To Partha: Narayana Dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Sundeep

 

Very intelligent questions.

 

Symbols, ideas, words, language "bind" a person. Words are at the

throat level, so we have not yet transcended to the state of reality.

 

Lord KRishna has said, there is a reality which is far removed

from "our reality". Our reality is skewed, a reflection of the

reality.

Recently when i was talking to my office boy(Saturn is Matrukaraka

for me, and i share wonderful relationships with rickshawallas,

office boys, street kids, barbers etc), he told me why not Go to Taj

Mahal. I told him i can have Taj Mahal on my desktop, what is the

need to go the Taj Mahal. He told me that "Taj Mahal is real, its

photograph doesnot give the same "Experience"."

 

God speaks to us at all the times, and the message was clear, that we

are living in the world of reflections.

BUT , this reflection is not "unreal". The fact that when we die,

there is a vaporisation effect, doesnot prove the "unreality" of this

plane that is mrityuloka.

There is a classic example in Shankara's thesis of snake vs rope. The

fact that we mistake rope vs snake cannot prove that snake is unreal.

What is unreal is the "mistake"(ketu) which we make in assuming the

rope for the snake. Snake does exist, so does rope.

 

Aurobindo has clearly demonstrated these phenomenon.

 

The word Maya comes when we "associate" certain things for certain

symbols.

For you car may be a luxury vehicle, there might be a person who

might have had terrible accident in a car, and he associates Car as a

symbol of pain.

Vedanta, Gita are spoken by Lord. Their words are pure and true. But

what about the "numerous Bhashyas". Why is there so much disparity in

the different "understandings". WOrds are a play of sounds. Sounds

are not unreal, but the "interpreation" is unreal.

This "interpreation" is based on different "levels of understanding"

of different people.

 

People have endlessly debated over Rama, Krishna, Advaita, Shiva

purana.

what is the reason, the reason is simple, the identification of the

self with a particular "idea". That idea is "shiva", it is buddha, it

is "Shankara".

These great men were never "separatist", but we have a tendency

to "misunderstand" their teachings, and try to identify with their

ideas, without understanding the same. We use logic to understand

god, but forgetting that Mars is karaka for logic, who by nature cuts

things. We run to Gurus, without cleansing ourselves first of the

impurities of heart and mind.

 

Coming back, Maya is in the "associations", the "meanings",

the "namings" and the "interpreations".

 

You can be attracted to a very normal looking girl, but then you

do "justifications", you tell na, she is beautiful, she is this , she

is that. SHe might be proud, haughty, arrogant and what not. But the

fact "the reality is that you are attracted to her".

Then you do justification for loving her, may be she is good in so

and so area etc.You try to name the experience, you try to hold and

possess her picture in your thoughts, and finally when she rejects

you, you blame "her" for all the turmoil. WHy this game of hide and

seek. Why not admit to things as they are. Love cannot be held, love

is universal consciousness, it is not a word infact, it is a flow or

a gigantic river. The creation of this universe is the "love of

Narayana".

regards

partha

 

 

 

vedic astrology, "vedicastrostudent"

<vedicastrostudent> wrote:

> Dear Partha,

> It is excellent to see you, as a Guru of this group, acknowledging

> that "Reality is not a name". This is one of the things that has

> bothered me a lot in the past but due to the obvious devotion of

all

> the Gurus on this group, I have never really plucked up the courage

> to ask. But now I can: So you do realize that even language is not

> reality is it? For example, when I utter the sound "Car", what has

> happened? I have simply uttered a sound which is a symbol for an

> object that we both know, namely a car. But it is only that - a

> symbol. Language is basically communication through utterance of

> preagreed symbols for objects, actions, feelings, no? For this

exact

> reason, why are mantras regarded so potent and sacred? When I

say "Om

> Namah Shivaya" it is simply a symbol for something, no? And when a

> Christian utters "Jesus Christ" it is again a symbol. When I

> say "Car" it doesnt bring me any closer to understanding a car. So

> why is it that by saying "Om Namah Shivaaya" 108 times I come

closer

> to Shiva? And how do we all know that Jesus Christ isnt a symbol

for

> the same entity that Shiva is a symbol for? And in the same vein,

> since all scriptures are essentially written in symbols of humans

> (even Sanskrit is a language of humans, right?), how can they be

> completely unquestionably correct? Unquestionably correct knowledge

> cannot be communicated by symbols, can it - the real thing must be

> experienced and it cannot be fully symbolically described otherwise

> it wouldnt be symbolic any more?

>

> Eagerly awaiting your reply,

>

> Sundeep

>

>

>

> >

> > What is this meaning. This "meaning" is an interpretation, a

> > simplification , an understanding and a "feeling" of a reality.

> >

> > In essence everything in this world in this universe that

> > has "manifested" is a "perception". This manifestation of

> > the "reality" that is Narayana, or the Samba shiva can be seen in

> the

> > form of "Lakshmi" and "pravati".

> >

> > The reality is the winning of Wimbledon, that is all about it.

> Tennis

> > players are hungry for that elusive trophy, once the "Narayana"

> gives

> > consent for a "yoga", there is the flow of "prakriti", money,

fame

> > and rewards for the "reality".

> >

> > Reality is not a "name". It is not a "term", it

is "indescribable".

> > it is "unmanifested", it is a "truth", it is interval

between "two

> > thoughts", it is the "light of Sun".

> >

> > based on this understanding, try to understand that

Even "Narayana

> > Dasa" shows "perceptions" only!!!, Vimshottari Dasa shows it at a

> > mental level, Narayana dasa shows it at a "Sahasrara" level.

> >