Atmaj~JAna

February 12, 2007

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

The following is mantra from Kena Upanishad and Sri Sankara's commentary on the mantra.

PRATIBODHAVIDITA

The Kenopanishad (2.4) and the bhashya thereon throw a flood of light on this subject:

Brahman is known when It is realised in every state of mind;

for by such Knowledge one attains Immortality.

By Atman one obtains strength; by Knowledge, Immortality.

The term bodha here stands for cognition ie., the mental mode that reveals an object.

He for whom each and every one of these cognitions is an object of direct perception,

who is of the nature of Pure Consciousness alone and

who is indicated by these very cognitions as being present in identically the same manner in all of

them, without being conditioned by them, is Atman;

There is no otherway for knowing the Inner Atman.

Thus 'knowledge' of Brahman in this

manner as the very essence of every cognition is Samyagdarshana, the true knowledge of Brahman.

It becomes established thereby that Brahman, the Witness of all cognitions, is of the nature of

Consciousness, subject to neither birth nor death, Eternal, of absolutely pure nature, the very Atman, without any attributes, and

the One in all being, as the akasha in a pot, a hill and a cave, there being no differentiating feature. (unquote)

OM TAT SAT

This very clearly shows how a genuine and sincere seeker can realize

his true svarupa in the most simple, direct and easy way , without getting into any unwanted contravertial discussions which are nothing but husk and which go in the name of Vedantic teachings and which act as the greatest obstacle in

one's spiritual journey.

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers

February 13, 2007

sreenivasa murthy <narayana145 (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote: H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

The following is mantra from Kena Upanishad and Sri Sankara's commentary on the mantra.

Thank you, dear Sri Murthy, for your extremely illuminating exposition of the ambiguous truth of the Atman alone being loudly proclaimed in all our cognitions. We think that the Atman is a specialized knowledge, requiring some intellectual accomplishment, writing extensively from the scriptures. It is a very glib thought that by studying more and more the scriptures one can understand the truth. It is merely a vasana, we should know it to be. The very first verse, the benedictory verse, of the work, 'Reality on Forty Verses,' brings into clear relief this idea. Too much preoccupations with the definitions is only a feast for the intellect which has already been pandered much to its needs, which if we further perpetrate, should be a great digression, rather sidetracking from the royal road of truth to the meandering of the intellect.

with respectful regards

Sankarraman

Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.

Try the free Mail Beta.

February 13, 2007

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

> Thank you, dear Sri Murthy, for your extremely illuminating

exposition of the ambiguous truth of the Atman alone being loudly

proclaimed in all our cognitions. We think that the Atman is a

specialized knowledge, requiring some intellectual accomplishment,

writing extensively from the scriptures. It is a very glib thought

that by studying more and more the scriptures one can understand the

truth. It is merely a vasana, we should know it to be. The very

first verse, the benedictory verse, of the work, 'Reality on Forty

Verses,' brings into clear relief this idea. Too much preoccupations

with the definitions is only a feast for the intellect which has

already been pandered much to its needs, which if we further

perpetrate, should be a great digression, rather sidetracking from

the royal road of truth to the meandering of the intellect.

> with respectful regards

> Sankarraman

Dear Sir,

There is a point in what you are saying. But it entirely depends on

an aspirant's attitude towards the learning of the sacred

scriptures. There was sage in our tradition who used to study

Upanishads and Shankara Bhashya as long as 8-9 hours per day, who in

the later part of his life became veritable jivanmukta. But hardly

he used to speak!

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

Br. Vinayaka

February 13, 2007

Namaste, All

The purport of the Upanishads is not only to reveal that the true swaroopa of jivas is atma but more than that, that Atma is Brahman alone and the swaroopa of Brahman is Satyam Gnanam Anantham, i.e. Poornam. Knowing one’s true Swaroopa as Atma alone does not lead to Freedom from Samsara, but knowing the Swaroopa of that Atma as Satyam Gnanam Anantham Brahma, i.e. the Atma is Poornam and lacks nothing, that leads to freedom from Samsara.

The purport of the Upanishads is to reveal Jeeva Brahma Aikyam and more than that the Swaroopa of Brahaman is Satyam Gnanam Anantham i.e. not only Ayam Atma Brahma, but Satyam Gnanam Anantham Brahma.

Atma Gnana I think is not only knowledge of Atma as one’s swaroopa, but more than that the swaroopa of that Atma is Satyam Gnanam Anantham, i.e. Poornam.

The recognition of Swaroopa of Atma as Poornam makes all the difference and all the discussions and debates are for one to recognize this alone.

Respectful regards,

R. S. Mani

Finding fabulous fares is fun.

Let FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.

February 13, 2007

>

Dear Sir,

There is a point in what you are saying. But it entirely depends on

an aspirant's attitude towards the learning of the sacred

scriptures. There was sage in our tradition who used to study

Upanishads and Shankara Bhashya as long as 8-9 hours per day, who in

the later part of his life became veritable jivanmukta. But hardly

he used to speak!

Dear Vinayaka,

I don't mean to suggest that the study of scripture is futile. What I feel, in the heart of my hearts, is that a man who studies the scriptures with the sole aim of jivan mukti cannot parade his knowledge in a rather immature fashion. His aim should be with a view to becoming silent, realizing the absurdity of all external knowledge, the thirst for name and fame, surreptitiously hiding behind the veneration for the scriptures. The particular swamy, whom you have referred to, should have had the higher motive, and should have been a vairagya purusha, the aim of his study having been one of going beyond the words. It is only a question of as to what is the intention behind, what is the motive dictating all our study, that is whether it is yet another ego-trip or an authentic quest into the dimension of the sacred. The ego is capable of converting even a sublime thing into an ignoble desire.

with respectful regards

Sankarraman

..

The fish are biting.

Get more visitors on your site using Search Marketing.

February 13, 2007

Dear Sankarraman,

"It is a very glib thought that by studying more and more the

scriptures one can understand the truth. It is merely a vasana, we

should know it to be."

The question is: how else can we understand the Truth other than by

studying the scriptures? It is clear that the purpose of a lot of the

scriptures (such as the Upanishads) are to reveal the nature of the

Truth. If we don't use them towards that end, then what exactly are

going to do with the scriptures instead?

"It is only a question of as to what is the intention behind, what is

the motive dictating all our study, that is whether it is yet another

ego-trip or an authentic quest into the dimension of the sacred. The

ego is capable of converting even a sublime thing into an ignoble

desire."

I don't think anyone studies the scriptures to do harm to others. In

addition, studying the scriptures, unlike a lot of other activities,

does not have negative side-effects to society. Most people studying

the scriptures, even without a profound interest in liberation, surely

learn and benefit to some extent. They become more cultured, learn

values, and even if just for a while, they think about things

differently.

So why is there is so much special condemnation of people who study

the scriptures for some degree of self-gratification? It seems absurd

to me that people have no problem saying that sense-gratification can

be acceptable as long as a person is not being unethical but someone

who studies the scriptures for intellectual gratification among other

reasons should be considered foolish and ignoble!

I think this kind of attitude is fundamentally one that discourages

people to study scriptures because it makes people feel "Well, I don't

have that strong mumukshutva, I am not a spiritual prodigy, so

studying the scriptures will just side-track me and make me more

intellectual, and lead to " Thinking this way, people just choose to

remain ignorant.

This is besides the point that people generally benefit greatly from

studying the scriptures even without moksha alone as the goal. They

also are able to provide valuable advice to other people on a

variety of issues.

Regards,

Rishi.

February 13, 2007

advaitin, "risrajlam" <rishi.lamichhane

wrote:

>

> So why is there is so much special condemnation of people who

> study the scriptures for some degree of self-gratification? It

> seems absurd to me that people have no problem saying that sense-

> gratification can be acceptable as long as a person is not being

> unethical but someone who studies the scriptures for intellectual

> gratification among other reasons should be considered foolish and

> ignoble!

I also agree. There is no need to condemn it. May be it is similar

to an anxious prodding to live the scriptures instead of just

satisfied with readings. Much like somebody saying to me,"please

don't read the recipe all the time, but cook the dish and

taste it!".

Yet, I can choose to read recipes, compare, critique, analyse and

admire them all the time! Why not?! But it only shows, probably

I am not that hungry. If I am really hungry, I surely don't need

any ones prodding to stop recipe-reading, and I might not much

care for recipe details either! Better, I would try cooking

something using whatever I have and with whatever I know.

Legend says, that one who could not even utter "Rama", found it

good enough to utter it backwards, and continued his Sadhana

to become the Valmiki. And there are those, I am not kidding, whom

I have seen personally, who refuse to read BhagavadGita in their

home. They told me the reason is that only after listening to

Gita, (cousin) brothers fought one another until many got killed.

They want peace in their home! I really didn't know what to say.

yadbhaavaM tadbhavati. To each ones own understanding, I guess.

Hari Om!

-Srinivas

February 17, 2007

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani wrote:

Dear Sri R.S.Mani

>

> Namaste, All

> The purport of the Upanishads is not only to reveal that the true

swaroopa of jivas is atma but more than that, that Atma is Brahman

alone and the swaroopa of Brahman is Satyam Gnanam Anantham, i.e.

Poornam. Knowing one's true Swaroopa as Atma alone does not lead to

Freedom from Samsara, but knowing the Swaroopa of that Atma as Satyam

Gnanam Anantham Brahma, i.e. the Atma is Poornam and lacks nothing,

that leads to freedom from Samsara.

> The purport of the Upanishads is to reveal Jeeva Brahma Aikyam

and more than that the Swaroopa of Brahaman is Satyam Gnanam Anantham

i.e. not only Ayam Atma Brahma, but Satyam Gnanam Anantham Brahma.

> Atma Gnana I think is not only knowledge of Atma as one's

swaroopa, but more than that the swaroopa of that Atma is Satyam

Gnanam Anantham, i.e. Poornam.

> The recognition of Swaroopa of Atma as Poornam makes all the

difference and all the discussions and debates are for one to

recognize this alone.

> Respectful regards,

>

> R. S. Mani

>

> Finding fabulous fares is fun.

> Let FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find

flight and hotel bargains.

>

February 18, 2007

narayana145 <narayana145 (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote: H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani wrote:

Dear Sri R.S.Mani

>

> Namaste, All

> The purport of the Upanishads is not only to reveal that the true

swaroopa of jivas is atma but more than that, that Atma is Brahman

alone and the swaroopa of Brahman is Satyam Gnanam Anantham, i.e.

Poornam. Knowing one's true Swaroopa as Atma alone does not lead to

Freedom from Samsara, but knowing the Swaroopa of that Atma as Satyam

Gnanam Anantham Brahma, i.e. the Atma is Poornam and lacks nothing,

that leads to freedom from Samsara.

>

Dear Murthy,

I don't understand the need for any further revelation, when once one understands the real nature of oneself as pure awareness. I am inclined to believe that the further ideas of atman being one with Brahaman, and its swarupa lakshana, are purely academic and philosophic ones. Bhaghavan did not emphasize the need for any further understanding after the understanding of oneself free from the self limiting tendencies of the mind, the base of which is the idea that one is limited to the body. When once you know yourself as pure knowledge, is any further knowledge is required to stabilize it, which if it were so, would lead to the fallacy of infinite regress.

Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail beta.

February 20, 2007

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

Dear Sri Ganesan Sankarraman,

I completely agree with what you have stated in your posting.

I do not agree with what Sri R.S.Mani has stated in his reply.

There is a very fine saying : Diarrhoera of words and Constipation

of thoughts/ideas. Any one who has grown up on the laps of Sri

Shankara and Sri Bhagavan , will have the certitude of understanding

that True Knowledge of One's Own Svaroopa is the only work required

for one'S own Moksha. This is the FIRST STEP and THE LAST STEP. My

Guru used to emphasise this aspect of sadhana.All the other things

are mere concepts which will have to be thrown out in the end.

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy.

February 22, 2007

Dear Sri Murthy,

<<<Dear Sri Ganesan Sankarraman,

I completely agree with what you have stated in your posting.

I do not agree with what Sri R.S.Mani has stated in his reply.

There is a very fine saying : Diarrhoera of words and Constipation

of thoughts/ideas. Any one who has grown up on the laps of Sri

Shankara and Sri Bhagavan , will have the certitude of understanding

that True Knowledge of One's Own Svaroopa is the only work required

for one'S own Moksha. This is the FIRST STEP and THE LAST STEP. My

Guru used to emphasise this aspect of sadhana. All the other things

are mere concepts which will have to be thrown out in the end.

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy. >>>

I really wonder how anyone who has grown up “on the laps of Sri

Shankara and Sri Bhagavan” could make such remarks as “Diarrhoera of words and Constipation of thoughts/ideas”.

Does it mean that the Upanishads Vakyas, the Bhagavad Gita, and above all, the Adi Shankara’s Mahabhashyas on the Upanishads, Brahmasutras, Srimad Bhagavad Gita, etc. and the lectures/writings of the great saints are diarrhea of words and constipation of thoughts/ideas? When it is said “All the other things are mere concepts which will have to be thrown out in the end” such throwing can be only for people who have reached the “end” but there are people like me, who are still trying to reach the end by assimilating the great words/ideas of the Rishies conveyed through the Upanishads and Adi Shankara, Bhagvan Ramana, and great teachers, etc. etc., and for them the “Diarrhoera” does help.

If one does not want to agree with another person or other ideas, it can be said with some grace, and at least the students of Vedanta are expected to do that.

With warm regards

Mani