Guest guest Posted August 20, 2007 Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 Namste Ram Chandran-Ji: Thanks for sharing your thoughts on maayaa. advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote: > > Re: Locus of ignorance?- Is mAyA equal to AvidyA ? > > > > We should recognize that we only have the right to explore and > clarify our own ever changing understanding of the Brahman. What has been said in our scriptures was incorporated very cleverly within the US Constitution. America never promised Happiness, just promised the pursuit for happiness. > > >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. > I also like the finer distinction proposed by vidyaaharaNa in paNcadashii. cidaanandamayabrahmapratibimbasamanvitaa | tamorajaHsattvaguNaa prakR^itirdvividhaa ca saa || sattvashuddhavishuddhibhyaaM maayavidye ca te mate | maayaabimbo vashikR^itya taaM syaatsarvaj~na iishvaraH || Liberal meaning - pakR^iti is the one who with the brahmaa's desire (pratiicchhaa) after having been balanced with triguNa gets expressed. sattvaguNa expressed as “pure - shuddha†is known as maayaa and “impure - malina†expression of prakR^iti is aviddyaa. Thus the sarvaj~na ishvara keeps maayaa in the reflection. Thus one can reflect upon couple of lines from shetaashvatara upanishada maayaaM tu prakR^itiM vidyaata maayain tu maheshvaram4.10 and jnaatvaa devaM uccate sayva pasaiH 2.15 Again, I enjoyed reading your purport. Please feel free to correct my limited understanding of maaya as being bound through reflection of that trikaalaatiita satya. With kind personal regards, Dr. Yadu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 20, 2007 Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 Dear Sri Sadananda, Thank you for another knowledgeable post. I am not a venerable Advaitic scholar as are many on this list, but a mere practitioner. What I have learned of Advaita is primarily from listening to my teacher, and reflecting, meditating and inquiring. I have also read a number of books by Sankara, including Vivekacudamani, his commentary on the Gita, and a few others, such as Svatmanirupinam. When I say, `read' I mean a slow process really trying to absorb as much of the book as possible. For example, it took about six months to `read' the Commentary on the Gita. One comment on your posting: " Understanding that world is mithyaa or maaya is as much necessary as inquiry of 'who am I. " My experience of inquiry (and what has been taught by my teacher, Nome, is that, to say it one way, discrimination and inquiry are 'intertwined.' When one inquires to ascertain one's own identity, one looks to see, 'Is this who I am? Is that who I am?' So the discrimination of the real from the unreal is a intrinsic element of the inquiry. Through this discrimination one can see that one is never what is objective, what is known, one is always the knower, or deeper still, 'the unknown knower of all the known.' Does this sound correct? Thank you. Not two, Richard advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > --- 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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 Dr. Shyamji writes : ( 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 -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.) and then Dr. Shyam goes on to Cocnlude( Finally, Advaita is not about accomodating Ishwara but about understanding Ishwara. ) What Beautiful, sublime words ! i don't know if you all remember Subbuj's wonderful series of articles on Sri akshinamurthystrotram ! Today , it is my pleasure to bring to you this verse from post number 34803 Sridakshinamurtistotram (Part X ) Our most beloved Subbuji writes : The Panchadashi (IX 78) points out: He should continue the practice of meditation until he realises himself to be identical with his object of meditation and then continue this thought till death. This would culminate, according to the maxim: what he thinks, he becomes – in securing for the saadhaka the sAyujya of the upAsya, the Lord, and eventually enlightenment by His Grace. The MAnasOllAsa: IX : 1 says: kathameva.nvidhaa maayaa nivarteteti pR^ichchhataH . iishvaropaasanaaruupastadupaayaH prakiirtyate .. 1.. [`How can MAyA of this sort cease?' – To him who thus asks, devout contemplation on Ishwara is taught as the means to that end.] The upAya that is the modus operandi pertaining to the upAsana of SadAshiva is described in detail in the MAnasollaasa by utilizing the thirty-six tattvas of the Shaivaagamas which are mentioned in the second ullAsa (chapter) much in the same way as the MAndUkyopaniShad uses the VyAkaraNashAstra prakriyaa of tAdAtmya- sambandha between shabda and artha for effecting yugapat pravilApana (simultaneous resolution). The mention of the dhyana involving the thirty-six tattvas is seen in the vaidika-sampradaya as for example, in the MahAnyAsa prayoga in the verses that mean: // The essence of the thirty-six principles, which transcends them, which is beyond the manifest jagat as also its cause the unmanifest, the MAyaa, and thus absolutely taintless, the imperishable, is to be meditated upon as the very Self always by the Yogins; I bow to (i.e. dissolve myself in Him by erasing the ego) this fifth face, the IshAna mukha, of the three-eyed Lord, Ishwara, which is beyond ignorance, subtler thatn the subtlest, the Serene, the Effulgence enveloping the sky.] The MAnasOllAsa: IX points out that the aggregate of the thirty-six principles is present everywhere in the Cosmos, BrahmAnDa, virAt, which may be construed as the body of Maheshwara as also the pinDAnDa, the body of each individual: viraaTchhariire brahmaaNDe praaNinaamapi vigrahe . shhaTtri.nshattattvasa~NghaataH sarvatraapyanuvartate .. 4.. The two are one, as cause and effect, the one being evolved out of the other. The devotee should regard every principle in the individual or the microcosmic body as one with the correspoinding principle in the macrocosm. He should also regard the PuruSha embedded in the former as one with Him, as embedded in the latter.) (((((((((((snip snip snip )))))))))))))) Subbuji then goes on to say (The underlying principle in this upAsana is this: The raw aspirant is not right now prepared to take up the Atma VichAra, enquiry into the Self. To bring about this preparation, the scriptures ordain a structured exercise. At first, depending upon the temperament, one chooses a formful deity, IshTadevatA, and worships the deity with devotion. This is known as `eka rUpa Ishwara bhakti'. To this aspirant, God is present in the deity, idol, form, only. He is not able to visualize God as all pervading. When this devotion sufficiently matures, he comes to look upon God as omnipresent: Vishwa rUpa Ishvara Bhakti. It is this stage that is spoken of in the ninth verse of the Hymn that is being studied now. This bhakti enables the aspirant to take up the sadhana to realize the Formless Non dual Truth, `arUpa Ishwara Bhakti' Dearest Advaitins: Bhakti Yoga is not for the fainthearted ; neither it is for the 'adhama' devotees ! It is the very foundation of both Karma AND JNANA YOGA ! ye tu dharmamrtam idam yathoktam paryupasate sraddadhana mat-parama bhaktas te 'tiva me priyah They indeed, who follow this 'Immortal DHARMA' (Law of Life) as described above, endowed with faith, regarding Me as their Supreme Goal --- such devotees are exceedingly dear to Me. Ishwara Anugraham is only reserved for those who approach HIM in a bhava of total surrender - leaving all 'vrittis' behind ! Do you know the 'symbolism' of breaking a Coconut in front of the Archa vigraha murti in the temple ? The outer hard shell represents man's stubburn nature and the inner shell reprsents his 'ego' and by breaking the coconut , the devotee is surrendering his 'ahamkaram' and 'mamakaram' etc ! Hari Aum Tat Sat ! ps by the way, Maya also means 'to measure' - can we measure the 'infinite' by the finite ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 --- Richard Clarke <richard wrote: > > One comment on your posting: > > " Understanding that world is mithyaa or maaya is as > much necessary as > inquiry of 'who am I. " > > My experience of inquiry (and what has been taught > by my teacher, > Nome, is that, to say it one way, discrimination and > inquiry > are 'intertwined.' When one inquires to ascertain > one's own identity, > one looks to see, 'Is this who I am? Is that who I > am?' So the > discrimination of the real from the unreal is a > intrinsic element of > the inquiry. Shree Richard Clarke - PraNAms. I will address your question to the best I can. Yes, your teacher is right. Discrimination and inquiry are intertwined - in fact I should say that it is a discriminative inquiry. In the inquiry of 'who am I' - a simple fact is I am the subject and any thing I point out is an object. Subject cannot be an object and anything that is objectified cannot be subject I, since I am the one who is objectifying. 'This' and 'that' is an object that I can perceive. Hence perceiver 'I' is different from perceived 'this' and 'that'. Hence asking 'am I this' or 'am I that' should immediately take take you to the answer that I can never be this or that, since I am the subject and not an object 'this or that'. The question remains then who am I if not this or that. We need to go the next level of inquiry to say I am a conscious entity, and any thing unconscious I am not. This and that are unconscious, since this and that cannot say 'I am' - only a self existent and self-conscious entity can declare that I am. This and that are objects and in fact anything that can be objectified comes under 'this and that'. Therefore 'this and that' include all not only external material objects, but also the thoughts and the feelings - in fact any thing that can be known, since only objects can be known - On the other hand I am trying to know myself 'who am I?' and hence the inquiry, is it not? But everybody says, they know who they are, and in fact they can give hours and hours of discourse on who they are and how great they are. To reject that is not what I am, and then inquire ‘who that I am' is requires a very subtle inquiry - it is not just keep asking who am I, who am I. I can not say who am I, since any definition involves objectification and I am not an object. By negating who I am not, I have to ascertain who I am. It is an inquiring about the inquirer, but mind can only inquire about objects and not a subject. For that only we need scriptures to guide us. The second aspect is, when I negate I am not this, there is still 'I' and 'this that I am not', is it not? So, I need to enquire also 'what is this' that appears to be separate from me, since I am not this. If this is separate from me and independent of me, then we have duality, I and this, this includes the whole world of objects. What this and where did this come from, who is the author of this, etc all come in since I am not this - since that is what I am doing in my inquiry. Unless I also understand 'this' and how 'this' is related to 'I am' - the inquiry is incomplete and I will remain limited and therefore bound. Bondage is nothing but limitations or notion of limitations. This is the reason why, scripture becomes important for that analysis, with the declarative statement 'you are that' Svetaketo, and 'this aatma is Brahman' and 'I am Brahman' Brahman is that who is the cause for all this, etc. An Identity relation, identifying I am with Brahman –Brahman meaning infiniteness. These identity relations are called mahavaakyaas in the Vedanta. How can ‘I be Brahman’ has to be understood in the inquiry of ‘who am I’. As you can see the discussions that is going on with above subject title- projecting the world as out there, and bringing Iswara, the creator for that projection, and trying to inquire the nature of that Iswara - all stem in the trying to understand - who am I, what is this world, Is there a creator, Iswara, separate from I, what is the nature of Iswara and what is my relationship to this Iswara and how does this 'who am I' inquiry solve all these problems. This requires clear understanding before inquiry of who am I can answer all of the above questions. That is why study of scriptures under a teacher is important for understanding and inquiring the nature of the reality that pervades the entire universe. Some followers of Bhagavaan Ramana think that there is a direct path – only one direct path – that is clear understanding of who am I and how I am the Brahman, the totality – since the inquiry should include not only ‘I’ the subject and ‘this’, the object. Having said all this, my advice is to follow your teacher guidelines and pursue the inquiry. As the mind starts questioning, follow the lead as the Lord provides, since He ultimately guides you until all the questions are resolved. Have full faith in Him and pursue whatever means that are provided in your path, including this advaitin list, since there are many learned members in this list, who can help. Never give up the hope since you are on the right path, and God, if there is one, has to come down to help in one form or the other, all those who are seeking. Consider every help that you receive as His gift and surrender to His infinite intelligence with unquestionable faith, He will take you ashore and that is His promise to all. Hari Om! Sadananda > Through this discrimination one can see that one is > never what is > objective, what is known, one is always the knower, > or deeper > still, 'the unknown knower of all the known.' > > Does this sound correct? > > Thank you. > > Not two, > Richard > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 --- Shyam <shyam_md wrote: > 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. Sri Shyamji, my pranams to you. I have studied saints like Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Ramana, and thought on many of the issues like the others on the forum. However I am not at all well-versed in scripture and with the exception of some recent mention on Aitereya Up. have not quoted much directly. That is why I keep asking for Shankara's position on things from the learned members, since I cannot myself justify my understandings of things as what he established. I make some comments below. > 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. This is at once a very important observation/assertion. That which is impermanent/changeful is unreal; this would include practically all that comes within human experience except for what Sri Nairji calls the infiniteness of our being. It is what we cannot deny and what the scripture affirms as Brahman - the inherent substratum Reality that appears/is identified in the referential/mithya context as the manifold universe. Sri Sadaji also keeps emphasizing this point, that the jagat which is mithya is in reality the Brahman which is satya. > > 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. > This is an important point which I don't yet understand fully. The trouble is we sometimes accept space and time, and then attempt to resolve the nama-rupa into homogeneous unity. Our analogies demand this for we speak of ourselves as the seer of something apart, then try to say that the thing apart is constituted of nama-rupa which is our subjective superimposition. This may lead to confusions. In my essay, I tried to indicate the difference by saying: " It is not that superimposition is an act committed by the person; rather the " person " is concominant with the fact of superimposition. " Whether it is right, I do not know and had asked for correction in a recent post, then later removed. As you state later, the notion of separation is the primary illusion; the subjective definitions of i and thou rest on that primary separation. So while we can attempt for logical help to relate to the relativity in objective/subjective understanding, we have to resort to scripture or resign the mind to that infinite being of Self to reach for realization. (I want to take up this space/time topic sometime/months later; hope the members can give thoughts on how to figure it in Advaita). However I like your analogies very much; they do make the things clearer. What you have said about Ishvara is also very clear. It is " total " over " individual " , or the " total " that includes the " individual " in us. This is clear indeed, if it is the Advaitin's final perspective. What then becomes the real question is how this becomes the basis for Bhakthi to this Ishvara who is total; for i, the one confounding as individual with mind/intellect prays to an Ishvara as if that Ishvara is some Individual who listens and responds. I can throw away the nama-rupa of Ishvara as superimposition but what about the 'i' sense that constitutes my primary self-definition? If Ishvara does not have this sense, how does (?) the Advaitin approach Ishvara as something more than a Robot? For the 'total''s Order of things is addressed as His Grace, the latter phrase appearing very personal and individual. Perhaps it is just our superimposition of personality, our business in the process of realizing our non-dual Identity. It is not wrong either for the Totality responds to us according to our efforts, prayers, etc., only we have to forgo that man-in-the-sky idea of Him/That. (I should read the Bhakthi definitions to get some details, probably.) Shyamji, your thoughts are important and have made lot of things precise, especially on the Ishvara topic. The Advaitin probably has to digest the philosophy quite a bit before having Bhakthi to the 'total' Ishvara, but the 'individual' Ishvara is something of a horse with horn, that though useful in initial stages must eventually be understood in the broader sense. thollmelukaalkizhu > 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 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 === message truncated === ______________________________\ ____Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on TV. http://tv./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 Pranam! Doubts about Maya and Avidya exist: so long we identify our real self with the body. Let us deeply contemplate (meditate): Lord Shiva is the doer; Lord Shiva is the Enjoyer. It is like travelling in train and carrying load on our head. Oh! train is carrying you and the load. That is the reason of our doubts and sufferings. Deepest regards, Virendra Putran Maheshwar <putranm wrote: --- Shyam <shyam_md wrote: > 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. Sri Shyamji, my pranams to you. I have studied saints like Sri Ramakrishna and Sri Ramana, and thought on many of the issues like the others on the forum. However I am not at all well-versed in scripture and with the exception of some recent mention on Aitereya Up. have not quoted much directly. That is why I keep asking for Shankara's position on things from the learned members, since I cannot myself justify my understandings of things as what he established. I make some comments below. > 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. This is at once a very important observation/assertion. That which is impermanent/changeful is unreal; this would include practically all that comes within human experience except for what Sri Nairji calls the infiniteness of our being. It is what we cannot deny and what the scripture affirms as Brahman - the inherent substratum Reality that appears/is identified in the referential/mithya context as the manifold universe. Sri Sadaji also keeps emphasizing this point, that the jagat which is mithya is in reality the Brahman which is satya. > > 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. > This is an important point which I don't yet understand fully. The trouble is we sometimes accept space and time, and then attempt to resolve the nama-rupa into homogeneous unity. Our analogies demand this for we speak of ourselves as the seer of something apart, then try to say that the thing apart is constituted of nama-rupa which is our subjective superimposition. This may lead to confusions. In my essay, I tried to indicate the difference by saying: " It is not that superimposition is an act committed by the person; rather the " person " is concominant with the fact of superimposition. " Whether it is right, I do not know and had asked for correction in a recent post, then later removed. As you state later, the notion of separation is the primary illusion; the subjective definitions of i and thou rest on that primary separation. So while we can attempt for logical help to relate to the relativity in objective/subjective understanding, we have to resort to scripture or resign the mind to that infinite being of Self to reach for realization. (I want to take up this space/time topic sometime/months later; hope the members can give thoughts on how to figure it in Advaita). However I like your analogies very much; they do make the things clearer. What you have said about Ishvara is also very clear. It is " total " over " individual " , or the " total " that includes the " individual " in us. This is clear indeed, if it is the Advaitin's final perspective. What then becomes the real question is how this becomes the basis for Bhakthi to this Ishvara who is total; for i, the one confounding as individual with mind/intellect prays to an Ishvara as if that Ishvara is some Individual who listens and responds. I can throw away the nama-rupa of Ishvara as superimposition but what about the 'i' sense that constitutes my primary self-definition? If Ishvara does not have this sense, how does (?) the Advaitin approach Ishvara as something more than a Robot? For the 'total''s Order of things is addressed as His Grace, the latter phrase appearing very personal and individual. Perhaps it is just our superimposition of personality, our business in the process of realizing our non-dual Identity. It is not wrong either for the Totality responds to us according to our efforts, prayers, etc., only we have to forgo that man-in-the-sky idea of Him/That. (I should read the Bhakthi definitions to get some details, probably.) Shyamji, your thoughts are important and have made lot of things precise, especially on the Ishvara topic. The Advaitin probably has to digest the philosophy quite a bit before having Bhakthi to the 'total' Ishvara, but the 'individual' Ishvara is something of a horse with horn, that though useful in initial stages must eventually be understood in the broader sense. thollmelukaalkizhu > 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 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 === message truncated === ________Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on TV. http://tv./ Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Tryit now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 Namaste: This is a continuation of my previous post and the purpose is indicate that Gita chapters 9 to 11 support the contention that the Ishwara is REAL. Bhagavad Gita Chapter 9 beautifully portrays the nature of the Brahman without explicit description of Him. The chapter has the title, " Yoga of the Royal Secret! " Essentially the portrayal of the Brahman provides clues using trillion bits encryption to ensure that the secret can only be understood by those with highest level of discriminating intelligence! This may explain why we are not able to grasp the nature of Brahman outlined in Gita. The verses 4 to 6 of chapter 9 confirm the advaitic fact that there is no separation between the Brahman, Jiva and the universe!. Chapter 9: Verses 4 to 6 Mayaa tatamidam sarvam jagadavyaktamoortinaa; Matsthaani sarvabhootaani na chaaham teshvavasthitah. All this world is pervaded by Me in My unmanifest aspect; all beings exist in Me, but I do not dwell in them. Na cha matsthaani bhootaani pashya me yogamaishwaram; Bhootabhrinna cha bhootastho mamaatmaa bhootabhaavanah. Nor do beings exist in Me (in reality): behold My divine Yoga, supporting all beings, but not dwelling in them, is My Self, the efficient cause of beings. Yathaakaashasthito nityam vaayuh sarvatrago mahaan; Tathaa sarvaani bhootaani matsthaaneetyupadhaaraya. As the mighty wind, moving everywhere, rests always in the ether, even so, know thou that all beings rest in Me. We have discussed these verses in greater detail during Gita Cyber Satsang and they are available in the list archives for the interested readers. (Second week of October 2002). Here are few links from the archives. advaitin/message/14919 advaitin/message/14923 advaitin/message/14926 The entire chapter 10 of Gita portrary the Ishwara Rupa of the Brahman to explain the unity between the Saguna and Nirguna Brahman. In chapter 11, Arjun gets the vision from the Brahman to visualize the Brahman and the message is very subtle! The message confirms the statement of the Upanishads – " Brahman only knows the Brahman. " Most of the questions raised by several members are answered by Lord Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita and they should revisit Gita chapters 9 to 11 and contemplate on the messages provided by the Lord. We should be reminded that according to Vedanta, the dream is always real for the dreamers during the dream! Only when they get awakened, they recognize that the dream was an illusion!! With my warmest regards, Ram Chandran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: [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, I feel this where the difference between the vishishtAdvaita and the advaitic view point of vishwarupadarshana of Arjuna lies! In advaita, brahman associated with the collective gross, subtle and the causal bodies are called virAt, hiraNyagarbha and ishwara respectively. Brahman is always imminent in the creation and so is the ishwara. Shankara while commenting on the mandukya upanishad clearly says that lord is NOT an external entity outside the creation. Though we are all part and parcel of ishwara, due to our inherent avidya we feel isolated or there is something like *shrinking of consciousness*. :-)) But for the lord there no avidya and hence he is the cosmic being immanent in and through all beings; sentient and insentient. Hence he has attributes like omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. Interestingly shruti advocates certain kinds of upAsanas and meditations wherein an apparently isolated jiva can expand his consciousness to the level of cosmic virAt or the hiraNyagarbha even in the relative plane itself!!! This is something unique and here only beauty of the advaita lies! As aptly quoted by Sri Ram Chandran-ji, these things have been told in the 9th-11th chapters of the Gita. One senior monk in RKM told me to do the regular parayaNa of the 11th chapter and to visualize the vibhUti of the lord. That seems to be one of the best ways! mattah parataram nAnyat ki'ncidasti dhana'njaya | mayi sarvam idam protam sUtre maNigaNA iva || (gItA 7.7) " There is nothing higher than Myself, O arjuna. All this is strung on Me, as rows of pearls on a thread " . |krishNam vande jagadgurum| Yours in Sri Ramakrishna, Br. Vinayaka. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 Sri Virendra Qazi writes : ( Let us deeply contemplate (meditate): Lord Shiva is the doer; Lord Shiva is the Enjoyer.) In This holy month of Shravan, it is so delightful to hear the praises of Lord Shiva. As Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati has said " we are unable to see even the feet of the Lord , why worry about His face. " Putranji : these lines are for you - since you understand Tamizh ! Isan adi potri enDai adi potri Tesan adi potri sivan sevadi potri Neyatthe nindra nimalan adi potri Maayappirappu arukkum mannan adi potri Seeraar perunthurai nam tevan adi potri Aaraatha inbam aruLum malai potri. Salutations to the Feet of the Lord! Salutations to the Feet of our Father! Salutations to the Feet of the Resplendent One! Salutations to the ruddy Feet of Lord Siva ! Salutations to the Feet of the Unblemished One, who lies anchored in the love of His devotee ! Salutations to the Feet of the Lord Who Cuts asunder the cycle of births full of evil strife ! Salutations to the Feet of our Lord Who resides in this most beautiful Tirupperunturai ! Many people differentiate between Shaivism and Advaita !They call shaivism 'siddantha' and Advaita 'vedanta ' but when you worship shiva as Ishwera in advaita we get 'shaivAdvaita' ! our most respected Sri Ramana Maharishi himself , the Mother of all advaitic Gurus, worships Arunachaleshwera ! " Arunachala is Shiva Himself. . Sri Bhagavan used to say, " Kailasa is the abode of Shiva; Arunachala is Shiva Himself. Even in Kailasa things are as they are with us here. Devotees go to Shiva, worship Him, serve Him, and hear from him the interpretation of the Vedas and Vedanta day in and day out. " So it was Kailasa at the foot of the Arunachala Hill, and Arunachala Paramatma in human form was Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi. " T.K. Sundaresa Iyer (http://www.cosmicharmony.com/Sp/Ramana/Ramana.htm) Advaitacharya Shri ADI SHANKARA BHAGVADAPADA himself equates Shiva WITH THE SELF ! otherwise, why would he sing in ATMA SHATAKAM (also known as Nirvana Shatakam) Aham Nirvikalpo Niraakaara Roopaha Vibhur Vyaapya Sarvatra Sarvendriyaanaam Sadaa Me Samatvam Na Muktir Na Bandhah Chidaananda Roopah Shivoham Shivoham I am devoid of dualities, and I am formless, I exist everywhere, pervading all the senses, always I am the same, I have neither freedom nor bondage, I am pure Knowledge and Bliss, I am Auspiciousness, I am Shiva. Yes ! SHIVA-HOOD IS SELF HOOD! Shiva-jnanam is atma-jnanam! Har Har Mahadeva ! Jai Jai Mahadeva! ( Lord Krishna himself says in Srimad Bhagwat gita - " I am Shiva among the Rudras; (I am) Kubera among the Yakshas and demons; I am the fire among the Vasus; and I am Meru among the mountain peaks. (10.23) ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 --- Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns wrote: > Dear Nair-ji, > In advaita, brahman associated with the collective > gross, subtle and > the causal bodies are called virAt, hiraNyagarbha > and ishwara > respectively. Brahman is always imminent in the > creation and so is the > ishwara. Sri Vinayakaji, Can you clarify here? Brahman is the 'Reality' of what we identify as creation. It is by definition non-dual; to talk of its immanence in creation seems a mix-up of paramaarthika and vyavahaarika. Or is this a valid usage? Also, the reference to existence/Brahman in the 'total' context of creation is what the forum members seem to refer as Ishvara. The Advaitic stand on Ishvara seems to be the inherent reality of Self seen from the manifest perspective. In that sense, Ishvara is immanent in creation. What exactly do you mean by 'causal' bodies? > But for the lord there no > avidya and hence he is > the cosmic being immanent in and through all beings; > sentient and > insentient. Hence he has attributes like > omnipotence, omniscience and > omnipresence. > How is 'lord' to be interpreted? In the dvaita/VA schools, there is some sense of locus of Identity in Ishvara. Advaita denies the locus of Ishvara; so the very question of avidya seems irrelevant, as also ideas of omnipotence and omniscience. How are you interpreting these notions regarding Ishvara and assimilating them in the Bhakthi perspective toward this Ishvara? Thank you. thollmelukaalkizhu ______________________________\ ____ Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join 's user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink./gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?a=7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 Namaskarams Sri Qaziji, This is indeed a great contemplation; I would think it at once liberates the mind. But a bit more of running about is 'wanted'. Thanks however for the essential message. thollmelukaalkizhu --- Virendra Qazi <virendra_qazi wrote: > Pranam! > > Doubts about Maya and Avidya exist: > > so long we identify our real self with the body. > > Let us deeply contemplate (meditate): > > Lord Shiva is the doer; > > Lord Shiva is the Enjoyer. > ______________________________\ ____ Sick sense of humor? Visit TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. http://tv./collections/222 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 Namaste Putran-Ji: Please read my previous post #36951 in the light of shiiva upaasanaa. It is only the " prakR^iti " that is capable of reading the " puruShaa " that is why Omkara gained acceptance as a fundamental tool to understand the meaning of words. Thus, pata~nNajala muni states - tasyavaacakaH praNavaH. This can be experienced by everyone at all times. If one considers the OM as a complete embodiment of vowels then it the combination of vowels with root Verbs and this process manifest into words, mantras, speech .... etc. which can be understood by others. Therefore one needs to become advaya with the meaning with the help oh vowels. Hope this helps, Regards, Dr. Yadu advaitin , Putran Maheshwar <putranm wrote: > > Namaskarams Sri Qaziji, > > This is indeed a great contemplation; I would think it > at once liberates the mind. But a bit more of running > about is 'wanted'. Thanks however for the essential > message. > > thollmelukaalkizhu > > --- Virendra Qazi <virendra_qazi wrote: > > > Pranam! > > > > Doubts about Maya and Avidya exist: > > > > so long we identify our real self with the body. > > > > Let us deeply contemplate (meditate): > > > > Lord Shiva is the doer; > > > > Lord Shiva is the Enjoyer. > > > > > > > ____________________ ______________ > Sick sense of humor? Visit TV's > Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. > http://tv./collections/222 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 advaitin , Putran Maheshwar <putranm wrote: > Sri Vinayakaji, > > Can you clarify here? Brahman is the 'Reality' of what > we identify as creation. It is by definition non-dual; > to talk of its immanence in creation seems a mix-up of > paramaarthika and vyavahaarika. Or is this a valid > usage? > > Also, the reference to existence/Brahman in the > 'total' context of creation is what the forum members > seem to refer as Ishvara. The Advaitic stand on > Ishvara seems to be the inherent reality of Self seen > from the manifest perspective. In that sense, Ishvara > is immanent in creation. What exactly do you mean by > 'causal' bodies? Reply: Here causal body is referred as the upAdhi of ishwara i.e., mAyA. These are dealt with the preliminary texts of advaita like vedAntasAra, tattwabodha and mAndukya upanishad etc.,( I do not want to get into detailed discussions on these things since I have no time. But shall try to clarify what I have told in my last post.) Ishwara is defined in advaita Vedanta as the consciousness associated with mAyA which consists of satwa, rajas and tamas. This mAyA has been designated as individual and collective on account of its pervading the units (like individual jivas) and the aggregate (creation as a whole). mAyA on account of its appearing association with perfection (pure intelligence of brahman) has preponderance of pure sattwa. So Brahman associated with mAyA is endowed with such qualities as omniscience, universal lordship, all-controlling power, etc., and is designated as the inner guide, the cause of the world and ishwara on account of its being the illuminator of mAyA. This mAyA associated with ishwara is known as the causal body on account of its being cause of all. " Panchadas'i - 6.157—iis'vara is the aabhaasa or semblance of Brahman in maayaa which is prakr.ti constituted of pure sattva. He controls maayaa and is the antaryaamii or Inner Controller of all beings. He is omniscient and is the cause of the universe. " " Br.up.3.8.12--- When Brahman has as the limiting adjunct the power of eternal and infinite knowledge (maayaa) it is called iis'vara or antaryaamii. " " B.S.2.3.46.S.B—God does not undergo suffering as the jiiva does, because He has no identification with the body. Even the jiiva will become free from all suffering when he gives up identification with the two bodies and realizes that he is the pure Self, untouched by anything that happens to the body or mind. It is further pointed out here that while a reflection of the sun in a vessel of water may shake when the water shakes, the sun itself is not at all affected, so also God is not affected, though the individual soul may be, by what happens to the limiting adjuncts. " " How is 'lord' to be interpreted? In the dvaita/VA schools, there is some sense of locus of Identity in Ishvara. Advaita denies the locus of Ishvara; so the very question of avidya seems irrelevant, as also ideas of omnipotence and omniscience. How are you interpreting these notions regarding Ishvara and assimilating them in the Bhakthi perspective toward this Ishvara? Thank you. " Reply: The word ishwara popularly known as " God " has a peculiar meaning in the advaita philosophy. The vedAntist does not believe ishwara to be the absolute existence. Because, he is 'as' unreal 'as' the phenomenal universe. Brahman associated with mAyA is called ishwara. The difference between ishwara and the ordinary man is that the former, though associated with mAyA is not bound by its fetters, whereas the latter is its slave. Ishwara is the highest manifestation of Brahman `in' the phenomenal universe. And as advaita does not believe in the 'separate' material cause aprat from brahman like sankhyas, he is the `very' universe itself. " In the dvaita/VA schools, there is some sense of locus of Identity in Ishvara. Advaita denies the locus of Ishvara; so the very question of avidya seems irrelevant, as also ideas of omnipotence and omniscience. " I am not clear about what your are trying to convey in the above passage. vedAnta does not deny the omnipotence and omniscience of the lord in the relative plane. What do you mean by locus of ishwara here? Now, when it comes to the question of bhakti, advaita do accept incarnations of ishwara and he is saguna Brahman. He does respond to our prayers and he is the karmAdhyaksha and karmaphaladAta. Nirguna Brahman cannot incarnate himself nor he can give the fruits of action, because he is devoid of qualities (nirguNa) not to speak seperately of compassion. :-)) " B.S.1.1.20.S.B—God may take various forms at His will through His power of maayaa to bless devotees. " " ajah api san avyayatma bhutanAm ishvarah api san prakratim svam adhisthaya sambhavami atmamayaya Being imperishable, unborn and the God of all the creatures yet being established into my own nature. I come into existence by my own power (maya). " " janma karma cha me divyam evam yah vetti tattvatah tyaktava deham punah janma na etimama eti sah arjuna O Arjuna, my this birth and actions are divine, one who knows the truth of this, does not take birth again after leaving his body but he attains to my state. " So one can pray to ishwara as krishNa, rAma or annapurNa. Advaita has no objections for these. Ishwara alone knows what he is. And Swami Vivekananda says that: Personal God is the highest reading of the Impersonal that can be reached by the human intellect! Hope instead of explaining, I have not complicated the issue. Corrections/further explanations from the other learned members of the group are welcome. Yours in Sri Ramakrishna, Br. Vinayaka. PS: I have quoted extensively from the vEdAntasAra of sadAnanda, translated by Swami Nikhilananda and I have edited the passages to make it brief and relevant to the context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2007 Report Share Posted August 22, 2007 Pranams Avidya, Kama and Karma The innate tendency to forget the nature of Reality of Atman within (which is none other than Brahman, One without second) and confound its identity with non-real and illusory projections of Jiva and Jagat is Ignorance. It is due to that, like the orbit of the Sun being obscured by the passing clouds, the effulgence of Atman which is Sachidananda Siva is hidden (by the non-self comprising of the body, senses and mind). This (Mixing up of Real and unreal and the consequent delusion prompting the mind to submit itself to a mistaken transference of their mutual properties and an ever-present idea of I and Mine in the body, organs etc., which are non-self) is the primary ignorance which is without beginning (for time itself is an effect of it). It is the habitual nature of the embodied soul and is also called Prakrti. This Avidya is cast in the mould of the three Gunas or modes of Nature, Sattwa or harmony, Rajas or activity and Tamas or inertia which are variable and are in a continual state of mutual impact. (Their interaction determines the character, disposition and actions of the natural man). Subject to the pulls of the gunas, Jiva is tossed about between desire and aversion, (good action and bad deeds), merit and demerit which lead to the misery of endless cycle of birth and death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2007 Report Share Posted August 22, 2007 --- Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns wrote: > advaitin , Putran Maheshwar > <putranm wrote: > > > Sri Vinayakaji, > Reply: Here causal body is referred as the upAdhi of > ishwara i.e., > mAyA. > Ishwara is defined in advaita Vedanta as the > consciousness associated > with mAyA which consists of satwa, rajas and tamas. > This mAyA has > been designated as individual and collective on > account of its > pervading the units (like individual jivas) and the > aggregate > (creation as a whole). mAyA on account of its > appearing association > with perfection (pure intelligence of brahman) has > preponderance of > pure sattwa. So Brahman associated with mAyA is > endowed with such > qualities as omniscience, universal lordship, > all-controlling power, > etc., and is designated as the inner guide, the > cause of the world > and ishwara on account of its being the illuminator > of mAyA. This > mAyA associated with ishwara is known as the causal > body on account > of its being cause of all. > I am not clear about what your are trying to convey > in the above > passage. vedAnta does not deny the omnipotence and > omniscience of the > lord in the relative plane. What do you mean by > locus of ishwara > here? > > Now, when it comes to the question of bhakti, > advaita do accept > incarnations of ishwara and he is saguna Brahman. He > does respond to > our prayers and he is the karmAdhyaksha and > karmaphaladAta. Nirguna > Brahman cannot incarnate himself nor he can give the > fruits of > action, because he is devoid of qualities (nirguNa) > not to speak > seperately of compassion. :-)) Sri Vinayakaji, Thank you for the replies; they are brilliant as they are very precise. Let me just make a few points related to ‘locus’ that motivate my typical questions. By locus regarding Ishvara, first I mean characteristic basis/conditions that give the notion of identity: an entity or being. In particular and secondly, it can be identified with the notion of self-operation. For instance, you referred to individual jivas as units, which indicates that the mind/body complex operates in manifest existence in a distinctive self-manner. We consider a tree also self-operating but the sun as (only) operating as per the universal Order. By the Advaitic definition, Ishvara is Brahman seen in conjunction with Maya, which is composed of Sattwa, Rajas and Tamas. Now, Brahman is non-dual subtratum, not an entity/being as such. The conditioned existence we are aware of is therefore identified as/with Ishvara. Why? On account of the overall Order underlying the manifest maya, we classify this Ishvara as a singular cosmic being. Yet this Ishvara is not said to be an individual in Advaita, not extending the logic as done in dvaitic religions. The forum members did deny the idea that Ishvara has a single locus, as 'He' is Totality. IN particular, the notions of Order and Operation may be preserved or even tautologically equated with Ishvara, but the notion of self-operation is not. Thus I would prefer : " Brahman associated with mAyA is [said to be/designated as] endowed with such qualities as omniscience, universal lordship, all-controlling power, etc., and is designated as the inner guide " The reason is that these notions are parallel (but perfected) to the self-willing aspects of the jiva, whereas the Ishvara, which has consciousness as basis, is not a self-conscious being (Individual). Without confounding the words of different acharyas, I can sense two rational possibilities for Ishvara in Advaita. 1. As the Sun, seen in conjunction with the substratum consciousness may be deified by the jiva, so is 'this Virat' deified by the scripture as Ishvara. The purpose of the deification is to emphasize the non-dual substratum: Brahman, in the manner most suited to the jiva. Connotations of omnicience, no avidya, mainly sattwa, etc., and also of karmaphaladata, are in truth meant to emphasize the Brahma satya behind the jiva-jagat mithya, and NOT to particularize the intermediary Ishvara. In this sense, Ishvara = Maya is the inexplicable connective. 2. Do the macro-micro equivalence. Start with the individual. We find body and a mind/consciousness governing body, and the underlying ‘infiniteness of being’, which we objectify as soul/atman. To understand Advaita, we must not try to suggest the mind-body connotations to the soul: the latter is the substratum reality confounded as the former. The connection is inexplicable and there it ends. Now take to universal: the three levels are Virat (Reaction:Action), Ishvara (Will:Consciousness) and Brahman (Being:Self). The manifest creation/Virat that we see, we recognize as inherently resolved (as in individual) in a (will:consciousness) principle (as the basis for observed causality), and that we label as Ishvara. If we objectify that Ishvara as a Being who is omniscient, etc., well that is our business for our understanding and our confusion. For the Reality of Advaita is (Being:Self) that is Brahman, that in the mithya context appears as will/mind + action/body. Or, something along these lines. This is similar to the three tier version that you described; my main point is to put the foot down whenever Ishvara is addressed as if an Individual Being. It is potential confusion, for the translation to the universal setting is in a total sense (not preferential to jiva); we can take the essential principle of " will " , etc but should be careful to distinguish the substratum from all such. Thanks for your explanations again; the quotations are also excellent. thollmelukaalkizhu ______________________________\ ____ oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2007 Report Share Posted August 22, 2007 advaitin , Putran Maheshwar <putranm wrote: > > Sri Vinayakaji, > > Thank you for the replies; they are brilliant as they > are very precise. Let me just make a few points > related to `locus' that motivate my typical questions. Dear Putran-ji, I have gone through your post carefully. I resist from replying since I feel that I have already answered those issues in my last post and that is my stand as far as my present understanding of the shruti/AchArya bhashya goes. I request other members of the forum to correct/improve upon it in accordance with shruti and and bhAshya with a special focus on the relative plane of existence. Yours in Sri Ramakrishna, Br. Vinayaka. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.