Overlooking what is Immediate - parables of Sringeri Acharyal

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kathirasan-ji,

 

I agree the word may be considered too strong. Wonder if the word

comes across in this manner due to the story being translated from

another language.

 

The significance of this posting however is not in the story itself

(which is well known) but the concluding note in the last paragraph.

There it is pointed out that except for the 'uttama adhikari', all

adhikaris (aspirants) need to put in effort to rid themselves of

defects such as uncertainty and misapprehension. In my opinion, this

very important point effectively answers questions

regarding 'effort' raised in several earlier messages such as 33299.

The same conclusion that Sri Subbu-ji, Nair-ji and myself had

arrived independently through yukti (logic).

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

 

advaitin, "K Kathirasan" <brahmasatyam

wrote:

>

> namaste Sundarji,

>

> I believe Shankara uses this story quite a fair bit in his works

but

> does he use the word 'fools' explicitly? The error that we all

commit

> unknowingly, which is adhyasa, is natural to all human beings. So

> don't you think the word 'fool' is too strong a word to indicate

> people who are natually ignorant due to the senses which only go

> outwards?

>

> "The self-existent damned the out-going senses. Therefore one sees

> externally and not the internal Self. - Katha Upanishad "

>

> Om Shanti

> Kathirasan

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "K Kathirasan" <brahmasatyam

wrote:

>

> namaste Sundarji,

>

> I believe Shankara uses this story quite a fair bit in his works

but

> does he use the word 'fools' explicitly? The error that we all

commit

> unknowingly, which is adhyasa, is natural to all human beings. So

> don't you think the word 'fool' is too strong a word to indicate

> people who are natually ignorant due to the senses which only go

> outwards?

>

> "The self-existent damned the out-going senses. Therefore one sees

> externally and not the internal Self. - Katha Upanishad "

>

> Om Shanti

> Kathirasan

>

Srigurubhyo NamaH

 

Namaste Kathirasan ji,

Just recalled a few instances which are mentioned below:

 

In the Mundaka Upanishad I.2.mantras 8,9 and 10 we have the

following usages:

 

avidyAyAm antare vartamAnAH....panditam manyamAnAH....mUDhAH..

(Ramaining within the fold of ignorance and thinking 'We are

ouselves wise and learned', the fools, while being buffeted very

much, ramble about like the blind led by the blind.)

 

There is the word 'bAlAH' meaning literally children, in this

context, unenlightened.

 

Again, in the 10th mantra, there appears the word 'pra-mUDhAH', the

deluded fools. Here the Bhashyam says://... who are so because of

their infatuation for sons, cattle, friends, etc.. do not understand

the other thing called the knowledge of the Self. //

 

Again, in the BrihadaraNyaka Upanishad 3.5.1 bhashyam, the Acharya

says (towards the end)...// It is only the fool without the strength

of knowledge who is attracted by his organs to desires concerning

objects, visible or invisible. //

 

In the Gita bhashya V.22 we have the Acharya saying:// atyanta-

mUDhAnaam eva hi.....Meaning: It is only quite deluded fools that

are, like cattle and the like, found to rejoice in the sense-

objects.//

 

At least in the earlier quotes, the ignorant man was called a fool

for seeking worldly wealth, cattle, etc. Here, in the last cited

quote, the Acharya compares the ignorant man to cattle themselves.

What a strong indictment !!

 

The surprise is, all these quotes exactly fit into the very quote

you have given above. So, are we not thinking 'in tune' with the

scriptures/Bhashya ? Good.

 

Pranams,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sundar Rajan-ji and Kathirasan-ji.

 

That word 'fool' most befits the ones who do wrong head-count, of

course in a ligher vein.

 

Here is a personal anecdote.

 

During the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, I was a captive of the

Iraqi army in Baghdad. Our complacent military guards used to ask

the prisoners to do the head-count in order to ensure that none of

the prisoners had escaped. And every time a prisoner counted, he

used to miss himself, causing panic among the guards.

