Why krishna is not visible for us???

[Guest guest]

--- Lakshmi Muthuswamy <lakmuthu wrote:

 

 

> Adding a thought to this

> If I cannot hear Krishna's Manjula nAda in the

> melodies of Shri Hariprasad Chaurasia's bhasuri

> vAdan, where else can I hear Krishna's nAda? What

> more can I be blessed with in this janma if I am

> able to cognise this? How else can Krishna prove his

> presence, if I perceive Krishna to be other than

> myself and this jagat?

>

> om namo narayanaya

> lakshmi Muthuswamy

 

Lakshmiji - Welcome back to Advaitin list. With you

and Shree shastriji returning back and contributing to

the list, would definitely uplift the quality of the

discussions in the list.

 

PraNAms to both of you

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

--- bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> First I thought of writing my comments directly to

> list, then I thought, if

> our members again see my reply, they would think *

> this bhaskar is a madman

> * :-)) Hence directly writing to you. Hope, you

> would bear with my

> insanity prabhuji:-))

>

> Yes, it is an easy reply one can get from a seasoned

> philosopher like your

> goodself prabhuji..as I have already said earlier I

> am not new to this type

> of answers..I've heard answers like this umpteen

> times from various

> vEdAntins !!) ..but my question, I think, still not

> answered properly...If

> krishna is still maintaining the same name and form

> as he did in dvApara

> yuga...why can't we see him now, despite our sincere

> efforts??

 

Bhaskarji - Here is my understanding.

 

Krishna never said that I am going to maintain myself

in the same name and form. In fact as you know, the

teaching is completely the other way. What is

celebrated in the Krishna jayanti is His birth in the

form and name of Vaasudeva. If you want to see the

Lord in that form only, you can - that is what

upaasana involves- People claim that they have

saakshaat kaaram. But what do you gain in that vision

- the vision of the formless in the form that appeals

your heart - but if one has not understood that in

spite of the form that one could see, He is in reality

the formless since formless alone is infiniteness. In

what form I should look for the infiniteness - the

very search becomes a futile effort. This is the same

fundamental problem we have - we look for our own

forms - either physical or conceptualized - the truth

is we are formless which is infiniteness and therefore

not different from Krishna that I am longing to see.

Any longing to see Krishna has to transcend to the

understanding that Krishna is infinite and therefore

by definition has to be everywhere, everything and

beyond everywhere and everything.

 

 

why we

> should think he is substantive & hence we should

> look him in all?? my only

> worry is if all criminals at the time of dvApara

> could easily see him in

> his physical form, directly communicated with him

> without any problem, how

> come we are denied that opportunity??

 

Bhaskarji - You have conceptualized Krishna who cannot

be conceptualized. You have put Him in some bottle

and want him to see in that bottle. Please do not get

me wrong. I am not criticizing you or giving you a

sermon on the list. I want you to open your eyes and

see Krishna not in the bottle that you have locked Him

but in His true form, which is formless form that

pervades all forms. Arjuna was also seeing Krishna in

a bottle, but only in 11th chapter he had a different

vision of what that Krishna is or was or what is the

real form of Krishna. The purpose for which he took

the body of devaki nandana was over - that was time

and purpose bound. And he will be born again in a

form, if it is required to solve a problem - that is

his promise. But seeing in a form would not help since

form will come and go and even if it comes and goes,

you may not even recognize. Not many people in

dvapara yuga recognized Krishna - Even for Arjuna, he

had some idea, but until he saw his viswaruupa, he had

not firm understanding of the real nature of Krishna.

Forms come and go, but infiniteness cannot come and

go. It can express in all forms, but recognition of

that abiding existence-consciousness everywhere and in

every form requires a frame of mind that firmly abides

in that knowledge.

 

 

In simple

> terms, how *then* (at the

> time of dvApara) it was possible & why *now* (in

> kaliyuga) it is not

> possible?? has that dvApara's krishna, his physical

> stature, gone

> forever, is it only Atma tattva which is one & same

> in all of us (including

> dvApara's krishna) is what is existing??

 

Bhaskarji - is it not the statement of Krishna in the

4th chapter. I comedown to solve a problem at hand

and to establish dharma, whenever and wherever I need

to come? Of course He in the form of Krishna solved

the temporal problems at that time - the purpose for

which he came down, but left legacies that last for

ever - including the song celestial, Bhagavad-Gita.

That form that came form forms and has to go back into

the forms. But Krishna never said He is only that form

- even throughout the Giita teaching - starting from

'I was the one who taught vivaswaan, etc'.

>

> Sri Lakshmi mAtAji advised me to listen muraLi nAda

> of krishna in some

> mortal's (with all due respect to that great artist)

> performance....but why

> should I satisfy myself with some mortal's

> instrumental play?? why krishna

> in his dvApara yuga's name & form should not appear

> before me & play his

> flute??

 

Bhaskarji - there are two ways to solve the problem.

It is like a child crying for busted balloon, saying

that I want the same balloon that busted for my play.

- The mother can give the child another balloon and

saying that I can get you the same balloon, since it

is busted, but I can give you another of the same

type. Or teach the child that balloons are suppose to

bust one time or another and that is part of the play

and make the child understand. Otherwise leave the

child crying for some time until the child's attention

is drawn to the other forms or toys.

 

Now, you can do intense upaasana with full faith to

see the Lord in the form of Krishna and have His

darshana in the form you have imagined. But you alone

can see and hear since you alone did that upaasana.

Others may brand you as mad man or something has gone

wrong since they do not see that Krishna that you are

seeing. That is what many mahaatmas have clamed to

have seen Krishna and have played with him - some in

the form of baala Krishna and some in the form of

youth. Whatever form he appears, he disappears too

since that which has beginning has to have an end, as

you quoted. But with form you are happy and without

form you are unhappy - then where does that lead you.

You are depending on something other than yourself for

your happiness and that is bondage in Krishna's form.

Only when I recognize that He is formless form in all

forms - 'antar bahischa tat sarvam vyaapta naarayanas

sthitaH'- then only you will be at peace since he is

there with you all the time as not different from you.

 

 

 

>how come he could give the opportunity (at

> free of cost) of

> listening his flute to all cows, gOpikAstrees, gOpa

> bAlak-s, tree, plants,

> hills, rock etc. etc. in nandanavana & denied the

> same to us??

 

Baskarji - are assuming that you were not there at

that time. How can you tell? He has given that

oppertunity to you and you did not make use of it - if

I say, how can you deny my statement? How many lived

at that time and recognized that Krishna was the Lord

of the entire universe and came down to give darshan

to those longing souls. 18 battalions died in that

war, but how many recognized Krishna was the God? So

Bhaskarji - that kind of pursuit takes you no where.

Krishna is giving you opportunity to see Him right

now, while he is hiding in many forms and shapes - you

may not find Him, even if he shows up, since you have

bottled him in a particular form.

 

You have to open your eyes and see him his true

nature. There is no other solution. That is true

seeing Krishna not the conceptualized Krishna in the

bottled up form. Listen to Gopis stories - He hides

them more offen than shows up - since he wants them to

see him in their hearts that can never disappear.

 

There is a sloka to that form in Krishna leelaamRitam.

When Krishna gets out of the hug of a gopi by force,

she challenges him - 'Oh! Krishna do you really thing

strong since you killed Kamsa and defeated so many

rakshasaas. Let me see how storng you are - try to

get out my heart if you can! " - Of course Krishna

knows he cannot - since He is the very life for her.

 

 

when

> bhagavan himself appearing before us & is playing

> flute, can we compare

> that bliss with some mortal's recorded CD music

> prabhuji ??

 

Bhaskarji - If he plays the flute, can you listen?

Remember he plays the divine flute. You should have

ears to hear that flute. Laksmiji could listen to his

Flute. Do not say that is her imagination - no that

is her UNDERSTANDING.

 

I suggest to read - the small book - Gitanjali by

Tagore - it is an eye opener or should I also say ear

opener. Tagore could hear the music of the Lord and

pens that down that melody in his songs.

 

>> again, kindly pardon me prabhuji, I think, we are

> onceagain, beating the

> same old philosophical drum here. You know it is

> not that difficult to

> give clarifications to these questions from the

> vEdAntic non-dual

> perspective...

 

Bhaskarji - you are missing the essence - it is not

vedantic discussions or beating the same old drums. It

is unfortunate that discussions become mechanical - No

Bhaskarji - I mean every word of it - I mean to apply

every word of it in real life that we live. That is

what the vedantic teaching meant for, not for eloquent

discussions on paper of list.

 

See and feel that inner beauty of the nature that is

the eye of the eye. See Krishna expressing in the

beauty of every lily of the plant and ever rose - so

delicate so beautiful and so profound. That is the eye

of the eye - seeing the formless in the beautiful

forms - That power that makes those flowers so

beautifully in so many varieties of ways. See Krishna

right there - talk to Him Baskarji. Bhaskarji, I cry

out of happiness seeing these beautiful expressions of

Him every where. When I wrote - " where can I see not

Krishna or when can I see not Krishna " - it is not for

poetry - it is fact to be seen and intensely to be

fealt. When Lakshmiji wrote that she could hear

Krishna’s bells - it is not some imagination - it is

intense feeling of identity with the reality -without

Krishna no bell can ring and in every ring there are

the bells of Krishna.

 

No! Vedanta is not for just discussing some ideas or

concepts in the Upanishads - they are not concepts to

be conceptualized - but to be lived - to be understood

not as concepts but as facts - for making those

statements alive in the our day to day life. Then

only Vedanta that is learned will become life to be

lived. Otherwise they will remain as some ideas to be

contemplated on. Contemplation should lead to

understanding and that understanding has to transform

into ones life itself. Vedanta is not a philosophy for

discussion but life to be lived. Discussion should

lead to understanding not as thought but as a fact.

 

but just think, I am not a vEdAntin, I

> dont know anything

> about Atma tattva/vichAra, I dont know anything

> about *sarvavyApakatva of

> this tattva*, I dont know he is eye of eyes, nose of

> nose, mind of

> minds..etc.etc.., ...treat me as an ordinary human

> being who wanted to have

> the *physical presence of krishna & want to talk to

> him & if possible would

> like to ask him some questions :-))

 

Bhaskarji - the two are not different - To walk with

Krishna, to talk with Krishna and feel the physical

presence of Krishna involve clear understanding that

whom ever I walk with, I am walking with Krishna,

whomever I am talking with, I am talking with Krishna,

whatever I am seeing, interacting, I am seeing and

interacting with Krishna. One does not have to be

vedantin for that - One has to understand what Krishna

stands for and how really Krishna looks like or talks

like etc. Vedanta only provides you that

understanding. Do not get entangled in logical

hair-splitting arguments - but try to see that Krishna

that you are longing for who is hiding behind that

logic, just as plain, simple fact of life - as the

very core of existence- and pure but effulgent

presence -in whatever you see, in whatever you hear

and in whomever you walk, talk or transact with.

 

 

Like Sri

> Ramakrishna did to mAtA

> kAli....again, dont ask me to do sAdhana, tapasya,

> dhyAna, yOga & all

> those things...coz. without all these, people in

> dvApara yug could able to

> see him without any difficulty...I want that same

> accessability with him

> again today, dont say, for that you have to go back

> to dvApara..coz.

> krishna, is not limited & restricted himself only

> to that particular

> age!!!

 

Bhaskarji - do not imagine some thing as how others

have seen and miss Krishna that you are seeing. or try

to see where he is not, in somebody's visions. He is

right in front of you, why do you look for dvapara

Krishna - see kaliyuga krishna - just open your eyes

the way Shree Ramakrishna opened his eyes to see

maata. No body could see maata but he could see and

talk. People thought he was a madman. No he could

see and talk - So could you. Do not close your eyes

and say I cannot see Krishna - open them wide - see

him, hear him, talk to him, taste him and what else -

just indulge with him. This is not poetry - You should

have intense feeling that whatever you see is nothing

but Krishna whatever you hear is nothing but Krishna -

Because THAT IS THE FACT.

 

No Krishna, is not in dwapara - that is not what He

said. Dwapara Krishna will only be in dwapara. But

real Krishna is everywhere and all the time. You saw

him in Dwapara but might not have recognized him. But

do not miss him now, in intricate logical analysis of

Vedanta in trying to disprove that the arguments of

dvaitins or vishiShTaadvaitins are wrong. Once you are

convinced Lord is everywhere and everything is nothing

but Lord, make that conviction as a fact by

recognizing Krishna playing with you in the form of

dvaitins and vishiShTaadvaitins too.

 

Where is Krishna not there? and When is Krishna not

there?

 

 

> Hope, I am not wasting your precious time with my

> lunatic thoughts....

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

 

No Bhaskarji - it is for Krishna, by Krishna and to

Krishna.

 

I am taking the liberty to cc to Lakshmiji with

PraNams since she has direct contact with

LakshmiNarayana.

 

I hope you have fun with Him. If you feel posting this

to the list, be my guest.

 

Hari Om!

Sada

[Guest guest]

Sada-ji, I don't understand this part of your message. You mean Smt.

Lakshmi Muthuswami-ji is a devotee of Lakshminarayana or is there

more meaning to the statement than meets the eye? If the matter is

too personal for either Lakshmi-ji or you to clarify, please pardon

my curiosity of this Devi Bhakta.

 

PraNAms and best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> I am taking the liberty to cc to Lakshmiji with

> PraNams since she has direct contact with

> LakshmiNarayana.

>

> I hope you have fun with Him. If you feel posting this

> to the list, be my guest.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

> Bhaskarji - Here is my understanding.

>

> Krishna never said that I am going to maintain myself

> in the same name and form. In fact as you know, the

> teaching is completely the other way. What is

> celebrated in the Krishna jayanti is His birth in the

> form and name of Vaasudeva.

 

praNAms Bhaskar-ji,

 

Yes! Once someone asked Sri Ramakrishna that(I don't rember the

exact question but it was something like): Now there is so much

disturbance in the world and people don't have devotion because

there is no incarnation present on earth amongst us to guide. Then

Sri Ramakrishna asked him: How do you know that there is no

incarnation now? and went on smiling. The questioner was baffled.

 

As told by shAstriji how many of us can recognize a true avatAra?

People might have wept for the vision of rAmA when krishna was there

right before them *day and night* in dvApara, who knows? :-))

 

When jAmbavanta saw sri krishna did he recognize him as an

incarnation of nArAyaNa? None can have his vision/know about him

without his grace. Let us all pray for it.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

PraNams to all

 

First my apologies to Bhaskarji - the mail intended

only to Baskar and Lakshmiji. Inadvertently I

included response to a personal mail to the advaitin

list address. Actually I left to Baskarji's wish if he

wanted this to be posted to the group.

 

My apologies both to Bhaskarji and Lakshmiji and to

the group in general.

 

Now about your question - If you know I am

vaishnavate, the answer is very simple. Lakshmi is

also narayana Bhakta.

 

Lakhminaraayana are not two - that is advaita!

 

Through Lakshmi only I can see Narayana - and that is

vishishhTaadviata! What I have written is only seeing

that Lord Krishna through Lakshmi only (since I am

born vishishhTaadvaitin)- since whatever I see, hear,

touch etc are nothing but all Lakshmi in all her

glory. Sastriji and Prof. VK have explained this

beatifully that world is not different from the

Brahman.

 

No need to say more.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

wrote:

 

> Sada-ji, I don't understand this part of your

> message. You mean Smt.

> Lakshmi Muthuswami-ji is a devotee of

> Lakshminarayana or is there

> more meaning to the statement than meets the eye?

> If the matter is

> too personal for either Lakshmi-ji or you to

> clarify, please pardon

> my curiosity of this Devi Bhakta.

>

> PraNAms and best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ________________

>

> advaitin , kuntimaddi

> sadananda

> <kuntimaddisada wrote:

> >

> > I am taking the liberty to cc to Lakshmiji with

> > PraNams since she has direct contact with

> > LakshmiNarayana.

> >

> > I hope you have fun with Him. If you feel posting

> this

> > to the list, be my guest.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste all

 

This title is so tantalizing like Krishna Himself was to the Gopis.

So I am writing this post.

 

Two contexts come to my mind as soon as I read this title. One is

from Gita itself, from the sixth chapter:

 

yo mAm pashyati sarvatra sarvaM ca mayi pashyati /

tasyAhaM na praNashyAmi sa ca me na praNashyati // 6-30

 

He who sees Me everywhere and who sees everything in Me, for him I am

never lost nor is he lost for Me.

 

So Krishna is visible everywhere. We have to see Him in everything

and everywhere. All religions say God is everywhere. But it is only

advaita that says that there is nothing outside of God anywhere. 'God

is everywhere' is a universal statement. But 'God is the only thing

anywhere and everywhere' is the prerogative of advaita teaching. And

that is what this Gita shloka says from the mouth of the Divine. So

if Krishna is not visible to us, it means advaita has not sunk into

our mental system sufficiently deep.

 

The second context that comes to my mind is from the Valmiki

Ramayana, Ayodhya kANDa where the poet says:

 

yaSca rAmaM na pashyet tu yaM ca rAmo na pashyati/

nindataH sarva-lokeShu svAtmApyenaM vigarhate// 2-17-14

 

Among all people, the one who does not see Rama and whom Rama does

not see is the one to be blamed; he is detested by his own self.

 

This verse also carries the same tone and meaning as the shloka of

the Gita quoted above. In both the idea is clear. We are expected to

see the Supreme everywhere and everything in that Supreme; he who

does not do this is most detestable.

 

All that advaita teaches us is to bring this 'vision of the Supreme

everywhere and all the time' into our innermost character as a

natural trait.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

Respected members,

Krishna as a person, as an entity, is dead and gone. How can we

ever see a dead person? We can never see him.If by Krishna one means

Brahman/Atman , even then we cannot see HIM because He is the

ULTIMATE, INNERMOST SUBJECT who can never be seen as an object because

HE can never be objectified.

I feel that The inner and true meaning of the verse

" yo mAm pashyati sarvatra sarvaM ca mayi pashyati /

tasyAhaM na praNashyAmi sa ca me na praNashyati // 6-30

He who sees Me everywhere and who sees everything in Me, for him I am

never lost nor is he lost for Me. " is entirely different.

 

The literal meaning " So Krishna is visible everywhere. We have to see

Him in everything and everywhere. " may not be correct. We have to

take the lakshyartha and not the vachyartha. We have to SEE HIM WITHIN

US AS OUR OWN TRUE NATURE. This, I feel, is the lakshyartha. I draw

the kind attention of the members to the line of the manthra of

Kenopanishad " tadEva brahma tvam viddhi nEdam yadidamupAsatE " .

As students of Advaitha Vedanta we should have true devotion, not

superstituous blind devotion.

 

If the above writing, which is my understanding of the matter,

hurts the sentiments of the learned members, I beg them to pardon me.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " narayana145 " <narayana145

wrote:

>

> H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

> Pranams to all.

>

> Respected members,

> Krishna as a person, as an entity, is dead and gone. How can we

> ever see a dead person?

>

>

> As students of Advaitha Vedanta we should have true devotion, not

> superstituous blind devotion.

>

> Sreenivasa Murthy.

>

 

Namaste Murthy-Ji:

 

Thank you for bringing an important issue that not only affects

advatins but our country as a whole. Often one tends to interchange

Historic kR^iShNa with kR^iShNa as the God head, this results in

getting offended when such questions are posed.

 

IMO - Giitaa is an upaniShada as expressed by Sage Vyasa. Some of

the matters needs to be understood as a part of illustrations only.

Indeed faith is an critical element for a student for learning but as

an advatin, they need to remain objective at all times.

 

You also have correctly pointed out the significance of shrddhaa and

andha-shraddha (blind faith).

 

Recently, two goats were sacrificed to save a Jet in Nepal to satisfy

Hindu Gods. What a shame and another height of blind-faith.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6979292.stm

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

[Guest guest]

Shree Sreenivasa Murthy - PraNAms.

 

Sir, I would be careful in my statements. I would not

say I cannot see Krishna, with Upasana on that form.

Lord can take any form. If the Lord is Lord, I should

be able to see that Lord in any form that I invoke him

with full faith and devotion. Adviata is to see the

oneness in spite of the duality that appears in the

seer and seen. Advaita is not dismissal of the

duality but understanding of the oneness that

pervades the duality.

 

No. I would not call it as blind devotion - infact it

requires is supreme devotion and it is not

superstition either. But that devotion has to mature

enough to see the Lord not only in the form but that

pervades all the forms where the dovotee, devotion and

devoted are merge into one - That I think Sir, is

adviata, not dismissal of dvaita. Hence it was said,

non-duality in spite of duality is advaita.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

> advaitin , " narayana145 "

> <narayana145

> wrote:

> >

> > H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

> > Pranams to all.

> >

> > Respected members,

> > Krishna as a person, as an entity, is dead and

> gone. How can we

> > ever see a dead person?

> >

> >

> > As students of Advaitha Vedanta we should have

> true devotion, not

> > superstituous blind devotion.

> >

> > Sreenivasa Murthy.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " narayana145 " <narayana145 wrote:

 

> As students of Advaitha Vedanta we should have true devotion, not

> superstituous blind devotion.

 

 

Namaste Srinivasa-ji,

 

I remembered a dialogue which happed between a sadguru and a disciple.

I am reproducing the same which is as under:

 

Disciple attacked faith as a means to liberation. He spoke of " blind

faith " . The Master said, " what do you mean by 'blind faith'? Faith is

always blind. Has faith an 'eye'? Why say 'blind faith'? Either simply

say 'faith' or say 'Jnana' [knowledge]. What do you mean by

classifying faith--one kind having an eye, the other being blind? "

 

Just few thoughts....

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Hari Om. Pranams.

 

Faith is never blind. " Belief " is blind. Belief reinfornced with

knowledge(jnana) is Faith. Faith = Jnana !

 

May Bhagwan give us Faith and right understanding.

 

(I do not want to argue on this further.)

 

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote:

> faith " . The Master said, " what do you mean by 'blind faith'? Faith

is

> always blind. Has faith an 'eye'? Why say 'blind faith'? Either

simply

> say 'faith' or say 'Jnana' [knowledge]. What do you mean by

> classifying faith--one kind having an eye, the other being blind? "

>

> Just few thoughts....

>

> Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

>

> Br. Vinayaka.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste, all

Quite a lot of discussion has taken pace on the subject.

May I say

Krishna is visible only through GNANA CHAKSU i.e. through the eye of knowledge

He is visible everywhere, and he is not visible through our mortal physical eye.

Warm regards

 

 

R. S. Mani

 

 

 

Sick sense of humor? Visit TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on,

when.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Mani-Ji:

 

When one sees something then there has to be object and the

observer. Both theses entities are separate.

 

In advatic point of view, Object and Observer are one and the same.

Therefore our physical eyes cannot see kR^iShNaa.

 

Thus everyone is kR^iShNa, they just have not realized as yet.

 

I would like to say that I am just trying to look for me in myself.

 

Here, Yadunath trying to understand Yadunath, no pun intended,

 

Regards,

 

Yadunath

 

 

advaitin , " R.S.MANI " <r_s_mani wrote:

>

> Namaste, all

> Quite a lot of discussion has taken pace on the subject.

> May I say

> Krishna is visible only through GNANA CHAKSU i.e. through the eye

of knowledge He is visible everywhere, and he is not visible through

our mortal physical eye.

> Warm regards

>

>

> R. S. Mani

>

>

>

> Sick sense of humor? Visit TV's Comedy with an Edge to see

what's on, when.

>

>

[Guest guest]

I would agree with you R.S. Mani and say from experience that it is a

different level of seeing (although I didn't label the seen or seer

as Krishna).

 

And to Yadunath who is trying to look for himself in himself, I would

ask how many Selves are there?

 

Richard from Virginia

 

 

advaitin , " ymoharir " <ymoharir wrote:

>

> Namaste Mani-Ji:

>

> When one sees something then there has to be object and the

> observer. Both theses entities are separate.

>

> In advatic point of view, Object and Observer are one and the same.

> Therefore our physical eyes cannot see kR^iShNaa.

>

> Thus everyone is kR^iShNa, they just have not realized as yet.

>

> I would like to say that I am just trying to look for me in myself.

>

> Here, Yadunath trying to understand Yadunath, no pun intended,

>

> Regards,

>

> Yadunath

>

>

> advaitin , " R.S.MANI " <r_s_mani@> wrote:

> >

> > Namaste, all

> > Quite a lot of discussion has taken pace on the subject.

> > May I say

> > Krishna is visible only through GNANA CHAKSU i.e. through the

eye

> of knowledge He is visible everywhere, and he is not visible

through

> our mortal physical eye.

> > Warm regards

> >

> >

> > R. S. Mani

> >

> >

> >

> > Sick sense of humor? Visit TV's Comedy with an Edge to see

> what's on, when.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Richard " <richarkar wrote:

>

> I would agree with you R.S. Mani and say from experience that it is a

> different level of seeing (although I didn't label the seen or seer

> as Krishna).

>

> And to Yadunath who is trying to look for himself in himself, I would

> ask how many Selves are there?

>

> Richard from Virginia

 

Only Ten, Yadunath being the 11th the enjoyer as the adhiShTaataa

(puruShaa) of these TEN (FIVE karmedriya + FIVE j~naendriya).

Although, he (aatmaa) enjoys the body but he is separate as not being

attached.

 

atyatiShThatdashaa~Nagulam

 

Regards,

 

Yadunath

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " ymoharir " <ymoharir wrote:

>

> advaitin , " Richard " <richarkar@> wrote:

> >

> > I would agree with you R.S. Mani and say from experience that it

is a

> > different level of seeing (although I didn't label the seen or

seer

> > as Krishna).

> >

> > And to Yadunath who is trying to look for himself in himself, I

would

> > ask how many Selves are there?

> >

> > Richard from Virginia

>

> Only Ten, Yadunath being the 11th the enjoyer as the adhiShTaataa

> (puruShaa) of these TEN (FIVE karmedriya + FIVE j~naendriya).

> Although, he (aatmaa) enjoys the body but he is separate as not

being

> attached.

>

> atyatiShThatdashaa~Nagulam

>

> Regards,

>

> Yadunath

>

 

Thanks for the reply. It was beyond my knowledge. One thing though,

you say atma is separate from the body. Are you advocating a

dualistic belief here?

 

Best wishes,

Richard

[Guest guest]

Namaste Richard:

 

No this is not duality but recognition of separate entities. Atmaa

being eternal that is getting manifested through prakR^iti.

 

Here aatmaa is the enjoyer of that body. puri sheti iti puruShaH

 

eko devaH sarvabhuuteShu guDhaH | sarvavyapii sarvabhuutaantaraatmaa

||

karmaadhyaxaH sarvarbhuutaadhivaasa: | saaxii cetaa kevalo

nirguNashca || shvetaashvatara 6.11 ||

 

Hope this helps.

 

Regrads,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

advaitin , " Richard " <richarkar wrote:

>

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

> >

> > advaitin , " Richard " <richarkar@> wrote:

> > >

> > > I would agree with you R.S. Mani and say from experience that

it

> is a

> > > different level of seeing (although I didn't label the seen or

> seer

> > > as Krishna).

> > >

> > > And to Yadunath who is trying to look for himself in himself, I

> would

> > > ask how many Selves are there?

> > >

> > > Richard from Virginia

> >

> > Only Ten, Yadunath being the 11th the enjoyer as the

adhiShTaataa

> > (puruShaa) of these TEN (FIVE karmedriya + FIVE j~naendriya).

> > Although, he (aatmaa) enjoys the body but he is separate as not

> being

> > attached.

> >

> > atyatiShThatdashaa~Nagulam

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Yadunath

> >

>

> Thanks for the reply. It was beyond my knowledge. One thing though,

> you say atma is separate from the body. Are you advocating a

> dualistic belief here?

>

> Best wishes,

> Richard

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Prof VK ji,

 

 

 

 

> This title is so tantalizing like Krishna Himself was to the Gopis.

> So I am writing this post.

>

> Two contexts come to my mind as soon as I read this title. One is

> from Gita itself, from the sixth chapter:

>

> yo mAm pashyati sarvatra sarvaM ca mayi pashyati /

> tasyAhaM na praNashyAmi sa ca me na praNashyati // 6-30

>

> He who sees Me everywhere and who sees everything in Me, for him I

am

> never lost nor is he lost for Me.

>

> So Krishna is visible everywhere. We have to see Him in everything

> and everywhere. All religions say God is everywhere. But it is only

> advaita that says that there is nothing outside of God

anywhere. 'God

> is everywhere' is a universal statement. But 'God is the only thing

> anywhere and everywhere' is the prerogative of advaita teaching.

And

> that is what this Gita shloka says from the mouth of the Divine. So

> if Krishna is not visible to us, it means advaita has not sunk into

> our mental system sufficiently deep.

 

 

 

 

How can Advaita be true when Sri BhagavAn is saying :

 

" tasyAhaM na praNashyAmi sa ca me na praNashyati " ?

 

Here Bhagavan is establishing himself as " aham " / " me " and the jiva

as " tasya " / " sa " .

 

I humbly look forward to your explaination.

 

Namaste

Suresh S

[Guest guest]

Namaste dear Suresh-ji:

 

There are many verses in Gita that appears as " puzzles " to non-

believers. The verse that you have quoted (6-30) though appears as

contradictory, in reality, it is not so! In order to understand the

unity between the Divine (Bhagavan) and Human (Jiva), the very first

step suggested in Gita is mind purification (removal of delusions).

Also we do need to refresh our memory and recollect our understanding

of Sankara's Advaitic Vedanta terminology.

 

Though Bhagwan the Waker (awakened or Self-realized) and jiva the

dreamer appear as two, a moment of contemplation will help us to see

the UNITY. Only when the dreamer gets awakened he/she will be able to

recognize the non-duality between the waker and the dreamer. The

question that you have raised will also remain as a puzzle until you

get enlightened with that wisdom.

 

It is quite possible for me and other advaitins to add thousands of

words and quotations from the scriptures such as Gita and the

Upanishads but such efforts will not help a non-believer to accept

even well known facts. Honestly, the unity (non-duality) can never be

established nor be explained only by using words and logic. The way

that you have posed the question does establish that you are

knowledgeable and you should be able to find the answer that you are

looking for.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , " Suresh Srinivasamurthy "

<sureshsmr wrote:

>

> How can Advaita be true when Sri BhagavAn is saying :

>

> " tasyAhaM na praNashyAmi sa ca me na praNashyati " ?

>

> Here Bhagavan is establishing himself as " aham " / " me " and the jiva

> as " tasya " / " sa " .

>

> I humbly look forward to your explaination.

>

> Namaste

> Suresh S

[Guest guest]

Namaste Suresh-ji.

 

Your question addressed to Prof. V.K. Krishnamurthy-ji, if I

understood it right, can be easily answered through another question:

 

" How can the Professor ever answer you if he 'literally' practises

Advaita knowing fully well that he and you are advaitically one? "

 

Suresh-ji, we are all in this phenomenal of multiplicity using

language to express our thoughts, where we need genders, cases,

singular, plural, first person, second person, third person, tenses

etc. for effective articulation. Advaita also needs language in the

phenomenal. Vyasa, therefore, had to place words suggestive of

duality in the Lord's mouth to express an advaitic thought. What is

wrong with that?

 

Advaita is taught the world across by teachers to their disciples.

The classes themselves are a scene of duality while the subject

always relates to " One Without A Second " .

 

Advaita actually is Silence. That has to be understood and not too

literally taken.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin , " Suresh Srinivasamurthy "

<sureshsmr wrote:

 

> How can Advaita be true when Sri BhagavAn is saying :

>

> " tasyAhaM na praNashyAmi sa ca me na praNashyati " ?

>

> Here Bhagavan is establishing himself as " aham " / " me " and the jiva

> as " tasya " / " sa " .

>

> I humbly look forward to your explaination.