Weekly Definition - jIva

[Guest guest]

advaitin, bhaskar.yr wrote:

praNAms Sri thollmelukaalkizhu (is it your name ?? ) prabhuji

 

(nickname, ofcourse)

 

Namaskarams Sri Bhaskarji, thank you for your response. The points

are these:

1. We are united as to paramaarthika viewpoint, but quite careless as

to vyavahaarika. (This is our "safety cushion"). Raise the topic of

reincarnation or personal God. No consensus. Is Shankara clear? Well

yes you might say, but we may well have several commentators on what

was the real intent of his commentaries. I am not joking. Why

say "arthavaada" and "solid reality" (no offense intended, Sri

Subbuji) for the same concept? It is sheer confusion.

2. Ishvara is affirmed at one place as the real identity, in which

case the Reality that operates (appears to ?!!?) in the "false ego-

less" state is recognized as Ishvara. And at another, Ishvara is

affirmed as Rama, Krishna and Govinda. And "ultimately all this is

unreal" seems almost an escape from having to confess our ignorance

and sentimentalities.

 

I really don't know on these points. If there are sure boundaries to

vyavahaarika interpretation, I would like to know them. So I ask.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> praNAms

> Hare Krishna

>

> Before embarking with my views on the concept of jIva in advaita,

may I

> suggest something with regard to *weekly definitions*?? It's been

seen

> that members are coming out with their own interpretations /

understanding

> of *key words* in advaita & it may sometime mislead the fresh

entrants...to

> avoid confusions caused from our own theories, I humbly request,

senior

> scholars like Sri Sadananda prabhuji, Sri Sunder Hattangadi

prabhuji, Sri

> Subbu prabhuji, Sri Prof. VK prabhuji, Sri Dennis prabhuji, Sri

Ananda Wood

> prabhuji, Sri Shyam prabhuji to explain these terms according to

Shankara

> bhAshya first.

 

Namaste all.

 

I am scheduled to begin the monthly topic "Who is the doer? Who is

the experiencer?" on February 1. I shall build the concept of Jiva

in that writing to the best of my knowledge.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Dear Putranm-ji,

 

 

 

Advaita is all about gaining knowledge of the mithyA since knowledge of

satyam is not possible and it is the mithyA that binds us. The pAramArthika

reality is One; the vyAvahArika duality is legion. All methods and teachings

must be permissible if they lead in the right direction. Some may appear

contradictory but are carefully gauged by the qualified teacher towards the

particular level and needs of each student. In other words, 'anything goes'

if it works! It is all taken back in the end (adhyAropa-apavAda).

 

 

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

<<I really don't know on these points. If there are sure boundaries to

vyavahaarika interpretation, I would like to know them. So I ask.>>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "putranm" <putranm wrote:

(no offense intended, Sri

> Subbuji) for the same concept? It is sheer confusion.

 

meant "It causes (caused) sheer confusion."

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "putranm" <putranm wrote:

>

> advaitin, bhaskar.yr@ wrote:

> praNAms Sri thollmelukaalkizhu (is it your name ?? ) prabhuji

>

> (nickname, ofcourse)

>

> Namaskarams Sri Bhaskarji, thank you for your response. The points

> are these:

> 1. We are united as to paramaarthika viewpoint, but quite careless

as

> to vyavahaarika. (This is our "safety cushion"). Raise the topic

of

> reincarnation or personal God. No consensus. Is Shankara clear?

Well

> yes you might say, but we may well have several commentators on

what

> was the real intent of his commentaries. I am not joking. Why

> say "arthavaada" and "solid reality" (no offense intended, Sri

> Subbuji) for the same concept? It is sheer confusion.

> 2. Ishvara is affirmed at one place as the real identity, in which

> case the Reality that operates (appears to ?!!?) in the "false ego-

> less" state is recognized as Ishvara. And at another, Ishvara is

> affirmed as Rama, Krishna and Govinda. And "ultimately all this is

> unreal" seems almost an escape from having to confess our

ignorance

> and sentimentalities.

>

> I really don't know on these points. If there are sure boundaries

to

> vyavahaarika interpretation, I would like to know them. So I ask.

>

 

Namaste Sri. Thollmelukaalkizhu,

 

Please allow me to share my perspective on this subject.

 

First, your observation and critique is up to the point.

 

The concept of `arthavAda' is basically from Jaimini of pUrva-

mImAmsa. It is not found anywhere in shruti itself and hence alien

to vEdAnta. Jaimini has his own interest or (agenda so to speak)

to propound concept of `arthavAda' in his PM. He is primarily

concerned with performing yagnyA & sacrifices etc., and thus parts

of vEda that are not relevant to his primary concern is

simple "arthavAda-ish" to him. Even all of mAhavAkya-s such as

`yatra hi dvaitamiva bhavati', `tattvamasi', `ahaM brahmAsmi', etc.,

are arthavAda-ish to him.

 

However, other schools of vEdAnta reject this concept of `arthavAda'

on the grounds that it is not propounded by shruti itself but rather

imported from outside. They look at whole issue of arthavada from

the objective perspective as follows;

 

Everybody in orthodox saDdarshana (including pUrvamImAmsaka-s)

accepts vEda-s as pramANa. This acceptance is based on the grounds

that vEda-s are apourushEya (unauthored by anyone). As such, the

concept of `apourushEyatvam' guarantees the objectivity to the means

of knowledge and thus it follows that vEda are pramANa in revealing

the truth.

 

Now, after accepting so, what does it mean to say some parts of the

same vEda are `artha-vAda'/`attvavEdaka' and other are not? How do

we know only some specific chosen parts are arthavAda and other are

not? Who decides so? In order to choose so & so parts of vEda are

arthavAda, we need another objective pramANa, which clearly

establishes so & so parts are arthavAda and other parts are not.

But do we have such deciding pramANa is the big question.

 

Given the absence of such pramANa, any classification of akhanda

vEda as arthavAda-vs-tatvavEdaka is simply wrong and will have

epistemological implication such as above mentioned problem.

 

Jaimini's classification of certain vEdic parts as `arthavAda'

exposes his real intent and bare fact that he has first made up his

doctrine independent of vEda and then trying to `retrofit' it into

vEda and to find the vEdic sanction thus make it appear that it is

authentic. In this process, any incompatible parts are labeled

as `arthavAda'!

 

On the contrary, we have many number of vEdic and aagamic sources

attesting the fact that vEda and its ancillary text are out there to

generate knowledge about Brahman only in their **entirety**. For

instance;

 

1. kaTOpanishat "sarvE vedAha yat padam Amananti.."

 

2. mahOpanishad (mahA-nArayaNa Upanishad) says "sarvottamaM

sarvadoshhavyapetaM guNairasheshhaiH

pUrNamanyaM samastAt.h | vailaxaNyAjj~nApayituM pravR^ittAH sarve

vedA mukhyato naiva chAnyat.h" (All the Vedas aim at revealing

Narayana who is all-surpassing, free from all evil, abounding in all

excellences and different from all else by reason of his uniqueness.

This they do in

their direct signification and they teach nothing else.' )

 

3. SriKrishna says the similar thing in gIta "vEdaischa sarvaihi

ahamEva vEdyO".

 

4. Hari-vanmsha says the exact thing; "vEdE rAmAyaNE chaiva, purANE

bhAratE tatha, adavantE cha madhyE cha vishNuH sarvatra gIyatE"

(crude translation is `vEda, ramAyaNa, purANa-s, mahabhArata are

all; in their starting, middle & end part; come about to teach

vishnU (parabrahman) only"

 

That's the reason, other Acharyas reject this `arthavAda' concept

and strongly insists & accepts entire vEda as valid and `shAstra'

by definition.

 

With warm regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p wrote:

 

> That's the reason, other Acharyas reject this `arthavAda' concept

> and strongly insists & accepts entire vEda as valid and `shAstra'

> by definition.

>

> With warm regards,

> Srinivas.

>

 

Namaskarams Srinivas Kotekalji,

 

Thank you for your clear observations. I was actually planning to stay

away for a while from the group since I was getting caught up looking

into it too often. But by the Lord's providence (or whatever) I wanted

to check till this topic went down by itself.

 

It is not in ignorance of Advaita nor in ignorance of other schools

that I posed my questions. Sometimes one can act as a bad kid within

one's own family, testing the limits freely. That should not be

interpreted that he wants to be adopted elsewhere. In any other home

(i.e. non-Advaita schools), the kid knows the treatment for such demands.

 

I am rather tired now and in no mood to bring up arguments, especially

since yours was the last response I expected to meet in this group. I

ask forgiveness from the Advaita/Shankara followers for this embarassment.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite wrote:

>

All methods and teachings

> must be permissible if they lead in the right direction. Some may appear

> contradictory but are carefully gauged by the qualified teacher

towards the

> particular level and needs of each student. In other words,

'anything goes'

> if it works! It is all taken back in the end (adhyAropa-apavAda).

>

 

Namaskarams Sri Dennisji,

 

Thank you for your thoughts. It is the practical conclusion that great

teachers like Sri Ramakrishna, etc. have echoed. I accept.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri.Thollmelukaalkizhu,

 

 

advaitin, "putranm" <putranm wrote:

> In any other home

> (i.e. non-Advaita schools), the kid knows the treatment for such

demands.

>

 

I am not sure I understood this. Can you please elaborate it further?

 

Thanks,

Srinivas

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p wrote:

>

>

> Namaste Sri.Thollmelukaalkizhu,

>

>

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

> > In any other home

> > (i.e. non-Advaita schools), the kid knows the treatment for such

> demands.

> >

>

> I am not sure I understood this. Can you please elaborate it further?

>

> Thanks,

> Srinivas

>

 

Sorry for that arrogant remark. Let's agree to disagree.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

praNAms mAtAji

Hare Krishna

 

Adi mAtAji :

 

I don't think Adi shankara bhagvadapada would himself like it if he

hears you say that 'shankara bhagvdapada's words are final ' ....

Such is not the stuff great saonts are made of ! if that were the

case , there would not be so many commentaries and sub commentaries

and interpretations of those commentaries ...

 

bhaskar :

 

Infact this is what I am also asking...as you have explained above,

commentaries & interpretations have come from later Acharya's *based* on

bhagavadpAdA's works...is it not?? Likewise, we can interpret / comment on

certain terminologies *based* on bhagavadpAdA's works...After all we are

here to learn advaita vEdAnta *as taught* by shankara..

 

Adi mAtAji :

 

with regards

ps if Maya is anirvachaniya , why is she beinng labelled 'avidya' ?

 

bhaskar :

 

>From the philosophical point of view, shankara explains mAya as avidyA

kalpita (concocted by avidyA), avidyA parikalpita (fictiously imgined by

avidyA) etc. etc. But here he gives example of foam & water to explain

*mAya* and NOT dEvi Ambika :-)) and somewhere he explains it as Ishwara

shakti, and some times he says it is vyaktAvyaktAtmaka...But nowhere

(atleast as far as my knowledge goes) he personalizes this mAya & says this

mAya is mAta durga/lakshmi/saraswati etc. etc. who are avidyA kalpita or

avidyA paryupasthApita :-))...It is also interesting to note that Shankara

while commenting on gIta says, sapta mAtrukA & vinAyaka pUja are tAmasic

in nature...but we have bhakti works like soudaryalahari, bhavAnyashtaka,

annapUrNa stOtra etc. etc. in the name of bhagavadpAda :-))

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p

wrote:

> However, other schools of vEdAnta reject this concept of

`arthavAda'

> on the grounds that it is not propounded by shruti itself but

rather

> imported from outside. They look at whole issue of arthavada from

> the objective perspective as follows;

>

> Everybody in orthodox saDdarshana (including pUrvamImAmsaka-s)

> accepts vEda-s as pramANa. This acceptance is based on the grounds

> that vEda-s are apourushEya (unauthored by anyone). As such, the

> concept of `apourushEyatvam' guarantees the objectivity to the

means

> of knowledge and thus it follows that vEda are pramANa in

revealing

> the truth.

>

> Now, after accepting so, what does it mean to say some parts of

the

> same vEda are `artha-vAda'/`attvavEdaka' and other are not? How do

> we know only some specific chosen parts are arthavAda and other

are

> not? Who decides so? In order to choose so & so parts of vEda are

> arthavAda, we need another objective pramANa, which clearly

> establishes so & so parts are arthavAda and other parts are not.

> But do we have such deciding pramANa is the big question.

>

> Given the absence of such pramANa, any classification of akhanda

> vEda as arthavAda-vs-tatvavEdaka is simply wrong and will have

> epistemological implication such as above mentioned problem.

>

>

 

ShrIgurubhyo namaH

 

Namaste Srinivas ji,

 

While i am not making a well documented reply on the above

observations, let me quickly point out some facts:

 

1. In the ShaD-vidha tAtparya lingas (the six-fold indicators to

decide upon the purport of a work), 'arthavAda' is one. I do not

know if the other schools accept only five, and exclude arthavada.

The Advaita Acharyas have worked out these aspects and specified

each of these with respect to the Upanishads, both in general and

also in particular for specific Upanishads.

 

2. Acharya Shankara has said: 'There is no teaching of the Veda

that is not useful (for someone or the other at some time or the

other)'. I am not able to cite the reference. So, it is not

thoughtlessly jettisoning some portions of the Veda just out of

whims and fancies.

 

3. In the Brahma sutra 'ashuddham iti chet na, shabdAt', the

Acharya does not agree that it is 'himsa' when it comes to veda-

vihita pashu yaaga (sacrifice involving specified parts of an

animal). He has not compromised with 'pishTa pashu'.

 

Owing to some personal reasons, i am not entering a full-fledged

discussion on this topic.

 

A note for Shri Putran: Pl. go thru msg no. 29440 to get a feel of

what i meant by 'To the Acharyas, Ishwara is a solid reality'. You

may also dive into the archives for the several posts that appeared

exactly a year ago on the topic: Bhakti and Jnanam.

 

Warm regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

Sadar Pranaams prabhuji!

 

A great tantrik advaitin like Adi Shankara Bhagavadapada WOULD NEVER

EVER equate Ambaal with Avidya ... Ambaal is Jnananmbika ! She is

chid shakti and chaitya swarupini ! !

 

my original objection was to subbuji's post number 34825 where he

grouped together Maya , Shakti and avidya as synonyms !

 

may i please recall the words of our most beloved Chittaranjan

prabhuji on this subject on his brilliant series on 'Real and

unreal '? post number 24050 ?

 

Here is how Chiita views

 

MAYA AND AVIDYA

 

"The confusion between avidya and Maya arises from a

misinterpretation of the bhashya, wherein it is stated that the

omniscience and omnipotence of God are contingent upon the nescience

of the jiva. How is this statement to be interpreted? The

word 'contingent' here implies a condition upon which something else

happens. Avidya is the condition and what happens is the response of

Reality to that condition. And that response springs by its innate

power given the contingency of avidya and the accumulations of karma

caused by avidya. Just as in the Yoga Sutra it is mentioned:

 

"Good and bad deeds are not the direct causes in transformations, but

they act as breakers of obstacles to nature, as a farmer breaks the

obstacles to the course of water, which then runs down by its own

nature." (YS,IV,3).

 

Similarly avidya is not the cause, but is the contingent factor upon

which the very nature of Brahman 'acts'. And it is because Brahman

acts by His nature that Brahman is actionless in His actions, because

that action is not through the sense of agency but by His own

immovable nature, for His nature is unmoved even by the greatest of

deeds and is hence truly omnipotent. He does the greatest of deeds

with the greatest of ease – without the least affection to His being.

That is His aishwarya - His controllership. Therefore He is called

Ishwara, for Ishwara is the repository of aishwarya.

 

and then Chitta adds this brilliant commentary on

 

 

ISHWARA AND MAYA

 

Ishwara is not a product of Maya. Maya is Ishwara's incomprehensible

power of creation. There is no avidya in Ishwara.

 

The seeing of the Seer is not avidya. It is the very nature of

Brahman. It is the eternal and unbroken seeing of Brahman: "For when

it appears that it does not see, it is seeing even though it appears

it is not seeing; for there is no cessation of the seeing of the

seer, but there is no second thing apart from it that it can see."

(Br.Up. IV,III,23).

 

Shankara says in the bhashya (BSB,I,v,5): "For like the effulgence of

the sun, Brahman has eternal consciousness by Its very nature, so

that It has no dependence on the means of knowledge. Moreover, in the

case of the transmigrating soul, subject to ignorance, the rise of

knowledge depends on body etc., but not so in the case of God whose

knowledge is free from obstacles. And thus it is that the following

two mantras show how God is not dependent on body etc., and how His

knowledge has no covering: 'He has no body and no organ; none is seen

to be either equal or superior to Him. The Vedas speak of His diverse

supreme powers as also of His spontaneous action that is accomplished

by His vigour arising from knowledge.' (Sv.VI.8)." And the next sutra

reinforces this by stating that this eternal seeing is not spoken in

a secondary sense.

 

Now, the capacity by which the 'created' universe is brought forth

into the luminosity of seeing is not avidya. For avidya is nescience

which means sloth, or sleep, or inertia. Inertia cannot bring forth;

it can only mask and hide. That is the meaning of avidya. The

capacity to bring forth has to be the capacity to illuminate to the

senses – it has to be a power of projection. Its name must derive

from the etymological root that evokes the meaning of projection.

That word is vikshepa. And the power by which it brings forth is

vikshepa shakti.

 

What is brought forth to be illumined to the senses also hides what

is not illumined, in so far as it is not so illumined.

Particularization hides the infinitude of the universal. That showing

forth of a particular also conceals the universality, and that

concealment is a concomitant of vikshepa. It is its avarana shakti.

It is the obverse side of vikshepa.

 

The knowing eye – the third eye – is never befooled by avarana. It

knows the infinity even in seeing the particular. It is only the

cloud of unknowing that takes the finite for the infinite. That cloud

of unknowing is avidya. It is not a 'thing' for it is the privation

of knowing. It is the veil of indescribability that has its seat in

the jiva.

 

The third eye is the eye of Ishwara. Therefore Ishwara has no avidya.

Vikshepa and avarana are the capacities of His infinite power – the

awesome power of Maya. They are not two - Ishwara and His Maya – they

are Existence and the magical power of Existence. They are Shiva and

Shakti.

 

What Ishwara brings forth is Himself. That is His own form showing

forth. It is His Prakriti. They are not two – Ishwara and His Form –

they are Existence and the Prakara of Existence. They are Purusha and

Prakriti.

 

In our lucid moments, we may glimpse that the world is only in

consciousness, that it has no existence in itself, but in spite of

such a vision, one cannot, by one's will, determine the world into

being. That power of aishwarya remains with Ishwara. A fraction of

that power may come to a yogi through the eight siddhis, but the

power of creation remains with Ishwara alone.

 

"For the Supreme Lord alone has competence for activities concerning

the creation etc., of the universe inasmuch as the fact of creation

etc., is taught in connection with Him alone, and the word `eternal'

is attributed to Him. The Upanishads mention that others get the

divine powers of becoming atomic in size etc., as a result of search

and hankering for knowing Him." (BSB, IV,IV,vii,17).

 

The world springs from a deeper level than one's conceptions and

conception cannot negate the very Will from which it springs forth as

conception. The weft and weave of the cloth cannot negate the cloth.

The jives with their minds are identified with so many layers or

sheaths of Reality, and from amidst the weave of these sheaths one

cannot negate the filaments of the weave, nor see the deep springs

from whence the world has come. The weave is already woven and it is

Ishwara that has brought it forth and it is He that projects and

holds the universe in place. How then can the jiva that cannot see

the well-springs of the world deny the world? "

 

Quote ends !

 

Pasaages like these are woth repeating over and over again ! Today ,

Chitta is not here with us in this forum but he has left behind such

wonderful messages behind thaT are worth readiong over and over

again AND REPEATING OVER AND OVER AGAIN ! !

 

May i also recall these words from the Shevetashvatara upanishad ?

 

>From his divine power comes forth all this magical show of name and

form, of you and me, which casts the spell of pain and pleasure. Only

when we pierce through this magic veil do we see the One who appears

as many."

(Shvetashvatara Up. 4:2-5, P.225)

 

 

Shevetashtara Upanishad also says as quoted by Sadaji in his post

also in this way ...

 

"Know nature to be Maya and the Ruler of this Maya is the Lord

Himself."

 

A great Tantrik shakta by the name of Arthur Avalon also states...

 

"The Maya of Shankara is a mysterious Shakti of Ishvara, by which

Vivartta is sought to be explained and which has two manifestations,

viz., Veiling (Avarana) and moving, changing and projecting

(Vikshepa) power. Ishvara is Brahman reflected in Maya; a mystery

which is separate, and yet not separate, from Brahman in Its Ishvara

aspect. The Shakta Maya-Shakti is an aspect of Shiva or Brahman

Itself."

 

Prabhuji , i do not know how Adi shankara bhagvadapada would not

recommend Vinayaka puja ?

 

in the Panchayatana puja , Adi shankara bhagvadapada has recommended

the worship of Shiva, Vishnu, Devi, Surya and *Ganesh* Bhagawans.

 

i do not know specifically anbout 'saptamatrika puja' that adi

shankara has labelled as 'tamasic ' but i know for a fact that the

great Advaita acharya shankara bhagvadapada had installed the 'sri

chakra ' in many amball temples such as Kanchi Kamakshi temple and

Mookambika temple in kolur and Sharadambika temple in sringeri!

 

Devi is but the kinetic aspect of the Supreme Self that brings about

the creation, sustenance and dissolution of the Universe. This is

evident in all Devi stotras. The `Devi Máhátmya' says,

``Søútisthiti, vináùánám ùaktibhüte sanátani''. She is the refulgent

gem that is inlaid in the casket of the mind of the sages -

munijanamanaç peûiratnam, says Müka kavi describing the Goddess at

Kanchi in his Mükapaòcaùatè-Stutiùatakam .

 

PLEASE READ THIS VERSE FROM ADI SHANKARA BHAGVADAPADA'S

GAURIDASAKAM

 

Pratyáhára-dhyána-samádhi sthitibhájám

Nitiyam citte nirvøtikásthám kalayantim

Satyajòánándamayim tám tanurüpám

Gaurim ambám amburuhákúim aham ide(2)

 

I adore GaurI, the divine mother with lotus-like eyes. She generates

supreme bliss for ever in the minds of those who have attained the

state of Samádhi or deep trance after passing through the state of

pratyáhára and dhyána. Her real being is Truth-consciousness-bliss;

yet she takes the form (of GaurI) to help the devotees.

 

Pratyáhára is a stage in `yoga' when the sense organs that detract

the mind into the channels of lust, anger and ignorance are held in

check and the mind is in its state of pristine purity. Dhyána is

that continuous meditation on the appropriate object without being

sidetracked on irrelevant paths. Samádhi, says Yájòavalkya, is the

togetherness of the soul and the Supreme Self. Devi represents the

Supreme Bliss and hence is described elsewhere as Ánandavalli. Devi

being `karuïamyè, the Compassionate mother, takes the form of GaurI

to help the `Sádhakas' realise the Truth.

 

http://www.kamakoti.org -

 

Salutations to the Cosmic mother !

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "dhyanasaraswati"

<dhyanasaraswati wrote:

 

> ISHWARA AND MAYA

>

> Ishwara is not a product of Maya. Maya is Ishwara's incomprehensible

> power of creation. There is no avidya in Ishwara.

 

 

Dear Dhyanasaraswati-ji,

 

Many thanks for bringing this 'hidden' article written by our Sri

Chitta-ji. Its very simple. I am seeing this world, this marvelous

creation is there. If there is only satchidananda nirguna brahman

bereft of power of creation ie mAyA, Adyashakti, the incomprehensible

power of the lord how these things took place? No dialectics or

reasoning is required.

 

Sri Ramakrishna used to say, Brahman and his shakti are inseparable.

He used to use the simile of fire and its power to burn, and he used

to call snake resting as brahman in which kinetic energy is in latent

form and mAyA or shakti when it starts its wriggling motion ie

creation, preservation and distruction which is an 'utter

impossibility' without the ishwarya of the lord or his inscrutable

power or will.

 

Differences of opinion are bound to exist and this is also lord's play

as virAt :-)

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka

[Guest guest]

advaitin, bhaskar.yr wrote:

>> I think what you said above is true...Ishwara is a reality only in

> vyAvahAric plane where we have the jIva bhAva & the platform of

> jagat...shankara confirms this and quotes sUtrakAra (bAdarAyaNa) who

has

> recommended the contemplation on the mutual identity of jIva & Ishvara

in

> their transcedental aspect..(shankara quotes some minor shruti-s also

here

> to justify his claims). He says, we do not say that Ishwara is a

> tranmigratory being but shruti intended to teach the divine nature of

jIva

> by negating his apparent transmigratory nature.

 

Dear Bhaskar prabhuji, This idea is seemingly contradictory. If there is

no Ishwara, then there is no need to strive for liberation because after

death, it is the end of the story. Why do I need liberation then and

why do I need Vedanta and lists ? I was born and I will die one

day - there is nobody to record what I did or did not do, no law of

karma, no karmaphaladaata etc.

 

On the other hand, if you have intense desire liberation, discrmination

for eternal and ephemeral, you have already admitted the absolute

reality of Ishwara, his law of Karma and an Ishwara providing you

another body at an opportune time to exhaust more karmas.

 

Hence there is no point emphasizing again and again that Ishwara is not

an absolute reality. Only a realized person (who is no longer really a

person) can say that.

 

regards,

 

Om Namah Sivaya

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

 

> 2. Acharya Shankara has said: 'There is no teaching of the Veda

> that is not useful (for someone or the other at some time or the

> other)'. I am not able to cite the reference. So, it is not

> thoughtlessly jettisoning some portions of the Veda just out of

> whims and fancies.

 

 

Namaste,

 

The following quote may help:

 

http://www.celextel.org/adisankara/satasloki.html

 

".......While most of the verses are based on various mantras of the

Upanishads, there are some based on mantras in the Karmakanda of the

Vedas. Sri Sankara thus points out that the Karmakanda also contains

valuable teachings for the spiritual aspirant who strives for

realization of the Self. Unlike the Sankhyas who gave importance

only to the Jnanakanda and the Purva Mimamsakas who dismissed the

Upanishads as mere Arthavada or eulogy, Sankara established in his

Bhashyas that both the kandas have validity, though at different

stages of the aspirant's spiritual progress. In his Bhashya on Br.

Up. 4.4.2 he says-"All the obligatory rites serve as means to

liberation through the attainment of Self-knowledge. Hence we see

that the ultimate purpose of the two parts of the Vedas, that

dealing with rites and that dealing with Self-knowledge, is the

same". In many places in the Karma kanda there are clear indications

that the ultimate goal of life is liberation(see for example verse

19 in the present work)........" [sri S.N.Sastri]

 

By the way, Briha. upan. 4:4:2, bhashya has an excellent

description of 'transmigration'.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Dennis-ji,

 

Great minds Think alike ! i also thought Anandaji's defintion of

Jiva written in POETIC STYLE is the best on this subject and i am

g, common to all jivas !lad Dennisji assigned it a pride of place in

his website --

 

i specially 'connected ' to the following words in Anandaji's post!!

 

" The verse considers the same two aspects that Shri

Dennis describes as: (1) 'personal or individual soul', and (2) 'the

Atman, together with the upAdhi (limiting adjunct) of avidyA

(ignorance)'. But these aspects are described in a slightly

alternative way, as: (1) 'living person', and (2) 'false ego'."

 

You all know , how i reacted when the word 'avidya' was used as a

synonym for Maya and shakti ... and we all know it was a partial

description because maya has two aspects 'vidya' and 'avidya' ...

therefore i luved the way Anandaji replaced the word 'avidya'

by 'false ego' (ahamkara) which is a 'gender free' neutral word!

common to all jivas, male and Female

 

(subbuji i have posted an elaborate reply to your message the

Grand scheme of veda vyasa yesterday - it has not made it to the

message board as yet due to glitches )

 

Anything that breathes is a jiva including plants and animals but

what distinguishes man/woman from these other species is

the 'atman'so in reality we should redefine the term as '

jivatma(n)....

 

Jivatman is an embodied soul with a false ego , among other

things ...

 

The sanskrit word for false ego is Ahamkara. Ahamkara can also mean

Arrogance -t also means 'I'ness or 'my' ness -identifying oneself

with all external objects ..........(ahamkara ana mamakara - "i'ness

and 'Mineness ' GO HAND IN HAND AND IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF ALL EGO

CENTERED ACTIVITIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL! !

 

THE FOLLOWING VERSES IN ANAANDAJI'S POST reminded me of Sri

Ramana's Vichara on 'Ego'...

 

"> Where the expressions are confused

> with that from which they are expressed,

> a living person there appears

> mistakenly identified --

>

> as a false ego which is thought

> to be at once both changeless self

> and changing personality.

>

> This seeming ego (wrongly thought

> to be a person in the world)

> is a confusion which gets cleared

> by turning back to knowing self,

> from where all changing acts are known."

 

Sri Ramana Bhagwan says ...

 

"If the ego is, everything else also is. If the ego is not, nothing

else is. Indeed, the ego is all. Therefore the enquiry as to what

this ego is, is the only way of giving up everything.

 

The moment the ego-self [tries] to know itself, it changes its

character; it begins to partake less and less of the Jada, in which

it is absorbed, and more and more of the Consciousness of the Self,

the Atman. "

 

So, How to get rid of this E-go.... ?

 

Sri Ramana says

 

"The ego or separate soul is a concept. God, the world, the mind,

desires, action, sorrow and all other things are all concepts.

(Ramana Maharshi, HRG, 15.)

 

The ego-self does not exist at all. (Ramana Maharshi, GR, 54.)

 

The mind is a bundle of thoughts. The thoughts arise because there

is the thinker. The thinker is the ego. The ego, if sought, will

automatically vanish. The ego and the mind are the same. The ego is

the root-thought from which all other thoughts arise. (Ramana

Maharshi, TWSRM, Question 347.)

 

Hold the ego first and then ask how it is to be destroyed. Who asks

this question? It is the ego. Can the ego ever agree to kill itself?

This question is a sure way to cherish the ego and not to kill it.

If you seek the ego you will find it does not exist. That is the way

to destroy it.

 

In this connection I am often reminded of a funny incident which

took place when I was living in the West Chitrai Street in Madura. A

neighbour in an adjoining house anticipated the visit of a thief to

his house. He took precautions to catch him. He posted policemen in

mufti to guard the two ends of the lane, the entrance and the back-

door to his own house. The thief came as expected and the men rushed

to catch him. He took in the situation at a glance and shouted "Hold

him, hold him. There-he runs-there-there.'' Saying so he made good

his escape.

 

So it is with the ego. Look for it and it will not be found. That is

the way to get rid of it. "

 

 

MAY i Leave YOU WITH VERSE 300 FROM VIVEKA CHUDAMANI ?

 

Freed from the clutches of egoism, as the moon from those of Rahu,

man attains to his real nature, and becomes pure, infinite,

ever blissful and self-luminous.

 

Sat Chit Ananda