 

Another anecdote - we are a family of five brothers and one

sister. I am the fourth in line. In my young days long ago,I was

once vociferously advocating family planning to a friend of mine

and expressed the wish that, if my dad had done some planning, the

family would have been the ideal 'we two and ours two' and I would

have received better care and eudcation. My friend burst into fits

of laughter and I couldn't figure out the reason why till he pointed

out that being the fourth in line I wouldn't have been born at all.

What could I call myself but a fool?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

____________________

 

advaitin, "Sundar Rajan" <avsundarrajan

wrote:

 

>

> I agree the word may be considered too strong. Wonder if the word

> comes across in this manner due to the story being translated from

> another language..................

[Guest guest]

Pranams Kathirasan-ji,

 

To understand who is a mudha we certainly dont need

Shankara's bhashyams! - one look in the mirror is

sufficient - :-)

 

You are right though - a "fool" is someone

intellectually challenged, someone with an incapacity

to understand. Such a person unfortunately cannot be

readily blessed by vedantic teachings, and exhorting

him or her to take up panchakosha prakriiya will

surely be a waste of any Acharya's time!

 

When in the Bhaja Govindam a mudha is asked to give up

his preoccupations with the rules of grammar, it is

not in the sense of addressing a fool or an idiot -it

is addressing someone who is deluded. As you said,

there is a huge difference.

 

Delusion is an inability to discriminate between real

and nonreal, between shreyas and preyas, between the

substratum and the superimposition, between the self

and the nonself. It is something that has the

potential to be readily reversed with the right

pramana and attitude.

 

It is in this sense that even Einsteins Shakesperes

and Tolstoys are mudhas, (even though intellectually

they are giants and wonderful examples of Ishwaras

vibhuti)

 

However if one, with an attitude of benevolence, uses

a "strong word" to "rouse" an indiscriminant being out

of his complacency, then nothing wrong in that.

 

Hari OM

Shyam

 

 

--- K Kathirasan <brahmasatyam > wrote:

So don't you think the word 'fool' is too strong a

word to indicate people who are natually ignorant due

to the senses which only go outwards?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

 

> You are right though - a "fool" is someone

> intellectually challenged, someone with an incapacity

> to understand. Such a person unfortunately cannot be

> readily blessed by vedantic teachings, and exhorting

> him or her to take up panchakosha prakriiya will

> surely be a waste of any Acharya's time!

>

> When in the Bhaja Govindam a mudha is asked to give up

> his preoccupations with the rules of grammar, it is

> not in the sense of addressing a fool or an idiot -it

> is addressing someone who is deluded. As you said,

> there is a huge difference.

>

> Delusion is an inability to discriminate between real

> and nonreal, between shreyas and preyas, between the

> substratum and the superimposition, between the self

> and the nonself. It is something that has the

> potential to be readily reversed with the right

> pramana and attitude.

 

Namaste,

 

Excellent points above to ponder!

 

In Gita Bhashya, 9:11, Shankara has defined mUDha as

avivekinaH. Throughout Gita, wherever the word mUDha appears, this

definition is the perfect fit. It is high time to change all the

Bhaja Govindam translations to the proper meaning!

 

Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon: Search Results

 

2 mUDha mfn. stupefied , bewildered , perplexed , confused ,

uncertain or at a loss about (loc. or comp.) AV. &c.&c. ; stupid ,

foolish , dull , silly , simple Mn. MBh. &c. ; swooned , indolent

L. ; gone astray or adrift As3vGr2. ; driven out of its course (as a

ship) R. ; wrong , out of the right place (as the fetus in delivery)

Sus3r. ; not to be ascertained , not clear , indistinct A1past. R. ;

perplexing , confounding VP. ; m. a fool , dolt MBh. Ka1v. &c. ; pl.

(in Sa1m2khya) N. of the elements Tattvas. ; n. confusion of mind

Sarvad.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Dr. Shyam writes :

 

(To understand who is a mudha we certainly dont need

Shankara's bhashyams! - one look in the mirror is

sufficient - :-))

 

and then Shyamji goes on to say

 

( It is in this sense that even Einsteins Shakesperes

and Tolstoys are mudhas, (even though intellectually

they are giants and wonderful examples of Ishwaras

vibhuti))

 

Thank God ! You acknowledged that these three Giants Einstein .

