re: relationship between ishvara-anugraha and karma-phala

[Guest guest]

Sri Sadanandaji,

 

I churned my head for a week on this forum and finally thought I

reached the end of my search, and you have brought me back to the

starting point, it seems!! However since you don't want to get into

lengthy details, let me just attempt to match what I wrote with your

statements. Any correction is welcome.

 

I understand your first paragraph on paramaarthika and implications of

Sat-jnaanam-anantham brahma.

 

Vyavahaarika:

 

You have written " jiva, jagat, Ishvara are as real as each one is " .

jiva is identified by individuality and Ishvara for the jiva, as

typically suggested, is always as an Individual. You have used the

word " Lord " which again suggests this.

 

Is it that Ishvara is an independent Individuality with a distinct

body and mind? (Dvaita)

 

Is it that Ishvara is an independent Individuality with distinct Mind

but whose body includes His Order? (Visishtadvaita)

 

Is it that Ishvara is non-different from His Order, as Shyamji

suggests in post 35929? Shyamji says further:

 

" 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. "

 

This eliminates Individuality in the sense the jiva likes to imagine

itself -- rather Ishvara is the essence of Consciousness that pervades

everything. According to Shyamji, the entire Order -- the

karma-karmaphala flux -- in which the jiva finds itself a part of, is

recognized as the Conscious Reality and identified as Ishvara.

 

(Pl. note: Though jiva considers itself individual with unique mind

and body, Ishvara is without definitive Individuality.)

 

Since it is pure Consciousness, I concluded that for the Astika who

seeks Individuality in It, " Ishvara responds " as Individual. For the

Nastika (here atheist) who sees It as insentient or non-Individual,

the same " Ishvara responds " as non-Individual. The Lord, for one,

appears Nature for another -- for the Conscious Order responds as per

the seeking, not only with respect to how the jiva sees itself but

also how it sees the Whole.

 

So the Lord, the inherent non-dual Consciousness beneath the manifest

Order, is real in vyavahaarika for the jiva. But He cannot be affirmed

as Individual except relative to the particular jiva who seeks Him as

such. This makes sense since vyavahaarika is a plane relative uniquely

to each jiva. And for a jiva who sees the Lord's Identity as the

Identity of the Order/Whole, all " manifest shrishti " constitutes the

body of the Lord. For the jiva engaged in Saadhana to Ishvara

" outside " , that Ishvara will manifest " outside " and guide the jiva to

perfection.

 

Vyavahaarika: (karmaphala = Ishvara-Anugraha)

Paramaarthika: (atman=brahman).

 

I hope this approach is in alignment with what you have said. If not,

do point out.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

Above, behind, beneath, before,

Is Two, Is One, Is, Not, and more ...

 

 

--- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

> At vyavahaarika level - jiiva, jagat and Iswara are

> as

> real as each one is. If I think I have attributes

> then Lord, Iswara should have too- If I think I have

> body, Lord has the body too. The equation, tat tvam

> asi, as I had presented before involves

> bhaagatyaagam

> that is discarding all the contradictory

> qualifications of jiiva and Iswara and identifying

> the

> essence of both. Both are sat chit ananda swaruupa

> and

> swaruupa aikyaat vastu aikyam. In adviatic state

> there

> is no concept of even 'advaita'.

>

> Most of the discussions get diverted if one mixes

> these two references - vyaavahaarika and

> paaramaarthika.

>

> For saadhana, the Lord is there, and emphasis in

> eswaraarpitam and bhakti etc are essential until one

> surrenders completely. Only in the awakening of the

> knowledge, which is a true surrenderence, the truth

> of

> advaita becomes imminent.

>

[Guest guest]

Pranams Putran-ji

Thank you for a stimulating series of posers.

A few thoughts more in response.

__________________

So the jiva itself is only a product, a set of limiting-adjuncts

through which

Ishvara (the " Order " ) realizes Identity.

________________________

Jiva is the one with the notionally limiting adjuncts; and he is the

one who realizes his identity.

___

The Name itself suggests still an Individual although the concept is

now like some homogeneous identity-less Blob reacting to the karmin's

actions. Ishvara appears as an " Ocean of Consciousness without a locus " .

