Guest guest Posted September 19, 2006 Report Share Posted September 19, 2006 Namaste Vishal- ji. Please see within . _______________ > Both the jnana and yoga paths ultimately reach a state where only non-dual unity remains and knowledge and experience merge or dissolve (as rightly pointed out by Ananda Ji) [Without taking sides on the heated debate about the efficacy of yoga paths currently raging on the List, let me say this. Whatever the path, one's ultimate objective is important. Someone can pursue yogic sAdhana for the purpose of acquiring siddhis. He may end up just there. If there is an intense desire for liberation (AtmajnAna) and the requisite preparedness, then Grace will certainly manifest and show the way culminating in the occurrence of knowledge.] _____________________ > > Now this state where only non-dual unity remains is called by different names, NS being one of them. > > My only contention was that this state of non-dual unity is an absolute must, its impossible to be bypassed. > It is one of the major milestones in the spiritual journey. [Yes. Non-dual unity is our inescapable real nature. SamAdhi is a name for it. We are samAdhi.] ______________________ > > Actually all things like karma, samkaras, dharma, pancha-kosa, sharira traya, chakras, kundalini, tantra, yoga, siddhi, samadhi, shiva-shakti lila are all linked. > One has to take a holistic approach towards all of them. [You do have a good point there and I tend to share your opinion without any fear of compromising the advaitin in me.] ______________________ > > But what i found on this list was we were becoming very narrow- minded, just discussing Shankara Pratipadit Brahma-atmaikya siddhanta (to the exclusion of the rest). > > I know this what this list is for and rest all the above things are outside the scope. [Let everyone have the opportunity to express within List guidelines and let us forge ahead together as one family despite our apparent differences. That we are all here avowedly to promote advaita is a sign of our strength and unity of purpose.] ________________________ >> I belive that this 'intuitive awareness' is present in each and every particle right from the inanimate objects like rocks (I know most will disagree), to vegetation, to ants, to animals and to humans. > This longing for immortality is nothing but the longing of shakti to unite with shiva (the controller of shakti). > Shakti emanated from Shiva at the time of maha-sarga. She tries to unite with him and in that process the whole samsara comes into being. > Once she unites with him, it is maha-pralaya. [i have no problem appreciating your grand vision.] ______________________ > On our individual level, we have kundalini shakti (a spark of cosmic shakti). She is trying incessantly to unite with Shiva, resulting in entanglement into samsara. > Once she reaches sahasrara, she unites with shiva, and that is a sort of pralaya on our individual level. [i am a Devi bhakta and a regular chanter of LalitA SahasranAma, Saundarya Lahari etc. I may not be a kundalini adept. However, due to Her Grace, I have enough of experience to appreciate the truth of kundalini shakti.] _________________________ > Some food for thought (just for a change) - Upanishads declare that knower of Brahman becomes Brahman. If so, is he/she/it able to cause pralaya or sarga? [in answer, I will limit myself to quoting the following from BhadrakAli Stuti: "yasyA unmIlite nEtrE, jagadEtad prakaSatE nimIlitEtu niScEStaM, namastasyai namO namaH" Salutations again and again to Her in whose eyes this whole Universe shines when they are open and dissolves when they are closed. Not a good translation, I know. This happens to us ordinary mortals every night. Then, what to speak of a brahmavid?] PraNAms. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2006 Report Share Posted September 19, 2006 Nair-ji wrote: [Without taking sides on the heated debate about the efficacy of yoga paths currently raging on the List, let me say this. Whatever the path, one's ultimate objective is important. Someone can pursue yogic sAdhana for the purpose of acquiring siddhis. He may end up just there. If there is an intense desire for liberation (AtmajnAna) and the requisite preparedness, then Grace will certainly manifest and show the way culminating in the occurrence of knowledge.] Namaste Nair-ji, It seems to me one cannot leave Grace out of the equation. If we do so we may well end up simply arguing over words and methodologies. There a couple of passages from Ramana Maharshi's dialogues which may be relevant to what you say and to the ongoing discussion. "Divine Grace is essential for Realisation. It leads one to God-realisation. But such Grace is vouchsafed only to him who is a true devotee or a yogin, who has striven hard and ceaselessly on the path towards freedom." (Talks 29) and.. "Talking of the innumerable ways of different seekers after God, Bhagavan said, "Each should be allowed to go his own way, the way for which alone he may be built. It will not do to convert him to another path by violence. The Guru will go with the disciple in his own path and then gradually turn him into the supreme path at the ripe moment. Suppose a car is going at top speed. To stop it at once or to turn it at once would be attended by disastrous consequences. (Day by Day with Bhagavan, Devaraja Mudaliar). Best wishes to all advaitins, Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2006 Report Share Posted September 19, 2006 Namaste Subbu-ji, > > In the midst of a lengthy discussion on the Bhagavadgita 13th chaper > 2nd verse, the Acharya says: > > AtmahA svayam mUDho anyAmscha vyAmohayati shAstrArtha-sampradAya- > rahitatvAt....tasmAT asampradAya-vit sarvashAstra-vidapi mUrkhavadeva > upekShaNiyaH.(unquote) > > Meaning: Ignorant in himself, he confounds others, devoid as he is of > the traditional key (sampradAya) to the teaching of the shastras. > Ignoring what is directly taught, he suggests what is not taught. > Therefore, not being acquainted with the traditional interpretation > (a-sampradAya-vit), he is to be neglected as an ignorant man, though > learned in all shaastras. (unquote) > I vaguely recollect hearing the term "a-sampradAya-vit" and was thinking of it yesterday after reading Skanda-ji's post and your reply today answered my question. Sankara is well-known to be a strong supporter of sampradya and Skanda-ji's post shed light on how important sampradya is in the transmission of knowledge and the importance of the Guru-Sishya relationship. There is another place in the Gita Sankara makes reference to Guru- sampradAya. Commenting on verse 18.50, Sankara explains that Atman is directly realizable to those whose intellect has become free from external appearances and who have obtained the grace of a teacher and serenity of mind; Then comes this important para emphasing Guru-sampradAya: // However, some pandits assert that the intellect cannot comprehend the entity called the Self since It is formless; hence, complete steadfastness in Knowledge is impossible. This is truly so for those who have not associated with a traditional line of teachers (guru sampradAya); who have not heard the Upanisads; whose intellects are too much engrossed with external objects; and who have not applied themselves diligently to the perfect means of knowledge. For those, on the other hand, who are the opposite of these, it is absolutely impossible to have the idea of reality with regard to empirical objects, which are within the realm of duality involving the knower and the known, because in their case there is no perception of any other thing apart from the Consciousness that is the Self. We have already said how this is certainly so and not otherwise. It has been stated by the Lord also, 'That during which creatures keep awake, it is night to the seeing sage' (2.69). // regards Sundar Rajan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2006 Report Share Posted September 19, 2006 advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote: > > Pranams Bhaskar-ji > > Pujya Guruji Swami Paramarthananda-ji, is one of the > foremost exponents of brahmavidya in bharatdesam > today. > He has been teaching vedanta at Chennai for over two > decades. > > He received his teachings from Swami Chinmayananda-ji > as well as from Swami Dayananda-ji. > > His students are actively teaching vedanta in > different parts of India. > His teaching style I would characterize as lucid, > simple, very systematic, very detailed and most > importantly steeped in tradition. > > More information about his works, cassettes and mp3, > books, etc can be obtained for those interested at the > following websites. > > www.yogamalika.org > www.vedantavidyarthisangha.org > www.sastraprakasika.org > > > A thousand pranams at the lotus feet of my Guru, > > Shyam Nmaste Shym-Ji: Thank you for the links: http://vedantavidyarthisangha.org/talks.html I was listening to swami-ji's talk on sarasvti and may be some one can help me understand the meaning of the phrase "kamalajadahita" (@ Time 4:3 min). Here Swamiji explains this as "kamalajaH dahita" - meaning PuraaNika lord Brahma's wife Is this correct !? because as we know "dhatR^i" - means daughter. Am I missing something !? Plese cantact me directly off-list because discussion may go beyond the scope of this list. Thank you Regards, Dr. Yadu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2006 Report Share Posted September 20, 2006 Nairji writes : ("yasyA unmIlite nEtrE, jagadEtad prakaSatE nimIlitEtu niScEStaM, namastasyai namO namaH" Salutations again and again to Her in whose eyes this whole Universe shines when they are open and dissolves when they are closed. Nairji, one of the names of Sri Lalita mahatripurasundari is Unmesha niminishotpanna vipanna bhuvanavali The opening of whose eyes results in creation and closing in destruction. Since you are a shakti worshipper, Nairji, it gives me great pleasure to share this verse from the Vigyana Bhairva Tantra - Vijnana Bhairava means the 'wisdom of bhairava' - it is an 'agama' coming from the mouth of the supreme principle of the universe, Lord Shiva... here the guru is Bhairava and the disciple is Bhairavi, the divine mother Shakti... Urdhve Prano By Adho Jivi Viasargatha Paraocharet Utpathidvitayasthane Bhranaad Bharita Sthitih (verse 24) (forgive error in transliteration) TRANSLATION THE SUPREME SHAKTI whose nature is to create , constantly expresses HERSELF upward in the form of exhalation , and downward in the form of inhalation. By steadily fixing the mind on either of the two spaces between the breaths, one experiences the state of fulness of Bhairava. Nair-ji, this is the natural 'Ham-sa' mantra - we were ininted into mantra right when we were in our mother's womb! And strangely enough, sri ramana maharishi also asks us to meditate on the same ... Ko ham ? who am i ? Naham deham ! i am not this body ! so ham ! I am that! what is so ham except the reeverse of hamsa mantra. Once we know this , we can sing along with Tamizzh poet Bharatiyaar, 'oru sakthi pirakathu moochinale ' - yes! there is renewed 'energy' in every breath we take! enjoy this interlude! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2006 Report Share Posted September 20, 2006 Dear Dr. Yadu-ji, Please pardon the interruption. It may be kamalajadayitA meaning the beloved of the one born from the lotus (beloved of Brahma). PraNAms. Madathil Nair ________________ advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir wrote: >I was listening to swami-ji's talk on sarasvti and may be some one > can help me understand the meaning of the phrase "kamalajadahita" (@ > Time 4:3 min). > > Here Swamiji explains this as "kamalajaH dahita" - meaning PuraaNika > lord Brahma's wife > > Is this correct !? because as we know "dhatR^i" - means daughter. > > Am I missing something !? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2006 Report Share Posted September 20, 2006 advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir wrote: > I was listening to swami-ji's talk on sarasvti and may be some one > can help me understand the meaning of the phrase "kamalajadahita" (@ > Time 4:3 min). > > Here Swamiji explains this as "kamalajaH dahita" - meaning PuraaNika lord Brahma's wife > > Is this correct !? because as we know "dhatR^i" - means daughter. > > Am I missing something !? > > Plese cantact me directly off-list because discussion may go beyond > the scope of this list. > > Thank you > > Regards, Srigurubhyo Namah Namaste, Since you have already raised this question on the List now, may i provide my understanding, just that others who might like to hear about it also get the information? The word, in its full form is: kamala-ja-dayitAShTakam. The meaning is Kamala-ja is 'born from the Lotus (Navel of Lord VishNu)= Lord Chaturmukha Brahma. His consort, dayitA, is Saraswati. (dayitaH is masculine meaning husband, beloved person, etc.) This hymn, a composition of Sri SacchidAnanda ShivAbhinava Nrisimha Bharati SwaminaH , the 33rd Jagadguru of Sringeri,(incidentally, Who built the Bangalore Shankar Mutt, exactly 100 years ago) is addressed to the Mother Saraswati. In Sringeri, I have seen the Paathashaala vidyarthis chant this hymn of eight verses every day, sometimes in the Sri Sharadamba Temple. It has for its refrain: vidyAm shuddhAm cha buddhim kamalaja-dayite, satvaram dehi mahyam: Of Consort of BrahmA, quickly grant me knowledge and a pure mind. The word 'dayitaa' is most commonly heard by many of us in the famous Sri Venkateshwara Suprabhatam: '....SrI-vEnkaTesha-dayite tava suprabhAtam'. It also occurs, i think, in the Soundaryalahari, somewhere like this: shiva-dayite! addressing the Mother, Oh Consort of Shiva! This is all i know, Sir, there may not be more from me even off-List. Pranams, subbu Om Tat Sat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2006 Report Share Posted September 20, 2006 bhaskar.yr (AT) in (DOT) abb.com wrote: In Sampradaya, Sankara's Bhashyas are not taken as an independent authority, Sampradaya is the authority. praNAms Skanda prabhuji Hare Krishna Bhaskar : Your first mail itself indeed, against your wish, opened can of worms :-)) Skanda: Is that so? Well, one can but try. ;-) Bhaskar : what is that saMpradAya you are talking about here which is not granting the adequate status to bhagavadpAda's works?? Is there any saMpradAya existing without its mUlAchArya's teachings?? what this saMpradAya is going to do when there is any clarification required on shruti purports?? whether this saMpradAya pushing aside bhagavad pAda's works & go by theories sprout out of some individual supernatural experiences?? Skanda: My good man, can you tell me exactly where in my post that you derived the above? What "supernatural" experiences are you talking about? Did I say anywhere that the Sampradaya exists without the Acharya's teachings? I am afraid you are grossly misreading my post. Bhaskar : In advaita saMpradAya, if shankara's prasthAna trayi bhAshya is not an independent authority Skanda: Perhaps I should have worded it a bit differently. The key word above is **independent**. When I meant that Sankara's Bhashyas are not taken as an "independent" authority, and that the Sampradaya is the authority, what I meant was this: Studying Sankara's works independently from the Sampradaya(the very vehicle that has brought his teachings thus far) and coming to one's own conclusions that conflict with the conclusions of the same living Sampradaya is, again according to the Sampradaya, not the way to go. That's why Sankara's works are not an **independent** authority. If they were, any Joe Bloe can go and read up on them and figure out exactly what Sankara was saying. Unfortunately today, many people do exactly that and therefore come to conclusions that conflict with those of the living Sampradaya. Sankara's teachings have to be learnt from a teacher within the Sampradaya because only he knows how to interpret the teachings properly since what Sankara meant not just in teachings but also in practice has been handed down to him in disciplic succession starting from Sankara himself. That is what I meant by Sampradaya is the authority. One of the points of my last post was to address the recent controversies regarding what Sankara actually authored as opposed to what were not actually his works. Sampradaya never had and still does not have this problem. This is all very recent because many people today don't understand what Sampradaya is and how important it is to Advaita Vedanta. Like I said in my last post, the guru-sishya relationship in Sampradaya is far more than the guru just lecturing to the disciple. Sankara's disciples lived with him and had first hand contact with him. The relationship Sankara had with his disciples is not something you will get by just looking at the Bhashyas. Not everything can be put down in books. Infact, from what I've seen from the paramparas in the Sampradaya, the relationship is not just words. Similarly, Sankara's grand disciples lived with his disciples and had first hand contact with them, and so on till the present day. Sampradaya believes that whatever Sankara had to offer in terms of achieving the goal of Advaita Vedanta, namely jivanmukta, has been handed down by the Sampradaya to this day. Now you may very well question the link from Sankara down to the present day teachers in the Sampradaya. What if people in the lineages veered from Sankara's "pure" teachings........If that is the case, it only makes sense that those lineages cannot produce jivanmuktas now can they? And this is why I brought up the Sringeri parampara as a shining example within the Sampradaya. If the Sringeri parampara is producing jivanmuktas, obviously they and the Sampradaya have got it right now haven't they? Bhaskar : what was the need for later commentators sub-commentary on shankara-s sUtra bhAshya...they could have easily floated their *own* independent works without bothering about Acharya's works is it not?? Kindly clarify these doubts... Skanda: Later commentators clarified Sankara's teachings to the best of their ability. But again, the litmus test for their commentaries was the Sampradaya during their day. You can be rest assured that there were probably many rebels or people with questionable commentaries and works that the Sampradaya simply rejected and so such works just went into oblivion with no one caring to pass them down. Ofcourse, today is a whole different story.... Anyone with any form of teaching however bogus it is can get disciples and have his works published by a publishing house, and so such bunkum thrives and gets handed down by the publisher.....The more controversial it is, the more sales, the more universal it becomes. Back in the good old days(way, way back), the Sampradaya was everything when it came to any school of thought. If you decided to go against Sampradaya, you had better have been one smart, powerful cookie, because otherwise you would have been accused of being a guru drohi and your life would be pretty much over. That's why the other two Vedanta Darshanas that came after Advaita Vedanta and challenged it were led by powerhouses who ended up starting their own Sampradayas. Today, anyone can start their own "Sampradaya" so to speak...... All they need is charisma, some half-baked philosophy, ochre robes, a beard, and they're set. Disciples will flock to them in groves. And so today, Sampradaya is more important than it ever was. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Best Regards, Skanda. Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2006 Report Share Posted September 20, 2006 advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote: > > Pranams Subbuji > Thank you for corrections of Swami > Paramarthananda-ji's teachings. > In the Kathopanisad we find these lines > > "Atman, when taught by an inferior person, is not > easily comprehended, because It is diversely regarded > by disputants. But when It is taught by him who has > become one with Atman, there can remain no more doubt > about It. Atman is subtler than the subtlest and not > to be known through argument" > > On a general note, whenever we hear words from a > Mahatma, esp if it happens to be our Guru, whose > teaching we freely utilize to help us in our own > selfunderstandinf, we should with humility try to > understand the import of their nectarine words, > instead of jumping to contradict them. > Only then can there be learning. > "tad viddhi pranipatena pariprasnena sevaya" is what > Bhagwan Krishna says in his teachings. > Even if we don't render service nor surrender, the > least we can do is try to understand their benevolent > and freely available advice. Water always flows from > above below, and so it is with knowledge. > Scholarship and learning are hence different entities > - scholarship is relatively easy to be had without the > right attitude, but for learning you require a mind > which accepts its current state of ignorance. Srigurubhyo NamaH Namaste Dear Shyam ji, Thanks for the above response. Thanks also for those exalting words above. I have often recognized that i am very low in Bhakti. It is only by His Grace that i can hope to grow in Bhakti. While almost all of the observations made by you in the above post have been addressed by other members in other posts and myself in the latest post to Sri Bhasker ji, (especially the 'time-bound' liberating experience of the Timeless Absolute along with the reasoning of its being in the time-inescapable vyavaharic plane), i shall confine myself to making some observations about the term 'anubhUti', 'experience'. At the outset, let me tell you with all truthfullness that I regard Swami Paramarthananda ji as the best exponent of Vedanta in English today. I have heard Swami Chinmayananda's discourses in Bangalore and his last ever series in Bangalore just before his end was also attended by me. As for Swami Dayananda ji's lectures, apart from one recorded 'nAntaH prajnam' series and his live one during his latest visit to Bangalore, i have not much exposure. I have definitely enjoyed these. But with Swami Paramarthananda ji, the case is entirely different. It was a case of 'love at first hearing'. I have with me his Mandukya (80 hours) and Katha up. (some 40 hours) and portions of Panchadasi tapes. I listen to these every day for at least one hour (some days two lectures of an hour each) and the current cycle is the seventh or eighth of these. It has become an addiction. Even as a person he is such a fine individual that it is impossible for one to not to have a feeling of natural affinity towards him. I owe my understanding of the Mandukya and the Katha Upanishads almost entirely to his lectures. My humble Pranams to him. Excepting a few but nonetheless vitally important concepts, i have absolutely no objections to or hesitation in imbibing what he teaches. Let me touch upon one point you made. You equated 'understanding' with 'aparoksha anubhuti'in addressing Vishal ji's objection. Fine. But if that is the meaning 'understanding'ultimately conveys, why is there a meticulous, counscious, avoiding of the word 'experience'? We have seen several instances where Acharya Shankara freely uses 'anubhava' in the bhashyams. After all, 'experience' or 'direct realization' are words that are the most naturally fit ones to express the sense of 'anubhava'. Why feel shy of using that expression, if that is what is meant by 'understanding' anyway ? After all, neither the Upanishads nor the Acharya have decreed against using that term with respect to direct realization. In the VivekachUDAmani, we have a verse (no. 475): svasya-avidyA-bandha-sambandha-mokShAt satya-jnaana-Ananda-rUpa-Atma-labdhau | shAstram yuktiH deshikOktiH pramANam cha antaH-siddhA svAnubhUtiH pramANam || The overall meaning is: in the matter of freeing oneself from the ignorance-born bondage and attaining the True state of sat chit Ananda, the pramAnam, authoritative means are: Scripture, reasoning, the Guru's teaching AND THE EXPERIENCE ONE INTERNALLY HAS (of the freedom from ignorance and that of one's Brahmanhood). If an experience of one's true Self is impossible to be had, why would the Acharya say this above and in the various bhashyams? In fact the scripturally accepted liberating experience of 'akhandAkaara vritti' is the one that has the Self for its content. It is this vritti that destroys avidya and liberates the person once and for all. It is this experience that is an unmistakable, unique one that the person has that is the proof incontrovertible for himself to know beyond doubt that he is free(d) indeed. I am sure the such an ace scholar in Sanskrit that Swami Paramarthananda ji is and the opportunity he has had in studying the Bhashyam in its original and even expounding it, this vital point would not have been missed by him. I have often wondered if he is under any compulsion to not to use the word 'experence' with respect to the ultimate liberating saakshaatkaara, or Brahma/Atma darshanam. Incidentally, in the 'tad viddhi praNipAtena' verse 34 of the Gita IV chapter that you quoted above, the Jnanis are spoken of as 'tattva- darshinaH'. The Acharya in the commentary makes a very significant observation that is extremely relevant to our above discussion: (quote): jnAnavanto api, kechit yathAvat tattva-dharshana-shIlaaH, apare na, ato vishinaShTi 'tattva-darshinaH' iti. (unquote) Meaning: Some only, but not all, KNOW AS WELL AS REALIZE the truth. By this the Lord means to say that that knowledge alone which is imparted by those who have realized the truth- and no other knowledge - can prove effective.(unquote). It looks like this line is exactly meant for the situation that we have on hand. It appears that the Acharya has sensed the confusion that failing to use the appropriate term could lead to. Evidently the Acharya makes a distinction between the 'knower' paroksha jnani and the 'realized' tattva-darshi aparoksha jnani. Will not the express usage of the term 'understanding' and the express denial of 'experience' restrict fatally the import of the Vedantic teaching? I think the room for objection arises not just from the use of the word 'understanding'. But the emphatic comment that follows that to deny 'direct realization' 'experience' 'anubhava' seems to me, in my humble opinion and respect to the Swami ji, that offers occasion for the adverse comments raised by various quarters. Since we have analysed the problem threadbare and have known it thoroughly, i think we can move on to other topics. With humble pranams, subbu Om Tat Sat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2006 Report Share Posted September 20, 2006 ymoharir <ymoharir > wrote: Here Swamiji explains this as "kamalajaH dahita" - meaning PuraaNika lord Brahma's wife Shri Dr.-ji Nmaskar The stotra is "Kamalaj Dayita Stotra", as mentioned in the web and not "KamalajaH dahita" as referred by you. As far as I understand, Duhita is a daughter and Dayita is wife. As regards to pravachan of Swamiji which I heard from the link given , it is my opinion that it is good for those who spare their valuable time from busy schedule of work to worship God. Anil All-new Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2006 Report Share Posted September 20, 2006 Srigurubhyo NamaH Namaste Bhaskar ji, Humble praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji Hare Krishna Thanks a lot for taking time to share your thoughts with me...Most of the members in this list, thinking that this is a heated discussion in a hostile atmosphere...but sincerely I dont think so..in my opinion it is sharing our thoughts with different perspective on a common premise...nothing personal here...I am relatively *new* & raw in shankara philosophy where compared to *puNdita mahAjana* in this list....But ofcourse our style of discussion sometimes gives an impression that there is lot of fire in it..but I can assure that my only intention is to do the discussions in a friendly atmosphere... And now, let us come back to the topic... Subbu prabhuji: Just one observation regarding 'anubandha-chatushtaya': This, as per a dictionary of Vedantic terms, means: 1.adhikArI, 2. viShayaH, 3.sambandhaH and 4. prayojanam. This is, in any work on shastra, the person who is fit to take up this study, the subject matter expounded in the work, the relationship between the person and the subject matter and the relationship between the subject matter and the prayojana and finally the substantial benefit that is promised by the work= - these are to be explicitly or implicitly discernible. This is the 'anubandha-chatushtaya' generally spoken of in shastra. bhaskar : thanks for the information prabhuji... Subbu prabhuji: It is possible that you are meaning the following, but using the wrong terminology: bhaskar : Yes, I was mistaken...thanks for correcting me prabhuji. Subbu prabhuji: (These refer to the various 'ingredients' that an 'adhikaraNam' will contain. To briefly state: there is the spelling out of the main subject, the doubt, the primafacie view, the reply to it, the benefit arising out of taking the latter view, the connection between the earlier adhikaranam and the present one, the final accepted view - these are the items that are contained in an adhikaraNa.) bhaskar : again, thanks for the details about adhikaraNa...now, what would you think about the adhikaraNa under discussion...what is the main vishaya (main subject), saMshaya (doubt), pUrvapaxin's view, the reply by siddhAntin & verdict (nirNaya) that is arrived...as far as my knowledge goes, I have shared my understanding of this adhikaraNa in my previous mail...if you feel any special emphasization given on *kAla* of brahmajnAna in any of the *ingredients* of this adhikaraNa kindly let me know... Sri Subbu prabhuji: I am not talking about patanjali's method. The main point in highlighting that sutrabhashya is to show that the Brahmadarshana or saakshaatkaara is an event happening in time. bhaskar : prabhuji please note in this adhikaraNa, *event* is not the vivikshitAmSha...it is a passing comment by bhagavatpAda to brief & substantiate *brahman existence* to the pUrvapaxins...Anyway, what do you mean by brahma *darshana* or sAkshAtkAra here?? do you mean to say here brahma darshana is like a *slide show* for yOgins in NS ?? Moreover, in the experience of NS, this *event* not only has *from* time, it has *to* time also...On this day, from 7 AM to 9.30 AM I was established in brahman & then came out to do business as usual in this jagat:-)) is it not??? Sri Subbu prabhuji: You have repeatedly avoided this aspect since you have held from the beginning that brahma anubhava is kAlaatIta. bhaskar : Yes, even now my contention is same, for the reasons you yourself defined below. Sri Subbu prabhuji: While Brahman consciousness is undoubtedly transcending time, 'sarvadA vartamAna svarUpatvAt' (Eternally existent nature), the point to be noted is, the saakshaatkara that marks enlightenment and liberates the sadhaka is decidedly an event in time. bhaskar : when you are talking about Atma jnAna it is definitely not the *talk* of vyavahAra...An ajnAni may think that this jnAni has realized THAT on such & such date & time etc. Pls. note it is not his first hand experience & it is only concoction...and a jnAni who has realized the ultimate, according to shAstra transcends the very notion of time & space & cannot give *time frame* for his realization...So, from both transaction & transcedental view points bringing *brahma jnAna* within the boundaries of *time & space* is simply against common senses / illogical / shruti viruddha. Sri Subbu prabhuji: This point is made clear in that sutrabhashya by the word 'samrAdhana kAle'. You will appreciate that in Advaita both bondage AND liberation are in the vyavahAric plane. bhaskar : Yes, ofcourse, but you cannot talk in same style when you are narrating *jnAna* enshrined in scriptures when the stress on shAstra drushti...that is the reason why very often we find statements like *from transactional view point OR from pAramArthik /absolute view point* in shankara bhAshya. You cannot sing both songs in a same tone:-)) Moreover, you cannot take everything for granted just putting all the stuff in the vyavahArik place...there is a systamatic procedure (adhyArOpa apavAda) adopted by shruti to teach us Atma jnAna. It is not fair to the method of teaching itself to claim that any type of assorted descriptions in vyAvahAra is acceptable!!! After all, ultimately it is through the help of those transactional descriptions we have to finally transcend vyAvahAra ...is it not prabhuji. If the manual of brahma jnAna itself is wrong, methods suggested for erection & commissioning it self faulty where is the question of effective usage of tool prabhuji :-)) Sri Subbu prabhuji : And vyAvahAric plane is essentially kAla-antargata (within time). bhaskar : but prabhuji, we are not talking about vyAvahAric mundane *experience*here ....it is about brahmAnubhava which badly requires the narration from shAstra drushti. And if you see this jnAna from that view point, you will come to know that jnAna of our svarUpa is not time bound, temporary experience. Sri Subbu prabhuji : The first hand experience of the KAlAtIta Brahman is had by the sadhaka in the culmination of the sadhana within time-frame. bhaskar : again, this time frame is not logical and shAstra viruddha. It is justifiable neither from the common man's view point nor from the jnAni's view point. Hence it is baseless. Sri Subbu prabhuji: If this is not accepted, bandha-moksha vyavasthaa in Advaita is impossible to be accounted for. bhaskar : avidyayA apAya *yEva* para prAptiH na arthAntharaM...shankara explicitly says mOksh is nothing but removal of our ajnAna on our svarUpa..& it is not a separate thing that can be achieved/perceived at some point of frame...Hence it is possible to *account* the bandha mOksha vyavahAra without putting time barriers to Atma jnAna. Sri Subbu prabhuji: The purpose of bringing that sutra for the second time was precisely to point to this. I noticed, as expected, that you had glossed over this on the first instance. The second time also i expected this to happen, and it turned out to be true. Hence the explicit explanation as above. bhaskar : this special emphasization (or should I say cheap tactics) was not at all required had you given your mind to vivikshitAmsha of that adhikaraNa. Sri Subbu prabhuji: Sincerely speaking, this point is not known to many people. Only those who have had the experience of enlightenment can tell others about this. In very rare cases, some extremely intelligent scholars of high caliber get to know this subtle point and bring it out in their writings. bhaskar : prabhuji, I openly admit I am not a brahmavit nor I have razor edge like intellectual scholarship...Scholars/jnAna nishTa-s like you have to educate me.... Sri Subbu prabhuji: Here again, you have played out the game exactly the way i expected. bhaskar : I appreciate your good anticipation prabhuji :-)) sometimes I do play like that while playing the chess to get the opponents mind...but not here in brahma jignAsa :-)) Sri Subbu prabhuji: I have read that book. I am not implicating that it is in any way advocating patanjali shastra. bhaskar : Then I must say we have no business to talk about patanJala way of dhyAna, samAdhi when we are talking about vaidika dhyAna & samAdhi. Sri Subbu prabhuji: I thank you for recognizing that stilling the senses is to be taken in the light of legitimate vedantic sadhana. bhaskar : I have already said several times upto the stage of *pratyAhAra* (withdrawing the senses from external things) is acceptable to vaidik method of practice...whats new in it??!!! Sri Subbu prabhuji: This is precisely what is spoken of in that 'dreaded' Vivekachudamani verse where the REASON is spelt out explicitly: 'otherwise, (the precise (sphuTam) saakshaatkaara of Brahman) is impossible when the mind is in movement and thereby becomes tainted by extraneous thoughts - na anyathA chalatayA manogateH pratyayAntara-vimishritam bhavet - 366 latter half). bhaskar : I dont know what is the relevance here...we are talking about jnAna, time frame etc. now the topic has been changed & is about stilling the mind & for that support from VC....if you want to discuss VC verses in the light of shankara's prasthAna trayi bhAshya, we can do so under a separate thread..but now, let us not digress from the main topic of this thread... Sri Subbu prabhuji: It is fine if your Paramaguruji advocates the need for Adhyatma Yoga with a strong dose of stilling the mind. But it is anathema if the Vivekachudamani says the same thing. The only stinging word is Nirvikalpa samadhi. I remember a kannada saying: aLiya antha heLade magala gaNDa antha heLuvudu' The meaning is: A person does not want to refer to his son-in-law with this common name. He however refers to that individual by saying: my daughter's husband. bhaskar : I dont know what exactly is the problem here...ofcourse we do have to withdraw our senses from external objects to concetrate (dhAraNa) ...it is all about concentration of the mind on the svarUpa/self after withdrawing it from the outer objects...this is also called adhyAtma yOga...and it has also been told that this adhyAtma yOga is not like the other type of meditations (like PY) which are of the nature of *kartru tantra* (reference kartum, akartum, anyathA kartum...see sUtra bhAshya) that which depends on the will and wish of the doer. Observing the facts as it is by concentrating the mind on it to cognize it in its true perspective (samyag drushti)....So, these things cannot be comparable to show me it is *aLiya alla magaLa gaNda*...Please note Kartru taNtra jnAna is not *aLiya* (son-in-law) nor vastu tantra adhyAtma yOga *magaLa gaNda* (daughter's hustand)...here to equate :-)) Hope my position is clear here. Sri subbu prabhuji: Bhaskar ji, the bhashya for these mantras is clear that what makes these mantras operative is the substantial upasana that has preceded it and is present during its pendency. Let me quote the relevant bhashya vaakyams first and laster give the English translation: bhaskar : thanks again for taking time to type out the whole bhAshya...but it is to be noted it is not meant for any kartru tantra dhyAna as you interpreted...(infact, I heard from my guruji during bhAshya shAnti that in the sub-commentary anandagiri said that this praNavOpAsana is meant for krama mukti) it is once again vastu tantra dhyAna which shankara insisted...see for example 2.2.5 where shankara says AtmAnaM pratyaksha rUpaM *yushmAkaM *sarvaprANinAM cha* what do you mean by yushmAkaM as well as *sarvapANinAM* here?? definitely the purpose of this bhAshya would not be served if it is meant for some static state of mind ....Moreover, it is further confirmed that all these methods are imagined (taddarshanOpAyascha yOgaH dhanurAdhyupAdAna kalpanayA...shankara before third muNdaka) & taught by shruti just to drive home the point that true nature of ours to be realized through vivEka of sarvAtma bhAva...what is the appropriate stand of scriptures on meditator?? dhyAyEtieve, lElAyatEva....as if he is meditating etc... Pranams, subbu Om Tat Sat Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2006 Report Share Posted September 20, 2006 Anilji and subbuji : Thanx a million for your responses! anil-ji, you are right in your observation . Duhita does mean daughter ! Ushas , the vedic deity (dawn) who is the daughter of the Dyaus of Heaven divó duhitâ (e.g. RV 6.64.5). Another meaning for "duhita" is milkmaid! This note is for our beloved Subbuji ! Subbuji ! it is always a pleasure to read your great explanations . How can you even say you are 'low in bhakti"? It is by Baharati mata of Sringeri's Divine 'anugraham' and your Guru's vara prasadam you are able to offer such 'padarthas and bhavarthas' at a moment's notice. -Thank Vagdevi for bestowing on you both 'medha' and 'pratibha' shakti ! Yes ! Dahita means 'beloved 'or wife (spouse) ! for example , in Srimad bhagvatam , jayati te 'dhikam janmana vrajah srayata indira sasvad atra hi *dayita* drsyatam diksu tavakas tvayi dhrtasavas tvam vicinvate ["The gopis said: O beloved, Your birth in the land of Vraja has made it exceedingly glorious, and thus Indira, the goddess of fortune, always resides here. It is only for Your sake that we, Your devoted servants, maintain our lives. We have been searching everywhere for You, so please show Yourself to us." (Srimad- bhagavatam 10.31.1)] here , the gopis are addressing Sri Krishna paramatma as 'dayita' or beloved! In Ramayana also word 'dayita' is used to refer to beloved brother of Sri Rama ( For example - Bbharata) in Saundarya lahari , the actual phrase used is Isana dayIte beloved /wife of shiva) Vibhati tvan-netra-tritayam idam *Isana-dayite* Oa relaqted thread , sri ramji is absolutely right - time to take a deep breath and take a pause and contemplate on the following upanasidic statement which occurs in Katha, Mundaka etc ... Kathopanishad 1.2.23 says- 'nAyamAtma pravacanena labhyo na medhayA na bahunA zrutena, yame vaiSa vRNute tena labhya- stasyaiSa AtmA vivRNute tanUM svAm.' God is NOT known through the study of scriptures, nor through subtlety of the intellect nor through much learning. WHOM the Lord CHOOSES (Out of His causeless Grace) by him alone is God is attained, verily unto him does the Supreme reveal His true Being. And the very first verse of Adi shankara bhagvadapada's nirvna shatakam says Mano budhya ahankara chithaa ninaham, Na cha srothra jihwe na cha graana nethrer, Na cha vyoma bhoomir na thejo na vayu, Chidananada Roopa Shivoham, Shivoham I am not mind, nor intellect, nor ego, nor the reflections of inner self (chitta). [more] I am not the five senses. [more] I am beyond that. I am not the ether, nor the earth, nor the fire, nor the wind (the five elements). I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva, love and pure consciousness. Sri GURAVE NAMAHA ! PS - i thank sri Lakshmiji for introducing me to Swami Paramarthananda - his caseetes on Srimad bhagvad gita -chapter 8 is a veritable treasure . What is encouraging is he is the least 'political' of prsent day swamis. advaitin, Anil <selfanil wrote: > > > > ymoharir <ymoharir wrote: Here Swamiji explains this as "kamalajaH dahita" - meaning PuraaNika > lord Brahma's wife > > Shri Dr.-ji Nmaskar > > The stotra is "Kamalaj Dayita Stotra", as mentioned in the web and not > "KamalajaH dahita" as referred by you. > > As far as I understand, Duhita is a daughter and Dayita is wife. > > As regards to pravachan of Swamiji which I heard from the link given , > it is my opinion that it is good for those who spare their valuable > time from busy schedule of work to worship God. > > Anil > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2006 Report Share Posted September 20, 2006 H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy Pranams to all. advaitin, J Skanda <skandaj2000 wrote Dear Sri Skanda, Genuine Vedantasampradaya plays a very vital role during the journey of a sincere seeker. This aspect has been stressed again and again by you for the good of the readers. I have a small doubt. Is it that the sampradaya of teaching Sri Sankara's commentaries is maintained only by the Pitadhipathis of the four or five Muths in the name of Sri Sankaraor the devotees of the Muths ? Is it necessary for a seeker to become a disciple of the Pontiffs of the Muths for Atmaj~jAna? Are there srotriyas and Brahmanishtas who do not belong to any of the above said Muths and yet teaching Sri Sankara's commentaries in the genuine sampradaya tradition.Their disciples are also carrying the tradition of teaching Sri Sankara's commentaries to genuine and sincere seekers.There are many many Jivanmuktas who are outside the framework of the Muths and who are a beacon light to sincere seekers. Are they asampradayis because they do not belong to any of the Muths?I will be very grateful to you if you could clarify my doubt. With warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa Murthy > > > > > Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2006 Report Share Posted September 20, 2006 bhaskar.yr (AT) in (DOT) abb.com wrote: > > Moreover, in the experience of NS, this *event* not only has *from* time, > it has *to* time also...On this day, from 7 AM to 9.30 AM I was > established > in brahman & then came out to do business as usual in this jagat:-)) is it > not??? > > ************************************ > No. It is not Bhaskar-ji. What you say applies perfectly to deep sleep but would not apply to Nirvikalpa Samadhi at all. The two (Deep Sleep and Nirvikalpa Samadhi) are very similar but also like Night and Day. Deep sleep is entered unconsciously by the mind and the mind comes out unconsciously and becomes conscious in the waking state. Nirvikalpa Samadhi, on the other hand, is entered into consciously by the mind and the mind is absorbed into pure consciousness that is Sat-Chit-Ananda, and it comes out consciously thus fully understanding the nature of unbroken, continuous, and perpetual consciousness that is pure being-awareness, and bliss which underlies all states and modifications. Namaste Love to all Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2006 Report Share Posted September 20, 2006 Pranams subbu-ji Thank you for your response. I am happy that Swamiji's teachings have been of some use to you. Inspite of that you could not resist a joke about "a man knowing there are 4 vedas" in response to a post which simply was a reproduction of His words by dear Prof-ji. "Gurur-eva param brahma, tasmai syhri gurubhyo namah In any case, to each his own. I continue to respect your scholarship - i know it comes from a level of commitment and effort, which comes only to a chosen few. With regards to the discussion about experience - i would not equate selfrealization with selfexperience. Selfrealization is the realization about - well - myself - it is a realization that I am the very vastu, the substratum. So there is no need to equate it with any experience. Can "you" experience "yourself"? the self is ever the subject, the witnesser - this has to be realized. This self neither does anything nor experiences anything - this has to be realized or understood. this is what selfrealization is all about. With regards to tat tvam asi being a injuntion to meditate upon, Bhagwan Sankara couldnt have made it any more clear in these lines from the Upadesha Sahasri 18.9 (objection) Absolute liberation does not arise when one is told tat tvam asi. One should therefore have recourse to the repetition (of the idea I am Brahman) and support it with reasoning... 18.15 No one is seen freed from the distress of this transmigratory existence simply by understanding the meaning of the sentence (Sankara's answer) 18.19 This is not so. And then proceeds an extensive exposition about how ideas such as these are totally false - it is greatly worth reading this entire section of the up. sahasri to improve one's understanding about this subtle truth. You yourself brought up the example of a sweet mango and Nair-ji repeated that. This is not a new objection. Please read, again from the Up. Sah. 18.201 (objection) The Bliss of liberation is not obtained after ascertaining the meaning of the sentence (tat tvam asi) unlike the satisfaction which is felt by eating.(in today's terms - sweet mangoes - SS!) (Sankara's reply) Indirect knowledge it is true is the result produced by the sentences regarding the non-Self but it is not so in the case of those regarding the Innermost self. It is on the other hand direct and certain knowledge like that in the case of the tenth boy. How much more clear should we expect Bhagwan Sankara to be!!! For those still unclear about the meaning here when we talk of experiencing it is always in regards to the nonself. So when you tell me a mango is sweet I have to take your word for it, unless i eat it. Why? Because the mango is something other than me. So for ne to experience the mango a vrtti in my mind will be formed when my senseorgans come in touch with the fruit and my intellect recognizes that vrtti as a "mango" if it has tasted a mango before, or as some fruit unless taught that it is a mango. But here the vastu some people are "waiting to experience like a juicy ripe mango fruit" is Me, the very self, who is ever present. Again in this answer note the example of the tenth man again. Does the tenth man need a trance to know temporarily who he is, to temporarily "experience" himself, so as to enable him to know that he alone is the tenth man before coming to a firm knowledge that "I am that" Why is analysis needed? To remove false conceptions I have - about what - again about Me. I am ever present - in fact i am the only thing that is present. How then can i wait to "experience myself" at a future date?? Brahman experience and selfexperience cannot be two different things. If there is an experience there has to be a experiencer and then that experiencer will decidedly be different from the experience. There is no way out pf this, no matter how many subglosses of commentaries we read and take recourse to. As Sunder-ji in his reply correctly stated Yoga is subject to decay and destruction - vardhate,apakshiyate,vinashyati, etc - something noneternal as you well know cannot "produce" something eternal. Sunder-ji is right, the best that yoga can ever manage is a transient state. Again according to Sunder-ji there are two paths mentioned in the Yoga Vashista. First of all Yoga Vashishta is a voluminous book, in which repeatedly and repeatedly, over a hundred times it is reemphasized that selfknowledge and vichara is the only means to liberation(unless the translation by Swami Venkatesananda I read has some major defects) There is mention of kundalini in one of the stories of Sikhidwaja, and one may take that as an endorsement of the path of kundalini yoga as an independent means of achieveing moksha - as far as i am concerned there is only one path - that is the path of knowledge. The Purusha suktam clearly says Vedaham etham purusham mahantham. Aadithyavarna thamasa parasthath. Thamevam vidwan amrutha iha bhavathi. nanya pandhaa vidhyathe ayanaaya. 2-2 I know that great Purusha, Who shines like the sun, And is beyond darkness, And the one who knows him thus, Attains salvation even in this birth, And there is no other method of salvation. The Upanishads many times mention knowledge as being the only gateways to liberation. Anyone is welcome to hold alternative views and I am not going to oppose that at all. Just so those views are not thought of as being "vedantic." The Upanisahds say "by the mind alone is to be known" or "it is known by the intellect" and then again they talk about the vastu being relaized only when the intellect is still How to reconcile this? These can be reconciled if we understand that the self is ever evident. Forget about becoming evident only in a trance, it is never ever nonevident. Everything else that I can witness and objectify is nonself. Can i look" at mind - yes. Can i look" at my intellect - yes. Once all these are negated as being the nonself, I understand that I verily am THE Self - everexistent, unattached. Until I have fully understood this I need the intellect - for helping me stop identifying with who I am not - avasthatraya prakriya, panchakosha prakriya, etc but once understood - yes the intellect is subserveint - why ?? "I am" not "I know I am" but "I am". Hence there is no knowing in a manner of speaking. If the intellect had to be stilled to understand the self the effort needed would be inversely proportional to the amount of intellect that needed to be stilled! This selfrealization can never ever be subject to decay, nor can it ever be transient. If anything, such as a trance, is subject to Kaala (time) and is in the realm of an experience, then whatever blessed thing one is experiencing is not the vastu - this is clear. The term experience connotes duality - of something to be experienced and an experiencer - else the term itself does not make any sense. With respect to the Acharyas commentary about the Gita, the term knowledge PLUS realization connote aparoksha jnanam - again no need to read into it a term "experience". I agree with you that this discussion has long exceeded its "date of expiry" and is hence becoming stale. It is time to move on. My regards and pranams Shri Gurubhyo namah Shyam --- subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote: > But if that is the meaning 'understanding'ultimately > conveys, why is > there a meticulous, counscious, avoiding of the word > 'experience'? > We have seen several instances where Acharya > Shankara freely > uses 'anubhava' in the bhashyams. After all, > 'experience' or 'direct > realization' are words that are the most naturally > fit ones to > express the sense of 'anubhava'. Why feel shy of > using that > expression, if that is what is meant by > 'understanding' anyway ? > After all, neither the Upanishads nor the Acharya > have decreed > against using that term with respect to direct > realization. > Incidentally, in the 'tad viddhi praNipAtena' verse > 34 of the Gita IV > chapter that you quoted above, the Jnanis are spoken > of as 'tattva- > darshinaH'. The Acharya in the commentary makes a > very significant > observation that is extremely relevant to our above > discussion: > (quote): jnAnavanto api, kechit yathAvat > tattva-dharshana-shIlaaH, > apare na, ato vishinaShTi 'tattva-darshinaH' iti. > (unquote) Meaning: > Some only, but not all, KNOW AS WELL AS REALIZE the > truth. By this > the Lord means to say that that knowledge alone > which is imparted by > those who have realized the truth- and no other > knowledge - can prove > effective.(unquote). It looks like this line is > exactly meant for the > situation that we have on hand. It appears that the > Acharya has > sensed the confusion that failing to use the > appropriate term could > === message truncated === Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 Namaskaram Shyamji and all once the request for "Summary of views on Samadhi " were made, the topic without change of title moved on to so many things, including " Saraswati Ashtakam". However, this positng my Shyamji really states the views with such clarity that a layman like me has to express many Pranam ...written in concise manner, in paragraphs - taking up each issue and expressing the view on that issue with such clarity. And there is nothing to bother about " stale" since this SATSANG is an exercise to understand the 'SELF' , the repeated discussions - unless it generates the unwarranted HEAT , repeated debates are good as this brings to our mind the same thoughts ....some thing like a " mananam" - only here it is not mananam by one person, but a group mananam. By the way some one told me a story about " experience". Once a Swamiji was travelling from Chennai to Delhi on a 3+3 configuration flight. Swamiji was having a window seat and next to him was a heavy weight foreigner. During the flight, the foreigner took out a peice of paper from his pocket. That paper contained the address and he showed to Swamiji and asked Swamiji if he knew this particular Swamiji. It so happened that the address was of the same Swamiji who is sitting next to him. here the question is both of them are experiencing each other..but have no knowledge of each other. Could it be , then , in a way, even the experience is useful only when the underlying knowledge is understood..???.. namaskaram to all Shyam <shyam_md > wrote: Pranams subbu-ji Can "you" experience "yourself"? the self is ever the subject, the witnesser - this has to be realized. This self neither does anything nor experiences anything - this has to be realized or understood. this is what selfrealization is all about. Why is analysis needed? To remove false conceptions I have - about what - again about Me. I am ever present - in fact i am the only thing that is present. How then can i wait to "experience myself" at a future date?? Brahman experience and selfexperience cannot be two different things. I The Upanisahds say "by the mind alone is to be known" or "it is known by the intellect" and then again they talk about the vastu being relaized only when the intellect is still How to reconcile this? These can be reconciled if we understand that the self is ever evident. Forget about becoming evident only in a trance, it is never ever nonevident. "I am" not "I know I am" but "I am". Hence there is no knowing in a manner of speaking. With respect to the Acharyas commentary about the Gita, the term knowledge PLUS realization connote aparoksha jnanam - again no need to read into it a term "experience". I agree with you that this discussion has long exceeded its "date of expiry" and is hence becoming stale. Shyam --- subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote: > But if that is the meaning 'understanding'ultimately > conveys, why is > there a meticulous, counscious, avoiding of the word > 'experience'? > We have seen several instances where Acharya > Shankara freely > uses 'anubhava' in the bhashyams. After all, > 'experience' or 'direct > realization' are words that are the most naturally > fit ones to > express the sense of 'anubhava'. Why feel shy of > using that > expression, if that is what is meant by > 'understanding' anyway ? > After all, neither the Upanishads nor the Acharya > have decreed > against using that term with respect to direct > realization. > Incidentally, in the 'tad viddhi praNipAtena' verse > 34 of the Gita IV > chapter that you quoted above, the Jnanis are spoken > of as 'tattva- > darshinaH'. The Acharya in the commentary makes a > very significant > observation that is extremely relevant to our above > discussion: > (quote): jnAnavanto api, kechit yathAvat > tattva-dharshana-shIlaaH, > apare na, ato vishinaShTi 'tattva-darshinaH' iti. > (unquote) Meaning: > Some only, but not all, KNOW AS WELL AS REALIZE the > truth. By this > the Lord means to say that that knowledge alone > which is imparted by > those who have realized the truth- and no other > knowledge - can prove > effective.(unquote). It looks like this line is > exactly meant for the > situation that we have on hand. It appears that the > Acharya has > sensed the confusion that failing to use the > appropriate term could > === message truncated === Find out what India is talking about on - Answers India Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Messenger Version 8. Get it NOW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 Namaste Shri Pai-ji. When the man knows that the Swamiji he is looking for is the one sitting beside him, his joy will express as a WOW. That WOW is an expression of joy and relief - joy for the luck of finding the object of his enquiry so fast and easily and relief because the dramatic end to his search saved him a lot of trouble which he would have had to undergo otherwise tracking this Swamiji down. This means that knowledge has brought some experience. The two are inseparable. I don't mean to point out that self-realization is a thrilling mundane incident like this. I wrote this much because you gave us this example to prove your point. Our ""Soham Devadatta" is any day a better example. Self-reaization is knowing that you are the whole and whatever is there is all you. We are all agreed on it. Shri Pai experiences the Sun and complains about the heat. He seeks refuge in the nearest shade or runs for the luxury of airconditioned comfort. This happens due to his false identifications and experiencing the Sun as something foreign from his notion of himself. The same Shri Pai suddenly realizes that he is the Sun. Can the Sun trouble him any more? Then, just visualize Shri Pai being everything. Will he look around and address the world: "Look boys, this is just an understanding as barren as T.S.Eliot's "Waste Land"? To my mind he would just explode in ecstasy (or will he implode like Neruda?). Don't ask me who is there to go ecstatic? That question belongs to the barren land. We are no more there. Where we are, we roll in ecstasy singing Her glory. Having gone universal, we have no time to concern ourselves with inanities like body, mind and intellect. We are a grand implosion! Now,if you need authority, please refer to the last stanza of SrI DakshiNAmurthy Stotram. Shankara has said (unless of course you question the authorship) sarvAtmatwa vibhUti and Ishwaratwam are there in Self-Knowledge. The implosion is sarvAtmatwa vibhUti. SrI Subbuji can explain it better. I think he has already done it while I was away from the List on vacation. PraNAms. Madathil Nair _________________ advaitin, ram mohan anantha pai <pairamblr wrote: > > By the way some one told me a story about " experience". Once a Swamiji was travelling from Chennai to Delhi on a 3+3 configuration flight. Swamiji was having a window seat and next to him was a heavy weight foreigner. During the flight, the foreigner took out a peice of paper from his pocket. That paper contained the address and he showed to Swamiji and asked Swamiji if he knew this particular Swamiji. It so happened that the address was of the same Swamiji who is sitting next to him. > > here the question is both of them are experiencing each other..but have no knowledge of each other. > > Could it be , then , in a way, even the experience is useful only when the underlying knowledge is understood..???.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy Pranams to all. advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote: Dear Sri Shyam, I would like to add further to your clarification an excerpt from Sri Sankara's commentary on Mantra 4-4-20 of Bruhadaranyaka Upanishad : Quote: j~jAnaM ca tasmin parAtmaBAvanivRittirEva | na tasmin sAkShAt AtmaBAvaH kartavyaH | vidyamAnatvAt AtmaBAvasya | nityO hi AtmaBAvaH sarvasya atadviShaya iva pratyavaBAsatE || The knowledge of Brahman too means only the cessation of the identification with extraneous things. It has not to be directly established,for IT IS ALREADY THERE. Everybody ALWAYS has that identity with It, but it appears to be related to something else. [Translator: Swami Madhavananda] Note: The translation may not carry the complete meaning of the Bhashya in Sanskrit. The above quoted Bhashya clearly reveals that no new experience is required for abiding in one's True Nature. There is a beautiful proverb in Kannada ;"dEvaru vara kottarU pUjAri vara koDa". It means that even if the Lord gives the boon, the priest will not give it. In the name of Sankara/ Vedanta such a lot of misconceptions are circulated so widely which have become the biggest hurdles in the path of the sincere seekers. Sri Sankara's commentaries do not need any commentaries to them. What Sri Sankara has stated in them is self-evident and self-explanatory.The day to day LIFE ITSELF provides the necessary guidance to realize the truths stated by the Greatest Of All Teachers, Sri Sankara. Once again a request to seekers of Advitaj~jAna : To ascertain the Truth and abide as THE TRUTH, let us go to Sri Sankara And Sri Sankara ALONE, because what he has blessed us with is PURNA. With warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa Murthy > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 namaskaram Shri Sreenivasa Murthyji and all, Swami Paramarthanandaji while discussing Bhagavat Gita used to tell us... Bhagavan Krishna explained to Arjuna and thru Arjuna to all of us exactly the same knowledge. But see while Arjuna understood it, millions of us are still gropping in the dark... In any class, when the teacher teaches there are atleast 30 students sitting around and listening to him. ( In the end if the teacher ask questions, sure, they are going to answer different and that is what the exams are meant for to make the student aware how much he or she understood and how much more he or she has to understand ). Now though all of them listened to the same words, from the same person, the understanding is different. That is why some needs more help, more attention, more explanations etc.. Intelligent ones who understand by mere reading will not bother to attend the class except for the attendance, while ordinary students will need more help. But as one understands, even if there is some wrong explanations given by some teachers, it will be corrected in SATSANG - as long as the student does not insisit that he will follow only what has been taught to him by his teacher . It is better for every one be permitted to say what they wish to express as that helps in getting to know the mistake one makes ( as others will point out those mistakes) and so better possibility for correction in the thinking and understanding. namaskaram narayana145 <narayana145 (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote: H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy Pranams to all. advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote: Dear Sri Shyam, In the name of Sankara/ Vedanta such a lot of misconceptions are circulated so widely which have become the biggest hurdles in the path of the sincere seekers. Sri Sankara's commentaries do not need any commentaries to them. What Sri Sankara has stated in them is self-evident and self-explanatory.The day to day LIFE ITSELF provides the necessary guidance to realize the truths stated by the Greatest Of All Teachers, Sri Sankara. Once again a request to seekers of Advitaj~jAna : To ascertain the Truth and abide as THE TRUTH, let us go to Sri Sankara And Sri Sankara ALONE, because what he has blessed us with is PURNA. With warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa Murthy > > > > > Find out what India is talking about on - Answers India Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Messenger Version 8. Get it NOW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v wrote: > > Let me touch upon one point you made. You equated 'understanding' > with 'aparoksha anubhuti'in addressing Vishal ji's objection. Fine. > But if that is the meaning 'understanding'ultimately conveys, why is > there a meticulous, counscious, avoiding of the word 'experience'? > We have seen several instances where Acharya Shankara freely > uses 'anubhava' in the bhashyams. After all, 'experience' or 'direct > realization' are words that are the most naturally fit ones to > express the sense of 'anubhava'. Why feel shy of using that > expression, if that is what is meant by 'understanding' anyway ? > After all, neither the Upanishads nor the Acharya have decreed > against using that term with respect to direct realization. > > > With humble pranams, > subbu > Om Tat Sat Namaste respected members, Although I have not followed this thread in its entirety, it seems to me that aome teachers may sometimes use the word 'experience' as a warning to students to avoid looking or searching for an 'experience' of the self which they are not already having. A grande sort of 'pie in the sky' experience. So realization isn't having a new experience, one grander than one is already having. It is recognizing the 'experience' which is already 100% here and could not be more here or more experienced. When one recognizes that 'experience' (for lack of a better word) for what it is (one's self), one will see, or understand, "Oh, that has always been 'me' but my mind thought that 'me' was completely dependent upon and interwoven with qualities of the body/mind." What I have come to understand from exposure to the teachings is that it is understanding and clearly seeing that present 'experience' for what it is that is self-knowledge. All of these words, 'understanding, seeing, knowing, experience,' all of these IMO can be confusing, because like all words, we are trying to apply these words to an 'experience' an 'understanding' a 'seeing' which is not at all the 'usual' meaning of any of these words. I experience this water as hot. I understand that 1 + 1 = 2. I see the clouds in the sky. I know your name. This is the usual way we use these words. IMO none of those is the same as experiencing, understanding seeing, or knowing the self, (although perhaps the word 'know' somehow may come closer). So all of these words have to be 'unpacked' or cleary explained, in order to be used as effective pointers to that which is already experienced and entirely known, but mistaken for something else altogether. Humble pranams, Durga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 advaitin, J Skanda <skandaj2000 wrote: > Since I am pretty much late on the recent > Samadhi/Experience/Vivekachudamani discussions, I will try not to > open a new can of worms by contributing more to the discussions. > That said, given the recent post by Prof. VK, I would like to post s > ome information I believe would be valuable especially for those who > wish to know the views of the Acharyas of the sterling Advaita > parampara of the Sringeri Sarada Peetham. > > Today, with many Swamis claiming to teach the "pure" teachings > of Sankara unadultered by later commentators, commentaries, schools Namaste, My first post since returning from Cuba. I also have been watching this discussion, and it just reinforces various positions in my own mind. First of all one cannot experience the Self and be realised, for who is it that experiences the Self? One can experience the Self in lower samadhis but that is all. One is experiencing the energy of the Sakti until one becomes the Sakti(Saguna) and Nirguna Brahman simultaneously. At this point it is all illusion and never ever happened. Whilst one is connected by a body it is an appearance only....Ajativada. All the other machinations and worshippings, puja etc are all in the cause of concentration only. We do all these things to realise we do nothing at all...Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 Namaskaram Durgaji and all. After reading this note, my mind goes to the story of 4 or 5 blind men "experiencing " the elephant. This was my doubt which i raised to Shri Nairji after reading his posting also. and the doubt still remains ...is not the underlying knowledge that makes experience meaningful? namaskaram Durga <durgaji108 > wrote: --- Namaste respected members, So realization isn't having a new experience, one grander than one is already having. It is recognizing the 'experience' which is already 100% here and could not be more here or more experienced. When one recognizes that 'experience' (for lack of a better word) for what it is (one's self), one will see, or understand, "Oh, that has always been 'me' but my mind thought that 'me' was completely dependent upon and interwoven with qualities of the body/mind." What I have come to understand from exposure to the teachings is that it is understanding and clearly seeing that present 'experience' for what it is that is self-knowledge. IMO none of those is the same as experiencing, understanding seeing, or knowing the self, (although perhaps the word 'know' somehow may come closer). Humble pranams, Durga Find out what India is talking about on - Answers India Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Messenger Version 8. Get it NOW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 advaitin, ram mohan anantha pai <pairamblr wrote: > > Namaskaram Durgaji and all. > > After reading this note, my mind goes to the story of 4 or 5 blind men "experiencing " the elephant. > > This was my doubt which i raised to Shri Nairji after reading his posting also. > > and the doubt still remains ...is not the underlying knowledge that makes experience meaningful? > > namaskaram > Namaste, I'm not sure if I understand your question or doubt, so I'm not sure if I can address it. If the self you already know yourself as, is already free and is Brahman, but your mind incorrectly takes that self to be one with and a product of the body/mind, then what is the result of the removal of that incorrect understanding? What is the result of directly knowing, the self which I am, and which I always have been is not time bound or changing, is not subject to death and rebirth, but rather is limitless fullness? I would say that if that is what you mean, then yes, 'knowing' that directly is what liberation is. BTW I have heard a story similar to the one you related about the Swami traveling on a plane. This story was related to me by my teacher, and it occurred to Pujya Swami Dayanandaji when he was traveling on a train to Rishikesh. There was another passenger in the compartment, and they began to converse. When the passenger discovered that Swamiji was traveling to Rishikesh, he informed him that he was also traveling to Rishikesh in order to meet Swami Dayananda. He then asked Swamiji if he knew Swami Dayananda. Pujya Swamiji replied, "I am that Swami Dayananda whom you are traveling to Rishikesh to meet." Pranams, Durga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 namaskaram, really speaking my doubt is not very important...so it does not matter. however i was just wondering after reading the discussions here.... may be it is my misunderstanding...that experience is the most important thing..not mere knowledge ... ( and this misunderstanding made me wonder - if underlying knowledge makes that experience meaningful... may be i think we should close this subject here for some time atleast.. namaskaram Durga <durgaji108 > wrote: advaitin, ram mohan anantha pai <pairamblr wrote: > > Namaskaram Durgaji and all. > > After reading this note, my mind goes to the story of 4 or 5 blind men "experiencing " the elephant. > > This was my doubt which i raised to Shri Nairji after reading his posting also. > > and the doubt still remains ...is not the underlying knowledge that makes experience meaningful? > > namaskaram > Namaste, I'm not sure if I understand your question or doubt, so I'm not sure if I can address it. Find out what India is talking about on - Answers India Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Messenger Version 8. Get it NOW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 Dear Shri Pai, You are experiencing the sweetness of sugar. What underlying knowledge makes your experience meaningful? There is no knowledge in this particular case such as the one you have in the man on board the aircraft meeting the Swami he is after. Yet, advaita doesn't leave the case there. The knowledge in sugar experience is Knowledge itself, the real You. That Knowldege is, sugar experience is, sugar sweeetness is, all is. If you then look in the reverse mode, each experience becomes the expression of that Knowledge (the real You) alone, which we call Awarenesss, Consciousness, Self etc. This applies to all understanding, experiencing and knowing, which are all sustained by It. Then why this affinity for the word 'understanding' is the question we are asking. Hope it is clear to you now. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ______________ advaitin, ram mohan anantha pai <pairamblr wrote: > > > After reading this note, my mind goes to the story of 4 or 5 blind men "experiencing " the elephant. > > This was my doubt which i raised to Shri Nairji after reading his posting also. > > and the doubt still remains ...is not the underlying knowledge that makes experience meaningful? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.