Shakespeare and Tolstoy are wonderful examples Of Ishwaras VIBHUTIS.

 

DO you still BELIEVE Einstein was a 'moodha' when he remarked "

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and

Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. "

 

Shyamji, as Ananda Wood has so eloquently pointed out in one of his

most recent postings -Knowlege and experience Message #33302.

 

( "The mind must thereby sacrifice all its constructed picturing,

through which the world is named and formed and qualified. To make

that sacrifice, a love for truth must overwhelm all the desires that

our minds conceive for a variety of pictured things. It is that love

which, finally, takes reason on to living truth and unmistakable

experience." )

 

In this sense , is it fair to say that Albert Einstein did not have

that Love for 'Truth' ?

 

Shyamji, how would you interpret this statement of Albert EINSTEIN ?

 

"My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the *infinitely

superior spirit* that reveals itself in the little that we can

comprehend about the knowable world. That deeply emotional

conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is

revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. "

 

Then comes Leo TOLSTOY , MY FAVORITE AUTHOR WHO GAVE US SUCH

MASTERPIECES AS War and Peace and Anna Karenina ! He also wrote a

book called 'The Kingdom of God Is Within You !' if that is not

an 'advaitic' title for a book, what is ?

 

in any case , please raed this entry in Tolstoy's diary

 

"God is the infinite ALL. Man is only a finite manifestation of Him.

Or better yet:

God is that infinite All of which man knows himself to be a finite

part.God alone exists truly. Man manifests Him in time, space and

matter. The more God's manifestation in man (life) unites with the

manifestations (lives) of other beings, the more man exists. This

union with the lives of other beings is accomplished through love.

God is not love, but the more there is of love, the more man

manifests God, and the more he truly exists...

We acknowledge God only when we are conscious of His manifestation

in us. All conclusions and guidelines based on this consciousness

should fully satisfy both our desire to know God as such as well as

our desire to live a life based on this recognition. "

 

Entry in Tolstoy's Diary (1 November 1910)

 

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Leo_Tolstoy

 

i have also read a few short stories by Tolstoy which has lot of

spiritual content .

 

now last but not least our beloved Kalidasa of the west , William

Shakespeare !

 

here is a famous quotation

 

All the world's a stage,

And all the men and women merely Players;

They have their Exits and their Entrances,

And one man in his time playes many parts…

-- Shakespeare, As You Like It

 

Shyamji, tell me is this not the 'maya' or 'lila' of hinduism?

 

then again, Shakespeare says

 

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

 

The point is in a strict vedantic sense , all of us who are not self

realized are 'fools' ( moodhas )

 

let me conclude by quoting a verse from Bhatruhari's NITI SHATAKAM

 

'Brahma in his ire may suddenly deny the swan the pleasure of abode

amidst the cluster of lotuses. But he cannot deprive it of its well-

known skill of separating milk from water.'

 

So it is 'viveka ' we need at all levels not just bookish knowledge

or skill in oration.

 

 

In any case , even a foolish, ignorant man like Kalidasa became a

great poet after Devi showered him with her Kataksham ! The Dumb

poet Muka kavi was also able to become eloquent after Devi bestowed

Her Anugraham on him.

 

It is by guru and goddesse's grace only one can acquire Brahma

jnana !

 

on this thursday , let me offer a verse from Adi shankara

bhagvadapada's guruvashtakam

 

Shadangadhi vedo Mukhe sasra vidhya ,

Kavithwadhi gadhyam , supadhyam karothi,

Gurorangri padme manaschenna lagnam,

Thatha kim Thatha Kim, Thatha kim Thatha kim. 3

 

The Vedas with their six auxiliaries and knowledge of sciences may

be on the one's lips; one may have the gift of poesy; and may

compose good prose and poetry; but if one's mind be not attached to

the lotus feet of the Guru, what thence, what thence, what thence,

what thence?

 

Aum Sri GURAVE NAMHA!

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Kathirasan,

 

It is interesting that you should connect the word 'fool' with the

Katha Upanishad 4.1.

 

The English 'fool' comes from the Latin 'follis', which means a

'bellows' or in other words an inflated wind-bag from which air is

puffed out. This idea of 'folly' or 'foolishness' as an 'inflated

blowing out' does indeed correspond to the Katha Upanishad 4.1. In

fact, it corresponds rather more than the translation which you

quote as follows:

 

"The self-existent damned the out-going senses. Therefore one sees

externally and not the internal Self"

 

In this translation, three points may be noted. First, the word

'self-existent' corresponds to the Sanskrit 'svayam-bhUH', which

more accurately means 'self-becoming'. It thus refers to the world

of change and happening. Second, the word 'damned' corresponds to

the Sanskrit 'vyatRiNAt', whose more accurate meaning is 'ate out'

or 'bored outwards' or 'excavated outwards'. And third, the word

'senses' translates 'khAni', which literally means 'holes'. So we

can make an alternative translation as follows:

 

parAnci khAni vyatRiNAt svayam-bhUs

tasmAt parAng pashyati nA 'ntar-Atman

 

The world that happens of itself

has excavated outward holes,

through which perception looks outside

and does not see the self within.

 

Moreover, to complete what's said, we can add a translation of the

remaining second part of this stanza (4.1):

 

kashcid dhIraH pratyag AtmAnam aikShad

AvRitta-cakShur amRitatvam icchan

 

But someone brave, who longs for that

which does not die, turns sight back in

upon itself. And it is thus

that self is seen, returned to self,

to its own true reality.

 

Here, in the second part of the stanza, we are told how the outward

huffing and puffing of our inflated foolishness can be reversed.

What it takes is a courageous longing for undying life, which does

not suffer any compromise with all the various deaths and

destructions that are seen by outward sight in our inflating and

deflating worlds. Through that longing, sight turns back -- into the

inmost principle of true intelligence, which we call 'self'.

 

So it turns out that our senses have a double aspect. On the one

hand, they are holes bored out towards an inflated deception that

appears as an outward world. But on the other hand, they are also

conduits through which an enquiring intelligence may turn back in,

by asking what reality is actually shown.

 

This is the dual nature of all foolishness. What it puffs out can

always be withdrawn, into a non-dual truth whose knowing is

unmediated and thus unmistakable.

 

The curious thing about folly is that reason can make better sense

of it, by falling back on truer knowing underneath.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "S.N. Sastri" <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> I find tthat in my previous mail the word 'muh' has been wrongly

typed by me

> as 'mun'. The verbal root is 'muh' which means 'to be deluded'.

> S.N.Sastri

 

Namaste,

 

The word 'mUrkhaH' presented itself to my mind. Somehow it occurred

to me that it means the same as 'mUDhaH'. When i looked up

the 'amarakosha', to my surprise, both these words, along with another

four, are listed in one group, as synonyms:

 

a~jnaH, mUDhaH, yathA-jaataH, mUrkhaH, vaidheyaH and bAlishaH (2120)

 

The Apte Sanskrit-English dictionary too gives the same meanings to

three words of the above list that i looked up.

 

Regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

Thank you Ananda-ji!

 

Another wonderful post. Bravo!

 

 

The following words are woth reading over and over again

 

 

( This is the dual nature of all foolishness. What it puffs out can

always be withdrawn, into a non-dual truth whose knowing is

unmediated and thus unmistakable.

 

The curious thing about folly is that reason can make better sense

of it, by falling back on truer knowing underneath. )

 

Yes!

 

"The teacher who is indeed *wise* does not bid you to enter the

house of his wisdom but rather leads you to the threshold of your

mind." -

-- Khalil Gibran

there are so many Nachiketas but only one Sadguru .

 

thank you!

 

 

with warmest regards

[Guest guest]

Humble pranams Sastri-ji

What a wonderful statement!

So profound and inspiring!

 

Hari OM

Shyam

 

--- "S.N. Sastri" <sn.sastri > wrote:

 

"A saint is said to have told the persons who

prostrated before him, "You are superior to me because

I have renounced only the petty worldly pleasures

whereas you have renounced the highest bliss".

S.N.Sastri

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "S.N. Sastri" <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> The word mUDha is derived from the verb 'mun' which means 'to be

deluded'.

> So mUDha does not mean a person devoid of intelligence. It means

one who is

> deluded by mAyA. So every one except the jnAni is a mUdha.

 

 

 

>

> On 9/28/06, subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v wrote:

> >

> > advaitin, "K Kathirasan" <brahmasatyam@>

> > wrote:

> > but

> > > does he use the word 'fools' explicitly? The error that we all

> > commit

 

 

The connection with the meaning of "muuDha"; Samarth Ramdas swami has

devoted an entire section for this ib his "daasabodha".

 

dashaka 2, samaasa 1

 

At least the folks who can understand Marathi would certainly can

comprehend the associated significance of this term. He has cited

literally hundreds of examples. He he further devotes another

section for explaining the term "paDhata muurkha" (Educated Fool).

 

dashaka 2, samaasa 10

 

Entire works is available on the Internet.

 

http://www.geocities.com/santsahitya/dasbodh.html

 

Best Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "S.N. Sastri" <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> On 9/29/06, subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v wrote:

> >

> > advaitin, "S.N. Sastri" <sn.sastri@> wrote:

> > >

> > > I find tthat in my previous mail the word 'muh' has been wrongly

> > typed by me

> > > as 'mun'. The verbal root is 'muh' which means 'to be deluded'.

 

Namaste,

 

The original title of the work also is "Moha-Mudgara" ('the

hammer that strikes at delusion'). Prof. T.M.P.Mahadevan, in a long

prefatory note to this work (in The Hymns of Shankara, publ. Motilal

Banarssidas, 1990) refers to a commentary on only 12 verses by

Svayamprakasha Swamin, called Dvadasha-manjarika-vivarana, which only

includes (in order) verses # 2, 29, 8, 4, 11, 3, 18, 26, 12, 13, 24,

25, 17, of the presently printed work (Vani Vilas, and later Samata

Book Publ.).

 

Another reference is at:

http://www.sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/bhajagovindam.pdf

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste dhyanasaraswati-ji,

 

It was very refreshing to see your heartful acknowledgement of great writers

such as Shakespeare and Tolstoy. Do we tend to forget, I wonder, that

analytical logic is only one aspect of the mind/intellect? We seem to place

so much importance on intellectual analysis and argumentative debate as a

mean to arriving at the truth of things.

 

Yet story telling, drama and poetry are also, potentially, very profound

means of inspiring people, leading to an understanding that is not limited

just to thought and concepts. Have you read Richard Bucke's work "Cosmic

Consciousness", written in 1901? As you may well know, he was one of the

pioneers of Western Psychology exploring what people referred to as

'mystical experiences', 'experiences of the Self', some of which we might

refer to as "samadhi" or "nirvikalpa samadhi". In his work, he also

includes an experience of his own which came about at the end of an evening

of poetry. Your post bought this to mind.

 

Bucke writes that this experience happened in the early spring of 1872 when

he had been in England. He had spent the evening reading poetry with

friends, reading to each other from the works of Wordsworth, Shelley,

Keats, Browning and especially Whitman. He reported that he left his

friends around midnight and drove home alone in a handsome cab. He then

goes on to report his experience, all of which is written in the third

person:

 

"His mind, deeply under the influence of the ideas, images and emotions

called up by the reading and talk of the evening, was calm and peaceful.

All at once, without warning of any kind, he found himself wrapped around as

it were by a flame-coloured cloud. For an instant he thought of fire, some

sudden conflagration in the great city, the next he knew that the light was

within himself. Directly afterwards came upon him a sense of exultation, of

immense joyousness, accompanied or immediately followed by an intellectual

illumination quite impossible to describe. Into his brain streamed one

momentary lightning flash of Brahmic Splendour which has ever lightened his

life; upon his heart fell one drop of Brahmic Bliss, leaving thenceforward

for always an after taste of heaven. Among other things he did not come to

believe, he saw and knew that the Cosmos is not dead matter, but a living

Presence, that the soul of man is immortal, that the universe is also built

and ordered, that without any peradventure all things work together for the

good of each and all, that the foundation principle of the world is what we

call love, and that the happiness of every one is in the long run absolutely

certain. He claims that he learned more within the few seconds during which

the illumination lasted than in the previous months or even years of study,

and that he learned much that no study could ever have taught." (1901,

pp 9-10)

 

His last sentence deserves reflecting upon. Those who have had similar

experience make similar remarks.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

Peter-ji

 

First , Navaratri Greetings!

 

Thank you for sharing that interesting experience from Richard

Bucke's work "Cosmic > Consciousness", written in 1901? i have not

read it . However , i am familar with some of Carl Jung's dream

experiences. You Know Jung turned to Kundalini Yoga in the evening

of his life.

 

Who am i to acknowledge the 'greatness' of poets and philosophers

like Shakespeare , Tolstoy and Einstein? i am a mere 'mortal' !! Was

it not Shakespeare who said 'all mortals are Fools' ( A midsummer's

Night Dream) - now we *mortals* are calling the greatest poet who

ever lived as a *fool*? What an irony!!

 

Sri Nair-ji made an interesting comment about 'atma-hatya' ( suicide

in one of his recent post.

 

IT IS NOW TIME TO RECALL THAT FAMOUS MONOLOGUE OF hamlet on his

attempted suicide !

 

i am sure you are familiar with that famous passage from Hamlet 'To

Be not to be ' ? ( Hamlet Act 111, scene 1 (58-90) )

 

"To be, or not to be: that is the question:

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune

Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,

And by opposing end them?—To die,—to sleep,—

No more; and by a sleep to say we end

The heartache, and the thousand natural shocks

That flesh is heir to,—'tis a consummation

Devoutly to be wish'd. To die,—to sleep;—

To sleep: perchance to dream:—ay, there's the rub;

For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,

When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,

Must give us pause: there's the respect

That makes calamity of so long life;" ..............

 

Yes! The world is unbearably painful ( Dukhalayam iti samsaram is a

Hindu belief)

 

Hamlet is weighing the options - To be or not to be ? should he live

or should he die ? OR IS IT NOBLER TO SUFFER THE MISERIES OF LIFE ?

hE compares death to sleep and then thinks it will put an end to all

his misery. But then , he wonders what is there after death ? Then

on close examination he decides that he may have worst experiences

in his afterlife and says 'conscience does make cowards of us all '

 

Yes! This is a 'spiritually ' ambiguous world with all its divine

paradoxes. Yes - hamlet turned from religion to logic and an

intellectual enquiry and he failed and found the whole experience

frustrating.

 

"But that the dread of something after death,—

The undiscover'd country, from whose bourn

No traveller returns,—puzzles the will,

And makes us rather bear those ills we have

Than fly to others that we know not of?

Thus conscience does make cowards of us all"

 

This is my favorite passage ! Yes ! Hamlet stared at the 'sword' a

long time - then decided not to end his life . The sword is a

beautiful metaphor -it is called the sword of discrimination (

viveka) - the sword can be used in many ways - either to kill or to

cut asunder the knots of ignorance!

 

and one more thing !

 

Shakespeare akso says ' give everyone thy ear few thy voice' and

strangely Sri Ramana says the same thing 'summ iru' ( be still and

contemplate)

 

i had quoted Shakespeare in my other post saying 'all the world is a

stage; we are all players.'

 

The shiva sutras say

 

" The self is the actor.3-10 The inner self is the stage.

The senses are the spectators."

 

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to express some random

thoughts .

 

love and regards

 

 

advaitin, "Peter" <not_2 wrote:

>

>

> Namaste dhyanasaraswati-ji,

>

> It was very refreshing to see your heartful acknowledgement of

great writers

> such as Shakespeare and Tolstoy.