________________________________

Ishwara being the Whole, being Poornam, there is no question of Him

having a locus - there IS nothing but Ishwara; IS-ness is Ishwara -

_

The objective version of Ishvara is false simply because it rests on

the duality of karmin-karmaphalaDhata, which is " never Real " .

______________________

As long as one is in vyavahara there is no question of this duality of

karta-karmaphaladata relationship being " false " . Kartrtvam goes

hand-in-glove with karmaphala and hence bhoktrtvam - Ishwara as the

Order ensures this eternal transactional perfection.

_________________________________

I am that Ishvara who has arisen as this mind, as Putran and as the

Universe.

_________________________

Reminds me of Bhagwan Shankara's immortal lines -

 

Na Mrityu Na Shanka Na Me Jati Bhedah Pita Naiva Me

Naiva Mata Na Janma Na Bandhur Na Mitre Gurur Naiva Shishyah

Chidananda Rupa Shivoham Shivoham

 

_____________________________

> Now the actual practisioner (Bhaktha) may bypass these subtleties;

but a rational mind is keenly sensitive to double-play and continues

to wonder this " Isvara " is merely self-delusion to begin with. One

cannot do anything " for Isvara " -- that is non-individual. So all

doing comes down to the Self (or self?) as Br. Up. suggests -- for I

alone am!! But then the mind asks if I alone am, why should I fool

myself into doing this or that? I am free from all compulsion. Then

the stomach says " I am hungry " -- work and enslave yourself in bondage

so you can feed me!

___________________________

 

See how you switched from the last part where Shivoham is I the Atman

to this " i " - the antahkaranam - here is perhaps the confusion - the

actual " practitioner " aka karta aka " rational " mind (but with

mis-identity!), is the ignorant Ego, the phantom. The " i " of this

karta/hunger-driven bhokta is not the " I " of " I alone am " .

Why should " i " fool myself into doing this or that - the answer is

precisely because " i " AM a " fool " (as in someone with a mistaken sense

of self-identity) - my only savior is surrender - once " i " is

surrendered at the altar of the Ishwara - then " I am " .

____________________________

>

> It is a vicious cycle of confusion.

_______________________

Isn't confusion is a necessary prelude to clarity.

 

My very best wishes

Pranams

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyo namah

Shyam

[Guest guest]

Dear Putranji

Hari Om. Salutations.

 

Putranji, I am not familiar with Vishishta Advaita and other schools.

I am just trying to learn philosophy of one school right now. So

cannot comment on your remarks about comparisons of different

schools. Respected Dr. Sadanandaji has clarified most of the things

in your email. Clarifying just one point because you seem to

misunderstand what I said.

 

> Padmaji, I would like to point out that your usage of words

> implicates Ishvara as a Real Individual - it is Ishvara the Lord

 

> In fact, I think Advaita disallows any claim, not only on the gunas

> of the Lord, but even the Individuality of the Lord as well -- even

 

 

Ishwara DOES NOT have 'Individuality'. HE has 'TOTALITY'.

Individuality means 'finitude', 'division', 'separateness'. Keeping

only few entities, it excludes others. Ishwara is one whole. Nothing

is separate from it. Individuality is bound by 'space' and 'time'.

Ishwara is beyond both, 'space' and 'time'. Everything is in HIM.

Take for example 'Mother India'. Many patriotic songs were written in

praise of 'Mother India'. Many youths were inspired to give up their

possessions and families to free 'Mother India'. Is 'Mother India' an

individual? Ishwara is like that.

 

However, it is not easy to visualise or form relationship

with 'infinity', so we 'personify' HIM. When we adore somebody we get

qualities of that person in us. When we constantly remember somebody

we slowly become like that person. Right now, we are filled with

tamas, rajas and egocentric desires. Bhagwan is 'shuddha Sattwa'. HE

is our role model. So When we personify HIM or just remember HIM in

some way or another, we purify our mind. We rise higher. With purity

comes clarity. That means less doubts.

 

Now you may say since we are thinking of Ishwara in some form, it is

an 'imagination'. If Ishwara was finite then what you say would have

been true. However, it is not so because Ishwara is Infinite. If

somebody touches your finger, you say 'Hey, don't touch me!' because

finger is just part of you. Touching any part of your body is

touching you only. Since Ishwara is everything, all thoughts, all

words.., no matter how we personify, with what name we call, we are

touching HIM only, we are calling HIM only.

