Cancelling Karma????

[Guest guest]

" Researchers at Harvard and McGill University (in Montreal) are

working on an amnesia drug that blocks or deletes bad memories. The

technique seems to allow psychiatrists to disrupt the biochemical

pathways that allow a memory to be recalled.

 

 

In a new study, published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, the

drug propranolol is used along with therapy to " dampen " memories of

trauma victims. They treated 19 accident or rape victims for ten

days, during which the patients were asked to describe their memories

of the traumatic event that had happened 10 years earlier. Some

patients were given the drug, which is also used to treat amnesia,

while others were given a placebo. "

_____________

 

The rest of the article goes on to describe how " bad " memories

can simply be erased.

 

Now, if I kill someone, say I'm a gangster, and my Mafia boss has

access to propranolol, and I'm feeling guilty...I get an injection

and forget about having killed the person. As far as I know, I didn't

do it. Have I accrued karma? If I'm not conscious of having commited

an act, do I have responsibility for it? Also, what good would any

retribution, via karma, do, since I have no basis for learning any

lesson from it since I have no memory of having committed the act?

 

______________

 

My personal opinion is that this is a very bad drug! This seems too

easy a way out! I can envision a future in which I get a prescription

to wipe out any bad memory I don't want. Where, then, is my capacity

for growth, for dealing with the consequences of my actions, my

decisions, for learning that there ARE consquences of all kinds, from

the lightest to the heaviest, from my actions and my involvement in

situations?

 

______________

 

In the West there is an increasing tendency to feel that we're all

victims. There are such frivolous lawsuits in the United States now!

Fast food chains are being held liable for customers being

overweight. People sue travel agencies because it rained the whole

time they were in Cozumel! A woman sued McDonald's because she

spilled hot coffee on her lap when she went through the drive-

through. She won. This list could go on ad infinitum. So...now we

have a drug that can erase bad memories we don't want...personal

responsibility is definitely on the decline in the West. SOMEONE

SOMEWHERE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HOW I FEEL/MY LIFE/MY PROBLEMS/AND

SOMEONE HAS TO PAY!!!!!......yuck, wonder what Gautama and Shankara

and Jesus would think of all this?

 

______________

 

Please excuse the rant: I just have higher hopes for the race than

what, in my limited view, I see. We sometimes seem to be a world of

little bitty babies still wanting mother's tit, absolutely refusing

to grow up and deal with things as they are, taking responsibility,

and understanding the basic law of existence: " Ya win some and ya

lose some! " Tomorrow's the 4th of July in the States. Independence

Day. I hope the irony of this post coming on the eve of this holiday

is not lost! Best wishes, Steve.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " otnac6 " <otnac6 wrote:

>

>

> ______________

>

> In the West there is an increasing tendency to feel that we're all

> victims. There are such frivolous lawsuits in the United States

now!

> Fast food chains are being held liable for customers being

> overweight. People sue travel agencies because it rained the whole

> time they were in Cozumel! A woman sued McDonald's because she

> spilled hot coffee on her lap when she went through the drive-

> through. She won. This list could go on ad infinitum. So...now we

> have a drug that can erase bad memories we don't want...personal

> responsibility is definitely on the decline in the West. SOMEONE

> SOMEWHERE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HOW I FEEL/MY LIFE/MY PROBLEMS/AND

> SOMEONE HAS TO PAY!!!!!......yuck, wonder what Gautama and Shankara

> and Jesus would think of all this?

>

> ______________

>

 

 

Namaste Steve:

 

If one looks above statement from another perspective of Karma then

that can make practical sense:

 

The Bad Karma of McDonald for not falling the complete disclosure

finally caught up with them. As I recall the Since then McDonald has

started printing the relevant caution statement on the coffee cup.

Also they have reduced the temperature by 7-10 Deg C.

 

We are conditioned to remember bad things because we do not wish to

go through the same bad experience again. Unfortunately we often

fail as an individual or the society that is why history repeats

itself.

 

 

As far as Acharya is concerned he recommends that all one does is his

worship. - yadyatkarma karomi tattadakhilaM shambho tavaaraadhananm.

All our sages wanted us to learn from our everyday experiences.

 

Tuklasidaasaji says,

 

dkha me sumirana saba karai, sukha me karai ne koya |

sukha me sumirana saba kare to dukha kaahe ko hoya ?

 

 

(Liberal Meaning) - Everyone remembers God when they are in

difficulty. On one remembers HIM when going is good. However, if one

remembers the " GOD " in good times then the there would be no

difficulty.

 

 

Thus rather than repeatation the academic repeatation of japamaalaa

(rosary beads) -

 

mallaa pherata juga gayaa gayaana manakaa phera |

mNakaa maNakaa chhoDa de manakaa manakaa phera ||

 

Meaning (Liberal) - Rather repeating the roresy beads (japamaalaa)for

n - number of times, One should understand the meaning by repeating

the meaning within mind.

 

Hope this makes sense !?

 

Best regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your response!

 

'As I recall the Since then McDonald has

started printing the relevant caution statement on the

coffee cup.

Also they have reduced the temperature by 7-10 Deg C.'

 

However, I wonder where on earth this holding others

responsible for our actions and their results ends?

Apparently, it doesn't. But I maintain that the

'mindset' of wanting to sue or redress someone,

institution, organization for " bad " things that can

happen to us is a failure to take responsibility.

There seems to be no sliding scale of values in it.

It seems basically okay to sue a doctor or hospital

for negligent care and gross mistakes where one's life

may be profoundly affected. But I know a woman who

sued her hairdresser because he didn't do her hair

correctly!!! She won.

 

I guess this is a personal issue with me, maybe others

don't perceive this inequity of values. Just my

personal ignorance and prejudices in the area!

 

What's next? I sue you because you don't agree with me

and you've caused me " mental anguish? " . Ha! It can get

absurd...best wishes, Steve/

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast

with the Search weather shortcut.

http://tools.search./shortcuts/#loc_weather

[Guest guest]

Namste Steve:

 

The individual (having burnt their lap) suffered because of their

ignorance to their present environment. (IGNORING KNOWLEDGE)

 

McDonald suffered because hot providing explicit instructions for the

coffee container. (DISRTESPECT FOR KNOWLEDGE.)

 

Same principle applies to Vioxx and Celebrex.

 

The Pharmaceutical giants Merck and Phazer paid a price for

their " karma " for not having shared the the potential risk factors

with the patients.

 

Patients paid a price for their " shraddha " (rather andhashraddha),

the blind faith) on their health care providers and the

pharmaceutical Industry.

 

We (as individuals or as a community or a Nation) suffer because we

ignore the hazards & obstacles.

 

That why Veda declares R^ite j~naanna muktiH (Meaning - Liberation

through knowledge), which forms the core principle for Acharys's

advaita.

 

IMO - Liberation can occur instantly when one becomes knowledgeable

and start using it.

 

In US you are nobody if you have not been sued !?

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

advaitin , Steve Stoker <otnac6 wrote:

>

>

> However, I wonder where on earth this holding others

> responsible for our actions and their results ends?

> Apparently, it doesn't. But I maintain that the

> 'mindset' of wanting to sue or redress someone,

> institution, organization for " bad " things that can

> happen to us is a failure to take responsibility.

> There seems to be no sliding scale of values in it.

> It seems basically okay to sue a doctor or hospital

> for negligent care and gross mistakes where one's life

> may be profoundly affected. But I know a woman who

> sued her hairdresser because he didn't do her hair

> correctly!!! She won.

>

> I guess this is a personal issue with me, maybe others

> don't perceive this inequity of values. Just my

> personal ignorance and prejudices in the area!

>

> What's next? I sue you because you don't agree with me

> and you've caused me " mental anguish? " . Ha! It can get

> absurd...best wishes, Steve/

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr Yadu,

 

The individual (having burnt their lap) suffered

because of their

ignorance to their present environment. (IGNORING

KNOWLEDGE)

 

McDonald suffered because hot providing explicit

instructions for the

coffee container. (DISRTESPECT FOR KNOWLEDGE.)

 

Okay, thanks, I get this; all are suffering no matter

which side of karma they're on! I wasn't thinking of

that side of it, that there is suffering/ignorance on

ALL sides. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

Sometimes I forget things in my own " need " to " set the

world straight " . My own ignorance and forgetfullnes of

knowledge and that same disrespect. Thanks again. I

appreciate it...best wishes, Steve.

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Get the toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.

http://new.toolbar./toolbar/features/mail/index.php

[Guest guest]

Dear List:

 

I sincerely believe that " Knowledge " is the biggest Obstacle is

everyone's path.

 

Here I would like to share a Ganesha Invocation in Marathi that I

wrote few years ago..

 

aj~naanagranthiH naashakaa | muuLatattva beahmaadikaa ||

namito yadunaatha gaNanaayakaa | prathamcaraNi ||

 

Meaning - At the beginning Yadunath invokes and bows to the deity of

knowledge GaNesha, the primordial essential principle of creation and

expansion in order to destroy the gland that secrets ignorance.

 

Hari OM

 

Dr. Yadu

 

advaitin , Steve Stoker <otnac6 wrote:

>

> Dear Dr Yadu,

>

> The individual (having burnt their lap) suffered

> because of their

> ignorance to their present environment. (IGNORING

> KNOWLEDGE)

>

> McDonald suffered because hot providing explicit

> instructions for the

> coffee container. (DISRTESPECT FOR KNOWLEDGE.)

>

> Okay, thanks, I get this; all are suffering no matter

> which side of karma they're on! I wasn't thinking of

> that side of it, that there is suffering/ignorance on

> ALL sides. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

> Sometimes I forget things in my own " need " to " set the

> world straight " . My own ignorance and forgetfullnes of

> knowledge and that same disrespect. Thanks again. I

> appreciate it...best wishes, Steve.

>

>

>

>

____________________

______________

> Get the toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're

surfing.

> http://new.toolbar./toolbar/features/mail/index.php

>

[Guest guest]

Another perspective is that of Ranjit Maharaj.

 

Ranjit Maharaj said: " Knowledge is the highest form of ignorance "

and " Truth is beyond knowledge and ignorance " .

 

Respectfully,

Richard

[Guest guest]

Ranjit Maharaj said: " Knowledge is the highest form of ignorance "

and " Truth is beyond knowledge and ignorance " .

 

 

 

This is that thing that I'm always considering. Absolute and

relative. No doubt in my mind that he's right. In daily life I have

to use knowledge, relatively, without forgetting that it's not

absolute. Some philosopher said something like, " Knowledge is sort of

like fish. It's only fresh for a few days " . Seems if I use knowledge

without being attached to it, as if it were the absolute truth, then

I think that's maybe the proper use for it in " the world " . And the

proof for me that knowledge isn't absolute is the study of history.

It's constantly changing because historians constantly find new info

that modifies what they previously thought! So even history isn't

absolute! Same in my personal life. Knowledge that I think I have is

constantly changing, ignorance becoming informed, and then that

informed state gets overthrown by more--or different--knowledge.

Yeah, I think Ranjit is right. But I still gotta live in the world of

relative existence. Absolutely.

 

Best wishes,

Steve (hey! if i talk to much on this site somebody just shut

me up!!!!! seems like so few people post that i sometimes think i'm

hoggin' the floor!)

[Guest guest]

Hi Steve,

 

<<In daily life I have to use knowledge, relatively, without forgetting that

it's not absolute. >>

 

Advaita uses knowledge to remove self-ignorance and to point towards the

truth. In vyavahAra, where language and knowledge operate, these uses are

always valid. It it the 'thorn to remove a thorn' which is why Ranjit says

that it is the highest form of ignorance.

 

Read Swami Satprakashananda's 'Methods of Knowledge' if you are interested

in this topic - it is excellent!

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

<http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=3

6423/stime=1183733550/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848571/nc3=3848582>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Advaita uses knowledge to remove self-ignorance and to point towards the

truth.

 

Hi Dennis,

 

I'll check for the book. In the meantime I'm wondering if this applies

to all knowledge? For example, I know that my car needs gas in order to

run. I know that the Medieval alchemists pulled images of all kinds

from the matrix of religion and mythology. I know how to cook eggs.

Each time, I said I " know " . At some level I say I know. How do I use

this to remove self-ignorace and turn to the truth?

 

I think I intuit that in saying that I " know " , the " I " is the same in

all cases. Is this what you mean??? All knowledge that I think I have

or know must be known by something, an/the " I " . Would the knowledge be

used in the sense of inquiry, as in " Who knows this? " or " What knows

this? " Without a knower there's nothing to be known? Is this what you

mean? But if so, is it simply to be aware of that each time I think " I

know_____? "

 

Thanks,

Steve

[Guest guest]

Hi Steve,

 

<<I think I intuit that in saying that I " know " , the " I " is the same in

all cases. Is this what you mean??? All knowledge that I think I have

or know must be known by something, an/the " I " . Would the knowledge be

used in the sense of inquiry, as in " Who knows this? " or " What knows

this? " Without a knower there's nothing to be known? Is this what you

mean? But if so, is it simply to be aware of that each time I think " I

know_____? " >>

 

It's a big subject, which is why there are books written on the topic rather

than one or two sentences or paragraphs that explain everything. Did you

read Sadananda-ji's 'Introduction to Vedanta'? There was a lot of material

there, presented in quite a short time so you may have missed some of the

key sections. I suggest you read the bit on Experience versus Knowledge as a

starter (just 8 short paragraphs) to get a good idea of the answer to your

questions -

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/sadananda/experience_sadananda.htm.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

..

 

<http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=3

6434/stime=1183910919/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848581/nc3=3848570>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

 

 

Did you

> read Sadananda-ji's 'Introduction to Vedanta'? There

> was a lot of material

> there, presented in quite a short time so you may

> have missed some of the

> key sections. I suggest you read the bit on

> Experience versus Knowledge as a

> starter (just 8 short paragraphs) to get a good idea

> of the answer to your

> questions -

>

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/sadananda/experience_sadananda.htm.

>

> Best wishes,

> Dennis

 

Thank you Dennis -

 

Did I write all that? - Looks like I need to study

them again and complete that introduction that I have

commited before your term is over.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

this is addrssed to sri sadananda

 

isent a personal mail to him but looks like it has gone in to bulk message and

not read by him.it was about 4or 5 days back.i hd also replied to his earliest

of messages in this coloumns which also went to the messages and not in the

mails .i would be thankful if this is sent to him now.

 

baskaran

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

 

Did you

> read Sadananda-ji's 'Introduction to Vedanta'? There

> was a lot of material

> there, presented in quite a short time so you may

> have missed some of the

> key sections. I suggest you read the bit on

> Experience versus Knowledge as a

> starter (just 8 short paragraphs) to get a good idea

> of the answer to your

> questions -

>

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/sadananda/experience_sadananda.htm.

>

> Best wishes,

> Dennis

 

Thank you Dennis -

 

Did I write all that? - Looks like I need to study

them again and complete that introduction that I have

commited before your term is over.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

BASKARAN.C.S

 

Send free SMS to your Friends on Mobile from your Messenger. Download

Now! http://messenger./download.php

 

 

[Guest guest]

Shree Steve - PraNAms

 

Although you have addressed Dennis(I am sure Dennis

would address the issues that you have raised)

meanwhile, I may venture to present my understanding

of the subject here.

 

 

--- otnac6 <otnac6 wrote:

.. In the meantime I'm

> wondering if this applies

> to all knowledge? For example, I know that my car

> needs gas in order to

> run. I know that the Medieval alchemists pulled

> images of all kinds

> from the matrix of religion and mythology. I know

> how to cook eggs.

> Each time, I said I " know " . At some level I say I

> know. How do I use

> this to remove self-ignorance and turn to the truth?

 

Here is a simple rule - in all " I know this or that -

whatever this or that I am referring to including

alchemists knowledge or knowledge of how to cook eggs

or knowledge of chemistry, biology, or any -ology, all

'that' or 'this' is objective objective knowledge. 'I

am' is the subject knower, a conscious entity and

'this' that is known an unconscious entity. Only

conscious entity can be a knower, or to put it in the

advaitin terminology 'illuminator' of this or that.

Since chemistry or alchemistry is not

self-illuminating entity - they do not self-exist, in

the sense that they cannot establish their existence

by themselves. Their existence has to be established

by a conscious entity - like myself or yourself etc.

It is 'as-though' I shine a light of consciousness on

them for them to be revealed - just like I shine a

torch-light on the objects for me to see in the dark.

Without the light of consciousness illuminating them,

I cannot say 'there is' or they exist. For me to know

any 'this' or 'that' - a means of knowledge (pramaaNa)

is required - eyes to see, mind to think, ears to

hear, etc. - that is either perception, or inference,

etc are required for knowledge to take place. They are

called 'pramaaNa' or means of knowledge to know any

'conceptual or objective knowledge'.

 

Self-knowledge differs from the 'objective knowledge'

in many ways:

 

1. 'I am' is not an object for any one to know since

'I' is not an object. That is the subject can never be

objectified. If it is objectified, it becomes an inert

and therefore 'I' ceases to be 'I', a conscious

existent entity.

 

2. Since I am self-existent entity as well as

self-conscious entity' - I shine myself as 'I am' and

therefore I do not need any means of knowledge to know

myself. - no pramaaNa is required- Hence Vedanta calls

the truth that 'I am' is " aprameyam " - not an object

of knowledge.

 

3. Even in pitch dark room, if someone calls you - Hay

Steve are you there - you would respond immediately

and say Yes I am - Your existence is not established

by any perception or inference or any other means of

knowledge. You know you are there and you know you

are a self conscious entity. It is like light does not

need another light for it to see. I am the light of

consciousness because of which I can see everything

including the light out side which is inert.

 

Hence Vedanta say:

 

" The sun does not shine there (does not illumine 'I'),

neither the moon, nor the stars nor the electricity,

neither the small light of campher that is shown to

see the alter of worship - nay nothing can shine me

the self-conscious entity. In fact everything shines

after me - self-shining or self-conscious,

self-existent entity that I am. " - a free translation

of

 

" na tatra suuryo bhaati na chandra taarakam

ne maa vidhyto bhanti kotoyam agniH

sameva bhaanti anubhaati sarvam

tasyaa bhaasaa sarvam idam vibhaati "

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

> I think I intuit that in saying that I " know " , the

> " I " is the same in

> all cases. Is this what you mean??? All knowledge

> that I think I have

> or know must be known by something, an/the " I " .

> Would the knowledge be

> used in the sense of inquiry, as in " Who knows

> this? " or " What knows

> this? " Without a knower there's nothing to be known?

> Is this what you

> mean? But if so, is it simply to be aware of that

> each time I think " I

> know_____? "

>

> Thanks,

> Steve

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks so much for your reply. I'd gone back and read your entries that

Dennis had mentioned. And this entry clarifies it a little more

 

I seem to know and understand and feel what you're saying--and then I

forget it! In the early morning, soon after arising, sitting cross

legged on the carpet, I remember this. And I'm determined to remember

it throughout the day. Then, as the day wears on and I get involved

in " the world " , I seem to forget it. I forget to inquire " Who am

I? " , " Who does this action? " , " What thinks it knows? " etc. Then

occasionally during the day it comes back and I seem to wake up for a

moment and then go back to sleep! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz...HA!...thanks again

and best wishes, Steve

[Guest guest]

Dear Sada-ji,

 

There are about another 20 parts to be added to the site yet from your

original material! Excellent stuff!

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

<<Did I write all that? - Looks like I need to study

them again and complete that introduction that I have

commited before your term is over.>>

<http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=3

6436/stime=1183944192/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848582/nc3=3848567>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

There are no outstanding messages at in pending or spam folders.

 

Dennis

 

 

<<isent a personal mail to him but looks like it has gone in to bulk

message and not read by him.it was about 4or 5 days back.i hd also replied

to his earliest of messages in this coloumns which also went to the messages

and not in the mails .i would be thankful if this is sent to him now.>>

<http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=3

6437/stime=1183953447/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848546/nc3=3848569>

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

<<Although you have addressed Dennis(I am sure Dennis

would address the issues that you have raised)

meanwhile, I may venture to present my understanding

of the subject here. >>

 

Hi Sada-ji (and Steve),

 

I could not answer these questions any better than you have, which is why

<http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=3

6438/stime=1183984578/nc1=4507179/nc2=3848584/nc3=3848570> I referred Steve

to your 'Introduction' essays.

 

Best wishes,

dennis

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

> ...Hence Vedanta say:

>

> " The sun does not shine there (does not illumine 'I'),

> neither the moon, nor the stars nor the electricity,

> neither the small light of campher that is shown to

> see the alter of worship - nay nothing can shine me

> the self-conscious entity. In fact everything shines

> after me - self-shining or self-conscious,

> self-existent entity that I am. " - a free translation

> of

>

> " na tatra suuryo bhaati na chandra taarakam

> ne maa vidhyto bhanti kotoyam agniH

> sameva bhaanti anubhaati sarvam

> tasyaa bhaasaa sarvam idam vibhaati "

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

 

 

Hello Shri Sadananda,

 

I enjoyed your total post from which the above was taken. And am

getting much from your writings, which Dennis directed us to.

 

I was wondering....from where is the above quote taken?

 

Thank you,

Richard

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Richard " <richarkar wrote:

>

> advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

> <kuntimaddisada@> wrote:

> >

> > " na tatra suuryo bhaati na chandra taarakam

> > ne maa vidhyto bhanti kotoyam agniH

> > sameva bhaanti anubhaati sarvam

> > tasyaa bhaasaa sarvam idam vibhaati "

> >

> > Hari Om!

> > Sadananda

 

>

> I was wondering....from where is the above quote taken?

>

> Thank you,

> Richard

>

 

shvetaashvatara upa 6.14

 

Dr. Yadu

[Guest guest]

--- Richard <richarkar wrote:

 

> I was wondering....from where is the above quote

> taken?

>

> Thank you,

> Richard

 

 

Shree Richard - PraNAms

 

Thanks for your kind mail. Shree Yaduji has provided

one Upanishad reference. It also occurs in couple of

other Upanishads. There are some typos (as usual with

my typing)in the slokas I have provided. The third

line should read

 

tvameva bhantam anubhaati sarvam - you alone are

self-shining and every thing shines after you-

 

This particular sloka is chanted when the priests do

Vedic aarati that is when they show the camphor light

to the alter in Temples - saying that 'how can this

silly light shine you as you are the light of all

lights - the very consciousness within - everything

shines after you. In authentic temples in India,

particularly in south, there will not be any electric

lights - only the oil lamp that was lighted with

prayer. The darkness signifies the ignorance. The

light signifies knowledge. Only in the light of

knowledge the Lord is recognized.

 

Camphor is generally used for aarati - camphor burns

without leaving any residue on the plate. The camphor

signifies vaasanas - or likes and dislikes of jiiva

that binds the individual to samsaara. Only in the

burning of ones vaasanas, the light of consciousness

will illumine the mind, revealing the nature of the

Lord. Offering of flowers also signifies offering of

one's vaasanas at the alter of the almighty. Vaasanas

or flowers offered to the lord beautify the Lord.

People mechanically do the aarati - if they understand

the meaning, it becomes meditative saadhana.

 

Shree Sunder may be able to provide you other

references to this Vedic mantra.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Nameste Sri Sadanandam,

 

I appreciate your explations of the symbolic meaning of of the use of

oil lamps and camphor in the temples.

 

Understanding these makes the experience much more meditative. Each

is a reminder of the Self.

 

Now two,

Richard

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

>

> --- Richard <richarkar wrote:

>

> > I was wondering....from where is the above quote

> > taken?

> >

> > Thank you,

> > Richard

>

>

> Shree Richard - PraNAms

>

> Thanks for your kind mail. Shree Yaduji has provided

> one Upanishad reference. It also occurs in couple of

> other Upanishads. There are some typos (as usual with

> my typing)in the slokas I have provided. The third

> line should read

>

> tvameva bhantam anubhaati sarvam - you alone are

> self-shining and every thing shines after you-

>

> This particular sloka is chanted when the priests do

> Vedic aarati that is when they show the camphor light

> to the alter in Temples - saying that 'how can this

> silly light shine you as you are the light of all

> lights - the very consciousness within - everything

> shines after you. In authentic temples in India,

> particularly in south, there will not be any electric

> lights - only the oil lamp that was lighted with

> prayer. The darkness signifies the ignorance. The

> light signifies knowledge. Only in the light of

> knowledge the Lord is recognized.

>

> Camphor is generally used for aarati - camphor burns

> without leaving any residue on the plate. The camphor

> signifies vaasanas - or likes and dislikes of jiiva

> that binds the individual to samsaara. Only in the

> burning of ones vaasanas, the light of consciousness

> will illumine the mind, revealing the nature of the

> Lord. Offering of flowers also signifies offering of

> one's vaasanas at the alter of the almighty. Vaasanas

> or flowers offered to the lord beautify the Lord.

> People mechanically do the aarati - if they understand

> the meaning, it becomes meditative saadhana.

>

> Shree Sunder may be able to provide you other

> references to this Vedic mantra.

>

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

[Guest guest]

or likes and dislikes of jiiva

> that binds the individual to samsaara

 

This matter of likes and dislikes. I interpret that to mean extreme

likes and dislikes, likes and dislikes to the point of obsession or

bias or prejudice. In other words, the like or dislike becomes a

consciousness-dominating thing. I can hardly exist at this relative

level without likes and dislikes. I like coffee but don't care for tea.

I like sedans but don't like SUVs. It seems I can make choices among

things in the world but without exteme attachment. I think I can prefer

one thing over another without condemning or hating the non-preferred

thing. If I try not to like or dislike anything at all, I think I'll

die very quickly...anyway, that's my interpretation of it. If there are

other ways to look at this matter, I'd appreciate feed back...best

wishes, Steve

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " otnac6 " <otnac6 wrote:

>

> Advaita uses knowledge to remove self-ignorance and to point towards the

> truth.

>

> Hi Dennis,

>

> I'll check for the book. In the meantime I'm wondering if this applies

> to all knowledge? For example, I know that my car needs gas in order to

> run. I know that the Medieval alchemists pulled images of all kinds

> from the matrix of religion and mythology. I know how to cook eggs.

> Each time, I said I " know " . At some level I say I know. How do I use

> this to remove self-ignorace and turn to the truth?

>

> I think I intuit that in saying that I " know " , the " I " is the same in

> all cases. Is this what you mean??? All knowledge that I think I have

> or know must be known by something, an/the " I " . Would the knowledge be

> used in the sense of inquiry, as in " Who knows this? " or " What knows

> this? " Without a knower there's nothing to be known? Is this what you

> mean? But if so, is it simply to be aware of that each time I think " I

> know_____? "

>

> Thanks,

> Steve

 

Namaste all,

 

Although I have not had time to read all of the

posts on this thread (for which I apologize), and

although I am coming in late in the discussion,

there is something which I would like to address

here.

 

A good question might be 'What is that knowledge

which removes self-ignorance?'

 

The short answer is 'Self-knowledge.'

 

Self-knowledge, pure and simple, as far as I

know, is the only knowledge which removes

self-ignorance.

 

Any other type of knowledge, even indirect

knowledge of the self, which might be gained

through the study of Vedanta, does not,

in the end, remove self-ignorance.

 

I think that there can be a lot of confusion

on this point, especially because of the use

of the word 'knowledge,' which usually

implies knowledge of an object.

 

Self-knowledge is not knowledge of an

`object' in the creation. It is the direct

recognition by the mind that I am already

that self which I have been seeking.

 

Vedanta, when properly taught, is a pramana.

That is it works to guide the student's mind to

the direct knowledge of the self. The direct

knowledge (as in recognition) that the student

is already the self. But prior to self-knowledge

the student has not recognized this fact, which

when once seen, is seen to be entirely self-evident

(and in fact always has been, but was previously

taken to be something else, a product of the

body/mind/sense organs complex).

 

Vedanta can also supply indirect knowledge of the self.

Vedanta can tell you, 'You are already that which you

seek. You are limitless, timeless, changeless, etc.'

and all of those words are true, and they are even

helpful to a certain extent. But the hearing of

such words alone does not remove self-ignorance.

 

When properly taught, the words of Vedanta act as

the eyes of one's actual experience. They guide the

student's mind step by step, by directly pointing out

what is actually true, what one's actual 'experience'

already is. And the student 'sees' at the time of

teaching that the words are correct, that they are

pointing out what already is.

 

The teacher guides the mind of the student to the

direct recognition of the self by clearing doubts

and mental obstacles, and by constantly pointing to

what is already true.

 

So, while indirect knowledge of the self may be useful

to a certain extent, it does not remove self-ignorance.

 

Only self-knowledge does that. Self-knowledge that

is gained through a '(self-)knowledge vritti,' which is

not a subject/object vritti. Once that vritti occurs,

self-ignorance is removed. It cannot return.

 

Only self-knowledge once and for all destroys

self-ignorance through the direct recognition

by the mind of the self, the self which one already is.

That recognition is called a 'knowledge vritti.'

And once it occurs the person has self-knowledge because

self-ignorance has been lost forever. Self-knowledge is

gained once, and it occurs in an instant.

 

Any other type of knowledge of the self may be called

indirect knowledge, (knowledge about the self), but not

the direct recognition of the self, without which

self-ignorance remains. And although indirect

knowledge about the self may be useful, it is still

conceptual (as in subject/object), and it is not

self-knowledge, not a direct recognition by the

mind of that which I am.

 

The truth is everyone already knows the self, but many

have not yet recognized that they do, because they take

the self to be one with and a product of the body/mind,

So for that direct and distinct recognition,

a jnana vritti is necessary.

 

As far as I know, no one can say specifically what

causes such a vritti to occur, study, clarity of mind,

punya (the reward of good deeds done in the past),

prayer, guidance of a really good teacher. No one

can say specifically what brings about that event.

 

But what can be said is that it is only the direct

recognition of the self by the mind which destroys

self-ignorance instantaneously and forever, and

whatever may occur after that is only the mind's

maturation in the light of that knowledge.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

I think that there can be a lot of confusion

on this point, especially because of the use

of the word 'knowledge,' which usually

implies knowledge of an object.

 

Thanks for your reply...Yes, " knowledge " does seem like a poor word for

it. When I hear the word, I immediately think books, school, reading,

gaining information, facts, new material in my mind that wasn't there

before. Some sort of gaining of something. I don't know what the word

would be in languages spoken in India, if they have the same

connotation. Maybe the implication is differeent? Anyway, maybe a

better term in English might be awareness? Or...I don't know. Even Self-

knowledge seems a poor statement. Who knows whom? Is a self standing

apart to have knowledge of another self?? Ha! Language! Messes us up

all the time, but it's all we've got with which to communicate! Best

wishe, Steve.