Questioning in Sadhana, etc.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri.Chittarranjan-ji,

 

Namaste.

>

> Shankara in his commentary on verse 28 says that if one were to

hold

> the (illusion of) the world to be like the son of a barren woman,

it

> would reduce to nihilism.

>

 

You are right. As per Sri.Shankara, perception of this world is not

attyanta-asat like son of a barren woman. At the same time it is not

sat as Brahman either. Thus the new category called mithya.

 

`sat' is that which is uncontradicted in all locus.

 

`mithya' is that which is contradicted in some locus.

 

`asat' is unperceived in all locus.

 

Now, an important epistemological question arises that where does

the "contradiction" in the definition of mithya occur?

Does it occur right here in vyavahArika point of view (POV) or from

the pAramArthika POV ?

 

Historically, there are two answers given to this question.

 

While some of the pre-MadhusUdhana scholars and most of the new age

advaitins like VivEkananda etc holds one view, MadhusUdhana holds

altogether a different one.

 

1.Negation of mithyatva from pAramArtha (held by some old advaitins

and many neo-vEdAntins)

 

This view holds that negation of the world as contemplated by

`mithyAtva' is from pAramarhika POV or officially what is coined

as `pAramArthikatvAkAreNa niShEdhaH'.

 

Sri.Vyasa Tirtha questions this position in His nyAyAmruta on the

grounds of anyOnyAshrya involved. pAramArthikatva, as defined, is

marked by characteristic of uncontradictedness or abAdhyatvam. It is

only when one has proper understanding of pAramArthatvam as not

liable to contradiction, can one will understand the concept of

mithyAtvam as bAdhyatvam. On the other hand, unless when one has

prior understanding of mithyatva as something subjected to negation

or liquidation, one can not able to understand pAramArthikatvam as

something which is not being subjected to contradiction.

 

 

2. Negation of mithyatvam on its essence or `svarUpENaiva niShEdha' :

 

This view is held by MadhusUdhana in his advaita-siddhi. According

to this position, negation of mithyatvam is negation of suchness of

negated or negation on the very svarUpa of negated.

 

He takes this route to avoid the anyOnyAshrya raised in Nym. wide ;

 

nApi dwitIyaH : - abhAdhyatvarUpa pAramArthikatvasya bhAdhyatvarupa

mithyAtvaniruNyatvEna, anyOnyAShrayat | pAramArthikatva-syApi

svarUpeNa niSEdhE, prathamapaxOkthadOshapthi: athaH: tasyApi

pAramArthikatvAkAreNa niShEdhaE anavastA iti chEt –

 

myvam – svarUpENaiva trikAlikaniShEdhasya, prapanchE sukthi rUpyAdau

cha angikArAth |

 

-- (A.siddhi of MadhusUdana Sarswati)

 

But, this acceptance of negation by svarUpa of this world, will

render the world to null and reduced to utter non-existence (asat)

right here in this vyavahArika jagat. That would render to nihilism.

 

Thus, saying world is not asat but mithya is same as saying world is

asat directly.

 

IMO, the problem is unavoidable if one were to just say `world is not

asat'. In the same breath, one got to acknowledge world as sat.

 

As you have quoted above, Sri.Shankara holds the status of this

world as other than asat. I would like to know where does he says it

is sat? Any pointer is appreciated.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Srinivas Kotekal-ji,

 

advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p

wrote:

> You are right. As per Sri.Shankara, perception of this

> world is not attyanta-asat like son of a barren woman.

> At the same time it is not sat as Brahman either. Thus

> the new category called mithya.

>

> `sat' is that which is uncontradicted in all locus.

>

> `mithya' is that which is contradicted in some locus.

>

> `asat' is unperceived in all locus.

 

There is no new category called 'mithya' in Shankara Advaita. A

thing, as it is, is sat, and the thing mistaken to be another is

asat. One is satya and the other is mithya. Shankara says that viveka

is the discrimination between the real and unreal leaving no scope

for 'discriminating' a third category.

 

Even in the context of adhyasa, there is no scope for a third

category because Shankara explains adhyasa as the appearance of one

thing as another only, as can be seen here below:

 

"It is an awareness, similar in nature to memory, that arises on a

different basis as a result of some past experience. With regards to

this, some say that it consists in the superimposition of the

attributes of one thing on another. But others assert that wherever a

superimposition on anything occurs, there is in evidence only a

confusion arising from the absence of discrimination between them.

Others say that the superimposition of anything on any other

substratum consists in fancying some opposite attributes on that very

basis. From every point of view, however, there is no difference as

regards the appearance of one thing as something else". (BSB, Pre).

 

As regarding the error that occurs due to avidya, Shankara indicates

two types of errors, one due to mixing up of substances and the other

due to mixing up of attributes. An example of the first type of error

(with regard to substances) is the rope mistaken for a snake. Due to

the concealment of the rope, either due to a defect in the eye or a

defect in the environment (such as poor visibility), the attribute

that is seen (coil) is grasped as belonging to a different substance

(snake) when in truth it is what it is (rope). Error with regard to

attributes happens when there is transference of a foreign attribute

to a thing, for example when akasha is taken to be curved. This can

only happen when there is concealment of word-meanings. One who knows

the true meaning of a word can never mistake the object denoted by

the word to have attributes that do not belong intrinsically to its

swaroopa.

 

In the context of Advaita, error of the first type happens when we

perceive this world as being different from Brahman. This is an error

with regard to substance. The essence of substance, or dravya, is

existence, and Existence is Brahman, One without a second. There is

here the mistake of taking the existence of the world to be jada when

it is infact Brahman. And a thing can't be different from its own

existence. Error of the second type happens when we mistake the self

to be the body, when we say for example, 'I am thin', 'I am fat', 'I

am tall', etc.'.

 

> As you have quoted above, Sri.Shankara holds the status

> of this world as other than asat. I would like to know

> where does he says it is sat? Any pointer is appreciated.

 

Shankara says it in all those places (in the bhashya) where he

demonstrates the non-difference of the cause and effect. And I had

already quoted the bhashya on the Brahadaranyaka Upanishad where it

is argued at length. The bhashya from Chandogya, which I had quoted

earlier, is give below:

 

"No. Since it is Existence itself that is perceived otherwise through

the duality of different forms, therefore, there is no non-existence

of anything anywhere. That is what we say...... As the Nyaya school,

after assuming that a thing is different from existence, says again

that it has no existence before its birth and after its destruction –

it is not assumed by us in that way, at anytime or anywhere, that any

word or any thing denoted by the word can be there differently from

Existence." (Chandogya Upanishad.VI.ii.3)

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Dear Anandaji,

 

Ref: Your post 30222.

 

Sorry for the delay. I needed time to ruminate what you said. Your

post was indeed packed with a lot of information and it was hard for

me to digest the contents in one reading.

 

Let me just narrow down to the points where we seem to have

disagreement.

>From the paragraphs of your post quoted below, which represent our

basic disagreement, you seem to advocate that advaitic logic through

which one's real nature is understood as non-dual is initially impure

and it undergoes further purification as one "approaches closer and

closer back to the deepest limit of the mind".

 

Now, the big question here is: Is it the logic of shruti concerning

our basic non-dual nature that is impure or the equipment through

which it is objectively conceptualized? I can only vote for the

latter.

 

So, what actually happens through advaitic sAdhana, shraddA and

continuous contemplation on the logic of the shruti is the

purification of the equipment where it is reflected. This process

culminates in the equipment transforming into the logic of the shruti

through the equipment's purification and not the purification of the

basic logic. What is honed continuously to shine in its original

splendour is not the logic but the equipment itself. This shining is

what we call chittashuddhi in which the erstwhile logical

conceptualization of Truth is instantly appropriated as one's own

true nature. In other words, complete chittashuddhi means Self-

Realization.

 

My wife was recently reading Shoba De. I don't recall the name of the

book. She forced me to listen to a particular paragraph where the

author was referring to a husband-wife relationship that is totally

non-dual where their likes and dislikes are singularly uniform. The

message my wife was trying to convey was that there was a lot of

disharmony between us and we could also work towards realizing the

ideal harmony typified in De's example. That reference has some

relevance in our context. It is the couple's close familiarity with

each other and intimate understanding that bring in non-duality in

their relationship so much so that one is not any more any different

from the other. In a similar manner, in advaita too, it is the

aspirant's intimacy and love for the Truth that ultimately makes him

one with the object of his love. Sadhana, shraddA and contemplation

are the means here and the conceptualized logic of shruti is the lady-

love. Advaita is realized when the lover becomes the love.

 

Thank you very much, Sir, for bringing Bhartrihari into our

discussion . You will kindly recall that I had suggested long back

that we discuss VakyapAdiyA and its relevance to Advaita. Your

attempt, therefore, is very welcome.

 

Bhartrihari, to my eyes, has recommended the effective use of the

canvas of vyAkaraNa to re-arrive at the non-dual Truth. You rightly

call it an investigative therapy, the essence of which is the love of

knowing. We cannot have a love of knowing without having something

to know. That something which one loves to know is clear from your

analysis. It is sat-cit-Ananda, the Truth, which is very logically

described in the shruti. I should, therefore, imagine that, even in

Bhartrihari's method, there is a basic logic taken for granted whose

realization is sought through the enquiry of vyAkaraNa and it is the

prema for that Truth that ultimately delivers the result. That would

mean that Bhartrihari's vyAkaraNik foray cannot stand on its own

without the foundation of shruti. In other words, what Bhartrihari

recommends is the use of vyAkaraNa to reconfirm the truth of Advaita.

 

I glean from available references on Bhartrihari that the logical

validity of Brahman of Advaita had been accepted by him even before

his vyAkaraNik enquiry began. It is the love for Brahman that

ultimately brings about the final union through his method of

enquiry. VyAkaranik enquiry, therefore, is just a tool en-route to

the reconfirmation of the already-accepted logical validity of

Brahman.

 

However, I am not quite sure if the reconfirmation can take place

without the purification of the equipment that goes into vyakaraNik

enquiry. An improper equipment can give us only modern academic

philosophy that, as you rightly say, is a far cry from advaitic

Ananda.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________________

 

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood wrote:

> And, to describe this further way that goes beyond logic, you say

> (30199) that "an advaitin ... has to live his logical understanding

> deliberately till such living becomes spontaneous, totally in sync

> with the definitions. All these, come post understanding and the

> attitude with which the goal is achieved is advaitic shraddhA."

> Thus, at this post-logical stage, an attitude of shraddha or faith

> comes in, as a sadhaka learns to live in good faith with a

logically

> derived conclusion.

>

> But, in his posting 30193, Shri Chittaranjan uses the word 'logic'

> in a different way. He says that "pure logic leads one to the

> ultimate non-dual vision through a process of purification of the

> intellect. It is also the process of purification of logic itself

> until logic becomes 'pure logic' as it sinks into the heart. The

> heart is the cave of the intellect. What that pure logic is cannot

> be logically demonstrated to the intellect whose logic is impure, i

> think."

>

> I must confess that for philosophical purposes, I tend to use the

> word 'logic' in this second way that Shri Chittaranjan has so

neatly

> described. Here, all mental activities of reason are conceived as

> expressions of a true knowing in identity, from which they are

> inspired and to which they must finally reflect. That true and

> non-dual knowing is the essential principle of all that we call

> 'logic'. Accordingly we can sometimes use the word 'logic' in a

> broader and a deeper way -- to include not just the reasoning

> activities that appear in our mental processes, but also the

> essential principle of non-dual knowing that all reasoning

> activities express.

>

> To explain this further, let me consider what happens when Advaita

> reasoning is used reflectively, to approach closer and closer back

> to the deepest limit of the mind, where dual thought becomes

> dissolved in non-duality. As that limit is approached the logic of

> the reasoning gets purer and purer and accordingly less tainted by

> the confusions of duality.

>

> Finally, as soon as the limit has been reached, the turned-back

flow

> of reasoning there touches base with its non-dual essence -- which

> immediately and utterly dissolves all traces of duality and change,

> without the need for any further effort. At that non-dual essence,

> and only there, logic is completely pure. It is from there that all

> processes of logic are inspired in our minds and living faculties,

> despite their varying degrees of contamination.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Chittaranjan-ji,

 

I haven't read Gaudapada's description and, therefore, can't comment

on it.

 

According to Sw. Dayanandaji (again if I remember and understand him

right), from the occurrence of knowledge (right advaitic

understanding), one has to guard only against the acquisition of new

vAsanAs. The erstwhile ones are like missiles that have already been

fired into the air. Their burning out is, therefore, a natural

process over which the Advaitin with right understanding has no

control and need not bother. Has Gaudapada said the same thing?

Myself as an aspirant of middling qualities would like to reassure

that my missiles are already burning out in the air and my present

difficulties with sAdhana are a part of that perhaps long burning out.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik wrote:

>

> When you say "VAsanAs being a

> direct result of the three guNAs, such a person knows that he is

> actually beyond them", I would consider that the word 'that' which

> follows the word 'knows' implies that there is some way to go for

> the 'spontaneity' (that you mention at the end of your post) to

> arise. My remarks were only made in this context, and also in

> accordance with Sri Gaudapada's description of the path for

aspirants

> with middling qualities.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Nair-ji and Shri Ananda-ji,

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair wrote:

> To Anandaji,

> From the paragraphs of your post quoted below, which

> represent our basic disagreement, you seem to advocate

> that advaitic logic through which one's real nature is

> understood as non-dual is initially impure and it

> undergoes further purification as one "approaches closer

> and closer back to the deepest limit of the mind".

>

> Now, the big question here is: Is it the logic of

> shruti concerning our basic non-dual nature that is

> impure or the equipment through which it is objectively

> conceptualized? I can only vote for the latter.

 

 

I feel there is no real disagreement and that a mere clarification of

the terms used would provide a samanvaya.

 

Logic itself can't be two different things called 'pure logic'

and 'impure logic'. Pure and impure are mere qualifications of the

same logic depending on the extent of impurity, or illogic, that is

mixed in it. Just as gold is said to be pure or impure depending on

the foreign matter that is mixed in it, logic is said to be pure or

impure depending on the foreign matter (illogic) that is mixed in it.

What gives to logic the impurities that tarnish it are the fallacies

that an impure mind (lacking chittasuddhi) often passes off as

logic. 'Impure logic' is the unsifted mixture of logic and fallacies

that commonly (in ajnana) goes by the name of 'logic'. But logic, qua

logic, is always pure just as gold, qua gold, is always pure.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Nair-ji,

 

Swami Dayanandaji's words agree perfectly with Sri Shankaracharya's

description of a jivan mukta. A jivan mukta acquires no vasanas and

no new karma; the accumultated karma that has already begun to bear

fruit will continue to act until it is spent, like a missile that has

already been fired in the air, but the karmas that have not begun to

bear fruit are forever dissolved.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> According to Sw. Dayanandaji (again if I remember and

> understand him right), from the occurrence of knowledge

> (right advaitic understanding), one has to guard only

> against the acquisition of new vAsanAs. The erstwhile

> ones are like missiles that have already been fired

> into the air. Their burning out is, therefore, a natural

> process over which the Advaitin with right understanding

> has no control and need not bother. Has Gaudapada said

> the same thing?

> Myself as an aspirant of middling qualities would like

> to reassure that my missiles are already burning out

> in the air and my present difficulties with sAdhana

> are a part of that perhaps long burning out.

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Nair-ji,

 

Some more thoughts on Advaita-jnana and vasanas....

 

The word 'jnani' in its truest sense applies to none other than the

jivan-mukta. But I feel that the word 'jnani' as it is commonly used

refers to a wide spectrum of jnanis with varying attainments, which

includes at one end of the spectrum the jnani who has seen the truth

but is yet to attain stitha, and at the other end the jivan-mukta who

is a perfect stitha-prajna. While the former has seen the truth, his

jnana has yet to attain stithi, and he is often forgetful

(unwatchful) of his self-nature and identifies with the body and its

actions. When he is thus identified with actions, he is liable to

accumulate new karma (like Jada Bharata who was born as a deer on

account of his unwatchfulness). A jivan-mukta, on the other hand, is

always stitha because he sees all actions as immovable knowledge

alone, and for 'him' there is no accumulation of new vasanas or

karma.

 

On checking up on the Karika again, I find that Sri Gaudapada's words

have a slightly different context. He was speaking of those aspirants

that were unable to comprehend the Yoga known as the 'contactless',

and 'who apprehend fear where there is no fear'. For such aspirants,

control of mind becomes necessary for attaining Self-Knowledge. These

are the middling aspirants Sri Gaudapada was referring to. (Karika,

Advaita Prakarana, 39-40)

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Madathil, Shri Chittaranjan and others,

 

Thank you Shri Madathil, as usual, for zeroing in on a precise and

clarifying question (in posting 30272): "Is it the logic of shruti

concerning our basic non-dual nature that is impure or the equipment

through which it is objectively conceptualized? I can only vote for

the

latter."

 

Yes indeed, I agree that our objective equipment is the complicating

factor, which superimposes a confused impurity upon the pure logic

of shruti. But, in saying this a very delicate question arises. What

do we mean here, by the word 'shruti'?

 

Literally of course, 'shruti' means 'heard'; and it is used in the

Indian tradition to describe a direct, unmediated listening to

living truth. In Advaita philosophy, it's found that there is no

duality between the truth that's heard and its pure, unmediated

hearing by a true listener. So, for Advaita, the word 'shruti'

refers to pure truth itself. That is its essential meaning.

 

But in the context of the Indian tradition, there is also a cultural

convention to describe some particular texts as 'shruti'. The texts

are objectively identified as the Vedas -- usually including the

Upanishads, and sometimes with the inclusion of further texts like

the Bhagavad Gita.

 

These 'shruti' texts are part of our objective equipment. Since they

are texts made up of objective names and forms, we listen to them

indirectly, through the mediation of our ears and minds. When such

texts are called 'shruti', what's meant is that they are objective

records of a subjective reasoning, towards the unmediated listening

and knowing which is more truly called 'shruti'.

 

But now, in using the word 'shruti' to describe objective texts,

this word is being used in a degraded way. The texts are passed on

through an objective transmission, with imperfections and confusions

that degrade our reception and make it impure. As we receive the

texts objectively, their meaning is degraded and their logic is

unclear. It needs a subjective interpretation, to revive the meaning

and to clarify the logic.

 

That subjective interpretation is provided by a living teacher --

who explains the meaning and directs the logic specifically, so as

to clarify the sadhaka's confusions of belief. It's only thus that

names and forms can give up their objective biases, in a logic that

gets freed from their biased mediation.

 

What's vital here is not any texts that are differently taken to be

'shruti' or 'revealed', at various times and places in the world.

Instead, it is a living teacher who is essential -- to turn a

sadhaka's attention back, from logic-chopping names and forms,

towards a clear reasoning that listens plainly and simply to

unmediated truth. That clear reasoning is the pure logic of

shruti -- with 'shruti' here interpreted as plain and simple

listening, which has attained to a complete and uncomplicated

identity with what is 'heard'.

 

The names and forms a teacher uses may or may not come from

authoritative texts. In the end, it doesn't matter. What matters is

a love for truth, which is shared by teacher and disciple. That love

is what motivates and guides Advaita reasoning, to free itself from

the impurities that seem to be superimposed by our objective

equipment.

 

The process of realization can thus be described as a love affair

with truth, conducted through the logic of reflective enquiry. Where

the enquiry is genuine, its logic turns upon the questioner's

mistakes and confusions of belief, so as to search for clearer and

truer knowing. Motivated by its love for truth, the logic purifies

itself and thereby comes to its non-dual essence, where love and

truth are realized at one with self that knows.

 

By thus reflecting back to truth, over and over again, a sadhaka's

ego gets naturally purified. Personal tendencies of character get

subtly clarified -- so as to serve the truth of self, instead of

getting distracted by egotistical pursuits that superimpose

confusion and obscurity. In the end, it is love that must naturally

purify a sadhaka's 'objective equipment'; because pre-meditated

exercises always proceed from an element of artificial ego, which

compromises the resulting benefits.

 

But I must confess to a personal difficulty here, in using the word

'love'. When I speak of this word with my wife, she tells me quite

rightly that I am being insincere. With a little good will, it isn't

terribly difficult to agree that truth is found where love and logic

meet. And I must thank Shri Madathil, Shri Chittaranjan and others

for their insightful and enjoyable discussions in this regard.

 

But the difficulty remains. How is it possible to be sincere in

using the word 'love', so long as egotistical impurities remain?

Well, it clearly isn't possible. Accordingly, whenever this word is

used by a sadhaka like 'yours truly', he ought to be ashamed.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

ref post 30324

 

sri Anandaji writes

 

(What matters is a love for truth, which is shared by teacher and

disciple. That love is what motivates and guides Advaita reasoning,

to free itself from the impurities that seem to be superimposed by

our objective equipment.

 

The process of realization can thus be described as a love affair

with truth, conducted through the logic of reflective enquiry. Where

the enquiry is genuine, its logic turns upon the questioner's

mistakes and confusions of belief, so as to search for clearer and

truer knowing. Motivated by its love for truth, the logic purifies

itself and thereby comes to its non-dual essence, where love and >

truth are realized at one with self that knows.)

 

This rings a Bell. i recall the words of Sage Yagnavalakya to his

wife Maitreyi in the Brihadaranyaka upanishd

 

" II-iv-5: He said: `It is not for the sake of the husband, my dear,

that he is loved, but for one's own sake that he is loved. It is not

for the sake of the wife, my dear, that she is loved, but for one's

own sake that she is loved. It is not for the sake of the sons, my

dear, that they are loved, but for one's own sake that they are

loved. It is not for the sake of wealth, my dear, that it is loved,

but for one's own sake that it is loved. It is not for the sake of

the Brahmana, my dear, that he is loved, but for one's own sake that

he is loved. It is not for the sake of the Kshatriya, my dear, that

he is loved, but for one's own sake that he is loved. It is not for

the sake of worlds, my dear, that they are loved, but for one's own

sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of the gods, my

dear, that they are loved, but for one's own sake that they are

loved. It is not for the sake of beings, my dear, that they are

loved, but for one's own sake that they are loved. It is not for the

sake of all, my dear, that all is loved, but for one's own sake that

it is loved. The Self, my dear Maitreyi, should be realised – should

be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon. By the realisation of

the Self, my dear, through hearing, reflection and meditation, all

this is known."

http://www.spiritual-teachers.com/BrihadaranyakaUpanishad.htm

 

and then sri Anandaji goes on to explain

 

" How is it possible to be sincere in using the word 'love', so long

as egotistical impurities remain? "

 

These impurities are the 'granthis' ?(knots - brahma , rudra and

vishnu ) that are present in the Body and unless they are removed .

one cannot even attempt the great cosmic meditation that the "self is

everywhere"'

 

" Idam brahma, idam kshatram, ime lokah, ime devah, imani bhutani,

idam sarvam yad ayam atma.

 

"This Source of knowledge; this source of power; all these worlds;

all these gods; all these beings; -- All this is just the Self."

 

This is the immortal philosophy ( love and wisdom) of the great

upanishadic Truth "idam sarvam yad iyam atma'- this is the best

description of 'Love ' .

 

on another note , how about 'yours truly in Bhagvan' ? :-)

 

 

warmest regards

[Guest guest]

Dear Anandaji,

 

Your post 30324 refers.

 

It was indeed an engaging and enjoyable debate.

 

Before we pack our bags on this topic, why not some pun?

 

The dhyAnasaraswati that the aspirant meditated upon in search of the

last purshArtha has all along been revealing as the Adishakti that

She really is through the logic of advaita. She has the habit of

masquerading and we ought to understand it initially through the

logic of enquiry. The disguise is lIlA. But when She ultimately

reveals as Adishakti before him, he realizes that he is Her and he is

then omni-powered with the shakti of pure love. He then doesn't need

any more logic.

 

Pun really intended and ends here.

 

Let us not, therefore, be ashamed of using the word love. At least,

we know the logic of it although we have too many taints of egotism

still left in us.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

ref post 30329

Nairji writes"

 

(But when She ultimately reveals as Adishakti before him, he realizes

that he is Her and he is then omni-powered with the shakti of pure

love. He then doesn't need any more logic.)

 

Wow! What a beautiful play on (words) the different roles this Self

plays.! The self is an actor says the Shiva sutras! and the Divine

mother is the greatest actress of them all - she plays many roles to

perfection ! Our Divine mother sri Lalithambike!

 

 

Nairji is right when he says we should not be ashamed of using the

word 'love' True ! True! But there is slight problem here !When a

spouse declares to his/her partner ' i love you ' , the partner has a

slight problem believing the declarations of 'Love' for There are two

kinds of LOVE - the small love called 'Kama ' and the big love

called 'prema'- KAMA IS 'FLEETING AND TRANSIENT wheras Prema ( the big

love or universal Love ) is permanent and is 'shasvatam' ( eternal) !

 

Was it not Shakespeare who sang in Sonnet number 116

 

" Let me not to the marriage of two minds

Admit impediments. Love is not love

Which alters when it alteration finds,

Or bends with the remover to remove:

O, no! it is an ever-fixed mark,

That looks on tempests, and is never shaken,

It is the star to every wandering bark,

Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.

Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeksWithin his bending

sickle's compass come;

Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,

But bears it out even to the edge of doom. "

 

That is why , it is better to say to one's sp[ouse or beloved '' I am

all love" and when can a man/woman have the courage to say this ? When

he /she has realized the 'SELF' for a self realized Yogi/yogini is the

very personification of LOVE OR BLISS - PREMANANDA! Saradadevi knew

her lord and master sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa was the very

embodiment of this universal 'Love' and she worshipped Him as HER RAMA

and Krishna ! Sri Ramakrishna , in turn , performed 'shodasi' puja to

his young wife and declared that She is the very embodiment of the

Divine mother under whose lotus feet he wanted to take shelter!

 

Yes , FOLKS! do not be afraid to say ' I am all love ' for this sounds

way better than saying 'i love you' which is paler by comparison!

 

Btw , love and logic do not go together - where there is logic , Love

is conspicuous by its absence and where there is Love , there is no

logic - only pure Love , Love for Love's sake! !

 

aS OUR POET -PHILOSOPHER TAGORE says "A mind all logic is like a knife

all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it."

 

and in the same breath Tagore says

 

"Want of love is a degree of callousness; for love is the perfection

of consciousness. We do not love because we do not comprehend, or

rather we do not comprehend because we do not love. For love is the

ultimate meaning of everything around us. It is not a mere sentiment;

it is truth; it is the joy that is at the root of all creation."

 

This 'Love ' is the union of the lower self with the higher self!

 

Love is all there is !