Ishvara topic

[Guest guest]

Dear Putran-ji,

 

I think, perhaps, in light of Sadanandaji's recent post (which I have

a lot to learn from!), it is neccesary to re-orient ourselves in this

kind of discussion. Ultimately, a perfect understanding of anything

except jiva-brahma-aikya is impossible. The reason we need some

understanding of the nature of Ishvara is so that we can practice

karma yoga and upasana properly, with the correct attitude.

 

If your question is framed in practical terms, I think it comes to:

" For the purpose of karma yoga and upasana, should I concieve Ishvara

as a personal being or should I concieve Ishvara as an impersonal

power/entity? " Here, I believe the answer would be that either way is

fine, depending on your personal inclinations, as long as you know

that Ishvara is supposed to be chaitanya in association with maya-

upadhi.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane

wrote:

 

The reason we need some

> understanding of the nature of Ishvara is so that we can practice

> karma yoga and upasana properly, with the correct attitude.

 

Dear Rishi-ji,

 

This is aptly told. This was the exact reason for which I was speding

cosiderable time studying the works of the swamis/scholars of advaita

institutions. Shri Shastriji writes in his website:

 

" The result achieved by `hearing' etc.

 

`Hearing' removes the doubt whether the upanishadic text which is the

pramaaNa purports to teach about **Brahman or about some other

entity**. This doubt is known as pramaaNa-asambhaavanaa, or the doubt

about the pramaaNa itself. "

 

I was particulary interested to know whether shurti/bhAshya has a

place for ishwara in the first place. This is the first and the

foremost step in the proper sadhana. After careful study the answer

seems to be definie *yes*.

 

Shastriji thanks much for your references/articles given in the web-

site. Please make it richer with more articles!

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

--- risrajlam <rishi.lamichhane wrote:

 

> Dear Putran-ji,

>

> I think, perhaps, in light of Sadanandaji's recent

> post (which I have

> a lot to learn from!), it is neccesary to re-orient

> ourselves in this

> kind of discussion. Ultimately, a perfect

> understanding of anything

> except jiva-brahma-aikya is impossible. The reason

> we need some

> understanding of the nature of Ishvara is so that we

> can practice

> karma yoga and upasana properly, with the correct

> attitude.

 

 

Well, here is my post 3 ! Last for day.

 

Sri Rishiji,

 

First, I don't think it is wise to curb the

theoretical discussions on Ishvara and reduce things

to the practical level. Sadaji himself spent quite a

while explaining theoretical details of Ishvara. I

also mentioned that a rationalist person would want to

know " Why Ishvara as if individual? " from a

theoretical standpoint if available. We all

(theoretically) understand the practicality of

Bhakthi. That " Isvara is chaitanya with maya as

upadhi " has to be justified (if possible) as why we

prefer to relate to That as if Individual, which has

to be done by addressing the implied meanings of

chaitanya and maya and their common association.

 

Of course, you are saying perhaps there is no such

preference. It may reduce to

 

" Ishvara is our objectification of the Totality, which

we recognize as appearing as maya but in truth is

Chaitanya (by scripture). Notions like phaladata

(including to prayers), omniscience, etc merely

reflect our viewpoint to this objectification, done

for the purpose of upasana. An atheist objectifies the

same as Nature operating by Laws and inherent

uncertainty, and that is *equally* justified. "

 

I say *equally* since the fact that we label the

substratum as Chaitanya needs some way of relating to

It, without which it becomes a fanciful

word-replacement. I was hoping that the personal

perspective to Ishvara has its basis here and

suggested one possibility in my previous post. (It is

not meant to be the only way; but to theoretically

support the personal perspective for its own sake.)

 

(Practically, *equally* may not be right for the

non-spiritual person may not move to

jiva-brahma-aikya.)

 

Ok. If this is where the topic is to settle for now,

lets move on. Thanks to all for their explanations.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

>

> If your question is framed in practical terms, I

> think it comes to:

> " For the purpose of karma yoga and upasana, should I

> concieve Ishvara

> as a personal being or should I concieve Ishvara as

> an impersonal

> power/entity? " Here, I believe the answer would be

> that either way is

> fine, depending on your personal inclinations, as

> long as you know

> that Ishvara is supposed to be chaitanya in

> association with maya-

> upadhi.

>

> Regards,

>

> Rishi.

>

>

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play

Sims Stories at Games.

http://sims./

[Guest guest]

putran-ji :

 

Remember this - As Sri Ramana Bhagwan says 'Re: " Keep advaita

within the Heart. Do not ever carry it into action "

 

There is the world of difference between me , you and sadaji. He is

the 'moderator' - we are the 'moderated' ones ! These rules that he

has outlined do not apply to the moderators , only to members !

Therefore as George Orwell says " all men are equal some are more

equal than others. " That is where you and i stand .... only 2

posts , no quotes from any source ( internet or otherwise) etc etc

 

Sadaji , you can always opt for 'web only option' if you do not want

MESSAGES FROM THE ADVAITIN LIST TO CLOG YOUR EMAIL INBOX - all the

mails can amount to a substantial number if you are a member of more

than one list , as seems to be the case ! Smile:-)

 

 

Putran-ji , not long ago Sadaji mentioned five concepts in another

context

 

1) Asti - existence or Sat or Truth

 

2) Bhati or Consciousness or Chit

 

3) Priyam or bliss or Ananda

 

4) Nama or Name

 

5) Rupa Or form

 

Well , when does 'dhyanasaraswati' become brahman when she loses

her name and form and becomes Sat-chit-ananda ! This the maya of a

id! But your id is is you are 'tat twam asi'!

 

All these ids are 'illusion' only as was obvious recently when Hupa

signed off as 'tony !

 

so , putranji - the correct way to think is ' i am sat chit ananda '

not putranji or dhyanasaraswatiji.' when you think like that you are

consciousness itself!

 

As long as you in the vyaharika world with a name and a form, you

are an 'illusion' and you are in 'illusion'

 

Even all these discussions ( lengthy) are in the realm of illusion

only!

 

Truth is God and God is Truth!

 

Ishwer hi satya hai ! God alone is truth!

[Guest guest]

--- dhyanasaraswati <dhyanasaraswati wrote:

> putran-ji :

> There is the world of difference between me , you

> and sadaji. He is

> the 'moderator' - we are the 'moderated' ones !

> These rules that he

> has outlined do not apply to the moderators , only

> to members !

> Therefore as George Orwell says " all men are equal

> some are more

> equal than others. " That is where you and i stand

> .... only 2

> posts , no quotes from any source ( internet or

> otherwise) etc etc

 

Sri Dhyanasaraswathiji,

 

Thanks for this sharp pointer. It has the effect of

preventing such a confusion from arising in future,

and perhaps the confusion was already lying in the

deeper layers of the mind.

 

In case you or others misunderstood, my outer point

was that Sadaji's guidelines were not perhaps served

by restricting talk on the theoretical details of

Ishvara. It was probably unnecessary to mention, but I

did so anyway since I (probably) felt there should not

be such a confusion either. (At least it made Rishiji

put on the brakes to what he mentioned as " very

important " topic.)

 

Regarding multiple posts, my present feeling is that

the group rule is not absolutist on 2 posts a day. It

is a suggestion, for general accord and usefulness for

the whole group. I consider it flexible for all

members unless told otherwise. (Certainly I doubt that

Sadaji was mentioning it since he was getting

overwhelmed through multiple lists, etc.)

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Need a vacation? Get great deals

to amazing places on Travel.

http://travel./

[Guest guest]

Namaskarams,

 

I want to summarize on the recent conversations and

my present understanding. This is for the benefit of

others who may be interested in the same topics but

don't want to run through the posts.

 

 

___________________

 

Q: Why do we consider the Totality/Whole as a cosmic

Being/Entity/Power?

 

A: On account of the Order underlying/defining

manifest existence/maaya, we think of the Whole as one

Being with self-governance. We regard that

Being/Ishvara as projecting this manifold existence of

jiva-jagat through its power of maaya.

 

The more critical reason is that scripture affirms

non-dual Being or Self (nirguna Brahman) as the

Reality that appears manifold due to

maaya/ignorance/superimposition. Thus we affirm

Brahman in our affirmation of the maaya-based

Totality, as the cosmic Being: Ishvara.

 

Q: Why do we (often) relate to this cosmic Being as

if It were an Individual?

 

I give 4 possibilities, not necessarily mutually

exclusive.

 

A1: For the purpose of Upasana. This

individual-oriented relation to the Total Order (which

includes the order governing ourselves) gives a ready

means to practice Bhakthi and Karma Yogas.

 

A2: Since that Being responds to the seeker, as if

It were an Individual. We find Ishvara as giving phala

for our karmas; we find that Ishvara responds to our

prayers; and as allowing us to finally attain to

Brahma-jnana. So while we see only the Virat + some

Order beneath, we recognize (on the basis of the

testimony of 'countless' sages) that Ishvara

corresponds as if It/He were an Individual to the jiva

who seeks Him as such. Therefore we relate to Him as

if He were Individual, and even particularly as

Father, Mother, Shiva, Parvathi, Krishna, etc.

 

(It may be the blind man's description of the

elephant, but it is our best guess. 'He is all this

and more.')

 

A3: We find the maya-based existence to be composed

of 3 gunas/qualities: sattwa (purity/consciousness),

rajas (activity) and tamas (inertia). Thus Ishvara

that/who brings forth this maya is recognized as the

detached Being who wields Maya but is not bound to it.

Ishvara is identified with/as 'pure sattwa'.

 

Our best understanding of the 3 gunas in a unified

manner is found in ourselves, the jivas. And in

Self-realized sages, we find the best representation

of Sattwa. So our easiest model of Ishvara is as a

super-jiva.

 

A4: The three gunas can be abstracted to three

levels of existence. There are several such 3-tier

systems and I present a few next.

 

Tamas, Rajas, Sattwa;

Gross, Subtle, Causal;

Virat, Hiranyagarbha, Ishvara;

Sleep, dream, waking;

Seen, Seeing, Seer;

Body, Mind, Atman/Soul;

 

[This, Am, I]  (** see below);

[(Reaction:Action), (Will:Consciousness),

(Being:Self)];  

[Objective, inexplicable connective, Non-objective].

 

The atman denotes the 'infiniteness

of Being' identified in/as mind-body. Similarly

Ishvara denotes the 'infiniteness of Being'

identified in/as Virat and Hiranyagarbha. Thus by

parallelising the macrocosm with the microcosm

of ourselves, we relate to Ishvara in the

Individual-manner.

 

 

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

 

The fundamental statement of Advaita is that it is

Brahman (seen=seeing=Seer) that in the mithya context

appears as three (Seen+seeing+seer). And due on our

ignorance, one level may appear to supercede the

others in truth. [i capitalize one of the terms

because even though all three have same priority or

non-priority, typically one signifies/reflects

the understanding best; in mithya for instance, the

Seen seems to supercede seer. And regarding Brahman,

we relate best through the Seer or Sattwa. The

three-robber story.]

 

**: In the assertion " I am this " , the " this "

[(Reaction:Action)] includes the notion of

individuality and of world and all the concepts

in-between. The " I " [(Being:Self)] is the

non-objective Reality that is identified in and as

" this " . The " am " (see, hear, think, etc.)

[(Will:Consciousness)] is the spurious association of

Self as ego and world. The " Not this " negates the

ego-world duality that is (superimposition and hence)

unreal.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the

Auto Green Center.

http://autos./green_center/

[Guest guest]

Pranams Putran-ji

Very nicely summarized.

 

My only thought is to not equate Ishwara with/as Sattva Guna.

Ishwara is beyond Gunas - He is in control of all three of them - in

fact they are but manifestations of His intrinsic Maya shakti alone.

Traditionally Brahma is said to control Rajas, Rudra Tamas and

Vishnu Sattva - and everything manifest is thus composed of some

combination of all these three gunas.

While sattva guna is certainly conducive to liberation, realization

results in a transcendence of gunas - a " gunateeta " to use a

Bhagawad Gita term - and so again, with respect to our " Sages " (- I

presume you mean atmajnanis -) they do not represent " sattva " but a

transcendence of all three gunas.

 

Thank you for your incisive inquisitivess, which articulates

questions that I am sure many of the " silent " readers have but never

vocalize.

 

Humble pranams,

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

advaitin , Putran Maheshwar <putranm

wrote:

> A3: We find the maya-based existence to be composed

> of 3 gunas/qualities: sattwa (purity/consciousness),

> rajas (activity) and tamas (inertia). Thus Ishvara

> that/who brings forth this maya is recognized as the

> detached Being who wields Maya but is not bound to it.

> Ishvara is identified with/as 'pure sattwa'.

>  

> Our best understanding of the 3 gunas in a unified

> manner is found in ourselves, the jivas. And in

> Self-realized sages, we find the best representation

> of Sattwa. So our easiest model of Ishvara is as a

> super-jiva.

>  

> thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Dr. Shyamji :

 

It is interesting to see you mentioning the three Gunas Tamas, Rajas

and Sattwa are associated with the three corresponding deities

Rudra , Brahma and Vishnu!

 

Did you know , Dr.Shyamj, Ishwara's Divine Maya shakti or better

Still Sri Sri Laithambika is known by these three Names in Sri

Lalitha Sahasaranama ?

 

HER 104 th name is Rudra Granthi Vibhedini

 

Which Means She who breaks through the Knot of Rudra ( one of the

names of Shiva)

 

Her 10o th name is Brahma Granthi Vibedhini

 

hich means She who breaks through the knot of Brahma

 

Her 102nd name is Vishnu Granthi Vibedhini

 

which means She who breaks the knot of Vishnu

 

It is not for me to discuss the importance of these granthis and

their significance in Sri Chakra puja and Sri Vidya Upasana ! IT IS

HOWEVER IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT WHAT ADVAITINS CALL AS IAHWERA'S

MAYA SHAKTI IS NONE OTHER KUNDALINI DEVI who resides in the

muladhara chakra! Our beloved Adi shankara bhagvadapada has

discussed in great detail about Maa kundalini's in his classic poem

Saundaraya Lahari ! This is the 'bible' for all Sri Vidya upasakas!

this is not the place to discuss about aMBAAL and her Glory !

 

Devi is Maha vidya and Sri Vidya and also Atma Vidya ! It is by

her Grace alone one can pierce these knots associated with these

chakras , one can EXPERIENCE the Bliss of Brahman!

 

we have all heard the Role of Uma, the Goddess in Kena Upanishads

who showed the SPIRIT ( BRAHMAN) to Agni , Vayu and Indra!

 

It is worship of Shakti alone that leads to Mukti!

 

Aum Sri Laltha Parameshwarayai namaha ! She is also GUNATEETHA -

BEYOND ALL GUNAS! sARASWATI IS ASSOCIATED WITH sATTWA , lakshmi with

Rajas and Kali with Thamas! but sRI lalitha parameshweri is

Gunateetha!

 

" shyam_md " <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Pranams Putran-ji

> Very nicely summarized.

>

> My only thought is to not equate Ishwara with/as Sattva Guna.

> Ishwara is beyond Gunas - He is in control of all three of them -

in

> fact they are but manifestations of His intrinsic Maya shakti

alone.

> Traditionally Brahma is said to control Rajas, Rudra Tamas and

> Vishnu Sattva - and everything manifest is thus composed of some

> combination of all these three gunas.

> While sattva guna is certainly conducive to liberation,

realization

> results in a transcendence of gunas - a " gunateeta " to use a

> Bhagawad Gita term - and so again, with respect to our " Sages " (-

I

> presume you mean atmajnanis -) they do not represent " sattva " but

a

> transcendence of all three gunas.

>

> Thank you for your incisive inquisitivess, which articulates

>

[Guest guest]

--- shyam_md <shyam_md wrote:

> My only thought is to not equate Ishwara with/as

> Sattva Guna.

> Ishwara is beyond Gunas - He is in control of all

> three of them - in

> fact they are but manifestations of His intrinsic

> Maya shakti alone.

> Traditionally Brahma is said to control Rajas, Rudra

> Tamas and

> Vishnu Sattva - and everything manifest is thus

> composed of some

> combination of all these three gunas.

> While sattva guna is certainly conducive to

> liberation, realization

> results in a transcendence of gunas - a " gunateeta "

> to use a

> Bhagawad Gita term - and so again, with respect to

> our " Sages " (- I

> presume you mean atmajnanis -) they do not represent

> " sattva " but a

> transcendence of all three gunas.

>

 

 

Sri Shyamji, thanks for keeping track of what I said

and the corrections. Sri Vinayakaji stated: " mAyA on

account of its appearing association with perfection

(pure intelligence of brahman) has preponderance of

pure sattwa. " and I extended it (wrongly) to identify

Ishvara with  " pure sattwa " .

 

In another sense, this usage of the term representing

the best/perfected aspect in the dual context is found

for Brahman in other places as well. For example, I

read that in " Truth, Knowledge, Infinity " , Knowledge

is used even though Brahman is beyond the dual pair of

knowledge and ignorance, and so on.

 

Here is an example which I have not yet fully

resolved. When I say in the summary

(will:consciousness), the word consciousness is more

akin to consciousness in the manifesting sense, in

some sense the inherent basis of action. However the

Advaitin also refers to Brahman as " pure

consciousness " ( nirvikalpa chaitanya ?). Thus the

prefix of " pure " seems to take out the individuality

out of consciousness, and the phrase now denotes only

the nirguna substratum. If I am not mistaken, Sri

Ramanuja complains to this type of usage for

consciousness and insists (?) that consciousness

must imply an  " Individual " who is conscious. Similarly

I would guess he would be happy with the usage of

" pure sattwa " to denote Ishvara, where for him, the

qualification of Ishvara is affirmed; whereas the

usage of " pure " for an Advaitin could be similar to

usage in " pure consciousness " - a reference to the

state beyond the three gunas.

 

The " pure sattwa " usage for Ishvara may not be

standard and may mislead. However, are we ok in

referring to Brahman as " pure consciousness " ? Does not

the same type of complaint apply, for " consciousness "

seems to imply " awareness " and " awareness " seems to

imply " individuality " /duality. Or, does the Advaitin

admit that the term is used for conceptual help for

the sake of the conscious individual?

Thank you for any clarifications on this point.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____Ready for the edge of your seat?

Check out tonight's top picks on TV.

http://tv./

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " shyam_md " <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Pranams Putran-ji

> Very nicely summarized.

>

> My only thought is to not equate Ishwara with/as Sattva Guna.

> Ishwara is beyond Gunas - He is in control of all three of them -

in

> fact they are but manifestations of His intrinsic Maya shakti

alone.

 

Dear Shyam-ji,

 

I used to get same feeling durig the study of gita bhashya. But the

truoble is, mAyA itself is termed as triguNAtmika. Are you

suggesting here that mAyA which AchArya calls in the Gita

as " vishnoH shaktiH " is the power inturn projects/controls three

guNas? Do we have scriptural/bhAshya support for this? Ishwara

requires a upAdhi else there will be no difference between ishwara

and brahman.

 

If some senior members like Shri Shastriji and others could explain

the exact definiton of mAyA in this context and the difference

between mAyA and avidya it will be of great help. The trouble with

the usage of mAyA and avidya are due its usage as synonyms in

different places in the shruti. Shall we have take the meaning

according to the context in which it is used?

 

Dear Purtan-ji, thanks for reference. I have seen the book and will

read at some future point of time and it was recomonded by some

friends of mind. His and Swami nikhilAnandaji's books are excellent

ones for people with limited knowledge of sanskrit; since they were

specifically written keeping the western audience in mind.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

--- Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns wrote:

 

> Dear Shyam-ji,

>

> I used to get same feeling durig the study of gita

> bhashya. But the

> truoble is, mAyA itself is termed as triguNAtmika.

> Are you

> suggesting here that mAyA which AchArya calls in the

> Gita

> as " vishnoH shaktiH " is the power inturn

> projects/controls three

> guNas? Do we have scriptural/bhAshya support for

> this? Ishwara

> requires a upAdhi else there will be no difference

> between ishwara

> and brahman.

 

Sri Vinayakaji, true: before your post I would simply

identify maya with avidya; or the fact of experience

for the mind experiencing. To try and classify it

further is for our conceptual assessment of what we

experience.

 

This is also how I take the word atman; when we

suggest it as something distinct from body and mind,

it is for the purpose that the ignorant can " grab " the

reality of Brahman in/underlying their

experienced/imagined individuality. To say that

" atman " has the upadhi of maaya as individuality,

otherwise is same as Brahman, would be incorrect in

this respect, since it is only Brahman that due to

ignorance is presumed as mind-body individuality, and

from which context we refer to as Atman.

 

Similarly I take Ishvara as Brahman that due to

ignorance we see as virat/hiranyagarbha. etc etc. I

mention this parallel in the summary in the A4 answer

to question 2.

 

I also request that learned members inform whether

this interpretation of atman and Ishvara is correct.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

I should also mention that we may be finding that the

term Ishvara is used in more than one sense. You used

it with only causal bodies; Rishiji and others have

used with the sense of Totality including gross,

subtle and causal. There may be some flexibility in

the framework or typical usages. Maybe same with Maya;

hope others can clarify.

 

 

______________________________\

____

Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join 's user panel and

lay it on us. http://surveylink./gmrs/_panel_invite.asp?a=7

[Guest guest]

Similarly I take Ishvara as Brahman that due to ignorance we see as

virat/hiranyagarbha. etc etc. I mention this parallel in the summary in the

A4 answer to question 2.

 

praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

If you permit me to express my opinion on this, I would say you are right

in your observation. Yes, the non-dual brahman conditioned by name and

form set up by avidyA becomes Ishwara. This is just like universal ether

(mahAkAsha) has been limited by (as it were) jar space, pot space etc. And

this Ishwara in vyavahAra, rules over the souls conditioned by individual

consciousness (which is called jIva-s generally). So, it can be concluded,

according to shankara vEdAnta, the lordship of this Ishwara, his

omniscience (sarvajnatva) & omnipotence (sarvashaktitva) are ONLY relative

to the limitation caused by the conditioning of adjuncts of the nature of

avidyA. But in the Atman, from the absolute standpoint, there cannot be any

room to imagine the distinctions like the ruler in form of Ishwara & the

being ruled ( in the form of individual souls).

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

> thollmelukaalkizhu

>

>

> I should also mention that we may be finding that the

> term Ishvara is used in more than one sense. You used

> it with only causal bodies; Rishiji and others have

> used with the sense of Totality including gross,

> subtle and causal. There may be some flexibility in

> the framework or typical usages. Maybe same with Maya;

> hope others can clarify.

 

 

Dear Putran-ji,

 

I also meant in totality only. hiraNyagarbha includes virAt also and

ishwara as the cause of all should include gross, subtle and the

causal entities. Here hiraNyagarbha is superior to virAt and ishwara

is superior to both hiraNyagarbha and virAt hence includes both of

them by default.

 

But since individual cuasal body is made up of impure satwa we are not

omniscient;where as mAyA is equated with the shuddha sattwa pradhAna

so ishwara is omniscient. Equating ishwara with shuddha sattva is a

common practice in both advaitic literature and as well as AgamAs like

shaivism etc. But definitely he is not bound by it and is the ruler of

all the three guNas.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Sri Vinayaka :

 

Have You read Adi Shankara Bhagvadapada's MAyA Panchakam ? In verse

5 Adi shankara Bhagvadapada says . Alas! Maya, which is adept at

making the impossible happen, creates in Brahman which is

homogeneous, without any parts, distinctions such as Brahma, Vishnu

and Siva and thereby perplexes even the learned by making them look

upon Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva as different from one another. " ( this

version own own respected Shastriji's wonderful translation) ! Such

is Maya's Divine potency ! But the SAME ADI SHANKARA BHAGVADAPADA in

verse 24 of Saundarya lahari sees the Divine power of Maya in a

different light - As the Divine mother whose power is even more

superior to that of Sadashiva !

 

Please recall these words frrom Saundarya Lahari verse 24 ...

 

Brahma creates the world,

Vishnu looks after it,

Shiva destroys it,

Easwara makes them disappear,

And also disappears himself,

And Sadshiva blesses them all,

By your order given to him,

By a momentary move of your eyebrows!

 

Such is the INFINITE POWER OF DEVI'S EYEBROWS AT THE MERE MOVEMENT

OF WHICH EVEN SADASHIVA ACTS! Adi Shankara Bhagvada pada , a

paramajnani , is assigning even a higher place to 'Devi' than

Sadashiva ? For he did so knowingly as Sri Ramana bhagvan says! Devi

is 'Tattwamayi ' !

 

Vinayaka , why did a seasoned Sanyasin like Totapuri stay in

Dakshineshwar beyond six months ? No wandering monk stays in one

place for more than six months ! Why ? , a staunch advaitin, with

the help of his disciple learned to p appreciate the Divine form of

Mother Kali and stayed behibnd in Dakshineshwer to offer worship to

Maa Bhavatarini ! Maya shakti is not a 'malina' Tattwa - She is a

shuddha tattwa and even superior to Sadashiva Tattwa , if not

equal !

 

Regards

[Guest guest]

Putran-ji :

 

You state:

 

" Similarly I take Ishvara as Brahman that due to ignorance we see as

virat/hiranyagarbha. etc etc. "

 

If all is 'BRAHMAN' why cannot Ishwara be 'braHman' also ?

 

Putranji , there is something called 'adhikaratwam' or

qualifications to understand 'Brahman' ! When swamijis like Swami

Dayananda Saraswati from Arsha Vidya Gokulam recite the following

verse from drig-drishya vivekam

 

asti bhAti priyaM rUpaM nAma chetyaMshapaJNchakam.h |

AdyatrayaM brahmarUpaM jagadrUpaM tato dvayam.h

 

They fully unserstand the paramarthika satyam underlying the first

three 1) asti ( Existence) 2) Bhati( Consciousness) 3) Priyam-

bliss - and Such Renowned Gurus also know and realize the vyaharika

satyam of Name and Form that belong to the world / Ishwara !

 

Can a Crow learn to sing like a Cuckoo - as soon as a crow opens its

mouth, it reveals its true identity ! there is a beautiful

subhashita illustrating this : Kakhah krishna pikah krishna, ko

bheda pikaka kakayoho, Vasanta samaye prapte kakaha kakaha pikah

pikahah ! Both Crow and cuckoo are black in color but when spring

comes , Crow is crow and cuckoo is cuckoo ! The point that is being

made is not all of us can become Swamis - at best we can only be

disciples through which these swamijis speak ! Many of us want to

become a 'guru' too soon and that is the problem of a group like

this when there is a 'captive' audience of 1500 members! We have to

be disciple enough to let the Guru speak through us , would you not

agree ? and anandaji always humbly confesses he has an ego that he

needs to work with before even anyone can accept him as their guru -

if such a learned man like Sri anandaji himself feels that way ,

what about many of us who have such false egos?

 

The mundaka upanishad is a sanyasa upanishad and it should not even

be quoted someone who is not a sanyasi. ( one with a shaved head)

 

Putranj- pl read the Narayeniyam ! Even a VEDANTIN like Swami

Dyananda saraswati of Arsha vidya Gurukulam has endorsed this book

by calling it a g 'delightful' work of devotion. Ishwara is 'satyam

Anantham and jnanam ' and He is brahman TOO FOR people of tghis

world .

Sri Krishnaya Parabrahmane namaha!

[Guest guest]

--- dhyanasaraswati <dhyanasaraswati wrote:

 

> Putran-ji :

>

> You state:

>

> " Similarly I take Ishvara as Brahman that due to

> ignorance we see as

> virat/hiranyagarbha. etc etc. "

>

> If all is 'BRAHMAN' why cannot Ishwara be 'braHman'

> also ?

>

> Putranji , there is something called 'adhikaratwam'

> or

> qualifications to understand 'Brahman' !

 

Sri Dhyanasaraswathiji,

 

In one sense, the spirit of renunciation that

overwhelmed a Chaitanya or Sadasiva is not yet in me;

so practically I would guess " out of thousands perhaps

one " actually 'gets it'. In another sense, well, I

have the qualifications and am not looking for

approval nor complaining at disapproval; there it

begins for me: now the business for me is get to the

task.

 

> Many

> of us want to

> become a 'guru' too soon and that is the problem of

> a group like

> this when there is a 'captive' audience of 1500

> members! We have to

> be disciple enough to let the Guru speak through us

> , would you not

> agree ?

> The mundaka upanishad is a sanyasa upanishad and it

> should not even

> be quoted someone who is not a sanyasi. ( one with a

> shaved head)

>

 

If the ego goes up and down, so it does. I communicate

what I know and listen to others. Besides, the e-list

serves an intellectual purpose of learning the

philosophy. If someone thinks me their Guru, by all

means: you are as right as in believing Dayanandaji,

so long as my words look right or you want to keep

believing !! You know me no better :-)) [take lightly]

 

Anycase, I am going to go into silent mode for a

while. I want to work back to a management routine as

Sadaji adviced, hopefully sustained by the spiritual

objective. Thanks to all who answered the Ishvara

questions; this time a greater feeling of settlement

has come in.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Got a little couch potato?

Check out fun summer activities for kids.

http://search./search?fr=oni_on_mail & p=summer+activities+for+kids & cs=bz

[Guest guest]

Putranji writes :

 

(If someone thinks me their Guru, by all means: you are as right as

in believing Dayanandaji, so long as my words look right or you

want to keep believing !! You know me no better :-)) [take lightly]

 

Anycase, I am going to go into silent mode for a

while. I want to work back to a management routine as

Sadaji adviced, hopefully sustained by the spiritual

objective. Thanks to all who answered the Ishvara

questions; this time a greater feeling of settlement

has come in.)

 

Actually , believe it or not , my dear Putran-ji , i am taking you

very seriously - AS veda vaak ! i am also following your wonderful

example and Go into a 'silent' mode till the end of the year ! THIS

IS A VERY CHALLENGING TASK FOR ME but by ishwera kripa , this too

will happen! Dattatreya had 24 guru and for the time being i am

going to accept all the members here as MY GURU and i their humble

disciple!

 

Athato let the contemplation begin .....