Adi Shankara and Advaita

[Guest guest]

Om Sri Gurubhyo Namah

 

OM NAMAH SHIVAYA

 

 

Adi Shankara is Lord Shiva. Lord Shiva wears a snake around his neck.

The answer to the perplexing question of what constitutes Advaita

lies in seeing Lord Shiva with the snake around his neck.

 

No man can see the Truth of Advaita. Only Lord Shiva Sees It. The

eyes of mortal beings open and close in the Third Eye of Shiva that

is always Open. That Eye alone sees Advaita.

 

Adi Shankara's words are a double-edged sword. It is both this way

and that way. Seeing any one way is not seeing what Shankara Sees.

 

To see the Truth of Advaita, the sword of discrimination has to

pierce the Twilight-Junction where the Day meets Night to reveal the

Splendorous Sun that never rises and sets. In the Sunlight all things

are Seen and nothing is lost.

 

Adi Shankara speaks in riddles. A riddle presents a contradiction.

The comfort of having an established Advaita philosophy does not

exist. It can only be as Adi Shankara has given it to us – both this

way and that way. By its very nature, the articulation of Advaita is

a riddle.

 

The comfort of having established philosophies that are either this

Way or that Way is found in Visistadvaita and Dvaita among many other

Ways. It is not the Way of Advaita that has no Way that may be spoken

about. Those who cross swords with Advaita cross swords with the

illusions of their own making.

 

The glint of the Sword flashes in the brilliance of the Sun and it

blinds the eye. The path lies however on the razor's edge of the

Sword flashing in the Sun. It is the Sword of discrimination that

cuts across all riddles to unriddle all that has been riddled. There

is nothing lost in it except the knots of the riddles.

 

And there is a great riddle in Shankara Himself:

 

Shankara shows the Truth. Shankara hides the Truth. Shankara both

shows and hides the Truth. One aspect of Shankara is Rudra. The

Shakti of Rudra is called Raudri. Raudri is the power that prevents

one from seeing the Truth.

 

Sri Madhvacharya said that Sri Shankaracharya is Rudra who had come

to confuse people. Sri Madhvacharya does not speak an untruth. It is

true that Shankara prevents one from seeing the Truth. It is also

true that Shankara is the supreme revelation of Truth. It is the very

nature of Shankara to wear a snake round His neck. It is the very

Nature of Lord Shiva. It is the very Nature of Truth that It is such.

It is the Nature of Advaita, the Vision of Lord Shiva.

 

Brahman created all these beings. After creating them, Brahman

entered them. The words of Advaita are the words of Brahman directed

by Brahman to Brahman when Brahman is ready to exit what Brahman has

entered. He exits in the same manner as He enters. The man that He

once entered and is now exiting is left behind in the ashes of the

funeral pyre. It is all the Leela of His Eternal Existence.

 

To that Lord Shiva, who came in the form of a sanyasin as the Jagat-

Guru, Adi Shankara, I pray that I may be able to offer my head so

that the man who can never see the Truth may be burnt to ashes. Only

Lord Shiva is always Seeing.

 

Om Tat Sat

 

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote: Om Sri Gurubhyo

Namah

 

OM NAMAH SHIVAYA

 

 

Adi Shankara is Lord Shiva. Lord Shiva wears a snake around his neck.

The answer to the perplexing question of what constitutes Advaita

lies in seeing Lord Shiva with the snake around his neck.

 

No man can see the Truth of Advaita. Only Lord Shiva Sees It. The

eyes of mortal beings open and close in the Third Eye of Shiva that

is always Open. That Eye alone sees Advaita.

 

Adi Shankara's words are a double-edged sword. It is both this way

and that way. Seeing any one way is not seeing what Shankara Sees.

 

Sankarraman:

In the above exalted and lofty understanding of

Advaita metaphysics, the Advaitin could have no quarrel with any system of

thought or philosophy, because there is no sense of the other in this.

Jean-Paul-Sartre says somewhere; "The other is a hell". The Advaitin has no

other.

sankarraman

 

 

 

 

Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Greetings Chitta!

 

Delicious ! Simply Delicious!

 

That is the 'adjective' that springs to mind to describe your post

on Advaita after all that wonderful Thanksgiving Feast we hosted !

 

Adi Shankara's 'Adwaithic philosophy' is the feast for the Mind and

we have to be eternally 'thankful' to the Great Acharya for all

his 'immortal' ( eternal) Treatises!

 

Symbolism of Snake On Lord Shiva's neck!

 

OM Nagabhushanaye Namaha one who wears snake around his neck)

 

i loved the manner in which you described the Metaphor of 'snake' as

being the snake of ignorance !

 

( Adi Shankara is Lord Shiva. Lord Shiva wears a snake around his

neck. The answer to the perplexing question of what constitutes

Advaita lies in seeing Lord Shiva with the snake around his neck.

No man can see the Truth of Advaita. Only Lord Shiva Sees It. The

eyes of mortal beings open and close in the Third Eye of Shiva that

is always Open. That Eye alone sees Advaita.)

 

There is another meaning for the symbolism of 'Snake' on Lord Shiva's

neck!

 

 

Generally serpents live for hundreds of years. Wearing of serpents by

Lord Siva signifies that He is Eternal. So is Adi Shankara's adwaita

philosophy ! It is 'immortal' and has stood the test of Time !

 

OM SHASVATAYA NAMAHA ( SIVA IS ENDLESS AND EETRNAL ! SO IS ADWAITA)

 

AS our most respected Kanchi Paramacharya says in one of his

discourses :

 

"By its very name, Advaita negates duality and dissension and

comprehends every warring sect and system into its all-embracing

unit. In fact, the survival of Hinduism is itself due to this

Advaitic temper, which sees no distinction between Saivam, Vaishnavam

and other denominations. Shri Adi Sankara underlined the essential

unity of all Sampradaayas and sects and saved Hinduism from

disruption."

 

om Pinakine Namaha ( upholder of Dharma - So is our Shankara

bhagvadapadha )

 

Furthermore ,

 

Lord Shiva is ABSOLUTELY 'fearless' ! This is obvious from the fact

that he is wearing a 'snake' around his blue-throated neck! (

Nilakanta)!

 

OM MRITYUNJAYAYE NAMAHA ( oNE HAS CONQUERED DEATH - THOSE WALKING THE

ADWAITHIC PATH OF ETERNAL TRUTH ARE 'FEARLESS' for they do not fear

anything including the death of ego- man's greatest fear! smile)

 

 

Further more, The snake represents the 'jivatma'which rests upon the

body of Lord Shiva !( the Paramatma)!

 

"The five hoods mean the five senses or the five Tattvas, viz.,

earth, water, fire, air and ether. They also represent the five

Pranas, which hiss in the body like the serpent. The inhalation and

exhalation are like the hissing of the serpent. Lord Siva Himself

became the five Tanmatras, the five Jnanendriyas, the five

Karmendriyas and other groups of five. The individual soul enjoys the

worldly objects through these Tattvas. When the individual attains

knowledge through control of the senses and the mind, he finds his

eternal resting abode in Lord Siva, the Supreme Soul. "

 

(Lord Siva and his Worship -Swami Sivananda)

 

 

 

KANCHI PARAMACHARYA explains this beautifully :

 

"According to Advaita, the ultimate bliss is the experience of non-

difference between the Jivatma and the Paramatma. Acharyas of other

schools of thought would wish to have at least a tract of distinction

between the two so that the Jivatma, standing apart, may be able to

enjoy the realisation of the Paramatma. Thus the difference between

the several systems of Hindu religious thought is slight, as all are

agreed upon the ultimate realisation of the Supreme. But when it

comes to a question of expounding each system, this difference got

magnified to the point of violent opposition. And yet we find that in

their ultimate reaches, all of them speak the language of Advaita.

This shows that the expansive heart of Sri Adi Sankara accommodated

all views of the ultimate reality and all approaches to it. Though

other systems quarrel with Advaita, Advaita has no quarrel with any"

 

http://www.kamakoti.org/acall/ac-advaita.html

 

Shankara's ADWAITA is

 

'Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam, Anandam'

 

It is the 'Truth, knowledge, endless, bliss'!

 

om Anaghaya namaha ( faultless - no blemishes )

 

(

Chitta talks about opening the 'Third Eye')( third eye) ?

 

and how can we mortals see with the third eye when we even cannot

see everything with our two physical eyes! This is

where 'devotion' comes in! Devotion to God and Guru ! By the grace

of God or God in the form Of Guru, the Truth of 'Adwaitha' can be

seen and experienced! ALL SYSTEMS REGARDLESS BE IT Adwaita, Dwaitha,

VisishtadwaitaA ARE 'one' ( NO DUALITY HERE -SMILE) in this

emphasis on Bhakti to obtain God's grace. AND BELIEVE ME, ONLY BY

GOD'S GRACE, WE GET THE PHYSICAL GURU ALSO!

 

Om Trilochanaye namaha ( three eyed One)

 

On this beautiful Monday morning after Thanksgiving,

 

Here is a divine verse drom Adi Shankara Bhagvadapada's Sivanananda

Lahari ! ( the wave of divine bliss of siva)

 

manaste paadaabje nivasatu vachaH stotraphaNitau

karau chaabhyarchaayaaM shrutirapi kathaakarNanavidhau |

tava dhyaane buddhirnayanayugalaM muurtivibhave

paragranthaan.h kairvaa paramashiva jaane paramataH ||

 

Translation

 

Let my mind dwell on your lotus feet, my speech in

effortless praise (of you), my hands in worshipping (you)

and my ears in the practice of hearing your tale. Let my

intellect meditate on you, and my eyes (dwell) on the

greatness of your image. Oh Paramasiva, by what other means,

beyond this, can I know other texts ?

 

JOIN ME IN THANKING SRI SRI ADI SHANKARA BHAGVADAPADA FOR

upholding the eternal Dhrama of the Vedas and Upanishads and The

srimad Bhagvad Gita through his Bhasyas !

 

AUM SHANKARAYAYE NAMAHA! ( one who bestows happiness on all )

 

Aum Vachaspataye Namaha! ( lord of speech)

 

Aum Tejaswanaye Namaha ( ILUUMINATES ALL )

 

Jaya Jaya Shankara

 

Hara Hara Shankara

 

Aum Chandramoulesshweraya Namaha !

 

AUM SHAKTI-PRIYAYE NAMAHA !

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Chittaranjan-ji!

 

Words like yours should never be misunderstood for noise (even by their

propagator). With the help of words such as yours i am also developing a

clearer view on Advaita, and if i may expose an insight that has been

forming in my mind for a couple of hours, and which you words have now made

clear, even regarding the advaita-dvaita debate, so i shall.

 

1*(2+3) is my representation. If i should believe, with my BMI complex

satisfied by it's realisations, that ultimately my level of mundane

perception is real, then i shall compute from inside the parenthesis that 5

is final and the result is multiplicity. From within the parenthesis, i can

never know 1 in essence. If i believe that mundane perception does not

suffices, then i would "examine" the exterior contents of the parenthesis,

and ultimately realise that when the equation is solved, the result is 5.

But i would also have realised that to solve the equation i would have to

multiply everything inside the parenthesis by 1, in other words, 1 permeates

all numbers inside the parenthesis, even though it may not seem so (for

numerically the result "seems" the same for both choices). And i would only

have realised this in the event that i reach the level beyond the

parenthesis prior to solving the equation. 1 is not in the same level as 2

and 3, therefore summing 2 with 3 does not relates directly to 1, it only

does so chronologically, for before multiplying, you have to sum the

contents of the parenthesis. If 1 is outside the scope of time, the equation

is endless, and 1 sits aside whereas 2 and 3 compute endlessly. The question

is wether you are willing to transcend the parenthesis or just dangle around

the results.

 

If you were to interpret this otherwise, you might have said that there

are no parenthesis, and then you would get 1*2 to sum with 3, whereas 1

affects 2 but not 3. However, in doing so what arises as a contradiction is

not directly that 1 works parallel to 3, but that 1 is in the same level of

2. In other words, in order to hold the supposition that 1 and 3 are in the

same level to be true, one must also assume that 2 knows 1 from origin,

hence they are in the same level, and no striving efforts have to be made in

order for 2 to realise 1 within itself. And clearly, we now this not to be

the case, otherwise we would not even be having this discussion or

illustrating any models, we would just have exposed 1 directly, rationally

and within time.

 

Hope this adds up to the discussion, my warmest regards...

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____

Faça do sua página inicial.

http://br./homepageset.html

[Guest guest]

Correction, missing a "k"...

 

" And clearly, we know this not to be

the case, otherwise we would not even be having this discussion or

illustrating any models, we would just have exposed 1 directly, rationally

and within time."

 

 

 

 

 

_____

Faça do sua página inicial.

http://br./homepageset.html

[Guest guest]

Namaste Felipe-Ji

>1*(2+3) is my representation. If i should believe, with my BMI

>complex satisfied by it's realizations, that ultimately my level of

>mundane perception is real, then i shall compute from inside the

>parenthesis that 5 is final and the result is multiplicity.

 

 

Pardon me for jumping in. Your formula results in 5. Should not the

end result be 1 for the non duelist. And for the duelist it would be

a set called 1 which contains 2 and 3 as 1, 2 and 3 are all eternal

i.e. set 1 = {2,3}. For a Sankhayan there is no God so 1 is at the

same level as 2 and 3 i.e. 1 and 2 and 3 are all integers.

 

The heart of the matter is that all these ( by which I mean the paths

of dualism,non-dualism and all other 'isms) are intellectual models

that can take the salt doll to the ocean but no further. Once at the

edge of the ocean it is an intense FEELING, a wave of love that makes

the salt doll jump into the ocean and dissolve therein. So all paths

are mere "instruction manuals" , useful to a point but when one

learns the ropes, one has to throw it away. Shankra in BG commentary

of 13.2 says that "let the scriptures be useless when the knowers of

the field become identified with God; and purposeful within the

sphere of ignorance". This is also true in the case of all duelists

where it is admitted that the scriptures etc become useful in the

state of bondage and not in the state of liberation.

 

Vivakananda says "Intellect is necessary, for without it we fall into

crude errors and make all sorts of mistakes. Intellect checks these;

but beyond that, do not try to build anything upon it. It is an

inactive, secondary help; the real help is feeling, love. Do you feel

for others? If you do, you are growing in oneness. If you do not feel

for others, you may be the most intellectual giant ever born, but you

will be nothing; you are but dry intellect, and you will remain so.

And if you feel, even if you cannot read any book and do not know any

language, you are in the right way. The Lord is yours."

 

At another place he says:

 

"It is through the heart that the Lord is seen, and not through the

intellect. The intellect is only the street-cleaner, cleansing the

path for us, a secondary worker, the policeman; but the policeman is

not a positive necessity for the workings of society. Different

methods of speaking words, different methods of explaining the texts

of books, these are for the enjoyment of the learned, not for the

salvation of the soul" (Vivekachudâmani, 58)"

 

And again he says:

 

"How do you know that a book teaches truth? Because you are truth and

feel it. That is what the Vedanta says. What is the proof of the

Christs and Buddhas of the world? That you and I feel like them. That

is how you and I understand that they were true. Our prophet-soul is

the proof of their prophet-soul. Your godhead is the proof of God

Himself."

 

William James in his book "Varieties of Religious Experience" says

 

"The fact is that the mystical feeling of enlargement, union, and

emancipation has no specific intellectual content whatever of its

own. It is capable of forming matrimonial alliances with material

furnished by the most diverse philosophies and theologies, provided

only they can find a place in their framework for its peculiar

emotional mood. We have no right, therefore, to invoke its prestige

as distinctively in favor of any special belief, such as that in

absolute idealism, or in the absolute monistic identity, or in the

absolute goodness, of the world. It is only relatively in favor of

all these things it passes out of common human consciousness in the

direction in which they lie."

 

Again James says:

 

"It is a commonplace of metaphysics that God's knowledge cannot be

discursive but must be intuitive, that is, must be constructed more

after the pattern of what in ourselves is called immediate feeling,

than after that of proposition and judgment. But our immediate

feelings have no content but what the five senses supply; and we have

seen and shall see again that mystics may emphatically deny that the

senses play any part in the very highest type of knowledge which

their transports yield."