 

Your questions helped me a lot. Thanks for giving me pointers for

reflection.

 

On a final note, I remembered an abhanga by Saint Jnaneshwar Maharaj

which applies to this current discussion of Sagun and Nirgun.

 

Sagunachi Shej

Nirgunachi Baaj

Tyawari Viraje

Krishna Murti

(The wooden base of the bed is Nirguna. The mattress on it is Saguna.

On that happily reclines Krishna Murti)

 

Best Wishes to you.

 

Love and Respect

Padma

[Guest guest]

--- putranm <putranm wrote:

 

Shree Putram –PraNAms

 

Here is my understanding relating to your comments – I

leave it to you to decide if it is in tune with your

understanding.

 

If I take my self that 'I am a jiiva', with a body,

mind and intellect, the world as I see through these

instruments is very much real, as real as the

equipments that I see. Since I see and conclude that

what I see is real, since it exists. Since the world

is an ordered, well-behaved system, it has to be a

creation, and that there is an intelligent and

material cause for this universe which is different

from me, since I consider myself as limited jiiva

engulfed by the vast, limitless universe of things and

beings. All these conclusions are born of the

fundamental problem that I take myself as this

body-mind-intellect complex that is I am a jiiva

separate from the world which is inert.

 

Scriptures, as pramaaNa or means of knowledge, provide

me a different view of myself and the world too. It

defines Brahman both as the material cause as well as

the intelligent cause - 'just as spider puts forth its

net’. Tai. Up defines Brahman as ‘yetovaa imaani

bhuutaani jaayante..’, from which the whole world

arose, sustained and goes back into- is Brahman, has

to be inquired upon.

 

To appreciate the teaching of the scriptures properly,

let us restrict ourselves to advaitic doctrine. It

emphasizes the four mahaavaakyaas of the Vedas as the

fundamental truths declared by the Upanishads. Let us

take one of the mahaavaakyaas.

 

It says ‘prajnaanam brahma’. That is Brahman is

defined as consciousness. (It is actually a converse

definition as ‘Consciousness is Brahman’ implying that

it is necessary and sufficient requirement or swaruupa

laxaNa of Brahman) - Brahman means infiniteness and

the statement says, Brahman is a conscious entity and

is infinite which also means there is nothing other

than Brahman – ekam eva advitiiyam, one without a

second. Therefore if we see something other than

Brahman, then the problems is with our vision. If I

consider myself as the limited jiiva and there is

world out there which is a creation and therefore

there is a creator also out there – all are our

mistaken notions since what is there is only Brahman

which is infinite and conscious.

 

Since I see and experience the world, I cannot

dismiss that it is non-existent (asat) since it is

there only in the waking state and not present in say

deep sleep state, it is not sat – and hence advaita

Vedanta calls it as ‘sat asat vilaxanam’ – or mithya.

How can that be? Hence, the scripture to teach about

the unreality of this universe, goes into exhaustive

detail in Mandukya Up. It shows that just as we

consider during the dream state the dream world

consisting of both sentient and insentient beings as

real but after awakened recognize that all that world

of plurality is nothing but a projection of my own

mind, in the same way this waking world is only

projection of the total mind (which we call as Iswara

– see Mandukya mantra 6). Iswara is then the

consciousness identified with the total mind with

total vasanaas or prakRiti operating as his mayaa

shakti. He is maayaavi, the wielder of maaya.

‘maayantu prakRitim vidyaat’ says Swe. Up.

 

Then who is Iswara? Iswara is brought in, since I see

the universe different from me and there has to be a

creator as I conclude the universe as a creation,

The creator should have all the knowledge and skills

required to create - Therefore he is sarvajna and

sarva shatimaan- embodiment of all knowledge and

skills – and therefore omnipotent and omniscient.

Hence we define creator as ‘jagat karthaa IswaraH’ –

the one who created this entire Universe. Since he is

no where seen, we put him high up in the sky,

untouchable. What kind of body he has – as you ask –

our imagination is the limit. Since we want Iswara,

scripture also provides one –In purusha Suuktam it say

- sahasra sheerhaa purushaH sahasraaxaH sahasra paat

…. He is with thousands of heads, thousands of eyes

and thousands of feet – Some kind of monster that even

Arjuna is afraid to look. If you ask how can he have a

form and still be infinite, since you are asking,

scripture changes the definition of Iswara as – ‘jagat

kaaraNam IswaraH’ – He is the cause of the universe,

that is, not only the intelligent but material cause

as well – as the above Tai. Up statement reinforces –

which means the entire universe that experience is

nothing other than Him – He becomes omnipresent. Which

means every form is His form only and you can invoke

in any form you want. Therefore he does not have any

eyes, ears, hands and legs, etc. na chaxu shrotram

tada paani paadaam (which appear to contradict the

previous statement)

 

Hence in Hindu rituals they even take simple clump of

turmeric and invite Lord Gananesh to come in and then

do Ganesha puja. It is not the ‘idol’ but the ideal

behind that idol that is prayed, just as we salute a

flag for a nation. Since every form is nothing but His

form, he can be invoked in any form, we like. Our

imagination is the limit.

 

But of course if you further question, the definition

– (this type of teaching of the scripture where it

provides gradations in teaching depending on the

maturity of the student is what advaita calls as

‘adhyaaropa apavaada’ ) how can the Hitlers and

Ravanas be forms of God too, then scripture

essentially provides a third definition –

‘sarvaadhishhTaanam Iswara’ - essentially the one who

is the substantive of everything is Iswara – not the

names and forms that you see. Hence Krishna says –

‘mayaa tatam idam sarvam jagat avyakta muurtinaa,

mastaani sarva bhuutaani na ca aham teshu avasthitaH’

– I pervade this entire universe in an unmanifested

form, all beings are in me but I am not part of their

experiential states (my free translation). ‘gatiH,

bharthaa, prabhuH, saxee, ..prabhavaH pralayaH

sthaanam.. etc. To reinforce all of the above

concepts, yet I am different from all of the above.

 

Hence if I consider my self as jiiva I am already in

this vyavahaara state. If I understand this clearly

that I am consciousness that is infinite, but playing

the role of this jiiva – I have realized the truth of

myself, the world and the Iswara and that is what

jiivanmukta state is. I can still play the role of a

jiiva knowing well that I am that sat chit ananda

swaruupa but playing the role of limited jiiva.

 

But if do not have clear understand that I am sat chit

ananda swaruupa and take my role of jiiva as real and

the world is separate from me and there is a creator,

Iswara, who created this universe of forms and names,

then scriptures says I have to grow up. To prepare

myself to gain and assimilate that knowledge of

mahaavaakyaas as statements of facts, I have to purify

my mind. For that Karma, Bhakti and Jnaana yogas are

important. They cannot be done without invoking

Iswara. I can invoke the Lord in any form I like

(ishTa devata) or even in formless form (as simple

Om-kaara – ‘Om ityekaxaram brahma’ – says Krishna and

of course warns that invoking and contemplating in

formless form is difficult for those who are embodied,

who are more bodily conscious– kleshodhikataraH

teshaam …).

 

Now what form you want to think of the Lord – You can

imagine in whatever form you want – But knowing our

weaknesses, several forms have been provided for the

mind to contemplate on and ultimately scriptures

advises to give even these forms since they are only

vehicles to go beyond all forms – Kena Up says – yan

manasaa na manute yenaahur manomataam| tadeva tvam

viddhi nedam yadidam upaasate’ – that which the mind

cannot conceptualize but because of which the mind has

the capacity to conceptualize, know that alone is

brahman, not this that you worship).

Hence my friend, one has to be careful from what

reference this discussion of jiiva jagat and Iswara

and attributeless Brahman is made. From the point of

jiiva, Iswara as Bhagavaan Ramanuja says is ananta

kalyaaNa guNa ashraya – locus of infinite auspicious

qualities – until one grow with understanding –

sivoham sivoham – as DattAtreya says in Avadhuuta Gita

 

says ‘I do not know Shiva how can I talk about him, I

do not know Shiva, how can I pray to him, Because I am

that Shiva, the supreme, beyond all forms and names’

- and in the final state of realization ‘aham

brahmaasmi’ – I am that Brahma all pervading the

eternal principle of sat chit ananda swaruupa.

 

I hope I am clear.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

> I hope this approach is in alignment with what you

> have said. If not,

> do point out.

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

I have been witnessing the enlightening discussions on this thread

and they provided many thoughts by Jivas on " Isvara " using various

frameworks of mind. Our Hindu system of thoughts recognized that

each Jiva using his/her own limitations was able to choose a Isvara

that satisfies his/her own needs. This is why we had 330 millions of

Gods who provided Anugraha and Karmapala. My observation of the

discussions during the past several weeks reminded me the well known

the fundamental theorem of Vedanta - " Brahman alone knows the

Brahman. " An important corollary to the above theorem is the

following: - " Isvara alone knows the Isvara. "

 

From the theorem and the corollary we can infer that as Jivas, we

can't define nor we can understand either the Brahman or Isvara. One

of our problems is that we want to comprehend (and also pretend that

we know) the Brahman and Isvara by using our limited 'intellect' and

limited logical base. This may explain why we go cyclically without

finding an end - thinking that we have found the solution to our

problem and instantaneously we recognize the 'faulty logic' and the

illusionary conclusion. The scriptures (the Upanishads and Bhagavad

Gita) contain lots of hints on the flaws in our approach and have

emphasized the path of Yoga-Sadhana with Shraddha.

 

The waves of thoughts that we entertain can be attributed to

the 'impurities' of our mind and mind-purification is the very first

step suggested in the scriptures. As long as the mind is

impure `Gunas' will likely present and we can neither

understand 'Saguna' or 'Nirguna' aspects of the Brahman. With the

purified mind, the intellect and logic gets upgraded and our

discriminatory power gets enhanced. It is just like upgrading the

computer system and preventing the system cluttered with viruses and

errors. Mind is like the modern computer's system-file which controls

the computer operations and if it is affected with a 'virus,' it

loses its functionality and discriminatory intelligence! Fortunately

when computer problems occur, we are able to recognize those problems

and take steps to purify the computer using appropriate procedures.

Unfortunately, it seems due to our own 'ego' we do not recognize the

impurities in our mind and we force the 'uncultivated intellect' to

understand 'Isvara.'

 

We do not question the role and importance of 'computer and software

manuals' in resolving issues related to the operation and functional

efficiency of the computer. But at the same time, we do not want to

follow the guidelines provided in the scriptural manuals such as the

Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads' to resolve the bundle of thoughts

and doubts. These discussions remind us once again why we need to pay

attention to the role and importance of Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads

in resolving our doubts!

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

 

> So the Lord, the inherent non-dual Consciousness beneath the

manifest

> Order, is real in vyavahaarika for the jiva. But He cannot be

affirmed

> as Individual except relative to the particular jiva who seeks Him

as

> such. This makes sense since vyavahaarika is a plane relative

uniquely

> to each jiva. And for a jiva who sees the Lord's Identity as the

> Identity of the Order/Whole, all " manifest shrishti " constitutes the

> body of the Lord. For the jiva engaged in Saadhana to Ishvara

> " outside " , that Ishvara will manifest " outside " and guide the jiva

to

> perfection.

>

> Vyavahaarika: (karmaphala = Ishvara-Anugraha)

> Paramaarthika: (atman=brahman).

>

[Guest guest]

My thanks, to Sri Shyamji and Sri Padmaji for their clarifications on

my comments.

 

Thanks to Sri Ram Chandranji for his excellent points, esp. " Our

Hindu system of thoughts recognized that each Jiva using his/her own

limitations was able to choose a Isvara that satisfies his/her own

needs. " My attempt in the last posts was to make this the basis for

understanding Ishvara in an all-inclusive manner; as you recognized,

this itself will bring another version which is bound to fail. I am

grateful for one thing: after these discussions, I have found a small

niche of understanding which though perhaps imperfect can provide a

stepping stone back to a path of Bhakthi. It has the potential for

that, and that is a great gain in itself.

 

Sadanandaji, special thanks to your lengthy and detailed response. I

will read it carefully, since I think I can trust it as

representative of the orthodox interpretation. It starts out with the

representative logic that because the world has order, the jiva will

see it as creation and conclude that a Creator exists. (Of course,

the " scientist-jiva " will reject this logic and be more content

with " Nature " , etc. But that also according to religion is an

alternative mid-way-point of contentment.) As your post progresses,

we see Ishvara being presented in finer manners ( " the scripture says

I have to grow up. " ); Sri Shyamji's post presented one such version

which I twisted and turned to give my own version of Ishvara. That

works for now, and I don't think it is in serious conflict (as I

think it) with what has been presented by others in this forum. The

ultimate goal is to reach " the final state of realization `aham

brahmaasmi' " In That Unknown, we are in agreement !!

 

Thanks to all who participated in this topic. I think we may agree it

is one of BIG ones.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> Sri Sadanandaji,

>

> I churned my head for a week on this forum and finally thought I

> reached the end of my search, and you have brought me back to the

> starting point, it seems!!

 

Namaste Sri Putran-ji,:-)

 

There is one more perspective of looking at brahman and Ishwara. To my

present understanding of advaita in the light of teachings of Bhagavan

Sri Ramakrishna, this is a definite last point. Please go through the

essay entitled- " The Real and the Unreal " by Sri Chittaranjan-ji. You

can get it in the following link:

 

http://advaita.org.uk/discourses/chittaranjan/realist_chittaranjan.htm

 

The essay is very lengthy one. If time doesn't permit you to go

through the whole essay please read sections dealing with Brahman,

Ishwara and Creation.

 

Surprisingly enough, there is a 'striking similarity' between the

explanation given by chitta-ji and the teachings of Sri Ramakrishna.

He quotes extensively from the Shankra Bhashya in support of his

arguments.Dennis-ji has rightly said in the introduction that:

 

There are nine essays, which will be followed by a summary and

glossary. There is a large amount of material, well-researched and

erudite, drawing upon Western philosophy as well as Advaita and the

view that it espouses challenges the more generally accepted position

represented by the kArikA of gauDapAda in the mANDUkya upaniShat.

Nevertheless, the ultimate destination is the same and the journey,

possibly as a result of the relative novelty of the sites to be seen

en route, is a rewarding one.

 

(Unquote)

 

But whether these interpretations are accepted in the traditional

Shankara Sampradaya is the biggest question. I think you will be able

to get a feel if you go through arguments made against this

proposition by the other members of the group.

 

But my request is, please do read the essay before coming to the final

conclusion, else you may miss somethings.

 

With Best Wishes,

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Namaskarams Sri Vinayaka-ji,

 

Thank you for the link. I may read it later. Our posts may have

clashed. As pointed to by Ram Chandranji, I accept the wisdom of the

Hindu teachers of whom one of the most luminous in recent times was

Sri Ramakrishna that there is no one way of seeing God, and each

serves to bring the seeker closer to God. One cannot put a crystal

structure on such things. If after reading the Gospel of Sri

Ramakrishna multiple times, a person cannot get conviction in

Ishvara, I highly doubt Chittaranjan-ji's essays would serve better.

 

Religion, you may agree, is an enquiry into truth and not a confirmed-

belief in dogmas. A person can be Hindu and question its beliefs. A

person can be part of the " Shankara Sampradaya " and not feel bound to

each and every proposed equation. Sri Ramakrishna's great legacy was

to shake out such small-minded interpretations -- not to make himself

subject to another such. I can revere and follow Sri Ramakrishna, and

at the same time, think the master is crazy monomaniac and his

visions are hallucinations and his interpretations of God just plain

wrong. Religion and God was shining in and through him, and I dare

not confine him to my understanding of " Sri Ramakrishna's teachings " ,

or " his " versions of creation, Ishvara and so on. The versions I

present may have a mark of his influence as well; so what? For one it

is " Bhagavan Sri Rama " and for another it is just Brahman. The master

accepted both and equally so, and I have little to no respect for

those who formulate (for formulating) what exactly he meant.

 

For instance, if one of his disciples had a different view of " Sri

Ramakrishna's teachings " than Swamiji's, that viewpoint is equally

valid as Swamiji's. This " sampradaya " tendency that tries to sublate

one interpretation in preference to another is high-class hypocrisy.

In the case of Shankara, as I said before, it was he himself who did

the organization of the scriptures. The responsibility of classifying

Sri Ramakrishna falls on others, and the " light of his teachings "

will eternally tell their shadows.

 

Let the Shankara sampradaya reject or accept Sri Chittaranjan-ji's

post. It is not my biggest question. My goal here, as yours, is to

learn the details. Then as Sri dhyanasaraswathiji said in a post,

each on his/her own.

 

However, thanks indeed for your concern and reference.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

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

>

> Namaste Sri Putran-ji,:-)

>

> There is one more perspective of looking at brahman and Ishwara. To

my

> present understanding of advaita in the light of teachings of

Bhagavan

> Sri Ramakrishna, this is a definite last point. Please go through

the

> essay entitled- " The Real and the Unreal " by Sri Chittaranjan-ji. You

> can get it in the following link:

>

>

http://advaita.org.uk/discourses/chittaranjan/realist_chittaranjan.htm

>

> The essay is very lengthy one. If time doesn't permit you to go

> through the whole essay please read sections dealing with Brahman,

> Ishwara and Creation.

>

> Surprisingly enough, there is a 'striking similarity' between the

> explanation given by chitta-ji and the teachings of Sri Ramakrishna.

> He quotes extensively from the Shankra Bhashya in support of his

> arguments.Dennis-ji has rightly said in the introduction that:

>

> There are nine essays, which will be followed by a summary and

> glossary. There is a large amount of material, well-researched and

> erudite, drawing upon Western philosophy as well as Advaita and the

> view that it espouses challenges the more generally accepted

position

> represented by the kArikA of gauDapAda in the mANDUkya upaniShat.

> Nevertheless, the ultimate destination is the same and the journey,

> possibly as a result of the relative novelty of the sites to be seen

> en route, is a rewarding one.

>

> (Unquote)

>

> But whether these interpretations are accepted in the traditional

> Shankara Sampradaya is the biggest question. I think you will be

able

> to get a feel if you go through arguments made against this

> proposition by the other members of the group.

>

> But my request is, please do read the essay before coming to the

final

> conclusion, else you may miss somethings.

>

> With Best Wishes,

>

> Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

>

> Br. Vinayaka.

>

[Guest guest]

Some verses from Ramana Maharshi's 'Forty Verses on Reality' ...

 

 

(ii) Men of pure minds who intensely fear death surrender themselves unto

the Lord of all, the blissful One, the indwelling Self, who has no death nor

birth. By that (surrender) their ego, along with their attachments, becomes

extinguished. How can they, who (thus) have won abode in Immortality, have

any thought of death?

 

(1) Since we see the world (it follows that) there does exist a source for

it, a sole Reality transcending (world and mind), of whose power all this is

a becoming; this is beyond dispute. This cinema-show of names and forms,

their sustaining screen, the light (of Consciousness), and the spectator -

all these four are only that Supreme Being, who is the Real Self within the

Heart.

 

(2) All the faiths that prevail in the world affirm, to begin with, (the

existence of) the world, the soul and God. The two contentions, namely that

the One Reality is sensed as threefold, and that they are three distinct

entities, are upheld (as intellectual convictions) while the sense of 'I am

the body' persists. But the highest state is the being firmly established

in one's own real Nature (as the Real Self), by giving up that delusion.

 

(4) If the Self have form, then the world and God would also have form. But

since the Self is formless, by whom and how are forms to be seen? Can what

is seen be of a different nature from the seeing eye? The (real) Eye is just

the Real Self, and that Eye is infinite, unconditioned, worldless, and

without a second.

 

(8) Even though to worship Him in any form and by any name is a means

towards the right vision of Him, who (really) is without name and form, true

vision of Him consists in being at one with Him by merging in Him, the

Transcendental Being, through the realisation of the identity of the Real

Self with His real essence.

 

(20) When one sees a form of God, neglecting himself the seer, that vision

is a vision of mental form; it is not a true vision of God. Does the Sage,

that has direct vision of the Self, see that Supreme Being, who is (that)

Real Self? Having lost the ego, he (the Sage) is not at all distinct from

Him.

 

(21) Two visions are mentioned in the sacred lore, namely vision of the Self

and vision of God; I shall state what they really mean. How can there be a

vision of the Self? Since He cannot be seen, for the reason that He is one

(with the would-be seer); who is to see God (who is just the Real Self), and

how? Know that the vision of the Self and the vision of God (alike) consist

in the soul (that is the ego) becoming the food of God.

 

(22) The blissful and transcendental Being, who is Pure Consciousness, is

ever shining within the mind as Himself, the Real Self, imparting to the

mind (whatever) light of consciousness (it has). Such being the case, how

can a man know Him by the mind alone, failing to merge the mind in Him by

turning it inwards?

 

(from " Revelation " translated by K. Lakshmana Sarma)