Translation of a verse

December 23, 2005

Namaste Friends:

A couple of days ago i had posted a verse without translation. Now the

trans. is available with Sunder ji' s help:

Pranams Subbu-ji,

This is a mantra from Sanyasa Upanishad:

http://sanskrit.gde.to/doc_upanishhat/sanyasa.itx

tyaja dharmamadharma.n cha ubhe satyaanR^ite tyaja |

ubhe satyaanR^ite tyaktvaa yena tyajasi tattyaja || 12

||

"Give up [concepts] of righteousness and

unrighteousness (dharma and adharma), give up both

truth and untruth; having given up both truth and

untruth discard that by you abandon [all these] [i.e.

duality]."

Transl. Prof. A.A.Ramanathan,

Adyar Library & Research Center, 1978

Regards,

Sunder

--- V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_v wrote:

> Pranams Sunderji:

> After searching in vain to locate the translation

> for this verse of the Mahabharatha, on the net, i

> seek your kind help. Can u please give the

> translation for the sloka below? You may post it on

> the list itself. Many thanks, in advance Sunderji.

>

> Namaste Sada-ji:

>

> The line: Even the process of negation has to be

> negated.

>

> of yours reminded me of a sloka, mostly from the

> Mahabharatha:Ref. Shantiparva 324 Adhyaya, sloka no.

> 40.

>

> Tyaja dharmam adharmam cha ubhe satyaanrte tyaja |

> Ubhe satyaanrte tyaktvaa yena tyajasi tat tyaja

> ||

>

> The fourth paada is what your line conveyed. A

> very nice thought.

>

> Regards

> subbu

>

Photos

Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays,

whatever.

for Good - Make a difference this year.

December 23, 2005

V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_v wrote: Namaste Friends:

"Give up [concepts] of righteousness and

unrighteousness (dharma and adharma), give up both

truth and untruth; having given up both truth and

untruth discard that by you abandon [all these] [i.e.

duality]."

Transl. Prof. A.A.Ramanathan,

Adyar Library & Research Center, 1978

From

Sankarraman

With reference to the above topic, I would like to receive

the views of the members of this forum.

As regards the

abandonment of duality in regard to truth and untruth, Sri Ramakrishna has

great reservations. I am quoting the sayings of Sri Ramakrishna from the Gospel

translated by Swamy Nikhilananda (Chapter 14 Instructions to Vaishnavas and

Brahmaos). " It is said that truthfulness alone constitutes the spiritual

discipline of Kaliyuga. If a man clings tenaciously to truth he ultimately

realizes God. Without this regard for truth, one gradually loses everything. If

by chance I say that I will go to the pine-grove, I must go there even if there

is no need of it, lest I lose my attachment to truth. After my vision of the

Divine Mother, I prayed to Her, taking a flower in my hands: ' Mother, here is

Thy knowledge and Thy ignorance. Take them both, Mother, and give me only pure

love. Here is Thy righteousness and here is Thy unrighteousness. Take them

both, Mother, and give me pure love.' I mentioned all

these, but could not say: ' Mother, here is Thy truth and here is Thy

falsehood. Take them both.' I gave up everything at Her feet but could not

bring myself to give up truth."

How is the attitude of Ramakrishna to be

interpreted in the context of the above mentioned Upanishadic statement in

regard to the unqualified renunciation of all mind-begotten concepts? Is

Ramakrishna's statement falling short of the wisdom of the Upanishad, which no

reasonable person can accept? There is a mystic account in the life of

Ramakrishna of his having promised to visit a place, but having forgotten it,

but reminded of it by virtue of some bodily pain. Ramakrishna says that even

physical forgetfulness is tantamount to untruth, which proposition seems to be

very irrational. Many realized sages, or those believed to be realized, make

promises to people that their problems, physical and mental, to ward of which

the grace of these masters is sought, will be overcome by performing some puja;

but the hopes of the devotees are being belied, which is attributed to their

fate or lack of faith or sincerity, which is a different matter. Have

these masters uttered some untruth by way of some therapy without being

self-realized? Are some of the gurus administering only psychotherapy in the

guise of religion? The question is, is truth relatable to perfection in

empirical transactions; is truth verbal? Which if it is so practical life would

become impossible, since we have to hide some truth or utter deliberately

untruth to protect some people from dangerous things in life, which is

obviously innocuous. To be plain, we are cheating the Government in the form of

tax evasion both by taking advantage of certain legal provisions or

transgressing them, this being a dishonest act, however small its dimension

be. Further, overtaken by fear of life, fear of social position, fear of stigma

attaching to our person, we are something inside the skin, as it were,

pretending to be something different in outer life, just to keep up our

appearances. Ramakrishna felt even physical pain, when secretly somebody placed

a coin

underneath a mat on which he walked, the devotee thinking that Ramakrishna's

statement in regard to money producing even physical pain being rather a

hyperbole, and he could falsify his claim. But, though Ramakrishna did not have

a foreknowledge of this, he felt the pain as though he walked on a thorn. There

is also an apparently bizarre account of Ramakrishna even having placed refuse

on his tongue to test whether he actually realized the truth that everything

reduced itself to the five elements. Sri Ramakrishna also seems to have

undergone periods when he excessively assumed devi-bhava, having also got a

tail grown in his person in the process of worship of Lord Hanuman.There is

also an incident of a stone image of Rama (Ramlal) having animated and received

his affection. This incident was dismissed by Bhaghavan by the statement that

when the Self is the true animating being why all this.

Ramakrishna has drawn certain blue-prints for the

life of an enlightened men, which does not happen in our life. Also,

Ramakrishna while accepting the reality of waking state-surely all visions

belong only to the waking and dream states- denounces the activities of waking

state such as woman and gold which is too much of an anathema for him. Going

by the standards of Ramakrishna, none can be realized. In the same breath

Ramakrishna advocates very much cleverness and sagacity in the interactions of

the world, saying that one should not be cheated by anyone. To achieve all this

very much untruth and cunning is necessary. Why does Ramakrishna mix up the

transcendental idea of truth and untruth with the mundane, empirical versions.

By virtue of mere vasana some people may be true which does not mean that they

are religious. Ghandhiji also very much attempted to practice truth without

bothering about its metaphysical connotations. In the

light of all these glaring contradictions, what is truth and what is untruth.

In an old talk J. Krishnamurthy says that a mind, which is in a state of

truthfulness, can utter even a verbal lie, which does not detract it from its

pristine purity. Bhaghavan Ramana also says apropos the various yamas and

niyamas prescribed by the great sage Patanjali, that one could be in that state

only when one realizes the Self. The problem is that all our virtues are

dictated only by our pleasures and desires without understanding the process of

which, all these thing become other deceptions or make us complacent about our

spirituality. In the light of the inherent, bewildering contradiction of our

thought process involving the dichotomy of the observer-observed phenomenon,

from where can we begin, what is the use of self-cent red virtues?

Sankarraman

Shopping

Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Shopping

December 24, 2005

Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran wrote:

V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_v wrote: Namaste Friends:

"Give up [concepts] of righteousness and

unrighteousness (dharma and adharma), give up both

truth and untruth; having given up both truth and

untruth discard that by you abandon [all these] [i.e.

duality]."

Transl. Prof. A.A.Ramanathan,

Adyar Library & Research Center, 1978

In the Saankya Philosophy 8 Bhaavanas are talked

about.Dharma/Adharma---Satyam/Asatyam--Gjnaanam/Agjnaanam and one other pair i

forgot-one can find in Eswara krishna's work.They are all attributes(Gunaas) THE

One who attemts to Experience (Advaidhaananda Anubhuthi) then he should give up

all the 8 bhavanas including Dharma/satyam/Gjaanam etc.During the Rituals in the

Naamaavali the Bhagavan is addressed as Om Dharmayanamaha- Om Adharmayanamha/om

Gjnaanaayanamha /om Agjnaanaayanama etc--This is to stress advaitha

(Non-dualism) philosophy -It is what Prof.Ramanathan ha translated.Sri

Paramahamsa Ramakrishna is both an Advaithin and Dwaidin(Bhaktha)--both have

tobe understood with refernce to the context-ssravj

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

Visit your group "advaitin" on the web.

advaitin

Photos

Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays,

whatever.

December 24, 2005

Rajagopalan Somayaji <ssrvj wrote:

Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran wrote:

V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_v wrote: Namaste Friends:

"Give up [concepts] of righteousness and

unrighteousness (dharma and adharma), give up both

truth and untruth; having given up both truth and

untruth discard that by you abandon [all these] [i.e.

duality]."

Transl. Prof. A.A.Ramanathan,

Adyar Library & Research Center, 1978

From

Sankarraman

Would you be more clear in your

response bringing out the Samkhya philosophy in a lucid lanugage bereft of

technicalities? Do you mean to say that Sri Ramakrishna did not understand

truth as made out in Samkhya philosophy? Why did Gurumaharaj say that he could

not cherish the idea of abandoning truth also as the other pairs of opposites?

What is verbal truth; what is transcendental truth? Does a jnani utter a

verbal untruth? Which if it so, does it detract from his transcendental

realization? Please, give out your answers as a sadhak, rather than seeking

resort to scriptural knowledge. The transcendence of the gunas is, surely, a

state beyond the modes of the Prakrithi, which we cannot verbalise. In simple

terms, what is the position of Sri Ramakrishna as regards his opinion on truth

vis-a-vis the wisdom of the above-mentioned Upanishads? How can we reconcile

our life of very much untruth at various levels vis-a-vis the niyamas

and yamas prescribed by Maharishi Patanjali?

With regards

Sankarraman

Shopping

Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Shopping

December 25, 2005

advaitin, Rajagopalan Somayaji <ssrvj>

wrote:

>

> Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran> wrote:

>

> V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_v> wrote: Namaste

Friends:

>

> "Give up [concepts] of righteousness and

> unrighteousness (dharma and adharma), give up both

> truth and untruth; having given up both truth and

> untruth discard that by you abandon [all these] [i.e.

> duality]."

>

> Transl. Prof. A.A.Ramanathan,

> Adyar Library & Research Center, 1978

Dear ShankarRamanji,

Namaste,

I would like to share my views with the fourum on the aforesaid topic

in two or three postings. First of let me tell you my intention is

not to glorify Sri Ramakrishna or any other saint. I am a devout

servent of Swami Vivekananda. He always used to say that principle is

important than the personality. If doesnt matter if we follow Sri

Shankaracharya or Sri Ramana or Sri Ramakrishna. What matters is our

sincierety, catholicity in accepting truth and most important is

conviction and honesty ( What Sri Ramakrishna used to say No theft in

the chamber of the heart). Once Swamiji asked his diciple " Will you

desert me if you find a better teacher"? If that question is asked to

me i would say 100% without slightest doubt :-)

Let us share our views freely on this topic.

I would like to bring to the notice of the forum a testimony of self

surrender which happened in Sri Ramakrishna's life. Incident is

related to Girish Chandra Ghosh the great dramatist and staunch

devotee of Sri Ramakrishna. In the subsequent mails i will give my

opinion on the dirrent questions raised by you. The incident is as

follwos.Kinldy note that it is an excert from book The Great Master.

.................................

1. Deep Meaning of Master's words.

Many have come to know that at then end of the extraordinary

austerity practised continually for twelve years, the Master was

bidden by the Mother of the universe to " Remain in Bhavamukha",

which command he obeyed. But it is very difficult to understand and

explain what it is to remain in Bhavamukha and how deep its meaning

is. Twenty-eight years ago Swami Vivekananda once said to a

friend , "Shelves of philosophical books can be written on each

single sentence spoken by the Master." The friend was surprised to

hear it and said, ` Is that so? We, however do not find so deep a

meaning in his words. Will you please explain to me any of his

utterances in that manner?"

The Swami: "You would have understood it , had you the brains! Take

any sayings of the Master and I shall prove my statement."

Friend: " All right, please explain the story of the elephant-god and

the mahut-god related by the Master to illustrate his instruction on

seeing God in all beings."

The Swami at once took up the controversy over the doctrines of free

will and of pre-destination, or personal effor and God's will, raging

perpetually among the scholars of both the East and the West without

their approaching any conclusion, and continued for three days to

explain to the friend in simple language, that this story of the

master was a wonderful solution to that controversy.

2. Similarity of words of all incarnations of God.

On reflection one is amazed to find such profundity of meaning in the

ordinary daily conduct of the master and in his teachings. This is

true of every one of the incarnations of God. One has to study their

lives to be convinced of this truth. Leaving aside the instances of

one or two great souls like Sankaracharya, who had to re-establish

religion by tearing to shreds the whole fabric of the opponents

perverse arguments, we find in the lives of the other great souls

that they said and explained the truths they had to teach in simple

language and in short parables and in homely similes and allegories

touching the heart. They kept themselves at a safe distance from

grandiloquent bombast or elaborate rhetoric. But their simple words

and plain similies have so much meaning and power in them for

elevating ordinary people to high ideals that even now we have not

been able to comprehend their meanings in full and find a limit to

their power, though we have been attempting to do so for thousands of

years. The more we study them the more do we find deeper and deeper

meanings and the more we muse over them , the more does the mind

renounce the transient, inauspicious realm of the world and ascend to

higher and higher regions. And the farther one proceeds towards "The

realisation of the supreme goal", " the existence in brahman,

liveration or the vision of god, as that state has been variously

called by the great souls, the more does one comprehend in one's

heart of hearts the deep significance of those simple words.

3. An example Girish and the `power of attorney"

This is the law. We do not find any exception to the operation of

this law in the master's words and conduct. Oh, what a profound depth

of content do the Master's words and conduct. Reveal and how little

of it did they appear to possess at the first hearing! It is enough

to give here one example. After meeting the Master a few times, one

day Girish offered himself completely to thim and said, " What shall

I do from now on?"

The Master: " Go on, be doing what you have been doing. Now keep to

both sides, this (God), and that (the world). When one side (ie the

world drops off, whatever is ordained to happen will happen. But

continue to remember and think of him every morning and evening."

Saying this , he looked at Girish, as if waiting for reply.

At this, Girish was sad and thought, " The nature of my work is such

that I cannot keep regular time-even for satisfying my daily physical

needs such as eating, drinking, sleeping, etc. I am certain to fail

to remember God and to think of him morning and evening. Oh, what a

calamity would it be so transgress Sri Guru's words! Evil will

certainly befall me for it. So how can I agree? It is certainly wrong

to fail to keep one's promise to any person in this world, much more

so, a promise to a person whom one is going to accept as one's

spiritual guide."

4. The mental state of Girish.

Girish was hesitating even to express his thoughts. He continued to

think that surely the Master had not asked him to do a very difficult

task. Had he said this to anyone else, he would have at once agreed.

But what could Girish Do? As he knew correctly the state of his mind,

which was full of outgoing tendencies, he found that it was, as it

were, beyond his power to practise even that little of religious

duties every day. "Again, looking at his own nature, he found that he

felt suffocated even to think that he was to submit himself to an

obligation binding him for ever to a vow or a rule. He felt that his

mind would feel no peace till that vow or rule was broken. This was

true all through his life. There was no difficulty in voluntarily

doing anything good or bad, but his mind rebelled at the thought that

he was bound to do such and such a thing. Realising his very weak and

helpless condition, he felt distressed and kept silent. He could

neither say he would do it, nor could he say he could not. How could

he be shameless as to say he could not do so easy a task? And even if

he said, so, what would the Master and others present there think?

They would not perhaps realise his extremely helpless condition, and

would think, even though they might not express it, that it was all a

mere pretence.

Finding that Girish remained silent, the master looked at him, and

knowing his thoughts, said, " Very well, if you cannot do that,

remember him once before taking food and once before going to bed."

Girish continued to be silent. He asked himself if he could do even

that. He took his food at 10 a.m. on some days and at 5 p.m. on

others, and there was the same irregularity about his night meals.

There was days on which although he might be taking his meal, he was

not at all consious of th fact, on account of the troubles and

worries regarding the cases pending in the courts, for example, for

lack of information whether the fee sent by him to the barrister had

reached him in time, and if not, how calamitous it would be if he

didi not appear in the court because of not being paid. If, however,

such days repeated themselves and this wa not impossible he would

surely forget to remember and think of god on those occasions. Alas!

The Master was asking him to do such an easy thing, and yet he could

not say that he would do it. Girish was in a very sorry plight and

remained motionless and speechless; but there raged, as it were, a

storm of anxiety, fear and despair in hi heart. The Master looked at

Girish again and said similingly,"You seem to say, `I cannot do even

that.' Very well, then give me the power of attorney."* The Master

was then in a state of divine semi consciousness.

* i.e. transfer your responsibility. When one person transfers the

power of managing one's worldly affairs to another person, the latter

transacts all business, grants receipts, carries on correspondence

and signs all documents of the principal's behalf.

December 25, 2005

Do you mean to say that Sri Ramakrishna did not understand truth as made out

in Samkhya philosophy?

I Do not say that sri Ramakrishna has not understood truth as said in Saankya

philosophy.My personal opinion is-others may differ- in the entire twentieth

century there were only two "Jivanmukthas"one is Paramahansa sri .Ramakrishna

and the other is Maharishi.sri.Ramana.How dare would I say that sri.Paramahansa

Ramakrishna has NOT understood the Saankya?

Now coming to the question under reference:There is only one Brahmam-not

two-"Ekaiva Brahmam Satyam;Param naasthi"--Satyam/Asatyam(truth/fasehood)--

Dharmam/ Adharmam--Gjnaanam/Agjnaanam all emnate from that only one Brahmam.It

is what Prof Ramanathanof Adyar Library has translated. Satyam(truth)/Gjnaanam/

Dharmam take a Jiva in the upward transition towards Mukthi and Agjnaanam

/Adharmam/Asatyam(falsehood) in the downward transition--"Punarapi Janani Jatare

Sayanam"- the Jiva goes back to the recycle of birth and death.Sri.Paramaahamsa

Ramakrishna is a Guru(teacher)-Ru=darkness--Gu=the one who holds his disciple by

his index finger and takes him/her to (intelectual Light) he should show his

disciple only the Path of Mukthi-the Truth-it is what he has done--but the fact

remains that untruth also emnates from Brahmam only.The choice of selection

between Truth and untruth is the onus of the Jiva.My submission is

ProfRamanathan and sri Paramahansa ramakrishna should be understood in

their proper Perspective

Even Vedha describes Lord Siva as "Agorebyo

---Dhagorebyo-Gora-Agoradarebyha-means Lord Siva is most handsome(Sundara) and

most ugly.He wears most beatiful things and also the ugliest things-Lord Siva is

Brahmam-so both the beauty and ugliness emnates from Him only.It is the choice

of the devotee how he/she wishes to see Him _Rajagopalan-ssrvj