to Truth. Now, the prism that each soul wears

is not the same, and each prism dissolves in different ways depending

on its constitution. The different schools of Vedanta enunciate

Reality in terms of different scenarios that unfold when prisms of

different constitutions dissolve. The constitution of a prism is

called the adhikara of the soul – it is the soul's right that it has

earned by acquiring the qualification required for a certain path to

Truth. In the field of Vedic culture, the various paths are kept

ready for various kinds of souls of various constitutions. That is

why even the enlightened acharya's of different paths are

constantly 'attacking one another' – to preserve on this earth these

different paths that lead to the One Reality. How to 'attack' one

another is also a Vedic science and it is called 'Nyaya Shastra'. It

lays down all the rules for polemics. It is one of the primary arms

of the Vedas.

 

> even more when the B.G. is mainly a common ground between all

> the major Schools of Thought. I also sensed that somehow, the

> BrahmA Sutras are somewhat more important to Advaita than

> the B.G.,

 

The common ground of all schools of Vedanta comprise not only the

Bhagavad Gita, but three texts as follows: the Vedas at the apex, the

Bhagavad Gita as the gist of the Vedas, and the Mimamsa Sutras

(Brahma Sutras) as the framework for the interpretation of the Vedas.

These three are called the prathana-traya, or the triple canons of

Vedanta.

 

> but the issue on god's form (or lack of) seems of the uttermost

> importance, since spawning from form we would have humanization,

> which would lead to the perception of god from our rational form,

> which in turn implies bondage,for it depends on aspects of human

> rationality to function. It would be the same as the glass of

> water trying to hold in it's belly the whole of the ocean.

> It may even hold some, but only as much as it fits inside it's

> rim.

 

Every person wears the mask of persona over his or her radiant Self.

The persona cannot hold the Infinite, but the radiant Self is the

Infinite Itself. When the persona is gone, what remains is the

Infinite and it holds everything in it from the nearest to the

farthest. That Infinite is Impersonal for It has no persona, or

personality, to mask Its Radiant Truth.

 

> I am not saying that these representation(s) wouldn't bear a

> beacon leading to liberation, but as long as it would be in

> human form, it would instantly be part of Maya also, possibly

> a doorway out, but nevertheless composed of the same fabric

> that we see in the mirror. What are your thoughts on this?

 

You ask an important question and it brings us to the gates of the

Sacred Word. You are perspicuous in saying that any human

representation of Reality would carry with it the distortions arising

from human failings. Therefore a faithful representation would have

to be something that is untouched by the human persona. In Sanskrit,

such a representation is called 'apaurusheya' – not originating in a

person. Now, is there to be found on this earth such a

representation? Any representation would necessarily have to be

constituted of words, and this in turn would mean that the words of a

true representation would have to words that proceed out of an

Impersonal Being. Is there to be found on this earth such words?

 

If we were to go back to the texts of almost all the religions of the

world, and also to the ancient philosophies that once existed on this

earth, we would find that they speak of the word (logos) as the

instrument through which the universe was created. But none of them

speak of possessing this word. Judaism and Christianity speak of the

word, but they don't say where it may be found. The Egyptian texts

say that this word was once known to them and that it has now been

lost. Plato speaks of it, but does not elaborate what the word is or

where it may be found, but he does say in the Cratylus, while tracing

the etymologies of words, that the Geek language is a derivative of

an ancient and primordial language. What is this word or language

that these religions and ancient philosophies speak of? Where may it

be found today? In Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma) it is said that these

words are the Vedas.

 

The pivot around which Vedanta revolves is the Vedas. The Vedas are

considered to be the supreme word through which the universe is

created, and they are known from time immemorial as 'apaurusheya' –

as not having originating in a person. One may take all this or leave

it, but the rubric of this unbroken tradition is the grand pedestal

on which the edifice of Vedic culture stands.

 

What are these 'texts' called the Vedas? What is the nature of the

Vedas? Firstly, the Vedas are not written scripts, but are words that

are heard; that is why it is called 'Sruti', the heard. The Vedas are

the eternal unstruck sound of Brahman. It is the Spanda (Silent

Vibration). It is all of Creation. It is the Speech that has no

movement. It is the Voice of Silence and there is no movement in it.

But when the movement is seen, it becomes the Reverberation in the

Wells of Silence - the Divine Pulsation - that propagates into the

vastness of this creation from a Center that is all-pervasive. He who

sees the nature of Spanda as the unmoving is 'stitha prajna' - fixed

in Consciousness - which is the ultimate goal of a seeker in the path

of Vedanta, whereas he who fails to see the unmoving nature of Spanda

is trapped in samsara (transmigration).

 

The Voice of Silence that Reverberates into creation is the Speech

with which Brahman creates. It is the Vedas. In this Creation that is

the propagation of the Sound, there are all these beings from the

immobile plants and trees to the grovelling worms, from mortal man to

the immortal gods in heaven, and amongst these beings there is a

class of beings that have been created as the repositories of the

very Words of Creation, and these beings preserve these words in the

exact manner of its reverberation with the metrical purity of all its

intonations intact. These beings are called dvijas – the twice-born -

because they have been born again, as it were, in their mortal births

for the sake of preserving the eternal speech of Brahman. They may or

may not understand the meanings of these words, but they have been

given the role of preserving the Sacred Word on this earth for is it

thus contained in the very reverberation that is this creation.

 

The Vedas constitute the representation of Reality that is not of

human origin. The children of the Vedic path accept the Vedas as the

supreme Gift of Reality to humankind. Whether their belief is rightly

held or not may be a debatable point, but if we are inclined to

preserve the texts of the ancient scriptures and the ancient

monuments of this world with so much care, then this Gift is worth

preserving more than all the other texts and monuments – for it is

the Living Word of the Living Universe.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjan-ji! *(call me Felipe)

 

Even though the boundaries of human rationality may dictate that never

enough knowledge of the Absolute will be gained through it, and that this

implies that no definite answers will come for my questions, yours came as

close as they get. Along with Hersh-ji corrections on my B.G. quotes, i am

logically satisfied about these particular questionings. As for the rest of

your post, i am thrilled, i may have read it over and over again three times

now.

Funny enough, knowing with ever more clear perception that coincidences

are unexistent, the purity perceived in the Vedas, along with the clearly

felt presence of the divine spark in all of us (the latter as a symptom, the

earlier some sort of cause), could also very well be accounted for my being

drawn upon Advaita you appropriately reminded (and objectivated) me of. That

is precisely what i meant (in a negative perspective) in "fearing for

feeling Man's hands leading the way, instead of Gods'". That is why i even

consider Advaita to be above the concept of religion, even when regardind it

(as for a very perfected form of Hinduism) as the mother of all religions.

Advaita, in the Maya of Time, precedes religion in it's etymology (as

previously stated by you and others in this forum, abstract words bearing

the same presence as concrete ones). The latin origin of the word

"religion", "re ligare" denotes "re-connection". The fundamentals of Advaita

(which i can better atune myself to now, with the invaluable aid from you

and other knowledgeable members) clearly state that no connection has been

lost. As perfectly clearly stated in your reply, the connection is simply

masked by a tainted prism of ignorance. Nothing to "re-connect". Perhaps

that's why the notion "our father, who art in heaven" is so eagerly twisted

by those whishing to institutionalize, in a mad quest for organizational

power. Add an intermediate to the word, and all of a sudden connection is

lost, you need an institution, therefore, to "re-connect" your self.

The final issue you addressed, which may have derived from my earlier

catholic background, is that we will only be mislead when there's someone to

follow. I might have had an inherent (outside induced) assumption, that

believing the truth laid within was just the most pretentious thought one

could bear crossing his or her mind. I now ever more firmly believe logic

serves to untie knots, diminishing and easing-up the functions of the

rational mind, as long as the knots are untied in a proper, untainted

fashion (hence, as i objectify with your aid, the need for the precedent

word in the Maya of Time). That perhaps is also why for me "religion"

wouldn't suffice, something inside my own BMI complex blocks me with logic

whenever i am presented with it's completely Bhakti dependent formats.

Advaita seems completely logically coherent to me, as it grows in me. Thanks

for aiding me Chittaranjan-ji, thanks to all knowledgeable members who

wholeheartedly rise to the ocasion of molding jnana into bhakti.

 

Finally, i have a question about your earlier "The Magic Ladder" post.

Why do you consider Advaita to be an esoteric science (furthermore, what is

your definition of esoteric) and why do you believe it to be guarded from

especially those who are able to read everything there is about it?

 

My warmest regards...

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____

Acesso Grátis: Internet rápida e grátis.

Instale o discador agora!

http://br.acesso./

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Felipe,

 

advaitin, "Felipe A. Scolfaro Crema"

<fcrema> wrote:

> Even though the boundaries of human rationality may dictate

> that never enough knowledge of the Absolute will be gained

> through it, and that this implies that no definite answers

> will come for my questions, yours came as close as they get.

> Along with Hersh-ji corrections on my B.G. quotes, i am

> logically satisfied about these particular questionings. As

> for the rest of your post, i am thrilled, i may have read it

> over and over again three times now.

> Funny enough, knowing with ever more clear perception that

> coincidences are unexistent, the purity perceived in the

> Vedas, along with the clearly felt presence of the divine

> spark in all of us (the latter as a symptom, the earlier

> some sort of cause), could also very well be accounted for

> my being drawn upon Advaita.....

 

 

I greet you as one fellow traveller on the Way to another and wish to

tell you that your post was a pleasure to read. I am also grateful to

you for bringing home to me the original meaning of the

word 'religion' as it derives from its etymological roots. To re-

connect to the Ground from which we are born is surely the one true

religion in all, and to be born again into Light from Death the goal

of all religion. It is said that the path of Advaita itself has to be

ultimately given up for Advaita to shine.... for in the end the path

becomes a hindrance.

 

I am of the conviction that going along the path of logical coherency

leads the intellect to the 'cave of the heart', its original home,

and from here it obtains a more profound vision of Truth - the vision

of a 'higher logic' that embraces in its panoramic view the Great

Paradox of Reality called Maya. I believe that your adherence to

logical coherency is well-founded and my wishes go with you in your

search.

 

> Finally, i have a question about your earlier "The Magic

> Ladder" post. Why do you consider Advaita to be an esoteric

> science (furthermore, what is your definition of esoteric)

> and why do you believe it to be guarded from especially

> those who are able to read everything there is about it?

 

I consider Advaita to be naturally esoteric by which term I mean that

Advaita is 'secret' or 'difficult to unearth' given the paradoxical

nature of Reality. What we see before us is due to Maya and it is

self-referencing to Maya itself. Questioning and answering, while

being very important to the path, is still a derailment of the

investigation because the very questioning takes it into the dark

alley of discursive thought and causes a loss of the presence that

Maya brought forth to the seeing eye. To know what was seen is to be

Aware in the spontaneity of the moment - to have a power of

recognition whereby the answer is contained in the very seeing.

Advaita is the regaining of recognition of Self as all-encompassing

and hence it naturally means the recognition of each thing as it

abides (mystically?) in the Self. My remarks about Advaita being

well 'guarded from especially those who are able to read everything

there is about it' was simply to say that the Truth is not in books

but in the Living Vision. Without recognition - pratyabhijna - books

are a bind alley, but I must say here that for sadhakas like us who

are struggling with recognition of Self/Reality there is usually an

insight in our hearts which need to be affirmed, and for such

affirmation books are still be a great help on the way.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Chittaranjan-ji!

 

Upon reading some of your earlier posts (some even over one year old),

your commitment to knowledge and coherent logic became cristal clear to me.

Your patience in replying to the same questionings (or somewhat related)

again and again can simply denote your devotion and sincere effort into

helping untie the knots which clouds our judgements and keeps us away from

the Absolute. As i have stressed earlier, your reply and Hersh-ji's not only

led to my logical satisfaction and satisfied my intellect, as they more

importantly helped to silence that voice which kept repeating in my

subconscious mind "something does not adds up". They moved me a step further

into having a disciplined mind. And for this, i must now add that i agree

with your views on Advaita being an esoteric science, for if i had not

"stumbled" across this group, i would never have had this particular aspect

of knowledge and distinct points of view directed upon myself. Thank you.

Other than that, it became clear to me that you might be further ahead

the same road i may be threading on, on account of the instant

identification i had with some of your posts. Would you be so kind as to

enlighten-me with some objective meditation techniques you are familiar

with, or currently engaging in (considering our predilection for logical

coherence...)?

Finally, as for reading books to reassure us of some of our insights, it

reminded me of a quotation from Ramana Maharsh-ji (which i may even have

read in this forum, so forgive me if i am being repetitive), where it said

that "Once you look in the mirror and find out you need to shave, will you

look at a hundred different mirrors to make sure you really need to, or will

you do something about it?". Maybe i still didn't quite understand how to

use the razor, maybe i just feel more comfortable looking at the mirror than

sliding a blade around my face. Either way, sooner or later i will have to

do something about it...

 

My warmest regards...

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____

Acesso Grátis: Internet rápida e grátis.

Instale o discador agora!

http://br.acesso./

[Guest guest]

Felipe!

 

i was delighted to read your post - Yes, our beloved Chitta is a

logician; very knowledgeble and above all a poet, philosopher ,

mentor and my guide !

 

Chitta is busy travelling and i am sure when he gets back, he wll be

more than happy to answer any questions you may have! He is Able and

Willing , both great qualities in a sadhaka !

 

Indeed you are in a great group - mostly all are professionals ,

Doctors, engineers, professors and above all great Satsanghis!

 

it is strange you should mention 'razor' - IT RANG A BELL!

 

Chitta calls the path of Advaita as 'Razor's edge'

 

pl Read his introduction to THE 'the Real and unreal' discussion :

 

"People often interpret Advaita by dissolving the great mystery that

lies in the Heart of Reality. But Advaita cannot be spoken of without

speech being shrouded in the mists of the inexplicable. As Adiji

writes in her message, there is already a mystery in the "and"

between the real and unreal. Lord Krishna says that "the unreal never

is, the real never is not". I believe that the meaning of

the "unreal" is known only on knowing the meaning of the "real", and

that one is asleep to meanings until the Self, in which all meanings

lie, is known. To know one must be awake, and to awaken one must

know. The path of Advaita is called asparsa. It is also called the

*razor's edge.*

 

You can access this interesting discussion in the archives witha a

lot of input from other learned members

 

or it is available in a consolidated form at the following url

 

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/chittaranjan/razor_chittaranjan.h

tm

 

Why is this path called 'razor's edge'?

 

This term is borrowed from Katha upanishad

 

" khurasya dhaaraa nishitaa duratyayaa durgam patha.h kavaya.h

vadanti " - kata, valli 3, shloka 14.

 

It is not possible to walk on the razor's edge without hurting your

leg.

 

So, Advaita is not for the faint-hearted!To give up the non-self is

the hardest thing to do ! that is what real 'renunciation' means !

not sporting a long beard or a long matted hair ! smile! ( naughty

me! )

 

Enjoy the ride! donot give up if you encounter a few bumps here and

there !

 

ps - btw thanx for the coffee tip !

 

love and blessings

 

 

 

-- In advaitin, "Felipe A. Scolfaro Crema"

<fcrema> wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Chittaranjan-ji!

>

> Upon reading some of your earlier posts (some even over one

year old),

> your commitment to knowledge and coherent logic became cristal

clear to me.

> Your patience in replying to the same questionings (or somewhat

related)

> again and again can simply denote your devotion and sincere effort

into

> helping untie the knots which clouds our judgements and keeps us

away from

> the Absolute.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Felipe,

 

advaitin, "Felipe A. Scolfaro Crema"

<fcrema> wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Chittaranjan-ji!

>

> Upon reading some of your earlier posts (some even over one

> year old), your commitment to knowledge and coherent logic

> became cristal clear to me.

 

Thank you for your kind words. I believe that your own predilection

for logical coherence is in conformity with the path of knowledge

called 'jnana-marga'. In this path, the intellect is considered to be

an important asset for resolving the contradictions that inhere in

the seeing of the individual so that the ripples of doubt may not

disturb the Lake of Consciousness. The path of jnana-marga leads to

the Stilled Lake of Consciousness which remains still even in the

seeing of the world because the seeing itself is still when there is

no doubt in the seeing. Such fixity in seeing is the aim of Advaita

and it comes with the Knowledge in which no doubt resides. It is the

Self being 'stitha-prajna' - fixed - and it is the same as the Sahaja

Samadhi that Sri Ramana Maharshi spoke about. Sahaja is natural, and

the Vision of Advaita is natural and effortless.

 

> Would you be so kind as to enlighten-me with some objective

> meditation techniques you are familiar with, or currently

> engaging in (considering our predilection for logical

> coherence...)?

 

With regard to meditation techniques, I might not be the right person

to offer any advice on this matter. The path of jnana-marga welcomes

all meditational and yogic techniques but uses the experiences

brought by them only as marks or signs for knowing. In the path of

knowledge, the light of knowledge is brought to bear on these

luminous experiential states so that one may know the principles that

make such experiences possible. Knowledge is thereby expanded to Know

the infinitude of its Self in which all things are possible. I

believe that the sincerity which I detect in your mails is the guide

that will surely bring you to the appropriate meditational technique

that will be of help on the Way that you walk. In my own case I have

found a Guide who does not give me any specific instruction at all. I

find myself often baffled and perplexed by this lack of instruction,

but I feel that I am somehow being guided. Knowledge binds itself by

affirming the known because one cannot Know the Unbounded in the

known. It is said that the path of jnana-marga defies description. I

believe that it is important for the seeker of Unbounded Knowledge to

be in a state of perplexity. It is a sign that he has not fallen prey

to the lure of the limited. There are layers and layers of the known

and it is easy to fall into the trap of 'knowing before you know'.

Perplexity necessarily exists before the opening of the bud. The bud

must however not remain closed -- it must unfurl and open out into

the beautiful flower of Unbounded Knowledge.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Dear AdiMa,

 

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16>

wrote:

>

> i was delighted to read your post - Yes, our beloved

> Chitta is a logician; very knowledgeble and above all

> a poet, philosopher, mentor and my guide !

 

It is your large heart that makes you say that i am larger

than what i am. It is your play, AdiMa, that you should say

that a perplexed seeker like me is a mentor or a guide. I

am only a speck in the luminosity of Adi Shakti!

 

Love and regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Chitta Acknowledges :

 

( I am only a speck in the luminosity of Adi Shakti!)

 

Yes! We all are a mere speck on the Moon-faced Goddess ! She is the

Divine Mother , Para Shakti !

 

Sri Lalita Sahasaranama describes one of her names as

 

Mukha Chandra Kalan^Kabha Mr^Iga Nabhi Visheshhaka

 

'She Who Wears A Musk Mark On Her Forehead Which Shines Like The Spot

In The Moon'

 

YES! the devi bhaktas are that 'musk' mark !

 

She is the Goddess who unites all Gods in One !

 

One of the names of the goddesses is

 

'Bramaravarshini'

 

The Kashmiri poet sings thus

 

bhAsvadbimbAdharA

kRSNakes'I sitakarAnanA

harimadhyA s'ivAkArA

sarvadevamayIva sA |

 

"With lips red as the _bimba_ fruit,

with black hair, with face like the moon,

with waist like a lion, with gracious aspects,

she seemed to unite all the gods in one!"

 

The Goddess to whom the above poem is addressed is bhramaravAsini.

The poet indirectly reminds the readers of the various gods that

seemed to unite in Bhramaravasini: sUrya (bimba), kRSNa, candra

(sitakara),hari, and s'iva.

 

She is all in all ! If you worship Devi, you are worshipping all her

Shaktis !

 

Nair-ji writes - 'I am in Love ' ... I would add to it and say 'i am

in love with Love HERSELF' For Devi is Love !Our beloved Mother

Kameshweri Who has 'kama ' ( desire) for her lord ans consort (

kameshwera) and 'prema' (Pure Love) for all her devotees !

 

Nairji - here is more on the beautiful name

 

Sri Muthuswamy Dikshitir sings thus in one of his Navarana Kritis

 

sarvAshAparipUraka cakra svAminIm: The name of the second cakra which

literally means, 'fulfiller of all desires'.

 

Yes this the devi who resides in the 16 petalled lotus in the second

chakra !

 

This consists of sixteen petals which house the deities that

represent the various attractions:

1)kAmAkarShiNI (desire);

2) buddhyAkarShiNI (intellect);

3) ahamkarAkarShiNI (ego);

4) shabdAkarShiNI (sound);

5) sparshAkarShiNI (touch);

6) rUpAkarShiNI (form);

7) rasAkarShiNI (taste);

8) gandhAkarShiNI (smell);

9) chittAkarShiNI (mind);

10) dhairyAkarShiNI (fortitude);

11) smrtyAkarShiNI (memory);

12) nAmAkarShiNI (name);

13) bhIjAkarShiNI (seed);

14) AtmAkarShiNI (soul);

15) amritAkarShiNI (immortality);

16) sharIrAkarShiNI (body).

 

on this beautiful day dedicated to Guru, let me recall a popular

saying from Kubjika Tantra :

 

STRINAM PADATALAM DRSTVA GURUVAD BHAVAYET SADA

 

"WHOEVER HAS SEEN THE FEET OF WOMAN , LET HIM WORSHIP THOSE AS THOSE

OF HIS GURU."

 

It is for this reason, Shri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa always used to

fall down at the feet of all women he came across!

 

and here i recall these words from Digest of Paramacharya's

Discourses on Soundaryalahari (DPDS-75)

 

"Professorji writes...

 

"ALL FORMS of men are nothing but the Lord and all forms of

women are just ambaal. This is what the Adam's apple of the

male neck and the three lines in the female neck tell us."

 

And The Devi Mahatmiyam proclaims ...

 

Vidyah samastah tava devi bheddah striyah samastah sakala jagaatsu

 

O Devi! All types of knowledge and all women in the world are thy

diverse manifestations.)

 

If ordinary women's feet are so worshippable , what about aAmbaal's

lotus feet ? A million times more worshippable, is it not ? It is for

this reason , you will note that Adi shankara glorifies the Feet of

Ambaal in his classic composition 'saundarya lahari' IN MANY

VERSES ! !

 

In Tantric circles , a female guru is considered to be far more

superior to a male Guru ! Sri Ramakrishna's first guru was a woman

named Brahmani Bhairavi!

 

In any case, our first Guru is our own Mother from whom we learn

everything . Our diksha guru is the divine mother who gives us 'Jnana

Paal' - THE MILK OF KNOWLEDGE!

 

AT THE LOTUS FEET OF DEVI PARASHAKTI!