 

He reports an account of St Teresa's experience:

 

"Thus does God, when he raises a soul to union with himself, suspend

the natural action of all her faculties. She neither sees, hears, nor

understands, so long as she is united with God. But this time is

always short, and it seems even shorter than it is. God establishes

himself in the interior of this soul in such a way, that when she

returns to herself, it is wholly impossible for her to doubt that she

has been in God, and God in her. This truth remains so strongly

impressed on her that, even though many years should pass without the

condition returning, she can neither forget the favor she received,

nor doubt of its reality. If you, nevertheless, ask how it is

possible that the soul can see and understand that she has been in

God, since during the union she has neither sight nor understanding,

I reply that she does not see it then, but that she sees it clearly

later, after she has returned to herself, not by any vision, but by a

certitude which abides with her and which God alone can give her."

 

Such mystical experiences are not the sole property of saints and

men of God. Atheists, highly creative people, common men like you and

me all report such experiences. James reports the following record of

Tennyson from the Memoirs of Alfred Tennyson.

 

In a letter to Mr. B. P. Blood, Tennyson reports of himself as

follows:

 

"I have never had any revelations through anaesthetics, but a kind of

waking trance this for lack of a better word I have frequently had,

quite up from boyhood, when I have been all alone. This has come upon

me through repeating my own name to myself silently, till all at

once, as it were out of the intensity of the consciousness of

individuality, individuality itself seemed to dissolve and fade away

into boundless being, and this not a confused state but the clearest,

the surest of the surest, utterly beyond words where death was an

almost laughable impossibility the loss of personality (if so it

were) seeming no extinction, but the only true life. I am ashamed of

my feeble description. Have I not said the state is utterly beyond

words? Professor Tyndall, in a letter, recalls Tennyson saying of

this condition: By God Almighty! there is no delusion in the matter!

It is no nebulous ecstasy, but a state of transcendent wonder,

associated with absolute clearness of mind. "

 

There are numerous such records in William James book. Walt Whitman,

Emerson, Tolstoy were all highly intellectual and creative people who

leap-forged from intellect to intution. However the paths they took

were widely diverse.

 

The conclusion I draw after reading William James book is that a

spiritual awakening is a strong FEELING which, even if experienced

for a second leaves a CERTITUDE which abides so strongly impressed in

a man that he never forgets it and this experience can change ones

outlook for ever. To get to this state however, (quoting James) "a

critical point must usually be passed, a corner turned within one.

Something must give way, a native hardness must break down and

liquefy; and this event is frequently sudden and automatic, and

leaves on the Subject an impression that he has been wrought on by an

external power." This awakening can come to any one. Be he a dualist,

a non dualist, an atheist or an agnostic.

 

Vivakananda says "The standard of Sankaracharya shall not be moved.

That `the soul neither comes nor goes' remains to all time the

dominant truth. But the labours of those who began their work at the

opposite end shall not be wasted either. The Advaitin, with his

philosophic insight, and the Dualist, with his scientific observation

of successive phases of consciousness-both are necessary, to each

other and to the new formulation."

 

warm regards

Hersh

[Guest guest]

Dear AdiMa,

 

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16>

wrote:

>

> Greetings Chitta!

> Delicious ! Simply Delicious!

> That is the 'adjective' that springs to mind to describe your post

> on Advaita after all that wonderful Thanksgiving Feast we hosted !

> Adi Shankara's 'Adwaithic philosophy' is the feast for the Mind and

> we have to be eternally 'thankful' to the Great Acharya for all

> his 'immortal' ( eternal) Treatises!

 

 

Thank you for your even more delicious words than mine! :-)

 

And I would like to put the following words of yours alongside those

of Sri Ram Chandranji (that he wrote in a previous post about Prof

Chari, etc) to emphasise that Advaita looks for the sameness that

lies in all darshanas, even in their outward differences, because its

vision is large enough to be completely sycretic of all darshanas.

 

> OM SHASVATAYA NAMAHA ( SIVA IS ENDLESS AND EETRNAL!

> SO IS ADWAITA)

>

> AS our most respected Kanchi Paramacharya says in one of his

> discourses :

>

> "By its very name, Advaita negates duality and dissension and

> comprehends every warring sect and system into its all-embracing

> unit. In fact, the survival of Hinduism is itself due to this

> Advaitic temper, which sees no distinction between Saivam,

> Vaishnavam and other denominations. Shri Adi Sankara underlined

> the essential unity of all Sampradaayas and sects and saved

> Hinduism from disruption."

>

> om Pinakine Namaha (upholder of Dharma - So is our Shankara

> bhagvadapadha)

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Felipe A. Scolfaro Crema"

<fcrema> wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Chittaranjan-ji!

>

> Words like yours should never be misunderstood for noise (even

by their

> propagator). With the help of words such as yours i am also

developing a

> clearer view on Advaita, and if i may expose an insight that has

been

> forming in my mind for a couple of hours, and which you words have

now made

> clear, even regarding the advaita-dvaita debate, so i shall.

>

> 1*(2+3) is my representation. If i should believe, with my BMI

complex

> satisfied by it's realisations, that ultimately my level of mundane

> perception is real, then i shall compute from inside the

parenthesis that 5

> is final and the result is multiplicity. From within the

parenthesis, i can

> never know 1 in essence. If i believe that mundane perception does

not

> suffices, then i would "examine" the exterior contents of the

parenthesis,

> and ultimately realise that when the equation is solved, the result

is 5.

> But i would also have realised that to solve the equation i would

have to

> multiply everything inside the parenthesis by 1, in other words, 1

permeates

> all numbers inside the parenthesis, even though it may not seem so

(for

> numerically the result "seems" the same for both choices). And i

would only

> have realised this in the event that i reach the level beyond the

> parenthesis prior to solving the equation. 1 is not in the same

level as 2

> and 3, therefore summing 2 with 3 does not relates directly to 1,

it only

> does so chronologically, for before multiplying, you have to sum the

> contents of the parenthesis. If 1 is outside the scope of time, the

equation

> is endless, and 1 sits aside whereas 2 and 3 compute endlessly. The

question

> is wether you are willing to transcend the parenthesis or just

dangle around

> the results.

>

> If you were to interpret this otherwise, you might have said

that there

> are no parenthesis, and then you would get 1*2 to sum with 3,

whereas 1

> affects 2 but not 3. However, in doing so what arises as a

contradiction is

> not directly that 1 works parallel to 3, but that 1 is in the same

level of

> 2. In other words, in order to hold the supposition that 1 and 3

are in the

> same level to be true, one must also assume that 2 knows 1 from

origin,

> hence they are in the same level, and no striving efforts have to

be made in

> order for 2 to realise 1 within itself. And clearly, we now this

not to be

> the case, otherwise we would not even be having this discussion or

> illustrating any models, we would just have exposed 1 directly,

rationally

> and within time.

>

> Hope this adds up to the discussion, my warmest regards...

_____

> Faça do sua página inicial.

> http://br./homepageset.html

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Felipe-ji,

 

advaitin, "Felipe A. Scolfaro Crema"

<fcrema> wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Chittaranjan-ji!

>

> Words like yours should never be misunderstood for noise

> (even by their propagator). With the help of words such as

> yours i am also developing a clearer view on Advaita, and

> if i may expose an insight that has been forming in my mind

> for a couple of hours, and which you words have now made

> clear, even regarding the advaita-dvaita debate, so i shall.

 

Sometimes, I get the feeling that I have been speaking too much. That

is when I try to sink into silence, often without success. :-)

 

The Advaita-Dvaita debate is certainly interesting, and I believe

that Sri Madhvacharya, the founder of Dvaita philosophy, is an

excellent teacher of Advaita. This may appear somewhat paradoxical,

but there have been occasions when I have expreienced the meanings of

certain Advaita doctrines become clear to me after hearing Sri

Madhvacharya's explanation or even confutation. It is strange that I

should be learning Advaita from its staunchest opponent!

 

> 1*(2+3) is my representation. If i should believe, with my

> BMI complex satisfied by it's realisations, that ultimately

> my level of mundane perception is real, then i shall compute

> from inside the parenthesis that 5 is final and the result

> is multiplicity.....

 

Your representation of Advaita through pervasion of 1-ness, and the

obscurations of avidya within the parenthesis, is interesting. I had

read another similar explanation earlier though I can't recall

exactly where it was - it might have been in the writings of

Plotinus, the great Advaita philosopher from Rome.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan