Locus of ignorance?Avidya and Maaya ?

August 18, 2007

Some messages are worth repeating! We have so many newcomers here

and i am sure they will also benefit from the eternal wisdom of some

of our other members , who are currently observing 'mauna' for some

odd reason! But they have left a great legacy behind in the

archives ! i am ofcourse referring to my most beloved Chittaranjan's

post on The Real and the Unreal - Part IX - Ishwara, message number

24050 !

Please Reas this rare Pearl of Wisdom and dive in the ocean of Bliss

of Ishwera and his Divine potency, Prakriti !

Folks , i want to thank Chitta and others who sent me birthday

Greetings on and off the list ! AT THIS RATE , I WILL NEVER GROW OLD

BUT MAY BE OLDER AND WISER! THANK YOU ONE AND ALL!

MAYA AND AVIDYA

The confusion between avidya and Maya arises from a misinterpretation

of the bhashya, wherein it is stated that the omniscience and

omnipotence of God are contingent upon the nescience of the jiva. How

is this statement to be interpreted? The word 'contingent' here

implies a condition upon which something else happens. Avidya is the

condition and what happens is the response of Reality to that

condition. And that response springs by its innate power given the

contingency of avidya and the accumulations of karma caused by

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

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

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

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

nature. " (YS,IV,3).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ishwara, for Ishwara is the repository of aishwarya.

ISHWARA AND MAYA

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

power of creation. There is no avidya in Ishwara.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

supreme powers as also of His spontaneous action that is accomplished

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

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

a secondary sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

from the etymological root that evokes the meaning of projection.

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

vikshepa shakti.

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

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

Particularization hides the infinitude of the universal. That showing

forth of a particular also conceals the universality, and that

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

It is the obverse side of vikshepa.

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

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

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

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

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

the jiva.

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

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

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

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

Shakti.

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

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

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

Prakriti.

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

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

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

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

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

power of creation remains with Ishwara alone.

" For the Supreme Lord alone has competence for activities concerning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the well-springs of the world deny the world? When the jiva

challenges the creation of Ishwara, it is questioning the truth of

its own inner Self, ......

(((((((((((((SNIP SNIP SNIP .... ))))))))))

Now , enjoy this verse from Srimad Bhagwad Gita

apareyam itas tv anyam

prakrtim viddhi me param

jiva-bhutam maha-baho

yayedam dharyate jagat ( chapter 2 , verse 5)

This is the " lower " PRAKRITI; different from it, know thou, O mighty-

armed, My " Higher' ' PRAKRITI , the very Life-element, by which this

world is upheld.

Salutations to Divine Mother 'MAAYA' DEVI and her consort the

Mayeshwera ( the great magician , Sri Krishna Paramatma ) !

August 19, 2007

Namaste Dhyanasaraswatiji, Bhaskar Prabhuji et al.

Although I am not well versed in scriptures, this seemingly unending

debate on Ishwara, mAyA and the locus of avidya made me sit up and

evaluate where I stand with my meagre knowledge of Advaita. Here are

some thoughts, if some of which echo my previous posts, please pardon

the repetition.

The obvious infinity or rather infiniteness of creation is an irony

or paradox vis a vis the divisions and multiplicity we encounter

within it. Infiniteness has no beyonds and therefore no within. How

can something without a `within' have divisions and multiplicity.

Is that a choice between infiniteness and multiplicity? Which one

will we take as the Truth? If we opt for the latter, we have no hope

because we always end up with multiplicity tending to infinity in the

mathematical jargon. That is an untenable situation or rather a non-

situation in the context of our very familiar finite, empirical world

which ascribes shapes and sizes to things.

We thus look for Truth in infiniteness and understand all this

creation as a homogeneous One-Without-A-Second, a Wholeness or

Fullness. Advaita has begun and ended here. The apparent

multiplicity now becomes infinite multiplicity where the very soul of

multiplicity is infiniteness. In other words multiplicity is nothing

other than infiniteness in reality. Everything small and big,

seemingly individual and separate, is infiniteness, simply because

there cannot be any individual separateness in infiniteness!

The nescience or error of seeing multiplicity as multiplicity and

labouring under its tyranny is avidya. We are all prey to it. It

is a default setting we all seem to have born with.

Multiplicity per se whose soul is infiniteness is mAyA. It is really

the vibhUti (splendour, glory, magnificence, might etc.) of

infiniteness and actually non-separate from the latter.

Multiplicity as infiniteness where we no more talk about multiplicity

is Brahman – the Truth.

Infiniteness wielding vibhUti and engaged in this seeming creation

through multiplicity or projection (vikshepa) is Ishwara.

When we invoke MayAji, therefore, through AnnapUrNAstotraM,

BhavAnyaStakaM etc., we are actually surrendering our seeming

separateness or samsAritwaM (the avidya of seeing multiplicity as

multiplicity and not seeing through it) at the Feet of Ishwara and

Infiniteness and not erecting a `female divinity' and prostrating

before it for mortal boons. An Advaitin can thus invoke Her without

compromising the basic tenets of advaita. He, therefore, has no

doubt in his mind that his Acharya has authored the hymns named above

because he knows in his heart of hearts that all his prayers to

MAyAji are verily addressed to Brahman.

All said and done, from the absolute point of view, only the Truth

remains and that is Infiniteness, Fullness, Brahman. All else (mAyA,

Ishwara etc.) are just incidental by way of an explanation for the

bewildered in the phenomenal. They are an inevitable Adhyaropa which

ultimately sublate in Brahman.

Thus, Brahman is verily MAyA, Lakshmi, Alakshmi, Vidya and Avidya

too! There is therefore no bar for an Advaitin to plead with MAyAji

or Vidyaji for the removal of Avidya, and with Lakshmiji for the

removal of Alakshmi. Remember the verse in Acharya's

AnnapUrNAstotram addressed to our mokSadwArakavAtapAtanakarI (She who

conceals the gateway to Liberation):

Drishyadrishya vibhutivahanakari brahmandabhandodari

Lilanatakasutrabhedanakari vigyanadipankuri

Shrivishveshamanah prasadanakari kashipuradhishvari

Bhiksham dehi kripavalambanakari matanapurneshvari

Obviously, the bhikSA asked for here is not pulao rice. It is the

supreme Knowledge that all Advaitins are after.

Similarly, when we say `alakSmIM nAshayamyahaM' in Sri SUktaM, avidya

is already targeted for removal. The SUktaM is not a mere money-

making chant which Advaitins are barred from mouthing.

My apologies if I have propagated any misunderstanding.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

August 19, 2007

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

> Infiniteness wielding vibhUti and engaged in this seeming creation

> through multiplicity or projection (vikshepa) is Ishwara.

>

> When we invoke MayAji, therefore, through AnnapUrNAstotraM,

> BhavAnyaStakaM etc., we are actually surrendering our seeming

> separateness or samsAritwaM (the avidya of seeing multiplicity as

> multiplicity and not seeing through it) at the Feet of Ishwara and

> Infiniteness and not erecting a `female divinity' and prostrating

> before it for mortal boons. An Advaitin can thus invoke Her without

> compromising the basic tenets of advaita. He, therefore, has no

> doubt in his mind that his Acharya has authored the hymns named above

> because he knows in his heart of hearts that all his prayers to

> MAyAji are verily addressed to Brahman.

Dear Sri Nair-ji,

Very good post. I have spent considerable time searching for definite

answers about the role, existence(?) of ishwara/mAyA in advaita. As

you had told in some earlier post, adhyAsa bhAshya or shruti

statements like 7th month of mAndukya upanishad and the

gaudapAdAchArya's karika has got nothing to do with ishwara.(Which

added to my confusion :-)) Rather, they negate him too explicitly.

This is from the pAramarthic perspective.

When it comes to vyAvahara, what is the stand of AchArya? The brahma

sutra and his bhashya both *affirm* that ishwara is the karmaphaladAta

and karmaphala cannot accrue on its own. The following excerpt from

the shastriji's website has a mention of it.

(Quote)

B.S.3.2.38,39.S.B—The fruits of all actions are given by God. The

fruit cannot emerge out of apuurva, the unseen potency, which, being

insentient, cannot act unless stimulated by some *conscious agent*.

This sutra refutes the view of the Miimaamsakas that karma itself

gives the result through apuurva and it is not necessary to postulate

a God for the purpose.

(Unquote)

An interesting thing to note here is that, there was no necessity for

AchArya to *affirm ishwara*. He would have simply told;mimAmsikas are

correct when they speak about apUrva and he would have dismissed the

*concept of ishwara* as an imagination of a bound soul due to avidya.

But he never does so. In fact it is said that he makes lot of effort

to refute their stand. I personally feel that this is one of the

definite pointer which shows that AchArya did accept ishwara from the

relative perspective.

Finally, there was no necessity for AchArya to take out Bhagavad Gita

from the mahabhArata. (Strictly speaking, it is favorable to the

dvaita opponents in many aspects). Rather I would say, it was his

genius who bought it out and made it popular. In the Gita he accepts

ishwara, incarnation, his glorious power mAyA. Why he does so?

These are some of the points which rose in mind after pondering over

the the issue for some time. The inputs from the other members of the

list will be appreciated, if it can bring some more clarity on this

abstruse topic. I am particularly interested to know why AchArya

refuted the theory of apUrva.

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

Br. Vinayaka.

August 19, 2007

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair

wrote:

>

> Namaste Dhyanasaraswatiji, Bhaskar Prabhuji et al.

>

> Although I am not well versed in scriptures, this seemingly unending

> debate on Ishwara, mAyA and the locus of avidya made me sit up and

> evaluate where I stand with my meagre knowledge of Advaita. Here are

> some thoughts, if some of which echo my previous posts, please pardon

> the repetition.

Sri Nairji, actually I can't understand why we have debate at all. Given that

the phenomenal

is sublated in the absolute, the Advaitins seem to allow for various viewpoints

as to what

constitutes the phenomenal. I don't say this is bad; it is good in the sense

that it

accomodates for differences where it is not important. However I am not sure if

the

sampradayas or Shankara himself intended such an allowance, or had a definite

interpretation of vyavahaarika.

Also for those reading all this, it becomes rather difficult to figure out who

is debating

what. You may wish to point out what you object to in Chittaji's or Sadaji's

explanations,

and then propose your understanding.

As for your explanation, the word infiniteness is used many times; it may be

useful to

attempt a definition. The difficulty is we are aware of multiplicity in mental

awareness and

infiniteness (?) in our inner being. That is our default setting as you say.

From abs. st.pt, you say this is due to bewilderment of the phenomenal. If it

is the default

(saying which already submits to the anirvachaniya (as experiencial fact) over

the ajata (as

theory or scriptural conclusion:-)), then the relative version of reality is

naturally

significant, in the sense that we have to bypass its assertions to reach the

abs.

understanding. So if we ask the question, from the relative default standpoint,

what is the

corresponding truth that I see: then Ishvara, Maaya, etc become our models/

interpretations for Truth relative to our conception of self.

My way of thinking is along the principle of relativity. You take jiva/ego

standpoint, then

this is reality (some mixture of mult and inf). If jiva is 'surrendered', then

That which IS is

Reality. As (per sages' conclusions) That is the constant Truth in all phases of

jivahood and

its surrender, That alone is the true Self and jivahood (and corresponding

referential

versions of reality are) is superimposition.

Just some thoughts. I don't have much to object with your statements.

thollmelukaalkizhu

>

> The obvious infinity or rather infiniteness of creation is an irony

> or paradox vis a vis the divisions and multiplicity we encounter

> within it. Infiniteness has no beyonds and therefore no within. How

> can something without a `within' have divisions and multiplicity.

>

> All said and done, from the absolute point of view, only the Truth

> remains and that is Infiniteness, Fullness, Brahman. All else (mAyA,

> Ishwara etc.) are just incidental by way of an explanation for the

> bewildered in the phenomenal. They are an inevitable Adhyaropa which

> ultimately sublate in Brahman.

>

> Thus, Brahman is verily MAyA, Lakshmi, Alakshmi, Vidya and Avidya

> too! There is therefore no bar for an Advaitin to plead with MAyAji

> or Vidyaji for the removal of Avidya, and with Lakshmiji for the

> removal of Alakshmi. Remember the verse in Acharya's

> AnnapUrNAstotram addressed to our mokSadwArakavAtapAtanakarI (She who

> conceals the gateway to Liberation):

>

> Drishyadrishya vibhutivahanakari brahmandabhandodari

> Lilanatakasutrabhedanakari vigyanadipankuri

> Shrivishveshamanah prasadanakari kashipuradhishvari

> Bhiksham dehi kripavalambanakari matanapurneshvari

>

> Obviously, the bhikSA asked for here is not pulao rice. It is the

> supreme Knowledge that all Advaitins are after.

>

> Similarly, when we say `alakSmIM nAshayamyahaM' in Sri SUktaM, avidya

> is already targeted for removal. The SUktaM is not a mere money-

> making chant which Advaitins are barred from mouthing.

>

> My apologies if I have propagated any misunderstanding.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

August 19, 2007

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

As

> you had told in some earlier post, adhyAsa bhAshya or shruti

> statements like 7th month of mAndukya upanishad and the

> gaudapAdAchArya's karika has got nothing to do with ishwara.(Which

> added to my confusion :-))

Dear Members,

Please read the word 'month' as 'mantra' in the above passage. Sorry

for the inconvenience caused. A slight negligence while using spell

check is the caused this mischief :-))

Secondly, Putranji wrote:

" Sri Nairji, actually I can't understand why we have debate at all.

Given that

the phenomenal

is sublated in the absolute, the Advaitins seem to allow for various

viewpoints

as to what

constitutes the phenomenal. I don't say this is bad; it is good in the

sense

that it

accomodates for differences where it is not important. However I am

not sure if

the

sampradayas or Shankara himself intended such an allowance, or had a

definite

interpretation of vyavahaarika. "

Yes! Why we have to debate at all since all our questions will get

sublated with us in the absolute. My problem is, I am spending a

considerable time in prayer/bhajans (Which I like very much) to please

the lord in expectation of some help. If he/she is a fictitious entity

whom we cannot expect any help in our spiritual progress, then it is

prudent to spend more time on scriptural study than in these things!

Why pray at all!!!

But I sincerely feel that his grace is a must for liberation and I am

trying to understand what is shankara's stand on this.

Warm Regards,

Br. Vinayaka.

August 19, 2007

Dear Vinayakaji,

Shankara says Ishvara is vyavahara satya, not pratibhasika satya. This

means that Ishvara is as real as ignorance, sorrow, delusion, the

upanishads, the teacher, sravanam, etc... Clearly, just because

something is ultimately unreal, it doesn't mean Shankara considers it

unimportant.

Ishvara is crucial in Advaita Vedanta because both karma yoga and

upasana are based on the existence of Ishvara. These are the only

means prescribed by Shankara for attaining antahkarana shuddhi (and

subsequently, sadhana chatushtaya). Without sadhana chatushtaya, it is

not possible to attain siddhi in jnana yoga and all the teachings

about jiva-brahma-aikya become useless.

Regards,

R.

August 19, 2007

Our Beloved Shakta-Vedanti Sri Nair-ji writes:

(Thus, Brahman is verily MAyA, Lakshmi, Alakshmi, Vidya and Avidya

too! There is therefore no bar for an Advaitin to plead with

MAyAji or Vidyaji for the removal of Avidya, and with Lakshmiji

for the removal of Alakshmi. Remember the verse in Acharya's

AnnapUrNAstotram addressed to our mokSadwArakavAtapAtanakarI (She

who conceals the gateway to Liberation):

Drishyadrishya vibhutivahanakari brahmandabhandodari

Lilanatakasutrabhedanakari vigyanadipankuri

Shrivishveshamanah prasadanakari kashipuradhishvari

Bhiksham dehi kripavalambanakari matanapurneshvari

Obviously, the bhikSA asked for here is not pulao rice. It is the

supreme Knowledge that all Advaitins are after.

Similarly, when we say `alakSmIM nAshayamyahaM' in Sri SUktaM,

avidya is already targeted for removal. The SUktaM is not a mere

money- making chant which Advaitins are barred from mouthing.

My apologies if I have propagated any misunderstanding.)

Not at all , Nairji ! On the contrary , you have removed the veil

of 'maya' from the Face of Brahman for Who is devi but Parabrahman!

It is said of the Devi in the Commentary on the Trishati:

Vedantamahavakya-janya

sakshatkara-rupa-brahmavidya

She is Brahman-knowledge (Brahmavidya) in the form of direct

realization produced by the Vedantic great saying (Mahavakya) --

that is " Tat tvam asi " ( " That thou art " ) and all kindred sayings,

So'ham, ( " He I am " ), Brahmasmi ( " I am Brahman " ) and so forth.

Devi herself says in the Capter on 'Vidya Gita'n Tripura Rahasya

" " I am the abstract intelligence wherefrom the cosmos originates,

whereon it flourishes, and wherein it resolves, like the images in a

mirror. The ignorant know me as the gross universe, whereas the wise

feel me as their own pure being eternally glowing as 'I-I' within.

This realisation is possible only in the deep stillness of thought-

free consciousness similar to that of the deep sea free from waves.

The most earnest of devotees worship me spontaneously and with the

greatest sincerity which is due to their love of me. Although they

know that I am their own non-dual Self, yet the habit of loving

devotion which is deep-rooted in them makes them conceive their own

Self as ME and worship ME as the life-current pervading their

bodies, senses and mind without which nothing could exist and which

forms the sole purport of the holy scriptures. Such is my

Transcendental State. "

(((((((((snip snip snip snip)))))))))))\

" Although I am not involved in any manner and am always free, I

wield My power - called Maya; become covered with ignorance, appear

full of desires, seek their fulfilment, grow restless, project

favourable and unfavourable environments, am born and reborn as

individuals, until growing wiser I seek a teacher and sage, learn

the truth from him, put it in practice and finally become absolved.

All this goes on in My pure, uncontaminated, ever free absolute

intelligence. This manifestation of the ignorant and the free, and

of others, is called My creation which is however, without any

accessories - My power is too vast to be described!

" Knowledge relating to me is complex but it can be dealt with under

the two categories; dual and non-dual, of which the former relates

to worship and the latter to realisation. "

To read this entire wisdom of Vidya GITA PL GO TO

http://sss.vn.ua/tripura1.htm

i do not know how anyone can object to calling the 'Divine '

FEMININE For Sri Krishna himself says in Srimad Bhagvad Gita

mrityuh sarva-haras caham

udbhavas ca bhavisyatam

kirtih srir vak ca narinam

smritir medha dhrtih ksama (10:34)

I am all-devouring death, and I am the generating principle of all

that is yet to be. *Among FEMININE QUALITIES I am fame, fortune,

fine speech, memory, intelligence, steadfastness and patience.* As a

transferred epithet, Lord the Self declares that among the feminine

qualities, " I am any one of these, or all of them put together " !

so , Divinity can be feminine , masculine or transgendered ( like

ARDHA-NAREESHWERA) - the point is to worship the Divine in any form

or name or gender to reach the Divine 'self' !

nayam atma pravacanena labhyo

na medhaya na bahudha srutena

yam evaina vaeute tena labhyas

tasyaina atma vivaeute tanua svam (MUNDAKA UPANISHAD 3.2.3 )

This Atman is not to be attained through discourses, through

intellect, or through much of hearing. That which one seeks, by that

alone it is attained. To such a one this Atman reveals its true

nature.

Yes! Without Devi's kripa , even ATMA-VIDYA IS NOT POSSIBLE!

THE 888TH name of Sri Lalita mahatripurasundari is Dwaita Varjita !

One who is beyond duality!

Salutations to Devi , the embodiment of Atma vidya , Brahma Vidya

and Sri Vidya !

August 19, 2007

oops ! sorry for the typo!

should read 668th name and not

THE 888TH name of Sri Lalita mahatripurasundari is Dwaita Varjita !

btw , even if one's natural 'eyes' are gone , Devi gives us the 'divya

chakshuhu' - divine Eye ( third eye) by opening the ajna chakra !

being a diabetic, i am at a high risk for diabetic retinopathy !

love and regards

August 19, 2007

Namaste Vinayaka-ji.

The system at home has broken down. I am writing this from a wayside

cafe.

I have seen the responses of Putranji et al. I might need some time

to ponder over them.

This is especially to send you an SOS (rather an SYS (LOL)). Don't

stop your prayers. You are not praying to any fictious entity. You

are praying to Yourself (Please note the capital.) and that is very

important. Keep calling. The light has to light on becausee

lighting on is the nature of light. Do I have to say anything more?

Please take care.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

_______________

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

> advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns@> wrote:

>>

> > Yes! Why we have to debate at all since all our questions will get

> sublated with us in the absolute. My problem is, I am spending a

> considerable time in prayer/bhajans (Which I like very much) to

please

> the lord in expectation of some help. If he/she is a fictitious

entity

> whom we cannot expect any help in our spiritual progress, then it is

> prudent to spend more time on scriptural study than in these things!

> Why pray at all!!!

>

> But I sincerely feel that his grace is a must for liberation and I

am

> trying to understand what is shankara's stand on this.

>

August 19, 2007

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair

wrote:

>

> Namaste Vinayaka-ji.

>

> The system at home has broken down. I am writing this from a wayside

> cafe.

>

> I have seen the responses of Putranji et al. I might need some time

> to ponder over them.

>

> This is especially to send you an SOS (rather an SYS (LOL)). Don't

> stop your prayers. You are not praying to any fictious entity. You

> are praying to Yourself (Please note the capital.) and that is very

> important. Keep calling. The light has to light on becausee

> lighting on is the nature of light. Do I have to say anything more?

>

Sri Nairji, this is just to bug with some questions to get your definite

viewpoints; you may

decide on their relevance. I still have to think over Bhaskarji's and Sadaji's

words regarding

'his own mind' and 'total mind' of Ishvara; your perspective will also be

useful.

1. The capital Y seems to signify Brahman/Self, and not Ishvara apart from jiva.

Is this

correct? Thus though jiva is 'y' and the prayer is addressed to 'y' indicating

separate

Ishvara, the real addressee is the Self. I think Vinayakaji's question revolves

around the

validity of our presumed recipient : Ishvara, as an 'intermediary' between self

and Self, as

real as jiva, as 'individual' (?) with own mind/sense of " I " as of jiva. How

should we resolve

this ?

Rishiji affirmed the existence of Ishvara. It suggests to me that vyavahara has

a fixed set of

realities including jiva-Ishvara-jagat and is not a mere subjective creation.

Would you

agree or object to this statement?

It also beckons the question of what is Ishvara (you already addressed this);

how much

connotations of individuality can we presume in Ishvara whom the Bhaktha

approaches in

a very individual sense, as someone who hears prayers and solely graces the

spiritual

seeker with Self-realization.

2. I thought that if we could formulate some Y or N questions, it may be easier

to

understand and determine the boundaries.

Does Ishvara in vyavahara (relative to jiva)

a. have separate 'body' within universe or whose body is universe

b. have distinct mind/intellect : though the seer/knower of all, He is his own

knower

c. i.e. Has sense of separate Identity though with full realization of Brahman

and full

powers of Projection.

I understand these appear dualistic but a clear " NO " might give a definite

position.

Somewhere the same question has to show up, even if we make the words look

grander.

One thing is Ishvara is said to be detached and yet the one who rewards the

fruits of

action, and the word 'grace' or anugraha is used. Somehow this has to play a

role in the

Advaitic interpretation; however I am unable to figure it out. It need not mean

a total

negation of his separate 'individual' reality (from our standpoint), for we

would also say

that a jnani (whom we identify with the body/as individual) is detached and yet

acting/

gracious.

thollmelukaalkizhu

August 20, 2007

Namaste Putran-ji.

My comments are in under portions excerpted from your post:

___________

> Sri Nairji, actually I can't understand why we have debate at all.

Given that the phenomenal

> is sublated in the absolute, the Advaitins seem to allow for

various viewpoints as to what

> constitutes the phenomenal. I don't say this is bad; it is good in

the sense that it

> accomodates for differences where it is not important. However I am

not sure if the

> sampradayas or Shankara himself intended such an allowance, or had

a definite

> interpretation of vyavahaarika.

_____________________

[As I said before, I am not well versed in scriptures. So, I would

like our experts to answer this point. To me, it looks like the

sampradAya has a definite model (I wouldn't like to use the word

interpretation) for the vyavahArika. I believe Rishiji's erudite

answer to Vinayakaji in this thread also points in that direction.]

____________________

>

> Also for those reading all this, it becomes rather difficult to

figure out who is debating

> what. You may wish to point out what you object to in Chittaji's or

Sadaji's explanations,

> and then propose your understanding.

____________________

[i have no disagreements with Sadaji or Bhaskar Prabhuji. They are

persons who have delved deep into the scriptures. In fact, I am still

learning from them. About Chittaji - well, how can I ever disagree

with him. He is lucidly profound and I admire him like our

Dhyanasaraswatiji does. The understanding I espoused in my post is

rather lay (some sort of surface thinking) and I don't think it has

in any way contradicted the profundity of our veterans.]

____________________

> As for your explanation, the word infiniteness is used many times;

it may be useful to

> attempt a definition.

____________________

[ " Infiniteness is boundlessness or fullness which the mind cannot

conjecture, yet it intuits exists. It should exist because the word,

like immortality, has gotten into our dictionaries . In fact, from

the absolute point of view immortality and infiniteness are one and

the same like the sat, chid and Ananda of sat-cid-Ananda.]

________________________

>The difficulty is we are aware of multiplicity in mental awareness

and

> infiniteness (?) in our inner being. That is our default setting as

you say.

______________________

[i think you are saying exactly what I have said in the previous

section. We see multiplicity by default. We also intuit

infiniteness by default. That is the paradox which impels us into

Advaita.]

______________

> From abs. st.pt, you say this is due to bewilderment of the

phenomenal. If it is the default

> (saying which already submits to the anirvachaniya (as experiencial

fact) over the ajata (as

> theory or scriptural conclusion:-)), then the relative version of

reality is naturally

> significant, in the sense that we have to bypass its assertions to

reach the abs.

> understanding. So if we ask the question, from the relative default

standpoint, what is the

> corresponding truth that I see: then Ishvara, Maaya, etc become our

models/

> interpretations for Truth relative to our conception of self.

___________

[by bewilderment I meant the suffering of the samsArin. The paradox

of multiplicity in infiniteness is anirvacanIya. The logical

acceptance of infiniteness is ajAtavAda, which is not different from

Advaita, as I summarised in one of my earlier posts. Mere logical

acceptance does not give self-realization. Otherwise, I should be a

jIvanmukta by now. LOL. That is where Rishiji's answer to Vinayaka

is very relevant. The sampradAya has thus brought in Ishvara, mAya

etc., which in the absolute sense is none other than Brahman, and

built a solid path for the aspirant to do sAdhana and attain his

goal. That kind of a unique methodology is non-existent elsewhere

although other cultures in other lands have also espoused views akin

to Advaita.]

_________________

> My way of thinking is along the principle of relativity. You take

jiva/ego standpoint, then

> this is reality (some mixture of mult and inf). If jiva

is 'surrendered', then That which IS is

> Reality. As (per sages' conclusions) That is the constant Truth in

all phases of jivahood and

> its surrender, That alone is the true Self and jivahood (and

corresponding referential

> versions of reality are) is superimposition.

_____________________

You are right. Surrendering separation is the only way for us to go

universal, which we really are. If you permit me to quote what I

wrote on this Forum during our April 04 discussion of the pUrNamadah

verse, this is it:

" The deluded and limited me is just an appearance like all the rest

of the things in this perceived universe. They are just non-real

(miTyA) superimpositions on the reality that I am. Take them away or

bring them back – the fullness that I am remains unaltered and

undiminished, whether the seeming me is awake, asleep or dead! "

__________________

Thanks, Putranji, for giving me an opportunity to elaborate. I will

answer your other post later. Kindly grant me some time.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

August 20, 2007

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane wrote:

>

> Dear Vinayakaji,

>

> Shankara says Ishvara is vyavahara satya, not pratibhasika satya. This

> means that Ishvara is as real as ignorance, sorrow, delusion, the

> upanishads, the teacher, sravanam, etc... Clearly, just because

> something is ultimately unreal, it doesn't mean Shankara considers it

> unimportant.

Dear Rishi-ji,

Thanks for your lucid reply. This is the definite answer one gets if

one asks learned swamis of advaita institutions like shankara math,

chinmaya mission , rkm and others. None of them consider ishwara as

pratibhasika satya. As aptly told by nair-ji, this kind of methodology

/neat framework is the unique contribution of Hinduism.

Well, nair-ji I have few more questions to ask.:-)) I shall address it

to you once you give reply to the last post of putran-ji, since he has

raised some questions which rose in my mind too.

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

Br. Vinayka.

August 20, 2007

However I am not sure if the sampradayas or Shankara himself intended such

an allowance, or had a definite interpretation of vyavahaarika.

Humble praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

prabhuji, yes shankara gives very important place to these two distinct

view points in his prasthAna trayi bhAshya & at some places, he is quite

scrupulous in explaining the vyAvahArik satyatva...For example, while

explaining the concept of cause (kAraNa) & effect (kArya) in sUtra bhAshya,

shankara makes his stand very clear with regard to shAstra drushti & lOka

drushti...He takes the example of *milk* & says there may be a change in

the substance of a thing even without an external cause and he further

clears that this view point i.e. *transformation without an external cause*

is mere *lOka drushti*. But from the SAstra drushti (vEdAntic view point),

shankara concludes that it is an inevitable law that *effect*has the

uniform dependence upon the lord (the cause) if we consider *effect* is

satya....Likewise, shankara, elsewhere in sUtra bhAshya says,

distinction between waves & water is only vyAvahArik satya & in pAramArthik

view point there is no such distinction/bhEdha.

Prabhuji, I think these two different view points are quite essential in

understanding the certain terms & their significance in the vEdAntic usage.

Take the term Ishwara which we have been talking about recently...in

vyavahAra, we do understand Ishwara is a ruler, who is keeping

/maintaining jIvas' books of account & accordingly passing credit & debit

entries (karmaphala) :-)) ...But the concept of Ishwara has the different

significance when viewed from the vEdAntic view point & from that veiw

point Ishwara to be understood as Atman/paramAtman itself existing

independently of the world..

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

August 20, 2007

Namaste Putranji.

Kindly look inside the for my comments. Pardon the sloppiness. I

had to do this in a hurry.

______________

> 1. The capital Y seems to signify Brahman/Self, and not Ishvara

apart from jiva. Is this

> correct? Thus though jiva is 'y' and the prayer is addressed to 'y'

indicating separate

> Ishvara, the real addressee is the Self. I think Vinayakaji's

question revolves around the

> validity of our presumed recipient : Ishvara, as an 'intermediary'

between self and Self, as

> real as jiva, as 'individual' (?) with own mind/sense of " I " as of

jiva. How should we resolve

> this ?

____________________

[i am afraid we are tackling the whole issue from the wrong end. We

are just looking through peepholes and summing up the Truth with only

partial details in hand. The first question to be answered is: Do we

have an advaitic vision to begin with? If yes, what is it?]

[From the infiniteness angle, we have already established that Truth

cannot be anything but Fullness, Totality. We call It Brahman.

There is nothing other than Brahman. Ishwara is Brahman, Vinayakaji

is Brahman, the prayer is Brahman, the words of the prayer are

Brahman. Brahman alone exists. That is the vision. As advaitins, we

cannot compromise on it.]

[We need to carry this vision in our pocket always. It is the

touchstone on which we then rub the other statements to ascertain

their validity and veracity.]

[so, the capital 'Y' definitely meant Vinayakaji as Brahman. From

the perspective of paramArtha, there is no one praying, no prayer and

no prayee (recipient). The split occurs only in the phenomenal where

the Wholeness of the three is still Brahman. The split arises due to

the error (avidya) of 'y' (Vinayakaji as individual jIva). The split

scenario is a mithyA superimposition on Brahman erected by 'y''s

error and only 'y' suffers from it. The split cannot be without

Brahman.]

[Now let us consider the parts of the split - Vinayakaji, prayer and

the prayee (Ishwara). If you take them as parts of a whole, you are

creating mithyA, i.e. an individual Vinayakaji submitting a prayer to

an Ishwara separate or apart from him. All three are no doubt

mithyA because an Ishwara separate or apart from Vinayakaji is an

incomplete entity. Vice versa for Vinayakaji and the prayer.

Incomplete entities are mithyA. That is what the touchstone tells us,

isn't it? So, any God, who sits like a Manager and supervises

proceedings outside or apart from Himself is pure mithyA.]

[However, there is another angle to all this in my opinion. The

phenomenal as wholeness is Brahman. In other words, the vyAvahArika

of many is the one and only Brahman misunderstood due to avidya - the

default error. The phenomenal as wholeness is Ishwara's vishwarUpa

(anantaM, ajnAtaM, avarNanIyaM). That is satya in vyAvahArika! He

alone is the recipient of the prayer. He is the prayer as well as

the one praying too. Vinayakaji feels separated from him. That is

Vinayakaji's avidya. However, Ishwara has no such 'feelings' or

avidya. He is as much Vinayakaji as He is anything else. He is

Brahman of the paramArtha. Where is the question of He being an

intermediary then? He is verily the one praying, the prayer as well

as the prayee! If the Ishwara of Advaita is an intermediary, then I

would be the first one to call Him mithya. We don't need such an

Ishwara. Let others keep Him.]

________________

> Rishiji affirmed the existence of Ishvara. It suggests to me that

vyavahara has a fixed set of

> realities including jiva-Ishvara-jagat and is not a mere subjective

creation. Would you

> agree or object to this statement?

_______________

[i would put it rather differently. Jiva-jagat compendium

(vyAvahArika) is Brahman in paramArtha and Ishwara in the

phenomenal. Separation which erects multiplicity is the

superimposition. One Wholeness is seen as several. This happens due

to avidya and only the jIvA suffers from it. A superimposition cannot

be reality. We may call it relative reality of the phenomenal.]

__________________

> It also beckons the question of what is Ishvara (you already

addressed this); how much

> connotations of individuality can we presume in Ishvara whom the

Bhaktha approaches in

> a very individual sense, as someone who hears prayers and solely

graces the spiritual

> seeker with Self-realization.

___________

[From what I said above, I hope it is clear that if we ascribe

individuality to Ishwara, He will no more be the Ishwara of Advaita.

Nevertheles, I must confess I am one who has all female divinities

gathered in my pooja room. Male ones are rare. I pray to Lakshmiji

when I have financial difficulties, I call out to Seethalaji when my

fever doesn't subside and son on. It is a beautiful arrangement.

Please don't question me. The matter is very very personal. LOL.]

_________________

> 2. I thought that if we could formulate some Y or N questions, it

may be easier to

> understand and determine the boundaries.

>

> Does Ishvara in vyavahara (relative to jiva)

> a. have separate 'body' within universe or whose body is universe

> b. have distinct mind/intellect : though the seer/knower of all, He

is his own knower

> c. i.e. Has sense of separate Identity though with full realization

of Brahman and full

> powers of Projection.

>

> I understand these appear dualistic but a clear " NO " might give a

definite position.

> Somewhere the same question has to show up, even if we make the

words look grander.

___________

[Here are my thoughts: (a) How can anantaM, ajnAtaM, avarNanIyaM have

a body? If He has body, then He is not the Ishwara of Advaita.

Yes. There are verses in BG like legs and hands everywhere, heads

and faces everywhere etc. I don't consider them to be AropAs. they

are a subtle apavAda because the picture outlined is impossible to

comprehend or visualize. If legs and hands are everywhere, where is

place of heads and faces?!]

[(b) He is aware of Himself. So, he knows everything. That is

omniscience. It is not the knowing we are accustomed to.]

verily Brahman in the phenomenal. He doesn't therefore have to

realize Brahman. He is the one appearing as this diversity. That

(His appearance in our everywhere) is vikshepa. Vikshepa is not a

deliberate act. It is 'Ishwaraikness' if I may coin a word.]

_____________________

> One thing is Ishvara is said to be detached and yet the one who

rewards the fruits of

> action, and the word 'grace' or anugraha is used. Somehow this has

to play a role in the

> Advaitic interpretation; however I am unable to figure it out. It

need not mean a total

> negation of his separate 'individual' reality (from our

standpoint), for we would also say

> that a jnani (whom we identify with the body/as individual) is

detached and yet acting/

> gracious.

______________

[it is His Grace that you got up to see this fine morning. It is His

Grace that you are in this Group talking vedanta instead of indulging

in some materialistic pursuits. It is His Grace that you are reading

great books of spiritual import. Your very next thought is His

Grace. He keeps you switched on. Do you think He has any self-

interest in all this. Please don't impose an 'individual' reality on

Him and expect Him to behave in an attached manner. It is a

misunderstanding that Ishwara acts. Ishwara doesn't act. He just

appears as your karmaphala. There is nothing other than Him. If that

is understood you can see Him in all your karmaphalas.]

[That is why Advaita says: Everything is Brahman. There is nothing

other than Ishwara. Everything is Ishwara.]

Let me conclude in the hope that I have not said anything wrong. If

I have, kindly pardon my ignorance.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

August 20, 2007

hare krishna,

namaskarams

well, the very form of

ardhanareeshwara symbolises that maya and eshwara are one. maya is

shakthi and ishwara cannot play the cosmic game with out maya shakthi.

everything is brahman including avidya/maya.

may lord krishna bless us all

BASKARAN.C.S

Why delete messages? Unlimited storage is just a click away. Go to

http://help./l/in//mail/mail/tools/tools-08.html

August 20, 2007

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

> [so, the capital 'Y' definitely meant Vinayakaji as Brahman. From

> the perspective of paramArtha, there is no one praying, no prayer

and

> no prayee (recipient). The split occurs only in the phenomenal

where

> the Wholeness of the three is still Brahman. The split arises due

to

> the error (avidya) of 'y' (Vinayakaji as individual jIva). The

split

> scenario is a mithyA superimposition on Brahman erected by 'y''s

> error and only 'y' suffers from it. The split cannot be without

> Brahman.]

>

> [Now let us consider the parts of the split - Vinayakaji, prayer

and

> the prayee (Ishwara). If you take them as parts of a whole, you

are

> creating mithyA, i.e. an individual Vinayakaji submitting a prayer

to

> an Ishwara separate or apart from him. All three are no doubt

> mithyA because an Ishwara separate or apart from Vinayakaji is an

> incomplete entity. Vice versa for Vinayakaji and the prayer.

> Incomplete entities are mithyA. That is what the touchstone tells

us,

> isn't it? So, any God, who sits like a Manager and supervises

> proceedings outside or apart from Himself is pure mithyA.]

Dear Nair-ji,

Similer idea appears in the muNdaka shruti also, which explains the

crux of vedanta. I am quoting the relevant passage from the works of

Swami Vivekananda which is as under:

The whole of the Vedanta Philosophy is in this story: Two birds of

golden plumage sat on the same tree. The one above, serene, majestic,

immersed in his own glory; the one below restless and eating the

fruits of the tree, now sweet, now bitter. Once he ate an

exceptionally bitter fruit, then he paused and looked up at the

majestic bird above; but he soon forgot about the other bird and went

on eating the fruits of the tree as before. Again he ate a bitter

fruit, and this time he hopped up a few boughs nearer to the bird at

the top. This happened many times until at last the lower bird came

to the place of the upper bird and lost himself. He found all at once

that there had **never** been two birds, but that he was all the time

that upper bird, serene, majestic, and immersed in his own glory.

(Unquote)

But as long as duality persists, scriptures do differentiate between

jiva and ishwara. Let me stop here. Its time to retire from the list

for some time.:-)) Thanks much to all the members for their valuable

inputs.

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

Br. Vinayaka.

August 20, 2007

Dear Br. Vinayaka,

Thank you for your posting. I had been thinking in similar lines.

Since there is only Brahman, maya and illusion are both unreal.

It seems that Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi instructed to inquire into

ones own nature rather than speculate about maya.

In practice I see that this speculation only seems to reinforce the

illusion. It is like the snake (from the rope and snake metaphor)

wondering about its creation. Is anything that is imaginary every

created?

Not two,

Richard

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

> advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

> <madathilnair@> wrote:

>

> > [so, the capital 'Y' definitely meant Vinayakaji as Brahman.

From

> > the perspective of paramArtha, there is no one praying, no prayer

> and

> > no prayee (recipient). The split occurs only in the phenomenal

> where

> > the Wholeness of the three is still Brahman. The split arises

due

> to

> > the error (avidya) of 'y' (Vinayakaji as individual jIva). The

> split

> > scenario is a mithyA superimposition on Brahman erected by 'y''s

> > error and only 'y' suffers from it. The split cannot be without

> > Brahman.]

> >

> > [Now let us consider the parts of the split - Vinayakaji, prayer

> and

> > the prayee (Ishwara). If you take them as parts of a whole, you

> are

> > creating mithyA, i.e. an individual Vinayakaji submitting a

prayer

> to

> > an Ishwara separate or apart from him. All three are no doubt

> > mithyA because an Ishwara separate or apart from Vinayakaji is an

> > incomplete entity. Vice versa for Vinayakaji and the prayer.

> > Incomplete entities are mithyA. That is what the touchstone tells

> us,

> > isn't it? So, any God, who sits like a Manager and supervises

> > proceedings outside or apart from Himself is pure mithyA.]

>

> Dear Nair-ji,

>

> Similer idea appears in the muNdaka shruti also, which explains the

> crux of vedanta. I am quoting the relevant passage from the works

of

> Swami Vivekananda which is as under:

>

> The whole of the Vedanta Philosophy is in this story: Two birds of

> golden plumage sat on the same tree. The one above, serene,

majestic,

> immersed in his own glory; the one below restless and eating the

> fruits of the tree, now sweet, now bitter. Once he ate an

> exceptionally bitter fruit, then he paused and looked up at the

> majestic bird above; but he soon forgot about the other bird and

went

> on eating the fruits of the tree as before. Again he ate a bitter

> fruit, and this time he hopped up a few boughs nearer to the bird

at

> the top. This happened many times until at last the lower bird came

> to the place of the upper bird and lost himself. He found all at

once

> that there had **never** been two birds, but that he was all the

time

> that upper bird, serene, majestic, and immersed in his own glory.

>

> (Unquote)

>

> But as long as duality persists, scriptures do differentiate

between

> jiva and ishwara. Let me stop here. Its time to retire from the

list

> for some time.:-)) Thanks much to all the members for their

valuable

> inputs.

>

> Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

>

> Br. Vinayaka.

>

August 20, 2007

Re: Locus of ignorance?- Is mAyA equal to AvidyA ?

Namaste:

The on-going discussion on the locus of ignorance is quite insightful

for clarifying our thoughts on the nature of Brahman. I want to join

others by providing my thoughts from a different angle. By posting my

thoughts I do not ascertain the posts from the learned members of the

list as either contradictory or erroneous. As long as ignorance

persists, any perception or comprehension of the Brahman will likely

be incomplete. The scriptures precisely declare that " Brahman alone

knows the Brahman. " We should remind ourselves with the scriptural

reference so that we can understand our limitations and the

speculative nature of our analysis.

We should recognize that we only have the right to explore and

clarify our own ever changing understanding of the Brahman. We also

need to accept the fact that in all likelihood others will likely

disagree with what we perceive. What we are dealing with a

subjective science which can't be resolved through objective

analysis. Our objective analysis even when it is incorrect will help

us to understand and correct our perception. Any objective analysis

requires a framework implicitly or explicitly along with a set of

assumptions and conjectures. The fundamental goal in expressing our

thoughts is to arrive at a framework that supports and enhances the

frameworks developed by Sankara and the sages of the Upanishads. We

should remember while conducting this exercise that we are still not

completely free from `ignorance,' consequently will likely see

contradiction and inconsistencies. Vedantic terminologies such

as `avidyA', `mAyA' are used in conjunction with a framework and set

of assumptions. Any understanding of these terminologies require

acceptance of Sankara's model as stated in Advaita Vedanta Siddhanta.

According Sankara's Advaita philosophy, the notions of avidyA and

mAyA will eventually disappear when we know the Brahman. The Brahman

has no name, no form and there can be no notions while perceiving the

Brahman. Also Brahman did not `create these notions' and only we

created them as the means to comprehend Him. The bye product of the

creation of avidyA and mAyA is the confusion. We labeled ourselves

as `ignorant' and attributed the cause of our ignorance with another

notion as mAyA. We struggled hard to grasp the reasons

for `creation' and since we couldn't comprehend it with our limited

intellect, we label it as `mAyA.' It is just like the doctors

declaring the cause of an unknown medical problem as `allergy.'

Unfortunately words and language can't describe the Brahman and any

such attempts will likely be futile. The scriptures and the sages

have indicated in numerous (subtle) ways that the Brahman is

indescribable.

Our thoughts come from inherent beliefs. These inherent beliefs have

been changing from childhood to adulthood and will eventually

disappear when we attain the Brahmanhood. Thoughts also get

annihilated along with the beliefs. With spiritual progress we get

equipped with sharper discriminating intelligence. The intellect is

able to discard the beliefs that were conceived with ignorance. For

example in the distance past, we believed that the earth is flat and

with scientific reasoning we discarded the notion of `flat earth' and

accepted that the earth is ellipsoidal. But belief is quite essential

for any inquiry and after gathering the facts, we should be willing

to discard the `belief' that was instrumental for the enquiry. This

basic scientific framework will not work while making assertions

while conducting metaphysical enquiries. We have no means to gather

facts and consequently, we resort to `faith and conviction.' The

scriptures and the enlightened sages of the Upanishads have provided

us the clues to develop the `faith and conviction' which will

ultimately help us to annihilate all beliefs and notions to get the

True vision of the Brahman.

Innermost Substratum: Absolute Reality or the Brahman

Transient Cosmic Reality: Ishwara (Saguna Brahman)

Transient Individual Reality: Jiva

Jiva comprehends the Brahman as Ishwara and seeks His help to

annihilate `ignorance.' Jiva believes that Ishwara is the Saatchi

(observer or the witness) of the purification process (spiritual

Sadhana). Jiva needs to have the strong conviction that Ishwara is

essential for the purification process to annihilate all notions

(VAsanAs or Karmas). With `faith and conviction' Jiva undertakes the

purification process (for example follows the guidance provided by

Lord Krishna in Gita) and annihilates the `ignorance.' When the

purification gets completed, Jiva submerges with the Ishwara (total

surrender) and all beliefs also get annihilated. When Jiva

annihilates his/her separate identity – the Jiva, Ishwara and the

Brahman get superimposed. The only way to explain `why it is so?' is

through mAyA.

This entire essay also comes from a limited vision from an `ignorant'

Jiva and consequently will be subject to errors and omissions.

Finally Maaya is the cause for this essay!

With my warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

August 20, 2007

--- Richard Clarke <richard wrote:

>

> Since there is only Brahman, maya and illusion are

> both unreal.

>

> It seems that Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi

> instructed to inquire into

> ones own nature rather than speculate about maya.

----------

> > The whole of the Vedanta Philosophy is in this

> story: Two birds of

> > golden plumage sat on the same tree. > >

> > Br. Vinayaka.

>

-------------

Shree Richard and Br. Vinayaka - PraNAms

If I may say so -

maya is genereally translated as illusion - the

traslation has its limitation.

Maya is that which appears to be real. There is no

illusion here. It is real for all those who say they

want to realize the truth, since they have already

assumed that the bondage is real to them since they

want to realize who they are. Whether they are doing

self-inquiry or inquiry of the world, it should

ultimately the same truth since Brahman is idam also -

this also. Ramana's statement -

dRisya vaaritam chittam aatmanaaH

chitta darshanan tatva darshanam|

that I explained in one of my previous posts,

essentially addresses from the analysis of dRisyam or

what is seen - which is the whole world that is

perceived.

Understanding that world is mithyaa or maaya is as

much necessary as inquiry of 'who am I. Hence I

mentioned there are three aspects involved in adviata-

1. Brahma satyam

2. Jagat mithyaa

3. Jiiva is none other than Brahman.

All three are essential ingredients and are

interdepedent.

Shree Vinayaka - the story of two birds one bird

eating while the other one not eating is based on the

sloka from muduka Upa.

'dwaa supraNaa sayugaa sakhaaya ...' - ..

Hari Om!

Sadananda

August 20, 2007

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

wrote:

> Namaste Putranji.

>

> Kindly look inside the for my comments. Pardon

> the sloppiness. I

> had to do this in a hurry.

> ______________

>

> [From the infiniteness angle, we have already

> established that Truth

> cannot be anything but Fullness, Totality. We call

> It Brahman.

> There is nothing other than Brahman. Ishwara is

> Brahman, Vinayakaji

> is Brahman, the prayer is Brahman, the words of the

> prayer are

> Brahman. Brahman alone exists. That is the vision.

> As advaitins, we

> cannot compromise on it.]

>

Sri Nairji, thanks for your detailed responses. I will

think over them. The concept of Ishvara in Advaita is

difficult to comprehend and if we comprehend, it is

difficult to accept. We are asking for Ishvara to be

just like us, only bigger and grander, maybe without

form but yet personal. As Sadaji says, as someone up

in the skies. Between the 'individual' and the

'total', your view is to choose the 'total'

perspective for Ishvara. It is like getting stung with

the jnana bug; once stung we cannot think in the

" manager " sense, rather we are to resolve that within

the larger non-dual perspective.

This you are able to do, and others on the list.

Moreover, great saints

like Sri Ramakrishna and the acharyas of the Shankara

matha are one with this approach that immerses the

dvaita-bhava in the advaita-satya and finds no

conflict. Personally, there is some wall that cannot

be crossed; the rational mind refuses to accept the

'manager' God, and refuses to accept a Bhakthi path

that does not affirm such a God. Nor is it able to

accept wholeheartedly the path of jnana, for it is

culturally and emotionally caught in the Bhakthi

vortex, and some small voice within keeps questioning

on Ishvara's personal reality.

Actually in personal life of myself and many an

Advaitin Hindu, one will find this dichotomy. Like

yourself, I am devoted to Gods like Shiva and the

divine Mother, and as the mind moves so the devotion

moves after. But it is a far cry from the devotee

seeking to see the Lord and with 100% faith in the

personal reality of the Lord. It is not a settled

spiritual path of dvaita-bhakthi, nor properly

connected to advaita. It is sometimes dvaita and

sometimes advaita, so an unsettled state.

I would, if I could, eliminate all talk of Ishvara (in

personal sense) and take to a pure jnana approach like

of Sri Ramana Maharshi: but if Ishvara is 'real' in a

sense parallel to myself, then what a loss that would

be (or so the mind counters). A bit more running about

both sides before nailing down the path.

Thanks again for your answers; you have made some

points on the boundaries in advaita very clear. That

Ishvara is 'intermediary' is perhaps a wrong usage I

put in: there is only Self; but in the context of

mithya, is there both self and God and is the process

of breaking out of mithya, a joint interaction between

the apparent pair of self and God? Then an Advaitin

must advice that if the default is self with

consciousness as basis, then the reality with

which/whom the self interacts is Ishvara also with

consciousness as basis. We may put personality in or

out of that Ishvara; that is our business, but that is

the Ishvara with Whom we correspond till we break out

of our jiva-shell.

thollmelukaalkizhu

> [However, there is another angle to all this in my

> opinion. The

> phenomenal as wholeness is Brahman. In other words,

> the vyAvahArika

> of many is the one and only Brahman misunderstood

> due to avidya - the

> default error. The phenomenal as wholeness is

> Ishwara's vishwarUpa

> (anantaM, ajnAtaM, avarNanIyaM). That is satya in

> vyAvahArika! He

> alone is the recipient of the prayer. He is the

> prayer as well as

> the one praying too. Vinayakaji feels separated

> from him. That is

> Vinayakaji's avidya. However, Ishwara has no such

> 'feelings' or

> avidya. He is as much Vinayakaji as He is anything

> else. He is

> Brahman of the paramArtha. Where is the question of

> He being an

> intermediary then? He is verily the one praying, the

> prayer as well

> as the prayee! If the Ishwara of Advaita is an

> intermediary, then I

> would be the first one to call Him mithya. We don't

> need such an

> Ishwara. Let others keep Him.]

> ________________

>

> [i would put it rather differently. Jiva-jagat

> compendium

> (vyAvahArika) is Brahman in paramArtha and Ishwara

> in the

> phenomenal. Separation which erects multiplicity is

> the

> superimposition. One Wholeness is seen as several.

> This happens due

> to avidya and only the jIvA suffers from it. A

> superimposition cannot

> be reality. We may call it relative reality of the

> phenomenal.]

> __________________

>

> > It also beckons the question of what is Ishvara

> (you already

> addressed this); how much

> > connotations of individuality can we presume in

> Ishvara whom the

> Bhaktha approaches in

> > a very individual sense, as someone who hears

> prayers and solely

> graces the spiritual

> > seeker with Self-realization.

> ___________

>

> [From what I said above, I hope it is clear that if

> we ascribe

> individuality to Ishwara, He will no more be the

> Ishwara of Advaita.

> Nevertheles, I must confess I am one who has all

> female divinities

> gathered in my pooja room. Male ones are rare. I

> pray to Lakshmiji

> when I have financial difficulties, I call out to

> Seethalaji when my

> fever doesn't subside and son on. It is a beautiful

> arrangement.

> Please don't question me. The matter is very very

> personal. LOL.]

> _________________

>

> > 2. I thought that if we could formulate some Y or

> N questions, it

> may be easier to

> > understand and determine the boundaries.

> >

> > Does Ishvara in vyavahara (relative to jiva)

> > a. have separate 'body' within universe or whose

> body is universe

> > b. have distinct mind/intellect : though the

> seer/knower of all, He

> is his own knower

> > c. i.e. Has sense of separate Identity though with

> full realization

> of Brahman and full

> > powers of Projection.

> >

> > I understand these appear dualistic but a clear

> " NO " might give a

> definite position.

> > Somewhere the same question has to show up, even

> if we make the

> words look grander.

> ___________

>

> [Here are my thoughts: (a) How can anantaM, ajnAtaM,

> avarNanIyaM have

> a body? If He has body, then He is not the Ishwara

> of Advaita.

> Yes. There are verses in BG like legs and hands

> everywhere, heads

> and faces everywhere etc. I don't consider them to

> be AropAs. they

> are a subtle apavAda because the picture outlined is

> impossible to

>

=== message truncated ===

______________________________\

____

Building a website is a piece of cake. Small Business gives you all the

tools to get online.

http://smallbusiness./webhosting

August 20, 2007

Sri Bhaskarji, thanks for your response in the other

post. Your viewpoints are very satisfying in that you

give room for both perspectives and as accepted by

sampradaya. I will keep these as basis for future

reference.

Sri Ramchandranji's essay is also quite nice and

rationally written.

thollmelukaalkizhu

--- bhaskar.yr wrote:

> However I am not sure if the sampradayas or

> Shankara himself intended such

> an allowance, or had a definite interpretation of

> vyavahaarika.

>

> Humble praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> prabhuji, yes shankara gives very important place to

> these two distinct

> view points in his prasthAna trayi bhAshya & at some

> places, he is quite

> scrupulous in explaining the vyAvahArik

> satyatva...For example, while

> explaining the concept of cause (kAraNa) & effect

> (kArya) in sUtra bhAshya,

> shankara makes his stand very clear with regard to

> shAstra drushti & lOka

> drushti...He takes the example of *milk* & says

> there may be a change in

> the substance of a thing even without an external

> cause and he further

> clears that this view point i.e. *transformation

> without an external cause*

> is mere *lOka drushti*. But from the SAstra drushti

> (vEdAntic view point),

> shankara concludes that it is an inevitable law

> that *effect*has the

> uniform dependence upon the lord (the cause) if we

> consider *effect* is

> satya....Likewise, shankara, elsewhere in sUtra

> bhAshya says,

> distinction between waves & water is only vyAvahArik

> satya & in pAramArthik

> view point there is no such distinction/bhEdha.

>

> Prabhuji, I think these two different view points

> are quite essential in

> understanding the certain terms & their significance

> in the vEdAntic usage.

> Take the term Ishwara which we have been talking

> about recently...in

> vyavahAra, we do understand Ishwara is a ruler, who

> is keeping

> /maintaining jIvas' books of account & accordingly

> passing credit & debit

> entries (karmaphala) :-)) ...But the concept of

> Ishwara has the different

> significance when viewed from the vEdAntic view

> point & from that veiw

> point Ishwara to be understood as Atman/paramAtman

> itself existing

> independently of the world..

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

______________________________\

____

Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for

today's economy) at Games.

http://get.games./proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow

August 20, 2007

advaitin , Putran Maheshwar <putranm wrote:

Namaste,

The concept of an illusionary Ishwara within delusion is not hard to

grasp. It is just the sum total of the illusory jivas.........Tony.

August 20, 2007

Namaste.

This is real illusion. I am deluded. Is this Tonyji or Hupaji? I am

experiencing the sthalajalabhrAnti of Mahabharata!

Ishwara is not illusory. If there is an illusory Ishwara, well that

can then be the sum total of other illusions. Who is bothered about

illusions? Not those who are after the Real.

Sadaji has already pointed out the peril of translating mAyA as

illusion.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

______________

advaitin , " hupa_ramdas " <hupa_ram> wrote:

>

> advaitin , Putran Maheshwar <putranm@> wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> The concept of an illusionary Ishwara within delusion is not hard to

> grasp. It is just the sum total of the illusory jivas.........Tony.

>

August 20, 2007

Pranams Putran-ji,

I am, due to my own limitation, unable to clearly understand either the doubts

or their source - as you are very well-versed with the scriptures and their

message. I do sense an unease about the concept of Ishwara and whether this

dvaita-bhava is in tune with advaita, and perhaps there are others who share

these doubts.

I shall hence try to formulate a explanation based on my understanding not

only of the subject but of what is your question. My apologies if these do not

actually address your actual question(s).

Our concepts of real and unreal are unfortunately a bit warped. What is unreal

for us is something like mirage water - it seems to be there but if you look

closely it is not. Or perhaps like a man's horns - it is a nonexistent entity -

but lets say a Mount Everest is very much real.

However, as you very well know in Vedanta, " Real " has a technically precise

definition - which is that which is unchanged in time, the vastu, which is

Brahman. Everything else is mithya - but mithya does not mean unreal, in any of

the sense that we just saw.

Mithya is what is Real, but appears to be other than so.

What is Real is One, but seemingly appears to be many.

Mithya is very much included in the Real.

So anything I see is a mix of Real and something which is mithya. What is

mithya is the name and form, which is purely a subjective notion or perspective.

I see a piece of wood standing on four legs. It is a table. This " table " is

mithya - not that the table is not " Real " , but the particular concept of a

table, separate from the wood that it consists of is unreal. Take the wood away

and poof- the table is gone as well. Put this table sideways and now it is wood

- it is no longer a " table " Not that the table disappeared, but now the

table-ness is no longer present from the standpoint of the subject. So the

" table " was always never " out there " but " in here " in me the witnessing

subject's mind/intellect.

Now when I perceive the world, the wonderful manifest srshti, I find

everything has a name and form - standing on the seashore one beautiful morning,

I feel the water kissing my feet, the wind blowing through my hair, the eyes

witnessing the Glorious sunrise. All these are names and forms - they are

objectively Real in the sense that what I am witnessing IS, it is not fiction,

it is not a illusion, but the " Sun " the " Sea " the " Wind " are all nama-roopa -

they are " in here " as my subjective concepts, and seemingly their Real nature of

being Brahman, of being the substratum, seems to be unrecognized.

Hence the Shruti tells us - This Sun that you see is not just a Sun, it is

indeed Brahman - understand this, realize this.

Now with regards to Ishwara, He is the Totality, the Sum of All and then Some.

He is not an illusion - He is the Total. He is Real plus the Power of Maya -

and then again, Maya is not separate from Him - without Ishwara there is no Maya

and without Maya there is no Ishwara. Maya is His intrinsic power.

What is an illusion, is your notion of separation from the Total, the Virat.

This separation comes naturally to you because of avidya.

What needs to end is this sense of separation. How will it end? By His Grace

Alone, by helping you understand that you do not exist separate from Him. One

useful way of thinking about this is rather than thinking of Ishwara is in me as

an Antaryami, I think of myself being in Ishwara - then this infinitesmal i

becomes irrelevant. what exists is only Ishwara.

Ishwara can never have a locus, a separate mind/intellect, a separate

anything. He is the Entirety - there is nothing that limits Him. There is

nothing that is ever separate from Him at any time, at any place. Time and Space

themselves are in Him alone.

Now because He is the Whole, you can invoke Him in any form, in any manner, -

and He responds - not because He wants to respond, but because He Has to respond

- this response itself being the Order which again is Him Alone.

So Grace is not something that He passes along willy-nilly depending on His

liking, but something which is very much part of the Order as a karmaphala.

It is like two seekers vehemently arguing in the dream about the Reality of

the Sleeper - why? - because they have intellectually realized, thanks to the

Sleeper's own Grace, that this dreamworld they are living in as dreampeople is

mithya, and in reality they alongwith their entire dreamworld are all nothing

but the Sleeper alone! And again, this Sleeper pervades their dreamworld but is

never attached to it.

Finally, Advaita is not about accomodating Ishwara but about understanding

Ishwara.

Prayer comes from being wise and not from being weak.

My humble pranams and best wishes,

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

putranm <putranm wrote:

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Vinayaka-ji.

>

> The system at home has broken down. I am writing this from a wayside

> cafe.

>

> I have seen the responses of Putranji et al. I might need some time

> to ponder over them.

>

> This is especially to send you an SOS (rather an SYS (LOL)). Don't

> stop your prayers. You are not praying to any fictious entity. You

> are praying to Yourself (Please note the capital.) and that is very

> important. Keep calling. The light has to light on becausee

> lighting on is the nature of light. Do I have to say anything more?

>

Sri Nairji, this is just to bug with some questions to get your definite

viewpoints; you may

decide on their relevance. I still have to think over Bhaskarji's and Sadaji's

words regarding

'his own mind' and 'total mind' of Ishvara; your perspective will also be

useful.

1. The capital Y seems to signify Brahman/Self, and not Ishvara apart from jiva.

Is this

correct? Thus though jiva is 'y' and the prayer is addressed to 'y' indicating

separate

Ishvara, the real addressee is the Self. I think Vinayakaji's question revolves

around the

validity of our presumed recipient : Ishvara, as an 'intermediary' between self

and Self, as

real as jiva, as 'individual' (?) with own mind/sense of " I " as of jiva. How

should we resolve

this ?

Rishiji affirmed the existence of Ishvara. It suggests to me that vyavahara has

a fixed set of

realities including jiva-Ishvara-jagat and is not a mere subjective creation.

Would you

agree or object to this statement?

It also beckons the question of what is Ishvara (you already addressed this);

how much

connotations of individuality can we presume in Ishvara whom the Bhaktha

approaches in

a very individual sense, as someone who hears prayers and solely graces the

spiritual

seeker with Self-realization.

2. I thought that if we could formulate some Y or N questions, it may be easier

to

understand and determine the boundaries.

Does Ishvara in vyavahara (relative to jiva)

a. have separate 'body' within universe or whose body is universe

b. have distinct mind/intellect : though the seer/knower of all, He is his own

knower

c. i.e. Has sense of separate Identity though with full realization of Brahman

and full

powers of Projection.

I understand these appear dualistic but a clear " NO " might give a definite

position.

Somewhere the same question has to show up, even if we make the words look

grander.

One thing is Ishvara is said to be detached and yet the one who rewards the

fruits of

action, and the word 'grace' or anugraha is used. Somehow this has to play a

role in the

Advaitic interpretation; however I am unable to figure it out. It need not mean

a total

negation of his separate 'individual' reality (from our standpoint), for we

would also say

that a jnani (whom we identify with the body/as individual) is detached and yet

acting/

gracious.

thollmelukaalkizhu

Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.

Answers - Check it out.

August 20, 2007

Looks like the link does not work:

Here is the Story -

Suicide by 17-yr-old boy after a ï¿½satsangï¿½

By Amita Verma

http://www.asianage.com/presentation/leftnavigation/news/top-

story/suicide-by-17-yr-old-boy-after-a-ï¿½satsangï¿½-.aspx

Lucknow, Aug. 19: On the weekend, he attended a " satsang " at the

Radha Swami sect where they said that salvation was the ultimate

truth and all material comforts and gains were merely an illusion.

The following day, 17-year-old Siddhartha Ahuja, son of a well-known

restaurateur, shot himself in the head with his fatherï¿½s licensed

revolver.

In a handwritten suicide note that was found pinned to his chest,

Siddhartha wrote that he felt " trapped " in this materialistic world

and " wanted to break free. " He thanked his parents for taking care of

him all these years and asked his elder brother to take care of the

parents after his death. He also wrote that his life had been

transformed ever since he began attending the religious discourses.

A student of Class 12 at Chiranjeev Bharti School, Siddhartha also

wrote that he had played his " role " in the world which resembled a

stage, and asked his parents not to grieve over his death. His

father, Prakash Ahuja, said he had no idea of what was going on in

his sonï¿½s mind. " In fact, we all went together for the ï¿½satsangï¿½ and

even discussed the preaching at home but he never said anything that

could have given us a clue about what was to happen. He had no reason

to be depressed and had a cheerful demeanour, " the distraught father

told reporters.

Other members of the sect were even more shocked at the incident. " We

have been Radha Swami followers for two generations and have never

heard of such an incident. The boy surely had some other

psychological problem which egged him to take the drastic step, and

it is unfortunate that he blamed it on the discourses, " said Mr P.K.

Lalwani, a businessman.

advaitin , " ymoharir " <ymoharir wrote:

>

> Dear List:

>

> Following news item is relevant to the current discussion of maayaa.

>

> http://tinyurl.com/2baqcp

>

> I leave it to the Moderatoirs whether to alow further discussions

on

> this topic.

>

> Regards,

>

> Dr. Yadu

>

Locus of ignorance?Avidya and Maaya ?

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups