Ch8 - pt 2

September 6, 2006

--- Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh > wrote:

> Namaste Shyam-ji,

>

> Thank you. I can only pray for His grace

> for me to

> understand Gita 8:27-28.

> Regards,

> Sunder

....continued from Part 1

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII8.22

O son of Prtha, sah, that; parah purusah, supreme,

unsurpassable Person-(the word purusa) derived in the

sense of 'residing in the heart' or

'all-pervasiveness'; that Person, compared to whom

there is nothing superior-; yasya, in whom, in which

Person; antahsthani, are included; bhutani, (all) the

beings which are Its products-for a product remains

inherent in its cause; and yena, by whom, by which

Person; tatam, is pervaded; sarvam, all; idam, this,

the Universe, as pot etc. are by space; is tu, indeed;

labhyah, reached; through ananyaya, one-pointed;

bhaktya, through devotion, characterized as Knowledge;

ananyaya, which is one pointed, which relates to the

Self. The Northern Path has to be described so that in

due course through liberation in stages Brahman may be

won by those Yogins who have set their intellect on

AUM, Brahman's symbol and to whom reference has

already been made vide 8.13. Hence the verses from

8.23 onwards. The description of recurrence implies

laudation of the other way that excludes recurrence.

8.23 Bharatarsabha, O best of the Bharata dynasty;

vaksyami, I shall speak; tu, now; tam, of that; kalam,

time; prayatah, by departing, by dying; (-these words

are to be which time; yoginah, the yogis; yanti,

attain; anavrttim, the State of Non-return, of

nonrebirth; ca eva, and also; of the time by departing

at which they attain its opposite, avrttim, the State

of Return. By 'Yogis' are implied both the yogis (men

of meditation) and the men of acitons (rites and

duties). But the men of action are yogis by courtesy,

in accordance with the description, 'through the Yoga

of Action for the yogis' (3.3). The Lord speaks of

that time:

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Shyam:

It is in 8.22 that Bhagwan talks about attaining the

nirgunam Brahman (the Supreme unsurpassable, residing

in the heart – i.e. the Self of all the selves) And he

asserts that the attainment of this is both direct,

with no return, and immediate for whom? For those

seekers who with onepointed parabhakti follow the path

of selfenquiry to acquire Knowledge.

What follows then all the way to the end is a detailed

description of the light path and the dark path,

details of which are perhaps unnecessary and

irrelevant for people like us who are on the path of

atmavichara. For a jnani, the death of the body has no

relevance – where can he come and where can he go, let

alone which path and what time? These become relevant

only for those who do not, for some reason, strive for

liberation in the here and now, and are instead

focused on yogic meditation for achieving a

trance-like state of samadhi.

Kachi MahaSwamigal’ words which Prof-ji has so

benevolently posted for our reading are in line with

Bhagwan Sankara’s commentaries, referred to above, as

they would naturally be expected to be!

Again, this is all my limited understanding of the

essence of this chapter. More learned members like

yourself and scholars like Subbu-ji may please

continue my education.

My sashtang pranams and a hundred and eight

kshamaprarthnas to MahaSwamigal for my bravado of

attempting to explain his words – where the limitless

merciful Ocean of Supreme knowledge and where the drop

of water on the shore!!

It is only appropriate that I end by directly

reproducing His Holiness’ words

"Another opinion is the ashhTAnga-yoga siddhas who

speak of the goal of samAdhi in the attributeless

Absolute also obtain *Brahma-nirvANaM*(advaita-mukti)

.. But the words of the Gita don't support this. There

is no greater suthority than Lord Krishna Himself.

That He calls only jnAnis as 'sAnkhyas' or 'sannyAsis'

is well-known to scholars of all the different

traditions. Krishna says: Only those who go on the

advaita path become 'brahma-bhUtas' while living in

this world and reach 'Brahma-nirvANaM' when the body

falls. (B.G. V -24). 'Brahma-bhUta' -becoming is also

only Brahma-nirvANaM' . Just to show the difference

that one is in the jIvan-mukti stage even when being

in the body, we use the term 'Brahma-bhUta' . To clear

this , He himself says one or two shlokas later:

(V-26): "abhito brahma-nirvANaM vartate .": "In both

situations, that is, both in this world and in the

other world, jnAni gets the Brahma-nirvANaM' .

He also says what happens to those who go along the

ashhTAmga-yoga (the eight-component- yoga) path, what

we ordinarily call the yoga-mArga. But the Yogi he

refers to must have practised well his ashhTAnga-yoga,

and must have perfected both the breath-discipline and

the mind-control regimen. In addition, as an added

qualification he should have deep devotion and must be

one who constantly and continuously thinks of God -

not just one who has to think of God

(*Ishvara-praNidhAn aM*), as per the prescriptions of

the yogashAstra, for the purpose of developing

concentration . Krishna says "mAM anusmaran"

(remembering Me continuously) "satataM yo mAM smarati

nityashaH"

(B.G. VIII - 13, 14) (he who remembers me always and

every day) . Such a yogi who has also devotion, even

though he may leave the body in the contemplation of

praNava that has been equated to shabda-brahman, will

still not get the advaita-mukti. This is what the Lord

says in the eighth chapter called 'akshhara-brahma-

yoga'. It has been described that his soul goes only

to Brahma-loka along the path of the'uttarAyaNa- Sun'.

Shri gurubyo namah

Shyam

September 7, 2006

advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> --- Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote:

>

> > Namaste Shyam-ji,

> >

> > Thank you. I can only pray for His grace

> > for me to

> > understand Gita 8:27-28.

> > Regards,

> > Sunder

>

> ...continued from Part 1

Namaste Shyam-ji,

Thank you again for your explanation. I am still not clear

about the last line of the last verse (#28) - paraM sthAnamupaiti |

Is this also brahmaloka?

Regards,

Sunder

September 7, 2006

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh

wrote:

> Namaste Shyam-ji,

>

> Thank you again for your explanation. I am still not clear

> about the last line of the last verse (#28) - paraM sthAnamupaiti |

> Is this also brahmaloka?

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

Srigurubhyo NamaH

Namaste,

In the eighth chapter Bhagavadgita, what is spoken of predominantly

is the case of the Upasaka. This upasaka, not having taken to Atma

vichara, concentrates on the Pranava and does a life-long upasana on

this pranava. When such a person leaves this body, he attains to

Brahmaloka and thereafter attains Moksha. He does not return to

samsara after death. This is called krama-mukti. The verse 24 of the

8th chapter says, the shukla marga taken by the upaasakas. They

attain Brahman. The bhashya clarifies: Those who die, having been

engaged in the contemplation of Brahman, reach Brahman by this path.

The expression ' krameNa = in course of time' should be understood

after 'reach'; for, those who are firm in devotion to right knowledge

(samyag darshanam) and attain to immediate liberation: sadyo mukti,

have no place to go to or to return from.(unquote). Thus the

bhashyam clarifies that such is the case from the wording of the 24th

verse: prayaataaH, uttaraayanam, gacchanti, etc. This Yogi who goes

to brahmaloka, never to return to samsara again, is eulogised, rather

the yoga is eulogised in the last verse. Normally krama-mukti is

differentiated from Jivan-mukti, where, in the latter case, the

direct realization, saakshatkara, is had here itself and the person

liberated here itself. This is the meaning of the last verse of the

8th chapter, Gita. All the commentators have mentioned this

explicitly, based upon the bhashyam of the 24th verse, while the

Acharya's bhashyam for this last verse does not explicitly mention

this. The praNava upasaka is called Yogi in this chapter.

Even in the case of the upasaka who attains krama mukti, the final

mukti he gets is only advaita mukti. The only difference is that in

this earthly body the exalted upasaka of the Pranava, does not

experience the non-duality, simply because he has not had the

saakshaatkaaram yet. He goes to Brahmaloka and there being taught

the Advaita Jnanam by Lord Brahma, gets the saakshaatkaram and

finally gets liberated once and for all. That mukti is also

essentially advaita mukti alone. It cannot be otherwise. I remember

the words of Pujya Swami Paramarthananda ji in this regard: The

upasaka reaching Brahmaloka attains jananam there and remains there

as a jivanmukta. At the end of the tenure of Brahma, he too along

with Brahma attains ultimate liberation. (Although I have not read

anywhere about the `jivanmukti in Brahmaloka', I have stated the

words of the Swamiji which sound quite reasonable.)

The case of such a jivan mukta in this world is spoken of in the V

chapter 26th verse.

This portion of the Kanchi Acharya's speech (as reported, and quoted

below ), requires some clarification:

(quote) "Another opinion is the ashhTAnga-yoga siddhas who

speak of the goal of samAdhi in the attributeless

Absolute also obtain *Brahma-nirvANaM*(advaita-mukti)

.. But the words of the Gita don't support this. There

is no greater authority than Lord Krishna Himself.

That He calls only jnAnis as 'sAnkhyas' or 'sannyAsis'

is well-known to scholars of all the different

traditions. Krishna says: Only those who go on the

advaita path become 'brahma-bhUtas' while living in

this world and reach 'Brahma-nirvANaM' when the body

falls. (B.G. V -24). 'Brahma-bhUta' -becoming is also

only Brahma-nirvANaM' . Just to show the difference

that one is in the jIvan-mukti stage even when being

in the body, we use the term 'Brahma-bhUta' . To clear

this , He himself says one or two shlokas later:

(V-26): "abhito brahma-nirvANaM vartate .": "In both

situations, that is, both in this world and in the

other world, jnAni gets the Brahma-nirvANaM' .(unquote)

In the Fifth chapter of the Gita, after mentioning the Jivanmukti and

Videhamukti of the Jnani in the 26th verse (for which the Shaankara

bhashyam,is quite clear), the next verses (27,28,and 29) that are the

concluding verses in the chapter, are introduced by Sri Shankara

thus:

A quote from the Alladi M.Shastri's translation of the Bhashyam:

Realization of the Lord by Dhyana Yoga:

It has been said that those who, renouncing all actions, remain

steady in the right knowledge obtain instant liberation (sadyo

mukti). It has often been and will be (in the sequel ) declared by

the Lord that Karma Yoga, which is performed in complete devotion to

the Lord and dedicated to Him, leads to moksha step by step: first

the purification of the mind, THEN knowledge, THEN renunciation of

all actions, and LASTLY moksha. And now, with a view to propound at

length the Dhyana Yoga, the proximate means to right knowledge, the

Lord teaches the Dhyana-Yoga in the following few aphoristic verses

(the words of the bhashya are: atha idAnIm dhyaana-yogam

samyagdarshanasya antarangam vistareNa …..= the word antaranga in

shastra means that which is closest as opposed those means that are

far removed. For example, karma is said to be a bahiranga saadhanam

for Jnanam and shama, dama, etc. are antarangam for jnanam. The idea

is, these remain even while the Jnanam, saakshaatkaaram is had while

karma does not so remain; it having done its job of giving

chittashuddhi and been renounced already . The word antarangam for

dhyaana assumes significance. This raises a question: Is the Gita VI

chapter an optional one? )

The verses 27,28:

Shutting out all external contacts and fixing the sight between the

eye-brows, equalizaing the outgoing and the in-going breaths which

pass through the nostrils, controlling the senses, mind and

intellect, having moksha as his highest goal, free from desire, fear

and anger – the sage who ever remains thus is verily liberated.

The bhashya: The sound and other sense objects enter the mind within

through the respective organs. These objects which are external are

kept outside when a man does not think of them. A sage muni, is one

who is given to contemplation, manana, and who renounces all

actions. Keeping the body in the posture described, he should always

look up to moksha as his supreme goal. When the sage, sannyaasii,

leads constantly this kind of life, renouncing all, he is no doubt

liberated., he has nothing else to do for liberation.

What has he, he whose mind is thus steadily balanced (samAhita

chittena), to know and meditate upon in the Dhyana yoga ? (In my

humble opinion, a translation is only a compromise to the original):

On knowing Me , the Lord of all sacrifices and austerities, the Great

Lord of all Worlds, the Friend of all beings, he goes to Peace.

Bhashyam: I am Narayana, the Lord of all sacrifices and austerities,

both as their author and …….On knowing Me, they attain peace, the

cessation of all samsara. (unquote)(who indeed can deny that this is

advaita mukti?)

Now, after this conclusion of fifth chapter-cum-a brief introduction

to the sixth chapter, the sixth chapter discusses the Dhyana Yoga in

great detail. In the 10th verse therein starts the way in which the

dhyana has to be performed, a brief mention we saw already in the

fifth ch. concluding verses. The verse starts with `Yogi yunjIta

satatam…..(VI.10) and specifies the asana, the posture, concentrating

between the eyebrows, etc. and says in verse VI.15: Thus: Now the

fruit of Yoga is described as follows:

Thus always keeping the mind balanced the Yogin, with the mind

controlled, attains to the Peace abiding in Me, which culminates in

Moksha, Nirvana. And later in the 27 verse the Lord says:

PrashAnta-mAnasam hyenam yoginam sukhamuttamam

Upaiti shaanta-rajasam BRAHMABHUTAM akalmasham

And in 28th verse again the Lord says:

Sukhena Brahma-samsprasham atyantam sukham ashnute

Thus, we see that the Lord in no uncertain terms says that the Yogi

following the Dhyana Yoga attains Brahmabhutam, the jivan mukti, what

the revered Kanchi Swamigal called advaita mukti. We see here the

term `brahma bhUta' used in Ch.V.24 exactly being used in the same

manner in the ch.VI. 27, confirming that the Yogi after dhyanam

attains advaita mukti alone, if it were to be held that the

word `brahma bhUtam' alone signifies advaita mukti.

(Even in the case of the upasaka who attains krama mukti, the final

mukti he gets is only advaita mukti. The only difference is that in

this body the exalted upasaka of the Pranava, does not experience the

non-duality, simply because he has not had the saakshaatkaaram yet.

He goes to Brahmaloka and there being taught the Advaita Jnanam by

Lord Brahma, gets the saakshaatkaram and finally gets liberated once

and for all. That mukti is also essentially advaita mukti alone.

This I have already said in respect of clarifying the 8th chapter

last verse. Here it is said to fit the context.)

Thus, we have the pramanam of the Lord in the Gita that the Yogi

after Dhyanam gets advaita mukti. We have the anubhava pramanam of

the Acharya of Sringeri that we saw in great detail where the advaita

mukti alone was attained. There also the verses of the VI chapter of

the Gita were referenced. The realization was that of the

Attributeless Absolute alone. The method of attaining the

saakshaatkara, the instrumentality for realization, was samadhi,

which the Upanishad teaches in various places as shown by the

Bhashyakara and which is in accordance with the Gita VI chapter as

well.

Now, if there are resemblances between the Sixth Chapter, Gita and

the Ashtanga Yoga of Patanjali, is it the mistake of the Gitaacharya,

the Bhagavan, or Sage Veda Vyasa, or the Bhashyakara or the advaitins

who have attained the realization following the adhyatma yoga of the

Upanishads? I remember a humorous remark made by Sw.Paramarthananda

ji, although in a different context: In the Panchadashi, the manas is

spoken of in a chapter as both the kartaa and the karaNam,

instrument, functionally. That is, the manas doubles up both as the

kartaa and the karanam. While explaining this the Sw. says, in the

Tattvabodha, however, we have seen the manas defined as an inner

instrument. Now, at this juncture of studying the Panchadashi, if

you remember tattvabodha you have problems. It is better sometimes

if we forget what we have studied in the past !!

To come to the point, if one is forced (by habit or prejudice) to see

the practices of dhyana and samadhi by some and conclude that they

are ashtaanga yogis, the mistake is not in those who practice, but it

lies elsewhere. I have it on the words of an authority that the

only `defect' or shortcoming with the ashtanga yoga sadhana is : that

what he realizes is, in terms of aupanishada jnana, only the tvam-

pada jnana. This alone, according to the Upanishads is not enough

for liberation. Only if the aikya jnanam with Brahman, tat-pada is

had in saakshaatkaram, that alone constitutes mukti. This also holds

to the view that `it is enough if the avasthaa-traya viveka is done.

Nothing more is required.' Actually avasthaa-traya or pancha-kosha

viveka alone constitute just tvam-pada viveka. The tat-pada aikya

saakshaatkara jnanam alone will constitute moksha according to

Vedanta. Any way, I have put my understanding above. It is not

to `push it down the throats' of others. Let me take rest for some

time. I feel tired. A breather by way of some other 'lighter' topics

is what i need now.

With humble pranams to all sadhakas,

Subbu

Om Tat Sat

September 7, 2006

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v

wrote:

>

> about the last line of the last verse (#28) paraM sthAnamupaiti |

> > Any way, I have put my understanding above.

Sashtanga Pranams Subbu-ji,

Your words of 'samanvaya' have come to me as not just a

shower of grace, but a veritable downpour.

After you feel sufficiently rested, Kindly clear another of my

questions: Gita 8:16 Abrahma-bhuvanA-llokaH punarAvartinaH.... how is

it to be understood?

Gratefully yours,

Sunder

September 7, 2006

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh

wrote:

Kindly clear another of my questions: Gita 8:16 Abrahma-bhuvanA-llokaH

punarAvartinaH.... how is it to be understood?

Srigurubhyo NamaH,

Namaste Sunder H ji,

Your above question requires the 'least effort' for me as i had

recently touched upon this in this post of mine. Trust that explains

the matter. While reading that kindly keep in mind that the pranava

upasaka of the 8th chapter is essentially a 'parameshwara upasaka'.

advaitin/message/32585

Humble Pranams,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

September 7, 2006

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

> advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh@>

> wrote:

> Kindly clear another of my questions: Gita 8:16 Abrahma-bhuvanA-

llokaH

> punarAvartinaH.... how is it to be understood?

>

> While reading that kindly keep in mind that the pranava

> upasaka of the 8th chapter is essentially a 'parameshwara upasaka'.

>

> advaitin/message/32585

>

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

> Here are some clarifications pertaining to Brahma Loka.

>

> The Bhagavad Gita VIII.16 says that all lokas upto and inclusive

of

> the Brahma loka are not eternal, that is, the jivas that attain

to

> those lokas are subject to return. As this point requires a

> clarification, some commentators have taken the pains to provide

the

> same:

>

> The Nilakanthi commentary clarifies:

Pranams Subbu-ji,

Many thanks . I missed this particular posting of yours

(being out of town that week).

Regards,

Sunder

September 7, 2006

Sunderji,

For a g~nAni, brahmaloka is not at all the desirable destination.

brahma lOka is becoming the last avaraNa.

In side that last envelope, there is one vacent SUnya, basing upon that

nAstyasti, several rounds of AvaraNas have formed,

just as in an onion. That existence of non existence is called the "Siva

avastha", the first invisible state after the last visible state.

And that is nothing else but your own self. That is the param sthAnam.

A g~nAni does`nt move any where, He remains in his own place. Every

lOka or sthAnam would remain nearby him,

surrounding around like any pet dog.

--

Krishnarao Lanka

September 7, 2006

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

> advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh@>

> wrote:

> > Namaste Shyam-ji

Thank you again for your explanation. I am still not clear about

the last line of the last verse (#28) - paraM sthAnamupaiti | Is

this also brahmaloka?

> > Regards,

> > Sunder

> Srigurubhyo NamaH

> Namaste,

> In the eighth chapter Bhagavadgita, what is spoken of predominantl

is the case of the Upasaka. This upasaka, not having taken to Atma

vichara, concentrates on the Pranava and does a life-long upasana on

this pranava. When such a person leaves this body, he attains to

Brahmaloka and thereafter attains Moksha. He does not return to

samsara after death. This is called krama-mukti.

Dear Sunderji

Pranams

My pranams to Subbu-ji for his excellent explanation and exposition.

Here is my understanding of this sloka

vedesu yajnesu tapahsu caiva

danesu yat punya-phalam pradistam

atyeti tat sarvam idam viditva

yogi param sthanam upaiti cadyam

First Bhagwan Sankara -

Viditva, having known; idam, this-having fully ascertained and

practised what was spoken in the course of determining the answers

to the seven questions (put by Arjuna in verse 1 and 2); the yogi

atyeti, transcends, goes beyond; tat sarvam, all those; punya-

phalam, results of righteous deeds, aggregate of rewards; yat, that

are; pradistam, declared by the scriptures; with regard to these,viz

vedesu, with regard to teh Vedas which have been properly [sitting

facing eastward after having washed one's hands, face, etc.]

studied; yajnesu, with regard to sacrifices performed together with

their accessories; tapahsu, with regard to austerities practised

correctly [With concentrated mind, intellect, etc.]; ca eva, and

also; danesu, with regard to charities rightly [Taking into

consideration place, time and fitness of the recipient.] given; and

upaiti, he reaches; the param, supreme; sthanam, State of God;

adyam, which is primordial, the Cause that existed in the beginning,

i.e. Brahman.

Also, earlier in speaking about a jnani in the commentary on v.24

Sankara clarifies the difference.

"Indeed, according to the Upanisadic text, 'His vital forces do not

depart' (Br. 4.4.46), there is neither going nor coming back for

those established in full realization, who are fit for immediate

Liberation. Having their organs merged in Brahman, they are suffused

with Brahman, they are verily identified with Brahman."

What is referred to in verse 28 is also brahmaloka alone.

What is the significance of this particular sloka?

In my understanding it is this.

The yogin/pranava upasaka being spoken of would have done numerous

good karmas in his life - austerities, sacrifices and charities. If

he has not attained jnanam and hence immediate liberation, he still

has his prarabdha bundle with him, and with this he is travelling to

a loka - brahmaloka - then what about his prarabdha? would he not

have to take a detour or come back to svarga loka or similair and

enjoin the fruits of his karma and relieve himself of the excess

baggage?? (No lost in transit baggage in Ishwara-srshti!)

This would be a very valid doubt, and Bhagwan in the sloka assures

such a seeker that that is not so. He transcends all of these and

has a confirmed reservation for a one-way ticket to brahmaloka,

wherein at the end of the kalpa he will assuredly get mukti.

Subbu-ji's comments about the difference between tvam pada jnana and

the aikya jnanam is put wonderfully -this is what Dayananda-ji

stresses - only "tat tvam asi" can be the liberating knowledge.

My point of quoting Kanchi MahaSwamigal and elaborating on this

chapter in response to your question, in the process of which Subbu-

ji has kindly assisted me, was this - there may a misconception in

some minds that ashtanga yoga sadhana alone is a independent

parallel track for mosha (emphasis on the words alone and

independent) - this was the only thing I wanted to help clarify in

my limited capacity.

To summarize

Ashtanga yoga sadhana alone ---> chittashuddhi + chittanaischalyam -

both excellent preparatory steps for vedanta - (atmavichara will

take very little time)

Ashtanga yoga plus intense and lifelong paraabhakti ---> krama mukti

or liberation in stages

Atma vichara plus paraabhakti plus dhyana yoga ---> jivanmukti or

immediate liberation in the here and now

Atma vichara minus dhyana yoga ---> a contradiction in terms, like

trying to run a 100 mt race while sitting. If futilely attempted

will yield bookknowledge, (and perhaps a Ph.D. in Oriental studies!)

My best wishes to you

Shri Gurubhyo namah

Hari OM

Shyam

September 9, 2006

Namaste Shyamji.

Sorry for the bother. This is also addressed to all those who are

participating in this and other closely realted threads.

When chittashuddhi occurs, is there an additional need for

chittanaischalyam? With chittashuddhi, chitta ceases to exist as a

burdensome botheration and hindrance to AtmajnAna. Is there any

chitta to be steadied then?

When a mirror is cleaned one hundred percent, it reflects the Sun one

hundred percent. When the chitta mirror is thus cleaned, the Sun of

the Self shines through one hundred percent. Is there any chitta left

then? Chitta has just gone Universal. Chitta is the Self. Is that not

jnAna? Thus, it derives that chittashuddhi is just another word for

jnAna and the occurrence of jnAna is mukti. In other words, if

chittashuddhi occurs, then there is no need to import jnAna into it.

JnAna inevitably occurs. One can't escape it.

So, if ashtAngayoga leads to chittashuddhi, as Shyamji says, then we

have to assume that it grants jnAna/mukti.

The profound ponderings of our spiritual pontiffs extensively quoted

here and the interpretations offered on them have me pitifully mazed

not knowing who said what.

Kindly, therefore, clarify.

I have a Malayalam interpretation of the Bhagwad GItA by Sw.

Prakashananta of Shri Ramakrishna Math in which a reference is made

to the existence of a school of thought which believes that the four

verses beginning with 'Agnirjyotirahashuklah" were not actually

uttered by Lord Krishna and, therefore, not essential. Of course,

Swamiji doesn't to that view. May I request Ramji to let

the List have Sw. Dayanandaji's interpretation of these last verses

of Ch. 8. He being both traditional and modern, we can definitely

look forward to reading a very balanced explanation.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

______________________

advaitin, "shyam_md" <shyam_md wrote:

>

> .....To summarize

>

> Ashtanga yoga sadhana alone ---> chittashuddhi + chittanaischalyam -

> both excellent preparatory steps for vedanta - (atmavichara will

> take very little time)

>

> Ashtanga yoga plus intense and lifelong paraabhakti ---> krama

mukti

> or liberation in stages

>

> Atma vichara plus paraabhakti plus dhyana yoga ---> jivanmukti or

> immediate liberation in the here and now

>

> Atma vichara minus dhyana yoga ---> a contradiction in terms, like

> trying to run a 100 mt race while sitting. If futilely attempted

> will yield bookknowledge, (and perhaps a Ph.D. in Oriental studies!)

>

September 9, 2006

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair wrote:

> The profound ponderings of our spiritual pontiffs extensively

quoted

> here and the interpretations offered on them have me pitifully

mazed

> not knowing who said what.

>

> Kindly, therefore, clarify.

>

> advaitin, "shyam_md" <shyam_md@> wrote:

> >

> > .....To summarize

> >

> > Ashtanga yoga sadhana alone ---> chittashuddhi +

chittanaischalyam -

>

> > both excellent preparatory steps for vedanta - (atmavichara will

> > take very little time)

> >

> > Ashtanga yoga plus intense and lifelong paraabhakti ---> krama

> mukti

> > or liberation in stages

> >

> > Atma vichara plus paraabhakti plus dhyana yoga ---> jivanmukti

or

> > immediate liberation in the here and now

> >

> > Atma vichara minus dhyana yoga ---> a contradiction in terms,

like

> > trying to run a 100 mt race while sitting. If futilely attempted

> > will yield bookknowledge, (and perhaps a Ph.D. in Oriental

studies!)

> >

Namaste,

Madathilji, I share your quandary!

The summary I can gather is:

1. Nididhyasana of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 4:5:6, is not the same

as dhyana of Patanjali.

2. Nididhyasana can be achieved without chitta-vritti-nirodha.

3. Nididhyasana of Br. Up. is not the same as dhyana of Bhagavad-

Gita, a smriti.

4. svarUpa-avasthA, of PYS 1:3, is not Atma-sAkShatkAra.

5. Ishvara-praNidhAna, of PYS 1:23, is not the same as parA-bhakti.

6. eka tattva-abhyAsa, of PYS 1:32, does not refer to Atman.

7. Yoga-Taravali, Shankara's work of reference for Mahasvamigal

Abhinava Vidyatirtha of Sringeri, being a prakarana grantha, cannot

be relied on as being Shankara's work, because he had refuted Yoga.

I have not come across any references as to whether such

debates of bhU-loka are needed or permitted in brahma-loka, or only

silence reigns! (a light-hearted comment Subbu-ji requested).

I shall retire from this thread now, and contemplate the

grace in silence.

Regards,

Sunder

September 9, 2006

Namaste Madathil-ji,

Might the following be of any help re your query on chitta-suddhi? Sri

Ramana Maharshi, in "Talks"...

D.: ... Yoga Vasishtha says that the chitta (mind) of a jivanmukta is achala

(unchanging).

M.: So it is. Achala chitta (unchanging mind) is the same as suddha manas

(pure mind). The jnani's manas is said to be suddha manas. The Yoga

Vasishtha also says that Brahman is no other than the jnani's mind. So

Brahman is suddha manas only.

D.: Will the description of Brahman as Sat-Chit-Ananda suit this suddha

manas? For this too will be destroyed in the final emancipation.

M.: If suddha manas is admitted, the Bliss (Ananda) experienced by the Jnani

must also be admitted to be reflected. This reflection must finally merge

into the Original. Therefore the jivanmukti state is compared to the

reflection of a spotless mirror in another similar mirror. What will be

found in such a reflection? Pure Akasa (Ether). Similarly, the jnani's

reflected Bliss (Ananda) represents only the true Bliss. These are all only

words. It is enough that a person becomes antarmukhi (inward-bent). The

sastras are not needed for an inward turned mind. They are meant for the

rest.

(Talk 513)

Kind regards,

Peter

September 10, 2006

Namaster Peter-ji.

Coming from Bhagwan Himself, it is the clearest perspective. I can't

ask for more.

Thanks for the timely quotes which I am sure will guide us all in

quandary.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

__________________

advaitin, "Peter" <not_2 quoted Bh.

Ramana Maharshi:

> M.: So it is. Achala chitta (unchanging mind) is the same as suddha

manas

> (pure mind). The jnani's manas is said to be suddha manas. The Yoga

> Vasishtha also says that Brahman is no other than the jnani's mind.

So

> Brahman is suddha manas only.

>>

> M.: If suddha manas is admitted, the Bliss (Ananda) experienced by

the Jnani

> must also be admitted to be reflected. This reflection must finally

merge

> into the Original. Therefore the jivanmukti state is compared to the

> reflection of a spotless mirror in another similar mirror. What

will be

> found in such a reflection? Pure Akasa (Ether). Similarly, the

jnani's

> reflected Bliss (Ananda) represents only the true Bliss. These are

all only

> words. It is enough that a person becomes antarmukhi (inward-bent).

The

> sastras are not needed for an inward turned mind. They are meant

for the

> rest.

> (Talk 513)

>

September 10, 2006

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh

wrote:

>

> 7. Yoga-Taravali, Shankara's work of reference for Mahasvamigal

> Abhinava Vidyatirtha of Sringeri, being a prakarana grantha, cannot

> be relied on as being Shankara's work, because he had refuted Yoga.

>

> I have not come across any references as to whether such

> debates of bhU-loka are needed or permitted in brahma-loka, or only

> silence reigns! (a light-hearted comment Subbu-ji requested).

>

> I shall retire from this thread now, and contemplate the

> grace in silence.

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

Srigurubhyo NamaH

Namaste Shri Sundar Hattangadi ji:

Humble Pranams Sir. I can see the 'spirit' behind that post of

yours. I shall single out the one observation made above on the

work 'Yoga Taravali' and make some comments. While each individual

has a right to hold his own views, i am making the following comments

only questioning the logic:

In the tradition, we have this work called 'saadhana panchakam' also

known as 'upadesha panchakam' of Acharya Shankara.It starts with the

verse: vedo nityam adhIyatAm... In that, the fifth (last) verse is as

follows:

ekAnte sukhamAsyatAm paratare chetaH samAdhIyatAm

pUrNAtmaa susamIkShyatAm jagdidam tad-bAdhitam dRShyatAm (only the

first two lines).

The meaning is: Seek solitude joyfully. Intensely focus the mind on

the Transcendental Truth. Get the vision of the Absolute Total

Atman. See for yourself the resultant sublation of this universe.

Now, since Shankara has refuted Yoga, are we to throw overboard this

above verse from the pentad and recite only the first four? The

reason: This verse uses some terms and methods alien to Vedanta:

samAdhi and 'getting the vision of Atman'. Sounds nice?

Again, in the tradition, for ages, we have been reciting this dhyana

shloka before chanting the Bhagavad gita:

dhyAnAvasthita-tad-gatena manasA pashyanti yam yogino

yasyAntam na viduH surAsura-gaNA devAya tasmai namaH

(Obeisance to that Effulgent Being Whose limit (true nature) is not

known to the devas and asuras, Who is perceived by those yogis, who

engage in deep meditation, during such meditation, by a mind at

that state.)

Now this shloka has to be abandoned henceforth as it is opposed to

Vedanta and as Shankara has refuted Yoga. The above verse talks of

dhyana, perceiving the Truth, etc. which are all anathema to true

followers of shuddha shaankara prakriyA. That a microscopic minority

does not regard any literature other than the prashthana traya

bhashya as anything worthy of even looking at, is another matter.

Our sympathies shall be with them.

What can be a worse misunderstanding of the spirit of Shankara's

spirit of avirodha?

In the Brahma sutras, there is this sutra: utpattyasambhavAt

(II.ii.42). Here we have the refutation of a theistic school,

Bhaagavata mataH. The Acharya makes it clear in the beginning itself

that even though there are aspects that are quite agreeable to the

Vedantas, still there are present in this school aspects that are not

in agreement with , in fact opposed to the Vedantas. It is only that

latter that is being refuted.

That school holds Vasudeva as Paramaatma, SankarShaNa as jiva,

Pradyumna as Manas, Aniruddha as ahankara. For them, Vasudeva is the

Ultimate Cause and the other three are his effects. The Acharya

happily acknowledges explicitly their practices of bhakti,

uninterrupted contemplation on Vasudeva, becoming cleansed of sins as

a result of such bhakti, etc. What he refutes is their stand that

the jiva is an effect of Vasudeva. The Acharya says if Vasudeva is a

cause, he is subject to vikaara, change and ultimately ephemeral,

decay, decline. And if jiva is admitted to be an effect, he too will

be mortal, subject to ephemerality. As a result, he can never

attain liberation called 'becoming one with the Lord'. The Acharya

shows the logical fallacy in their contention: If the effect attains

to the cause, it (effect) will become dissolved, non-existent. He

cites another Brahmasutra: II.iii.17 as being quite opposed to such a

proposition.

Now, in the above, just because Shankara has refuted a Bhakti school,

should we jettison all works like Shivanandalahari, Soundaryalahari,

a vast body of bhakti literature, even if they are not acceptable as

attributed to Shankara? Will that not be foolish?

I showed this one example to give a feel of the Acharya's spirit of

avirodha. If this is not grasped in the right manner, the loss will

be ours only and not of the Acharya.

Sir, this is not to draw you into the discussion; just to express the

above thoughts.

Warm regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

September 10, 2006

Namaste Sri Sundar Rajan,

On 10/09/06, Sundar Rajan <avsundarrajan > wrote:

>

> A disciple approached a knower of Prashthana Traya bhasyas

>

> D: Guruji, What is the path?

> A: The only valid path is in Shankara's Prashthana Traya bhasyas

This view is NOT held by any advaitin AcArya. As you have yourself

pointed out, this view would imply that there were no knowers of the

truth before Sankara. Even Sankara's own status would become

problematic.

The traditional view is that truth is known through the Sruti & the

texts/tradition derived from the Sruti. Such texts would include the

itihAsa-s, gItA, yoga-vAsiShTha, etc as well as the bhAShya-s of

Sankara.

The Sruti is held to be ever existing, so there never was a time when

truth could not be known. Also we know that the itihAsa-s and other

texts long predate Sankara.

>

> D: I have not read these. However, I have read life stories of some

> recent knower's of Truth such as Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Ramana.

> They seem to have spent quite a bit of time in Meditation/Samadhi,

> is it not?

> A: Samadhi is not a valid means according to my reading of the

> bhasyas

samAdhi is not exactly a means of knowledge but a sAdhanA to

internalize/stabilize that knowledge. The means of knowledge are

pratyaxa (perception), anumAna (inference), Agama or Sabda (textual

tradition in general), upamAna (analogy), arthapatti (postulation) and

anupalabdhi (non-cognition).

Specific to Ramana Maharshi, his main emphasis was on vicAra or

enquiry as a sAdhanA. But he said that he had studied the vedAntic

texts in his previous life. This is an important point and actually

shows that Ramana was familiar with the traditional view. Of course,

Ramana went on to study the vedAntic texts, and translated many of

Sankara's works into Tamil. IMO, what Ramana taught was traditional

advaita-vedAnta and nothing else.

The advaitic tradition is actually very "broad-minded". For example,

suppose you ask - "there was a medieval European named Eckhart who

seems to have had a non-dual realization. How is it possible given

that, in all probability, he would have had no access to the vedAntic

texts?"

An advaitin would simply answer - Eckhart must have studied the texts

in one of his previous lives.

So Eckhart can have his enlightenment and the Sruti-based tradition

retains its distinctiveness! Of course this is one possible

interpretation; there can be others.

Needless to say, the rest of your questions are invalid.

Ramesh

September 10, 2006

On 10/09/06, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair > wrote:

> Once I asked Sw.Dayanandaji if this knowledge (advaitic) exists

> elsewhere in the world. His answer was a firm affirmative. He said

> it does in many cultures but what is found lacking is our unique

> methodology for realizing it.

>

> It would therefore be better for us to think the Jungian way and

> explain that this knowledge and methodlogy are always there in the

> collective unconscious. Right persons at the right time are blessed

> to tap into it.

Namaste Nair-ji,

You are absolutely right. This is my personal understanding also.

Though I am not formally a student of Swami Dayanandaji, I have read

some of his writings and find them to be truly amazing.

In fact, I have come across this particular viewpoint in one of his

writings, and had initially thought of including it in my previous

post. But for some inexplicable reason, I left it out at the last

moment.

There was also an old post (by Kathirasan-ji, if I remember correctly)

which suggested a similar viewpoint by saying that 'advaitam' is

'tattva' while 'vedAnta' is 'saMpradAya'.

Anyway, the reason why I mentioned the "previous life" idea was to

illustrate that even the most conservative opinion in our tradition

can actually be very accomodating. Even a view that realization can be

had only through the upaniShad-s & the texts/tradition based on them

can still accomodate the existence of realized persons in various

cultures around the world, even if these persons had never even heard

of India.

And I cant resist saying this here - Swami Dayanandaji's view actually

emphasizes the importance of traditional methodologies. This is where

advaita-vedAnta has always given a role to the teachings of the other

darSana-s:). advaita-vedAnta is an integral part of sanAtana dharma

and looking at in isolation actually weakens the tradition.

praNAm

Ramesh

September 10, 2006

Pranams Madathil-ji

It is always nice to hear from you. (Please dont say

you are a bother!)

This is my understanding.

The root problem of samsara is

self-mis-identification.

The solution is finding true selfidentity.

The subtle body has 4 components - manas buddhi chitta

and ahankara.

The goal is not just to attain quietitude of the mind.

It is to dissolve the ahankara - by means of what? -

by means of attaining the firm knowledge that it is

false, it is an imposter, it does not have any

subtantive existence.

Having chittanaischalyam as the aim is like taking a

mere pain-killer for a pain that is coming from a

heart attack.

That the mind is constantly having vikalpas is not in

itself the problem. When you say "the chitta ceases to

exist as a burdensome botheration and hindrance to

AtmajnAna" you are perhaps assigning a cause (of the

problem) to an inert substance - the mind/ intellect/

chitta. They themselves are borrowing their sentience

from you, the atman - this is to be understood/known/

recognized/realized.

For a self-realized seer, neither the mind nor chitta

nor the buddhi really get destroyed as such - a jnani

is after all not a "mindless" person.

Once you understand that you are the unchanging

substratum which allows and enables as it were these

various thought modifications to take place, then the

thought modifications themselves will totally cease to

be a problem. I understand my nature to be water, my

waveness need not be destroyed, only understood as not

having any subtantive existence other than water

alone.

Pujya Guruji His Holiness Swami Dayanandaji's

teachings satsang commentary from one of the chapters

in the Panchadasi, may perhaps help you in your

understanding.

http://www.avgsatsang.org/hhpsds/pdf/Pancadasi_Chap7_Verse5.pdf

Pranams

Shri Gurubhyo namah

Shyam

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair >

wrote:

> Namaste Shyamji.

>

> Sorry for the bother. This is also addressed to all

> those who are

> participating in this and other closely realted

> threads.

>

> When chittashuddhi occurs, is there an additional

> need for

> chittanaischalyam? With chittashuddhi,

> Is there any

> chitta to be steadied then?

>

> When a mirror is cleaned one hundred percent, it

> reflects the Sun one

> hundred percent. When the chitta mirror is thus

> cleaned, the Sun of

> the Self shines through one hundred percent. Is

> there any chitta left

> then? Chitta has just gone Universal. Chitta is the

> Self. Is that not

> jnAna? Thus, it derives that chittashuddhi is just

> another word for

> jnAna and the occurrence of jnAna is mukti. In

> other words, if

> chittashuddhi occurs, then there is no need to

> import jnAna into it.

> JnAna inevitably occurs. One can't escape it.

>

> So, if ashtAngayoga leads to chittashuddhi, as

> Shyamji says, then we

> have to assume that it grants jnAna/mukti.

>

> The profound ponderings of our spiritual pontiffs

> extensively quoted

> here and the interpretations offered on them have me

> pitifully mazed

> not knowing who said what.

>

> Kindly, therefore, clarify.

>

> I have a Malayalam interpretation of the Bhagwad

> GItA by Sw.

> Prakashananta of Shri Ramakrishna Math in which a

> reference is made

> to the existence of a school of thought which

> believes that the four

> verses beginning with 'Agnirjyotirahashuklah" were

> not actually

> uttered by Lord Krishna and, therefore, not

> essential. Of course,

> Swamiji doesn't to that view. May I

> request Ramji to let

> the List have Sw. Dayanandaji's interpretation of

> these last verses

> of Ch. 8. He being both traditional and modern, we

> can definitely

> look forward to reading a very balanced explanation.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

> ______________________

>

> advaitin, "shyam_md"

> <shyam_md wrote:

> >

> > .....To summarize

> >

> > Ashtanga yoga sadhana alone ---> chittashuddhi +

> chittanaischalyam -

>

> > both excellent preparatory steps for vedanta -

> (atmavichara will

> > take very little time)

> >

> > Ashtanga yoga plus intense and lifelong

> paraabhakti ---> krama

> mukti

> > or liberation in stages

> >

> > Atma vichara plus paraabhakti plus dhyana yoga

> ---> jivanmukti or

> > immediate liberation in the here and now

> >

> > Atma vichara minus dhyana yoga ---> a

> contradiction in terms, like

> > trying to run a 100 mt race while sitting. If

> futilely attempted

> > will yield bookknowledge, (and perhaps a Ph.D. in

> Oriental studies!)

> >

>

September 10, 2006

Hari OM!

Dear Sundarji,

Already lot of Christian Missionaries wanted to convert people, but people

in Advaitic path understand there is no conversion, but why you want to

promote that at least humoursly, (Take this also as humour from me) Why this

Christianity promotion, it is not needed, let them live happilywith their

beliefs, but for an Advaitin there is no Christian, Muslim, or any other

religion, EKAMEVA ADWATIYAM!

As Swami Dayanadaji rightly says CONVERSION IS 100% VIOLENCE.

Advaitin does not have any problem with any religion, but Christians want to

convert strongly in India especially and make their country, what a stupid

thinking and pope is promoting it.

Please Please Please at least for humour do not even think about it.

Vasudaiva Kudumbakam for us. but the other side also understand that, until

that there is a problem.

With all respects

With Love & OM!

Krishna Prasad

On 9/9/06, Sundar Rajan <avsundarrajan > wrote:

>

September 11, 2006

Namaste Shyamji.

Thank you very much for your post 33158.

I am fully in agreement with everything you have said.

Thanks for that reference to the AVG link to Sw. Dayanandaji's essay

on Pancadasi Ch. 7, Verse 5. I am or rather we all at Advaitin are

aware of the precious gems available at the AVG Satsangh site thanks

to Shri Sailendra Srivastavaji who directed us there in April 2005.

The site and this particular Pancadasi interpretation, which, if I

remember right, you also once previously quoted on the List, are two

of the most visited benchmarks on my PC.

Shyamji, the question in hand is not how important is

chittanaischalyam. You mentioned ashtAnga yoga as leading to

chittashuddhi + chittanaischalyam. My point was chittashuddhi

connotes chittanaischalyam and, hence, the latter need not be shown

as additional (with a plus mark) to the former. Shri Peterji's

subsequent quote of Bh. Ramana Maharshi confirms this view.

The second issue is what exactly is meant by chittashuddhi. Instead

of taking pains to define it on my own any more, I would rather delve

into our last refuge - SrImad Bhagwad GItA. At the end of Chapter 12

(Verses 13-20), the Lord has very kindly described the bhakta dear to

Him. I should imagine that a man of chittashuddhi would exactly fit

Bhagwan's bill. Hope you won't disagree.

Having reached this far, let me now look around to see if I can find

some personages who could have had this chittashuddhi. Yes, here is

my sample pick although there are many many other names clamouring

for my attention:

1. Acharya Adi Shankara Bhagwadpada – the redoubtable founder of

Advaita Vedanta

2. BhaktA Meera who got herself merged into the smile of her Kanaiya

3. Poonthanam – the Malayalam poet who won the heart of the Lord

through his simple verses on simple jnAna (jnAnapAna)

4. Melpathur Narayana Bhattathiri – the indomitable Sanskrit scholar

who authored Sri Narayaneeyam in the ecstasy of the Lord's Darshan

5. Shri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa who had his playmate and soulmate in

ferocious Kali Ma

6. Jesus Christ – who worked miracles carrying the very Cross on

which he was finally crucified.

Now the question: Will the Lord have problem assessing and

evaluating these nominees? Will He ask His secretary to arrange the

names alphabetically for His review? Will He demand mark-sheets for

their prastAnatrayi understanding and knowledge? Surely no, for He

has already said `sa me priyaH' (He/She is dear to me.). That is an

irrevocable statement. None of the above personages will be asked to

languish in transit at the Heathrow of Brahmaloka holding a one-way

ticket to the JFK of mukti.

With chittashuddhi one cannot escape being His dear. Then one is

already at JFK.

Shyamji, you said: "Once you understand that you are the unchanging

substratum which allows and enables as it were these various thought

modifications to take place, then the thought modifications

themselves will totally cease to be a problem. I understand my

nature to be water, my waveness need not be destroyed, only

understood as not having any substantive existence other than water

alone".

Where does this understanding take place? In the intellect, no? Why

do we stop at the understanding? Intellect is said to be the stick

with which the fire of jnAna is stoked and, at the end, the stick

itself burns out leaving only the efflulgence of jnAna. To me,

chittashuddhi denotes that end, much farther than understanding,

which all the personages listed above invariably reached, no matter

how. JnAna (not just an understanding) took place in them

irrevocably due to their chittashuddhi. Their erstwhile chitta went

universal just as the wave went oceanic. By this statement, I don't

mean that their bodies and mind got destroyed in the process or

anything of that sort. It would be utter impertinence on my part to

say or claim such things. I can only repeat what the wise have said

and a sample can be had here :

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/disc/disc_41.html

I fully know Sw. Dayanandaji might not say what Sw. Krishnananda has

said. I can't venture into the reasons why. It is just beyond me.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

September 11, 2006

Dear Nair-ji

Pranams

Knowledge is always an understanding.

There is no knowledge which does not involve

understanding.

When you say I "know" e = mc2, it means I have

understood, e, m and the equation. Same is it with the

equation tat = tvam.

I am not sure what you mean by knowledge being

superior to understanding.

If you referring to bookish knowledge, then bookish

understanding and bookish knowledge are both useless

as far as moksha is concerned, else the majority of

the people we know in this egroup would all be

realized seers.

Both knowledge and understanding are always at the

level of the intellect alone - you dont say I have

intellectual understanding or intellectual knowledge

-it is like saying this is hot fire.

When we talk of chittashuddhi and chittanaischalyam we

are only talking about it in relative terms, not

absolute terms. Hence the need to mention both.

Knowledge being the only ultimate purifier as

identified by Bhagawan Krishna, absolute purification

of ones antahkaranam is only possible for a jnani -

why? because all his vasanas have been destroyed -

how? because he has destroyed their "cause" - avidya

-he has transcended the three gunas(gunateetah).

Until avidya is gone, one can of course attain

relative quietitude as well as relative purity of our

inner instruments by the means best suited to our

temperament - this is where "yoga" i.e. a means for

attaining this comes in- and this could take the path

of bhakti/karma/patanjali/etc - fair amount of overlap

in these as well, as we have already seen. None of

these is an independent means to mukti without

culminating in jnanam.

With regards to ch 12.12 onwards,

Please read Bhagwan Sankaras wonderful explanation of

verse 12.12 which sets the tone of understanding for

the slokas to follow

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

12.12 Jnanam, knowledge; [Firm conviction about the

Self arrived at through Vedic texts and reasoning.] is

hi, surely; sreyah, superior; -to what?-abhyasat, to

practice [Practice-repeated effort to ascertain the

true meaning of Vedic texts, in order to acquire

knowledge.] which is not preceded by discrimination.

Dhyanam, meditation, undertaken along with knowledge;

visisyate, surpasses even jnanat, that knowledge.

Karma-phala-tyagah, renunciation of the results of

works; excels even dhyanat, meditation associated with

knowledge. ('Excels' has to be supplied.) Tyagat, from

this renunciation of the results of actions, in the

way described before; [by dedicating all actions to

God with the idea, 'May God be pleased.'] santih,

Peace, the cessation of transmigratory existence

together with its cause; follows anantaram,

immediately; not that it awaits another accasion.

Should the unenlightened person engaged in works be

unable to practise the disciplines enjoined earlier,

then, for him has been enjoined renunciation of the

results of all works as a means to Liberation. But

this has not been done at the very beginning. And for

this reason renunciation of the results of all works

has been praised in, 'Knowledge is surely superior to

practice,' etc. by teaching about the successive

excellence. For it has been taught as being fit to be

adopted by one in case he is unable to practise the

disciplines already presented [Presented from verse 3

onwards.] Objection: From what similarly does the

eulogy follow? Reply: In the verse, 'When all desires

clinging to one's heart fall off' (Ka, 2.3.14), it has

been stated that Immortality results from the

rejection of all desires. That is well known. And 'all

desires' means the 'result of all rites and duties

enjoined in the Vedas and Smrtis'. From the

renunciation of these, Peace surely comes immediately

to the enlightened man who is steadfast in Knowledge.

There is a similarity between renunciation of all

desires and renunciation of the results of actions by

an unenlightened person. Hence, on account of that

similarity this eulogy of renunciation of the results

of all actions is meant for rousing interest. As for

instance, by saying that the sea was drunk up by the

Brahmana Agastya, the Brahmanas of the present day are

also praised owing to the similarity of Brahminhood.

In this way it was been said that Karma-yoga becomes a

means for Liberation,since it involves renunciaton of

the rewards of works. Here, again, the Yoga consisting

in the concentration of mind on God as the Cosmic

Person, as also the performance of actions etc. for

God, have been spoken of by assuming a difference

between God and Self. In, 'If you are unable to do

even this' (11) since it has been hinted that it

(Karma-yoga) is an effect of ignorance, therefore the

Lord is pointing out that Karma-yoga is not suitable

for the meditator on the Immutable, who is aware of

idenity (of the Self with God). The Lord is similarly

pointing out the impossibility of a karma-yogin's

meditation on the Immutable. In (the verse),

'they...attain Me alone' (4), having declared that

those who meditate on the Immutable are independent so

far as the attainment of Liberation is concerned, the

Lord has shown in, '...I become the Deliverer' (7),

that others have no independence; they are dependent

on God. For, if they (the former) be considered to

have become identified with God, they would be the

same as the Immutable on account of (their) having

realized non-difference. Consequently, speaking of

them as objects of the act of deliverance will become

inappropriate! And, since the Lord in surely the

greatest well-wisher of Arjuna, He imparts

instructions only about Karma-yoga, which involves

perception of duality and is not associated with full

Illumination. Also, no one who has realized his Self

as God through valid means of knowledge would like

subordination to another, since it involves a

contradiction. Therefore, with the idea, 'I shall

speak of the group of virtues (as stated in), "He hwo

is not hateful towards any creature," etc. which are

the direct means to Immortality, to those monks who

meditate on the Immutable,who are steadfast in full

enlightenment and have given up all desires,' the Lord

proceeds:

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

A jnani is not mentioned as being dear to Bhagwan

because a jnani is bhagawan. It is like if i ask you

who is your best friend - you may say Ramesh, Suresh

and so on but you are not going to mention your own

name as being "bestest friend".

There is no question of "God" granting "mukti" to a

jnani because a jnani is nonseparate from ishwara - so

are you, so am I, - we have to KNOW this fact - that

is jnanam. You are not going to be "given" moksha or

freedom - you have to own up to your intrinsic

pre-existing freedom - how - by a true understanding

of who you are, an understanding that your "so-called"

bondage is false.

And with regards to looking at various God-figures,

such as the ones you mentioned, and others such as

Prophet Mohammed, Shakyamuni Buddha, Mahavira, Guru

Nanak, Kabir, Tulsidas, and many others - issues of

how and why they attained "God-hood" and why their

teachings are not overtly in line with vedanta need

not be our concern. That they all had chittashuddhi

does not mean that it was "achieving" chittashuddhi

that "delivered" them. They understood their

nonseparateness from the whole, and there-in

re-iscovered their divinity. If a person has strong

faith in any of their paths, that is wonderful - his

faith itself will help him - no vedantin will ask him

to become a "born-again advaitin!"

As Pujya Swami Dayananda-ji jokes - "if you take the

approach of all roads lead to Rome, you will only be

roaming"

In the link you provided Swami Krishnananda is talking

about the message of traditional advaita alone and

hence not saying anything of significant difference to

what Swami Dayananda-ji, is saying as far as i can

tell.

Hope this clarifies.

Shri Gurubhyo namah

Hari OM

Shyam

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair >

wrote:

> Namaste Shyamji.

>

> Now the question: Will the Lord have problem

> assessing and

> evaluating these nominees? Will He ask His

> secretary to arrange the

> names alphabetically for His review? To me,

> chittashuddhi denotes that end, much farther than

> understanding,

> which all the personages listed above invariably

> reached, no matter

> how. JnAna (not just an understanding) took place

> in them

> irrevocably due to their chittashuddhi.

> I fully know Sw. Dayanandaji might not say what Sw.

> Krishnananda has

> said.

September 11, 2006

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Shyamji.

> The second issue is what exactly is meant by chittashuddhi.

Namaste Nair ji,

While Shyam ji has abundantly and admirably addressed your posers,

may i step in to present the scriptural perspective on the issue? Or

at least, the way I understand your question on chittashuddhi?

While chittashuddhi taken to its extreme limits will amount exactly

to what you have said above (congratulations !!), there is a

distinction made in the sadhana path between chitta shuddhi and

chitta-naishchalyam. To a 'raw' person who is required to take to

the path of spiritual sadhana, the first prescription is karma yoga.

This is because, as Krishna says in the Gita, not a single moment can

a person remain quiet without engaging in some action or the other.

This is one extreme whereas the other extreme is Naishkarmyam,

Actionlessness. For this 'raw' man to reach that exalted goal is

impossible unless he is shown a graded path. So, the first grade is

where he has to consciously, with effort, put his mind into the

karma ordained for him and do it as a devotional service to the

Lord. By sufficiently practicing this with sincerity, he ideally

weans himself away from all the unwanted, inimical, slavish actions

that he was once given to as a raw man. He becomes polished now and

greatly regulated, actionwise, physically. He is said to have now

attained chittashuddhi inasmuch as to be able to step into the next

grade, of contemplation on God. Now, we see the progress from the

physical-level training to mind-level training. In order to succeed

in this mind-level training and to attain the goal of realization of

the Truth, he has to essentially acquire chitta-naishchalyam. For, a

chala-chittam is unfit for contemplating the Subtle truth. Even a

Form of the Lord cannot be contemplated upon with a wandering mind.

So, specific, concerted effort has to be put in to rein in the

wandering mind and to fix it on a particular form, to start with.

Then gradually, the Guru, seeing the progress of the aspirant, will

guide him into higher forms of contemplation, culminating in the

meditation on the formless Truth. Thus we see, along the way, the

aspirant has acquired increasing degrees of chitta-naishchalyam and

finally realizes the goal.

In the Bhagavadgita VI chapter vers 3, which Shri Sundar Hattangadi

ji recently drew our attention to, is a very significant one in

understanding the above concept. For a Sanskrit knower that you are,

this anvaya of the shloka will be exceedingly revealing in nature:

yogam ArurukShoH muneH kAraNam karma uchyate

tasyaiva yogArUDhasya kAraNam shama uchyate

It means: For an aspirant who desires to graduate to the meditation

level, the means to be adopted is karma (karma yoga, to give chitta

shuddhi). For the same aspirant who has come to this higher level,

the means now changes to shama, withdrawal from even karma yoga.

We are now able to appreciate Arjuna's plea: chanchalam hi manaH

Krishna, the mind is very unstable, meaning that there is a need to

acquire chitta-naishchalyam. Krishna replies that with abhyasa and

vairagya this can be acquired, although difficult, admittedly.

(notice the Yoga sutra similarity here: abhyAsa-vairaagyAbhyAm tan

nirodhaH).

Then, to conclude, we have to come a full circle. We started with

your 'ultimate' definition of chittashuddhi. Just see, (smile

please), what Sri Gaudapaadacharya has to say:

viprANAm vinayo hyeSha shamaH prAkRita uchyate

damaH prakRiti-dAntatvAt evam vidwAn shamam vrajet (IV.86)

This is the modesty of the Brahmanas (those with Brahman

Realization), this is called their natural tranquillity, and this is

their natural self-restraint resulting from spontaneous poise.

Having known thus, one gets established in tranquillity. The

Shankara bhashyam says: this is the very nature of Brahman.

What a grand finale !! The aspirant was asked to cultivate shama,

dama, etc. to tread the path of sadhana. Now, he ends up in the

realization that shama, dama, etc. taken to their ultimate limits is

Brahman itself. That is Realization. Brahman is realized by him to

be the Natural Shama, Natural Dama. This accords well, Nair ji, with

your definition of chittashuddhi. So, you have the scriptural

sanction to your definition. But, this is not had unless the path is

trodden.

Thus, in shastraic terminology, karma yoga gives chitta shuddhi,

upasana/dhyana gives chitta naishchalyam. This is nothing but chitta

ekAgratA. Only a nishchala chittam can meaningfully dwell on the

Truth learnt. This continuous dwelling, with ardour, results in

experience. Again we are touching upon the Yoga Sutra: sa tu dIrgha

kAla nairantaryeNa satkAra Asevito driDha bhUmiH. The understanding

becomes established firmly only when it is dwelt upon for long,

without interruption, coupled with ardour, love for that cause.

Om Tat Sat

September 11, 2006

Namaste Sri Shyam-ji,

advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Pranams Madathil-ji

> It is always nice to hear from you. (Please dont say

> you are a bother!)

>

> This is my understanding.

> The root problem of samsara is

> self-mis-identification.

> The solution is finding true selfidentity.

>

> The subtle body has 4 components - manas buddhi chitta

> and ahankara.

> The goal is not just to attain quietitude of the mind.

>

There seems to be a inherent assumption here that quietitude of the

mind is somehow outside of the 'proper' Vedantic process and is

acheived solely through the efforts of the person only. Sort of

like 'a shepherd driving sheep into the pen'. This is a nagging

doubt I have had when I go through many of the discussions on this

and similar threads.

>>

Having chittanaischalyam as the aim is like taking a

mere pain-killer for a pain that is coming from a

heart attack.

>>

this sort of reinforces my question or view stated above.

My understanding is that true mental quietitude CANNOT happen

without the Grace of the Guru (or God). If you don't beleive this,

as Sri Ramana suggests 'try and see yourself' :-)

See the last response from below.

// quote

D.: Is dhyana necessary?

M.: The Upanishads say that even the Earth is in eternal dhyana.

D.: How does Karma help it? Will it not add to the already heavy

load to be removed?

M.: Karma done unselfishly purifies the mind and helps to fix it in

meditation.

D.: What if one meditates incessantly without Karma?

M.: Try and see. The vasanas will not let you do it. Dhyana comes

only step by step with the gradual weakening of the vasanas by

the Grace of the Master.

// end quote from "Talks with Sri Ramana Maharishi"

So my reading from the above is that quietitude occurs gradually and

ONLY with the Grace of the Guru.

Swami Bhajananda (editor of Prabuddha Bharata from 1979 through

1986) also explains this beautifully in a article on "Concentration

and Meditation" (I will be covering more of Swami Bhajananda's

material on the other thread 'question on Sadhana' later.)

// quote

It should be understood that trying to drive the mind inward, as a

shepherd drives sheep into the pen, is not meditation. True

meditation is the result of the natural inwardness or interiority

(pratyak pravanata) of the mind caused by an inward pull. This

inward "pull" comes from one's higher center of consciousness. And

the higher center will exert this pull only when it is open and

active. Then the mind comes to rest in its own source, as a bird

comes to roost in its own nest. This resting or fixing of the mind

is called dharana, without which meditation is difficult.

// end quote

and here again, quietitude occurs not by the person 'holding his

breath' by his own efforts(mooka piduchindu as they say in tamil) -

rather by Grace.

So as Bhagavan Krishna says in 12.9 "If, however, you are unable to

establish the mind steadily on Me, then, O Dhananjaya, seek to

attain Me through the Yoga of Practice."

And Sankara explains abhyasa-yoga, the Yoga of Practice as :

// Practice consists in repeatedly fixing the mind on a single

object by withdrawing it from everything else. The yoga following

from this, and consisting in concentration of the mind, is abhyasa-

yoga. //

so the goal : "just to attain quietitude of the mind" may very well

be a valid one for the appropriate Sadhaka

regards

Sundar Rajan

September 12, 2006

Shyam-ji wrote:

> The subtle body has 4 components - manas buddhi chitta

> and ahankara.

> The goal is not just to attain quietitude of the mind.

Sunder-ji wrote:

> There seems to be a inherent assumption here that quietitude of the

> mind is somehow outside of the 'proper' Vedantic process and is

> acheived solely through the efforts of the person only. . . .

> My understanding is that true mental quietitude CANNOT happen

> without the Grace of the Guru (or God).

Dear Sunder-ji, Sham-ji and all,

I know we have touched on this topic of effort briefly in previous posts.

Namely that effort appears to be necessary at a certain stage, however, at

some point the Grace of the Guru (Self or God) takes over. Perhaps we have

an analogy with travelling from the earth to the Sun? A certain amount of

force (effort) is required to escape the earth's gravity. A great amount of

efffort is required initially and diminishes as we gradually escape the

earth's field. However once in space effort is still required from time to

time to prevent oneself floating aimlessly (albeit freely) or being drawn

into the attraction-field of other celestial bodies. However, if we stay on

course, there comes a point when the pull of the Sun takes over, and no more

effort is required, and may even be counter-productive. We might make any

number of analogous links between earth and the vasanas, celestial bodies

and subtle experiences of the jiva, and how once drawn into the Sun one's

identity as 'other' is completely destroyed and absorbed as we partake of

that light which illumines all and becomes the One Life of all beings.

I imagine that some of the concerns expressed over quietitude of mind (as we

find expressed in Shyam-ji's post, for example), and thus certain forms of

samadhi, are that one may simply have losened one's ties with 'the earth'

only to drift aimlessly in 'space' as in our analogy above. Sooner or later

one comes back down to earth (or some other body) only to find that nothing

much has really changed in oneself. I would see this as the mano-laya state

that Sri Ramana refers to when talking about certain types of samadhi in

which the mind is temporarily stilled but the vasanas (because not

destroyed) come straight back into action as soon as that state is over. He

says this is a sign of progress (as is the ability to rise above the earth's

pull) but falls short of the goal.

Here is a passage from "Crumbs from His Table" which expresses something of

Sri Ramana's teaching on this topic:

"Sadhakas (seekers) rarely understand the difference between this temporary

stilling of the mind (manolaya) and permanent destruction of thoughts

(manonasa). In

manolaya there is temporary subsidence of thought-waves, and, though this

temporary period may even last for a thousand years, thoughts, which are

thus temporarily

stilled, rise up as soon as the manolaya ceases. One must, therefore, watch

one's spiritual progress carefully. One must not allow oneself to be

overtaken by such spells of stillness of thought: the moment one experiences

this, one must revive consciousness and enquire within as to who it is who

experiences this stillness. While not allowing any thoughts to intrude, he

must not, at the same time, be overtaken by this deep sleep (Yoga nidra) or

Self-hypnotism. Though this is a sign of progress towards the goal, yet it

is also the point where the divergence between the road to salvation and

Yoga nidra takes place. The easy way, the direct way, the shortest cut to

salvation is the Enquiry method. By such enquiry, you will drive the thought

force deeper till it reaches its source and merges therein. It is then that

you will have the response from within and find that you rest there,

destroying all thoughts, once and for all. This temporary stilling of

thought comes automatically in the usual course of one's practice and it is

a clear sign of one's progress but the danger of it lies in mistaking it for

the final goal of spiritual practice and being thus deceived. It is exactly

here that a spiritual guide is necessary and he saves a lot of the spiritual

aspirant's time and energy which would otherwise be fruitlessly wasted."

"Crumbs from His table." (p23-24) by Ramananada Swarnagiri (also qouted in

"Be as you are", by David Godman).

Best wishes to all Advaitins.

Peter

September 12, 2006

advaitin, "Peter" <not_2 wrote:

> Sri Ramana's teaching on this topic:

>

> "Sadhakas (seekers) rarely understand the difference between this

temporary stilling of the mind (manolaya) and permanent destruction

of thoughts (manonasa). In manolaya there is temporary subsidence

of thought-waves, and, though this temporary period may even last

for a thousand years, thoughts, which are thus temporarily stilled,

rise up as soon as the manolaya ceases. One must, therefore, watch

> one's spiritual progress carefully. One must not allow oneself to be

> overtaken by such spells of stillness of thought: the moment one

experiences this, one must revive consciousness and enquire within

as to who it is who experiences this stillness. While not allowing

any thoughts to intrude, he must not, at the same time, be overtaken

by this deep sleep (Yoga nidra) or Self-hypnotism. Though this is a

sign of progress towards the goal, yet it is also the point where

the divergence between the road to salvation and Yoga nidra takes

place. The easy way, the direct way, the shortest cut to salvation

is the Enquiry method. By such enquiry, you will drive the thought

> force deeper till it reaches its source and merges therein. It is

then that you will have the response from within and find that you

rest there, destroying all thoughts, once and for all. This temporary

stilling of thought comes automatically in the usual course of one's

practice and it is a clear sign of one's progress but the danger of

it lies in mistaking it for the final goal of spiritual practice and

being thus deceived. It is exactly here that a spiritual guide is

necessary and he saves a lot of the spiritual aspirant's time and

energy which would otherwise be fruitlessly wasted."

>

> "Crumbs from His table." (p23-24) by Ramananada Swarnagiri (also

qouted in

> "Be as you are", by David Godman).

>

> Best wishes to all Advaitins.

>

> Peter

Srigurubhyo NamaH

Namaste Peter ji,

The above concerns have been adequately addressed by Vedanta. In the

third chapter titled 'advaita prakaranam' of the Mandukya

Upanishad/kaarikaa, we have these points discussed in the following

verses:

41 to 46. These verses read along with the commentary of the

Acharya would throw enough light on the above concerns. Maybe some

member who is familiar with these verses and the bhashya can

expatiate on these.

On these words of Bhagavan,

"The easy way, the direct way, the shortest cut to salvation is the

Enquiry method. By such enquiry, you will drive the thought

> force deeper till it reaches its source and merges therein."

it would be interesting to know the opinions of Swami Dayananda

Saraswati ji which are available in an interview, a link to which was

provided by Smt. Lakshmi ji recently (not the latest one covering the

Swami's visit to the UK). As i am poor in searching, someone might

help giving that link for readers to go through that interview.

Regarding the need for a Spiritual Guide to monitor and lead the

aspirant on to the goal, no amount of emphasis is enough.

Warm regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

September 13, 2006

Namaste Shyamji.

Reference your message 33167.

I wanted to reply yesterday. Couldn't make it due to several other

preoccupations. This is a hasty attempt. Please bear with the

mistakes. My comments are in .

__________________

> Knowledge is always an understanding.

> There is no knowledge which does not involve

> understanding.

> When you say I "know" e = mc2, it means I have

> understood, e, m and the equation. Same is it with the

> equation tat = tvam.

[The Knowledge we are dealing with is parAvidya. Your comparison

can't be applied to it because 'tat' is not a knowable. Even in a

pedestrian sense, "Knowledge is understanding" and "Knowledge

involves understanding" are two different things.]

___________________

> I am not sure what you mean by knowledge being

> superior to understanding.

> If you referring to bookish knowledge, then bookish

> understanding and bookish knowledge are both useless

> as far as moksha is concerned, else the majority of

> the people we know in this egroup would all be

> realized seers.

[Did I use the word 'superior'? I meant parAvidya is not an

understanding. It is an accusation even to imply that the majority

here have only bookish knowledge when it comes to parAvidya. Most of

us, including me, can intuit what we really are, although we are not

fully-realized. It is the anubhUti in that intuitive knowledge that

is keeping us here. I would any day place that intuiting and anubhuti

above pedestrian understanding. We had a lengthy debate on this

point last year. It is tiring to go over it again and again.]

___________________

> Both knowledge and understanding are always at the

> level of the intellect alone - you dont say I have

> intellectual understanding or intellectual knowledge

> -it is like saying this is hot fire.

[if it is AtmajnAna that you meant with the word 'knowledge', I am

not with you.]

_________________________

>

> When we talk of chittashuddhi and chittanaischalyam we

> are only talking about it in relative terms, not

> absolute terms. Hence the need to mention both.

[You could very well have mentioned this in your last reply. A lot

of labour on my part could have been saved. If it is an afterthought,

may I humbly point out that relative chittashuddhi, as you and

Subbuji (Post 33169) have explained, implies some remnants of

avidya. That then cannot be the chittashuddhi which Bhagwan Ramana

equated with jnAna. There is no chttashuddhi minus one as there is

no jnAna minus one. The latter is always ajnAna and avidyA - the

realm where the so-called 'understanding' reigns supreme.]

___________

> Knowledge being the only ultimate purifier as

> identified by Bhagawan Krishna, absolute purification

> of ones antahkaranam is only possible for a jnani -

> why? because all his vasanas have been destroyed -

> how? because he has destroyed their "cause" - avidya

> -he has transcended the three gunas(gunateetah).

[Yes.]

__________________

> Until avidya is gone, one can of course attain

> relative quietitude as well as relative purity of our

> inner instruments by the means best suited to our

> temperament - this is where "yoga" i.e. a means for

> attaining this comes in- and this could take the path

> of bhakti/karma/patanjali/etc - fair amount of overlap

> in these as well, as we have already seen. None of

> these is an independent means to mukti without

> culminating in jnanam.

[srImad Bhagwad GItA speaks of only two 'paths'. Karmayoga and

sanyAsa. This also has been discussed on this List at length. ]

_____________________

> (About BG Ch. 12 Verses 13 - 20)

A jnani is not mentioned as being dear to Bhagwan

> because a jnani is bhagawan. It is like if i ask you

> who is your best friend - you may say Ramesh, Suresh

> and so on but you are not going to mention your own

> name as being "bestest friend".

[We can also say there is only one jnAni, there cannot be two etc.

Although that is the advaitic truth, such statements point at a land

of silence where words don't dare to tread. Bhagwan refers to someone

as his dear because He is talking to Arjuna and a number of other

deluded seekers like me who are given to pedestrian understanding and

subject to the limitations of language. We, therefore, have every

reason to believe that he has a jnAni in mind.]

______________________

>

> There is no question of "God" granting "mukti" to a

> jnani because a jnani is nonseparate from ishwara - so

> are you, so am I, - we have to KNOW this fact - that

> is jnanam. You are not going to be "given" moksha or

> freedom - you have to own up to your intrinsic

> pre-existing freedom - how - by a true understanding

> of who you are, an understanding that your "so-called"

> bondage is false.

[Where have I spoken about "God granting mukti" etc.? Understanding

that bondage is false is just an understanding. I have it on the

strength of my vicAra on shruti pramANa and my listenings to

teachers. You may call it bookish. It cannot be bookish due to the

element of anubhUti in it and due to the subject of the understanding

being me. "Owning up my intrinsic pre-existing freedom" is not an

understanding simply because it is parAvidya - the culmination of my

quest where my accessories in the quest hithertofore like pramAnAs,

BMI etc. have been totally relinquished. The owning up, therefore,

is not something that can be understood. For understanding, you need

accessories. To be what you are you need only yourself. No two.

That is advaita.]

__________________________

>

> And with regards to looking at various God-figures,

> such as the ones you mentioned, and others such as

> Prophet Mohammed, Shakyamuni Buddha, Mahavira, Guru

> Nanak, Kabir, Tulsidas, and many others - issues of

> how and why they attained "God-hood" and why their

> teachings are not overtly in line with vedanta need

> not be our concern. That they all had chittashuddhi

> does not mean that it was "achieving" chittashuddhi

> that "delivered" them. They understood their

> nonseparateness from the whole, and there-in

> re-iscovered their divinity. If a person has strong

> faith in any of their paths, that is wonderful - his

> faith itself will help him - no vedantin will ask him

> to become a "born-again advaitin!"

["Rediscovering divinity" is not an understanding as it is the same

as "Owning up one's intrinsic pre-existing freedom". There is no one

there to rediscover and, Shyamji, you know that. Why then play with

words? The divinity simply shines. Chittashuddhi (not the relative

one you mentioned, whatever it is) is just another word for it.

Although chittashuddhi literally means 'the purity of chitta', it

implies divinity. I just mentioned some shining examples for such

divinity. That is all. They may belong anywhere.]

__________________________

> As Pujya Swami Dayananda-ji jokes - "if you take the

> approach of all roads lead to Rome, you will only be

> roaming"

All roads to Rome lead to Rome. We are not in this List to roam. As

an aside, the popularity of vedantic teachers these days is directly

proportional to their sense of humour. It is a tragedy that they

often are insensitive to the finer sentiments of their audience.]

_____________________________

> In the link you provided Swami Krishnananda is talking

> about the message of traditional advaita alone and

> hence not saying anything of significant difference to

> what Swami Dayananda-ji, is saying as far as i can

> tell.

[i have never seen Sw. Dayanandaji going so eloquent about mukti like

Sw. Krishnandaji.]

_____________

[subbuji, I am not separately responding to your post 33169. Any

day, you are a better conciliator than me.]

_____________

P.S.:

1. I DON'T HOLD ANY SPECIAL BRIEF FOR PYS, NS ETC. I DON'T KNOW MUCH

ABOUT THEM. I STAND FOR ADVAITA AND LIKE TO LOOK FOR IT WHEREVER I

CAN POSSIBLY SPOT IT.

2. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THE OTHER SIDE HAS ALSO SOME UNDERSTANDING

OF THE FINER ASPECTS OF ADVAITA.

_____________

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

September 13, 2006

Dear Nair-ji

Pranams

You had asked me a question which I responded to.

Questions, with elaborate discussion, are asked

generally for two purposes - to gain some knowledge or

to elaborately exhibit our ignorance.

In formulating my answers to your questions I had

assumed some basic understanding of the terms and

concepts we commonly deal with in early vedantic

study.

My sincere apologies for these erroneous assumptions

on my part which resulted in you expending a lot of

unnecessary labour.

I wish you luck in your attemps to "intuit" who you

ARE.

My prayers to Ishwara to bless us both with right

understanding.

Hari OM

Shyam

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair >

wrote:

I meant parAvidya is not an understanding. It is an

accusation even to imply that the majority here have

only bookish knowledge when it comes to parAvidya.

Most of us, including me, can intuit what we really

are,although we are not fully-realized. It is the

anubhUti in that intuitive knowledge that is keeping

us here. I would any day place that intuiting and

anubhuti above pedestrian understanding. We had a

lengthy debate on this point last year. It is tiring

to go over it again and again. You could very well

have mentioned this in your last reply. A lot of

labour on my part could have been saved.

Ch8 - pt 2

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups