re: relationship between ishvara-anugraha and karma-phala

May 7, 2007

Dear Vinayaka,

I remember Shankara identifying karma-phala and ishvara anugraha

somewhere in the BGB, and I will try to track that down. (Perhaps

someone who already knows where it is to be found can help me).

But even logically, it seems like there is no other way out. How does

the Lord decide who to give grace to? If someone is getting grace for

something he didn't earn, then the Lord is being partial. If someone

is getting grace for something he did deserve, then it is karma-phala.

Also, independent of the world, the Lord is changeless. How can the

changeless dispense grace? If we say that Ishvara dispenses grace

through the upadhi, which upadhi is it that can act beyond karma?

(It might be interesting to read this satsang transcript of Swami

Dayananda, incidentally:

http://www.avgsatsang.org/hhpsds/pdf/All_about_Grace.pdf)

Hopefully other members can also contribute to this topic, since it is

obviously an important one.

Regards,

Rishi.

May 7, 2007

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane

wrote:

>

> Dear Vinayaka,

>

> I remember Shankara identifying karma-phala and ishvara anugraha

> somewhere in the BGB, and I will try to track that down. (Perhaps

> someone who already knows where it is to be found can help me).

>

> But even logically, it seems like there is no other way out. How

does

> the Lord decide who to give grace to? If someone is getting grace

for

> something he didn't earn, then the Lord is being partial. If

someone

> is getting grace for something he did deserve, then it is karma-

phala.

>

> Also, independent of the world, the Lord is changeless. How can the

> changeless dispense grace? If we say that Ishvara dispenses grace

> through the upadhi, which upadhi is it that can act beyond karma?

>

Rishiji, thanks for your other post which I have to later go through

more carefully (lacking time now). For this one:

What does Chaitanya indicate? It is BEYOND LAW; it denotes the

capacity to will or act by one's self and not impelled by rules of

karma alone. The very fact that Brahman is denoted the COMPLETE

status of Chaitanya suggests that Reality inherently is pure

consciousness -- it implies Ishvara willing forth out of " his own

will " . Karma-rules refer to a law bound existence -- it is more

appropriate for jagat than Ishvara.

Since the scripture stress that Brahman is chaitanya and jagat is

superimposition, and not the other way around, it must mean that our

idea that everything is based upon karma is ultimately wrong. In

fact, it is the chaitanya vastu Brahman as Ishvara who runs the show;

it only apparently appears that things have a fixed rule-to-rule

formulation. And one cannot demand that the chaitanya-Ishvara abide by

conditions.

This belief in karma and equating it with Ishvara is the very

foundation of MAYA. So I think logic demands. Any thoughts to this

argument?

thollemelukaalkizhu

May 7, 2007

Dear Advaitins,

The following passage is written by Swami Tapasyanandaji. Here an

explanation is given to show that, the Brahman and Ishwara are one and

the same. I request you to go through the passage. Here, Swamiji has

raised some questions in the concepts explained in the classical

advaita. I would appreciate very much if an impartial study can be

taken up to understand the concerned issues, if moderators permit.

(Quote)

The Sri Ramakrishna's theory is doctrine is that the ultimate Reality

is Being-Will and not mere Being, as maintained in the classical

Vedanta. Unlike the Master's theory about Nirvikalpa Samadhi (jnana

where duality is sublated, who maintain that there is no such thing

called Nirvikalpa Samadhi), the classical Vedanta maintains that there

can be Jivas who attain the Nirvikalpa Stage, but yet continue to

remain in the body. They are called jivanmuktas or the free-in-life.

Vedanta explains this by the doctrine of Prarabdha, the operative

Karma or the quantum of Karma that has brought the present body into

existence. While the Sanchita (Stored up) Karma, and agami karma

(accumulating and inoperative) Karma are burnt up by Knowledge

(jnana), it is maintained that the prarabdha remains undissolved until

its momentum is exhausted. No argument is advanced for this beyond the

analogy of an arrow released from a bow which stops not till it has

struck its target. But the Master questions that if Karma, be it

prarabhda, is real and operative even after Nirvikalpa Samadhi, then

the Divine Mother or the Personal God or Saguna Brahman, who even

according to the Vedanta is required to make insentient Karma

operative, must be accepted as a greater reality than prarabhda. The

classical Vedanta is very much loath to accept such position, because

according to its teaching, in Nirvikalpa Samadhi even God is sublated

and non-dual Brahman alone is, and this non-dual Brahman, as expounded

by Vedanta, is pure being and not being-will, as it would be if this

theory of Master be accepted. According to him, however, the Divine

Mother is not sublated in Nirvikalpa Samadhi; what happens is that she

reveals herself as the Impersonal holding personality in latency.

Reality is being-will. When the creative process is on, will is

dominant, and being is latent as the substratum of change. When the

creative process is withdrawn, pure being subsists, Will being latent

but not sublated. The Master illustrates this by the example of the

snake in motion and the snake at rest. The snake in motion and the

snake at rest are only two modes of the same snake. So the Personal

and the Impersonal are the modes of the One Being Will, and there is

on question of sublating either.

So the Questions here are:

1. If ishwara is also sublated, when one acquires jnana or nirvikalpa

Samadhi, then, prarabhda is sustained by whom? What is its support?

Shall we have to conclude, then, that prarabhda is too powerful which

cannot be countered even by brahmajnana?

2. It is maintained that a jivan mukata may be reborn for the good of

mankind and they are called adhikarika purushas. If the concept is

accepted, by whose will they are born again? As far as my exposure

goes, it is maintained that it is by the Will of the lord. But the

problem is according to classical Vedanta the ishwara is already

sublated, at least for the jivan muktas.

(Unquote)

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

Br. Vinayaka

May 7, 2007

Dear Vinayaka,

I think there are several issues raised by Swami Tapasyanandaji's

passage.

First, in traditional Vedanta, nirvikalpa samadhi has no special

relation with liberation. Shankara says in the Brahma Sutra Bhasya

that in samadhi, like in deep sleep, duality is temporarily destroyed,

but it reappears because ignorance is not removed. Shankara also

rejects citta-vritti-nirodha as a means of attaining knowledge. So

this is the first problem - in Ramakrishna/Vivekananda's Vedanta,

nirvikalpa samadhi is the final goal, in Shankara's Vedanta it is

neither neccesary nor sufficient for liberation.

" 1. If ishwara is also sublated, when one acquires jnana or nirvikalpa

Samadhi, then, prarabhda is sustained by whom? What is its support?

Shall we have to conclude, then, that prarabhda is too powerful which

cannot be countered even by brahmajnana? "

From the point of view of the Brahamnistha, there is no prarabdha

(Shankara says this practically every single time the issue of

prarabdha comes out). So from the Brahmanistha's drishti, there is

neither prarabdha, nor think that sustains it. Remember that from the

Brahmanistha's point of view, there is also no body and mind, either.

However, if a third-person assumes that the Brahmanistha (or anyone

else for that matter) has a body, then we have to account for the

body. If the body is taken to be real, then the cause of the body

(karma is taken to be real) and the kind of karma operating in this

case is prarabdha karma. However, for the brahmanistha, he has no

body, he has no karma, there is no karma-phala data, and there is no

Lord needed to oversee karma.

I think this is all uncontroversial,

Regards,

Rishi.

May 7, 2007

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

> Dear Advaitins,

>

> The following passage is written by Swami Tapasyanandaji. Here an

> explanation is given to show that, the Brahman and Ishwara are one

and

> the same. I request you to go through the passage. Here, Swamiji has

> raised some questions in the concepts explained in the classical

> advaita. I would appreciate very much if an impartial study can be

> taken up to understand the concerned issues, if moderators permit.

>

> (Quote)

>

> The Sri Ramakrishna's theory is doctrine is that the ultimate

Reality

> is Being-Will and not mere Being, as maintained in the classical

> Vedanta. Unlike the Master's theory about Nirvikalpa Samadhi (jnana

> where duality is sublated, who maintain that there is no such thing

> called Nirvikalpa Samadhi), the classical Vedanta maintains that

there

> can be Jivas who attain the Nirvikalpa Stage, but yet continue to

> remain in the body.

(Prescript: Rishiji, I am still interested in your response to my

previous post on Chaitanya; even if short).

Dear Sri Vinayaka, While there may be some in Sri Ramakrishna

circles who suggest that he spoke of a separate theory, it need not

be a common consensus. Quote from Swami Vivekananda where he said his

guru's understanding of God differed from traditional Advaita. Swami

Vivekananda himself propounded Shankara's Advaita; quote from me a

Swami of the Math who would suggest that Swamiji's understanding

differs from his Guru's.

Sri Ramakrishna said many things to many people. M. initially had his

ideas of what he meant; Swami Vivekananda had his own which differed.

Sri Ramakrishna realized the Truth as per Advaita when he was

initiated by Totapuri. However he did not suggest that total jnana

approach to most people, knowing its difficulty. There are different

levels of seeing the same truth, and usually he took the Bhaktha's

view of things. His main principle was that different paths lead to

the same Goal.

Sri Krishna in the Gita also says that the jnana path is only for the

rare few and it is difficult for embodied souls. In the orthodox

Shankara mathas, the standard picture presented to general public is

also one of Bhakthi to real Ishvara, and so on. Most of us reared in

that setting are up to wit's end trying to figure out how far they

REALLY meant that picture. The same applies to Sri Ramakrishna: this

is the traditional method of teaching these truths in the context of

Bhakthi. To conclude therefore that he meant Brahman is Being-Will

and not Being only, and so forth, or even that Shankara meant

otherwise, are open for analysis.

I don't agree with the attempts of the Ramakrishna Math to carve out

their Guru as a separate teacher with a unique new teaching/religion.

But we can certainly raise these issues independently and ask whether

Advaita really is opposed to them.

(As you said before the kanchi acharya also presents things in manner

similar to Sri Ramakrishna. The line to draw demarcations is not

clear to me. We have to find out from more people and also from those

directly from orthodox sampradaya, before concluding firmly.)

thollemelukaalkizhu

May 8, 2007

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Vinayaka,

> >

> > I remember Shankara identifying karma-phala and ishvara anugraha

> > somewhere in the BGB, and I will try to track that down. (Perhaps

> > someone who already knows where it is to be found can help me).

> >

Namaste,

This is a good reference to 'book-mark':

http://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/

Gita Bhashya in 15:17 Isvara is declared as same as paramaatman

and puruShottama, and in 18:61-62 His prasaada as 'Ishvara-anugraha'.

It is worth reviewing Messages #34930, 35009, 35069

This dialogue may be of interest:

www.arunachala.org/Downloads/Books/talks-with-sri-ramana-maharshi-

v1.pdf pp.34-35

D.: It is said that Divine Grace is necessary to attain successful

undistracted mind (samadhi). Is that so?

M.: We are God (Iswara). Iswara Drishti (i.e., seeing ourselves as

God)

is itself Divine Grace. So we need Divine Grace to get God's Grace.

Maharshi smiles and all devotees laugh together.

D.: There is also Divine Favour (Iswara anugraham) as distinct from

Divine Grace (Iswara prasadam). Is that so?

M.: The thought of God is Divine Favour! He is by nature Grace

(prasad or arul). It is by God's Grace that you think of God.

D.: Is not the Master's Grace the result of God's Grace?

M.: Why distinguish between the two? The Master is the same as

God and not different from him.

D.: When an endeavour is made to lead the right life and to

concentrate

thought on the Self, there is often a downfall and break. What is to

be done?

M.: It will come all right in the end. There is the steady impulse of

your determination that sets you on your feet again after every

downfall and breakdown. Gradually the obstacles are all overcome

and your current becomes stronger. Everything comes right in the

end. Steady determination is what is required.

Regards,

Sunder

May 8, 2007

advaitin , " Sunder Hattangadi " <sunderh wrote:

>

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

> >

> > advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Vinayaka,

> > >

> > > I remember Shankara identifying karma-phala and ishvara anugraha

> > > somewhere in the BGB, and I will try to track that down. (Perhaps

> > > someone who already knows where it is to be found can help me).

> > >

>

> Namaste,

>

> This is a good reference to 'book-mark':

>

> http://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/

>

> Gita Bhashya in 15:17 Isvara is declared as same as paramaatman

> and puruShottama, and in 18:61-62 His prasaada as 'Ishvara-anugraha'.

>

> It is worth reviewing Messages #34930, 35009, 35069

>

Namaskarams Sri Hattangadiji,

This is funny. In the last post you mention, Shyamji has replied to me

a little after I asked him regarding this topic, by which time I had

myself left the forum temporarily. Thanks for the reference; I will

read his post now. Also to mention: Sri Subbuji had already given me a

good dose in post 35020.

However, on my behalf, I shall claim that the problem is language, and

it especially becomes blatant in this topic in Advaita.

(see for example, Sri Nairji's post 35898: " This lakSaNa of Brahman,

if literally understood, would seem to impose an agency on Brahman.

But, do you think any vedantin in his right senses would do that? " )

One should be able to quote others (all the way from Sri Krishna or

the Matha acharyas of today) who make it out that literal

understanding is quite correct. And I am fairly certain two people can

quote Sri Ramana in two instances and get two different outcomes !!

The result is confusion.

Anycase, I shall take some time off to read through these info. and

posts and decide if my doubts can be settled. (The doubt to be precise

is not really whether Ishvara is real in a particular sense -- that

even if Sri Ramakrishna says YES, the mind will doubt; rather it is

what exactly Advaita is saying on this, and the true implication of

Bhakthi in this sampradaya.)

thollmelukaalkizhu

> This dialogue may be of interest:

>

> www.arunachala.org/Downloads/Books/talks-with-sri-ramana-maharshi-

> v1.pdf pp.34-35

>

> D.: It is said that Divine Grace is necessary to attain successful

> undistracted mind (samadhi). Is that so?

> M.: We are God (Iswara). Iswara Drishti (i.e., seeing ourselves as

> God)

> is itself Divine Grace. So we need Divine Grace to get God's Grace.

> Maharshi smiles and all devotees laugh together.

> D.: There is also Divine Favour (Iswara anugraham) as distinct from

> Divine Grace (Iswara prasadam). Is that so?

> M.: The thought of God is Divine Favour! He is by nature Grace

> (prasad or arul). It is by God's Grace that you think of God.

> D.: Is not the Master's Grace the result of God's Grace?

> M.: Why distinguish between the two? The Master is the same as

> God and not different from him.

> D.: When an endeavour is made to lead the right life and to

> concentrate

> thought on the Self, there is often a downfall and break. What is to

> be done?

> M.: It will come all right in the end. There is the steady impulse of

> your determination that sets you on your feet again after every

> downfall and breakdown. Gradually the obstacles are all overcome

> and your current becomes stronger. Everything comes right in the

> end. Steady determination is what is required.

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

>

May 8, 2007

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

> (Prescript: Rishiji, I am still interested in your response to my

> previous post on Chaitanya; even if short).

>

> Dear Sri Vinayaka, While there may be some in Sri Ramakrishna

> circles who suggest that he spoke of a separate theory, it need not

> be a common consensus. Quote from Swami Vivekananda where he said his

> guru's understanding of God differed from traditional Advaita. Swami

> Vivekananda himself propounded Shankara's Advaita; quote from me a

> Swami of the Math who would suggest that Swamiji's understanding

> differs from his Guru's.

Dear Sir,

I would like to say only this much, that, If you ask me or authorities

of the math, that, is there any difference in the philosophy

propounded by Shankara and Sri Ramakrishna, definite answer you get is

*yes*. But, at the same time if you ask them, that, is it

contradictory to key texts of Hinduism like Bhagavad Gita and

Upanishads, definite answer is *no*. This is clearly evident and

explained in the published literature of the math. Sri Ramakrishna and

Swami Vivekananda both upheld advaita and agreed to the majority of

the views expressed by shankara.

This is what one of the Senior Monk of RKM says:

(Quote)

At the very outset, it has to be made clear that Sri Ramakrishna never

propagated a system of philosophy of his own. He experienced the Truth

directly and then spoke out of the fullness of that experience.

(Unquote)

But in the vast literature of RKM, I have not come across a single

sentence which says that his experiences were contrary to scriptures.

Both Swamiji and Sri Ramakrishna gave highest respect to the Vedas and

the Vedanta. Let me stop here, and if you want I shall give you

detailed reply with proper references from the literature of the RKM.

======

> But we can certainly raise these issues independently and ask whether

> Advaita really is opposed to them.

Reply: My intention was quoting the passage for the aforementioned

purpose alone. I wanted to know the stand of Shankara on the issues

raised by Swamiji. I had neither intention to canvass somebody nor to

decry the other.

It can be either yes, or no. We can definitely agree to disagree, but

respectfully.

I want to conclude this post with a passage from the works of Swamiji.

This was written by him in a letter to a famous scholar of his times.

He was corresponding with the scholar to clear some of the doubts he

had pertaining to the scriptures of Hinduism. And same is the case

with me too and I am addressing this to all the sadhakas here. :-)

(Quote)

In these matters, I have got some settled ideas through the grace of

my Guru but, if I come to know of your views, I may just confirm some

points or rectify others in them. One doesn't have honey dripping

unless one pokes at the hive -- so I shall put you some more

questions; and looking upon me as ignorant and as a boy, please give

proper replies without taking any offence.

(Unquote)

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

Br. Vinayaka.

May 8, 2007

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote:

> In these matters, I have got some settled ideas through the grace

of

> my Guru but, if I come to know of your views, I may just confirm

some

> points or rectify others in them. One doesn't have honey dripping

> unless one pokes at the hive -- so I shall put you some more

> questions; and looking upon me as ignorant and as a boy, please

give

> proper replies without taking any offence.

Dear Advaitins,

My address to the advaitins should be read as:

In these matters, I have got some settled ideas through the grace of

my Guru but, if I come to know of your views, I may just confirm

some points or rectify 'mine'. One doesn't have honey dripping

unless one pokes at the hive -- so I shall put you some more

questions; and looking upon me as ignorant and as a boy, please give

proper replies without taking any offence.

Sorry for the inconvenience caused.

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

Br. Vinayaka.

May 8, 2007

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote:

> Dear Sir,

>

> I would like to say only this much, that, If you ask me or

authorities

> of the math, that, is there any difference in the philosophy

> propounded by Shankara and Sri Ramakrishna, definite answer you get

is

> *yes*. But, at the same time if you ask them, that, is it

> contradictory to key texts of Hinduism like Bhagavad Gita and

> Upanishads, definite answer is *no*. This is clearly evident and

> explained in the published literature of the math. Sri Ramakrishna

and

> Swami Vivekananda both upheld advaita and agreed to the majority of

> the views expressed by shankara.

>

> This is what one of the Senior Monk of RKM says:

>

> (Quote)

>

> At the very outset, it has to be made clear that Sri Ramakrishna

never

> propagated a system of philosophy of his own. He experienced the

Truth

> directly and then spoke out of the fullness of that experience.

>

> (Unquote)

>

Dear Sri Vinayaka,

Great independent teachers, be they Buddha or Ramana or Ramakrishna

or the Rishis of the Vedas, have always " never propagated a system of

philosophy of his own. He experienced the Truth directly and then

spoke out of the fullness of that experience. " There is nothing

special about Sri Ramakrishna in this regard.

It is the cultists who follow who pick and choose from the teachings

and decide what fits and what does not, and attempt to personify a

religion and a god around their Guru. As for my understanding, Swami

Vivekananda was not one of them. A person may quote this letter or

that of his to hint otherwise, but my opinion (which need not count)

is that that person understood neither Swamiji nor Sri Ramakrishna.

thollmelukaalkizhu

May 8, 2007

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

> Dear Sri Vinayaka,

>

> Great independent teachers, be they Buddha or Ramana or Ramakrishna

> or the Rishis of the Vedas, have always " never propagated a system of

> philosophy of his own. He experienced the Truth directly and then

> spoke out of the fullness of that experience. " There is nothing

> special about Sri Ramakrishna in this regard.

>

> It is the cultists who follow who pick and choose from the teachings

> and decide what fits and what does not, and attempt to personify a

> religion and a god around their Guru. As for my understanding, Swami

> Vivekananda was not one of them. A person may quote this letter or

> that of his to hint otherwise, but my opinion (which need not count)

> is that that person understood neither Swamiji nor Sri Ramakrishna.

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

======

Dear Sir,

Being a serious spiritual aspirant, trying to transcend the relative

existence, I am least bothered about the number of people following my

guru. Secondly, He knows better ways to inspire people more than I do.

This is one of the mature groups in the the cyberspace, and I have

told you that after serious study of RKM literatures for years, I have

come across some differences in the philosophy of Shankra and that of

Sri Ramakrishna. I can show you that also. (not in the forum but

privately) It is a fact, may be not acceptable to some. But, my

intention of putting the question was to get some replies from the

people here for these questions, who have spent considerable time in

the study of works of Shankara whom I respect as one of the great

AchAryas of Hinduism, with a sole aim of thinking from their

perspective. It is only for betterment of my understanding of

Shankara's Advaita, Nothing more than that!

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

Br. Vinayaka.

May 8, 2007

--- Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns wrote:

> advaitin , " putranm "

> <putranm wrote:

> ======

>

> Dear Sir,

>

> Being a serious spiritual aspirant, trying to

> transcend the relative

> existence, I am least bothered about the number of

> people following my

> guru. Secondly, He knows better ways to inspire

> people more than I do.

>

> This is one of the mature groups in the the

> cyberspace, and I have

> told you that after serious study of RKM literatures

> for years, I have

> come across some differences in the philosophy of

> Shankra and that of

> Sri Ramakrishna. I can show you that also. (not in

> the forum but

> privately) It is a fact, may be not acceptable to

> some. But, my

> intention of putting the question was to get some

> replies from the

> people here for these questions, who have spent

> considerable time in

> the study of works of Shankara whom I respect as one

> of the great

> AchAryas of Hinduism, with a sole aim of thinking

> from their

> perspective. It is only for betterment of my

> understanding of

> Shankara's Advaita, Nothing more than that!

>

> Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

>

> Br. Vinayaka.

>

Dear Sri Vinayaka,

Let me say a couple of things and leave it there.

My points were not intended against you or your

reasons for asking questions in this forum.

I don't exactly understand this " serious student of "

or " my guru " terminology. As you said however, he has

more ways to inspire people than we may know.

For many of us, he represents the perennial spirit of

religion and religious inspiration, and his teachings

are entirely in consonance with our views of religion.

They defy a scriptural formulation to the confines of

one mode of thought. I myself am at fault here, as I

tried to put him within a square box of Advaita.

However, I may point out that if the Ramakrishna Math

attempts to get him into another box no matter how

subtly, they are making an unfortunate mistake.

There are other factors as well. First, the

" philosophy of Shankara " is according to the Advaita

followers the " philosophy of the Upanishads " . We can

credit Shankara as having organized the philosophy in

a systematic manner for the sake of the public. Of

course, the Visishtadvaitins have a different opinion

that he organized things wrongly. Now did Sri

Ramakrishna give a systematic exposition of " my

philosophy " and compare/contrast with " Shankara's

Advaita " ? So who is doing the organizing of his words

into a philosophy and deciding what is in alignment

with vedanta and what not? No doubt they are " serious "

followers.

thollmelukaalkizhu

May 9, 2007

Pranams.

I have been greatly enjoying the stimulating series of posts over the

past few days, and wish my time-constraints would permit me a more

active involvement. I esp enjoyed reading Rishi-ji's(what a apt name!)

and Padma-ji's excellent and lucid posts.

I am happy to share some thoughts based on my understanding.

The concept of " God " as a individual person - either a very old man in

white robes beyond the pearly gates, or a Kaislash-pati, or a shankha-

chakra-gada-wielding Lord of Vaikuntha - is perhaps what may be

considered on a superficial level to be alien to Advaita, and perhaps

this concept is what some people feel gets " sublated " .

Advaita considers Ishwara to be non-different from His Order. There is

a Divine Perfect Order in play in manifest Srshti. One aspect of this

Order is that one begets the fruits of one's karma, one's actions.

This Order that faithfully bestows this karmaphala itself is Ishwara.

So every karmaphala is His Grace.

Lets take a simple example

I play with fire - karma

- my hand gets scorched - karmaphala - in other words, Ishwara.

What was the anugraha - I learn not to play with fire again.

I learn, I mature, I evolve.

The culmination of all learning, all maturity, all evolution - is

moksha - I learn about my nonseparateness from Him.

Once this is clear, then every knock in life which we face as a karma-

phala is nothing but Ishwara's anugraha.

So we look upon Ishwara not as a person who is watching a live

telecast about " His creation " and then deciding when and on whom to

bestow Grace

but

as the very Intelligence, the Chaitanyam that is immanent in and

through every pore of manifest srshti.

And it is this Intelligence delivers the goods, the Grace.

When I pray, I tap into that Grace.

The Grace is ever present in potential form.

My prayer is a karma that helps me invoke It for my benefit.

What more Grace can even the Paramtman bestow than to help me reap the

fruits of my actions. And can anything He bestows be considered

anything other than Grace. He is powerless to bestow on anyone

anything but His Grace.

Take the mahamrtyunjaya mantra

OM Tryambakam Yajamahe Sugandhim Pushtivardhanam

Urvarukamiva Bandhanam Mrityor Mukshiya Mamritat

We worship the three-eyed Lord (Siva) who is full of

sweet fragrance and nourishes us human beings. May he

deliver me from bondage into immortality, even as the

cucumber is severed from the vine.

What is beautiful in this example is that as the

cucumber is ripened the creeper itself lets go of it

-with no effort to break away from the cucumber..the

cucumber (unlike other fruits) doesnt fall - it stays

where it is!....maya or avidya lets go of you when

with a supremely purified mind the words of the

mahavakyas are understood by you - this is the

meaning. And whose Grace does the cucumber need to grow

and obtain nourishment so it matures - the gardener -

" pushtivardanam " - Ishwara! How beautiful!

Through Grace alone, does the jiva mature, and through Grace alone

does he ultimately attain the Self of Being.

I may said this before - Ishwara as Paramatman never gets sublated -

it is not a conceptual crutch that an unprepared seeker holds onto

only to discard it when his mind is more prepared - that is never what

advaita is about - what happens when the seeker matures is that

the " seeking " gets sublated, the " phantom ego " which was involved in

the " search " realizes that what Is real about him is only the Is-ness

and that Is-ness is the only thing real about Ishwara as well.

" Ishwar Satya Hai, Satya Hi Shiv Hai, Shiv Hi Sundar Hai, Jaago Uthkar

Dekho, Ye Jeevan Jyot Ujaagar Hai "

" Ishwara is the only thing that is True, and What is True is what is

Auspicious, what is Blissful, Wake up O Mind and see that Life is

nothing but Living Consciousness. "

If there is any " imagination " involved it may simply be in a name and

form that this phantom jeeva projects onto the Whole, the Divine.

And for Him who is beyond Forms, and for Him who is beyond Names, any

name and any form that i, the ignorant mind, wants to project to have

an altar to worship, to have an " entity " i want to relate it, is

perfectly fine. I cannot exactly talk to the very vastu that enables

speech, I cannot see that by vitue of which sight is, but I can

certainly relate to a Ganesha or a Shiva or a Jesus or a Divine

Mother - and of all the other ephemereal relationships that i the

ignoramus persist in fostering and nurturing, this is the one

relationship I know is as Real as I know I am Real. And in this

cognition there is freedom - a space which is safe and sacred - where

the mind can rest and ponder on the Real, the Whole, and on me, and on

how i relate to the Real, the Whole.

What this process culminates in is not a sublation of the Whole, who

Is always Real, but in a sublation of me, who was never Real. Then

Being Is.

Hari Om

Shri Gurubhyo namah

Shyam

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Vinayaka,

> >

> > I remember Shankara identifying karma-phala and ishvara anugraha

> > somewhere in the BGB, and I will try to track that down. (

May 9, 2007

Pranam to all,

Anugarh (Divine Grace) is ultimate - let us have no doubt about it.

Karma - phala is the play of God - otherwise, how can he run the play of

world.

So, discerning people should overcome the karma-phala, which binds us to

samsara.

Lord Shiva is Doer;

Lord Shiva is Enjoyer.

Virendra

Delhi / 9818211796

shyam_md <shyam_md wrote: