Guest guest Posted January 29, 2008 Report Share Posted January 29, 2008 I apologise for the late and lumped reply. I would like to thank both Sastriji and Sadanandaji for their wonderful replies to question, and Vinayakaji for bringing our attention to Sri Chandrasekhara Saraswati's discourse. As Sastriji pointed out, God confers liberation based on the acquisition of sAdhana-chatushtaya and AtmA-vichAra. This clearly means (as is well known) that we should seek sAdhana-chatuShTaya and be engaged in vichAra. In some traditional accounts, the acquisition of sAdhana-chatuShTaya and vichAra are said to be strictly successive (ie: first one gets sAdhana-chatuShTaya through karma and upasana and then one engages in vichAra). However, many of us are engaged in vichAra and attempting to get sAdhana-chatuShTaya at the same time. In a practical fashion, how are these two integrated? The pursuit of sAdhana chatuShTaya is based upon identification of oneself with the attributes of the mind whereas vichAra is based upon questioning that identification. Do we just " forget " about AtmA-anAtmA-viveka when praying, etc...? I do not mean this as a philosophic question concerning jnana-karma-samuccaya or something like that but just a question of how we should deal with this in our own practice. Regards, Rishi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 Dear Shri Rishi, It is not only for acquiring sAdhanachatushTaya that identification with the mind and body is necessary. During vichAra also there is the same identification. It is the mind, with the consciousness reflected in it, that looks upon the AtmA and the anAtmA as constituting one unit, or in other words, identifies the body with the self. It is the same mind that does the vichAra and it is in the same mind that the realization that the AtmA is different from the BMI arises. The AtmA itself has neither bondage nor liberation. So there is no question of forgetting AtmA-anAtmA-viveka. The mind of the ignorant man does not make a distinction between AtmA and anAtma. The same mind realizes this distinction as a result of vichAra. The person is then said to have become realized. This is clear from the following extract from Shri Shankara's bhAshya on gItA, 2.21:-- The Self, while remaining immutable, is imagined to be the knower of objects such as sound, which are actually perceived by the intellect and the organs of sense. This is because the Self is not distinguished from the mental states, due to nescience. Similarly, the Self is spoken of as having become enlightened only because of avidya associating it with that intellectual perception- which is also unreal- which takes the form of discrimination between the Self and the not-Self, while in reality the Self has undergone no change whatever. { That is to say, neither ignorance nor its opposite, enlightenment, pertains to the Self. Both relate only to the intellect {or mind} and are wrongly attributed to the Self, which, however, is ever free from avidya or ignorance.}. I hope this is clear. S.N.Sastri In advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane wrote: > > > As Sastriji pointed out, God confers liberation based on the > acquisition of sAdhana-chatushtaya and AtmA-vichAra. This clearly > means (as is well known) that we should seek sAdhana-chatuShTaya and > be engaged in vichAra. In some traditional accounts, the acquisition > of sAdhana-chatuShTaya and vichAra are said to be strictly successive > (ie: first one gets sAdhana-chatuShTaya through karma and upasana and > then one engages in vichAra). However, many of us are engaged in > vichAra and attempting to get sAdhana-chatuShTaya at the same time. > > In a practical fashion, how are these two integrated? The pursuit of > sAdhana chatuShTaya is based upon identification of oneself with the > attributes of the mind whereas vichAra is based upon questioning that > identification. Do we just " forget " about AtmA-anAtmA-viveka when > praying, etc...? I do not mean this as a philosophic question > concerning jnana-karma-samuccaya or something like that but just a > question of how we should deal with this in our own practice. > > Regards, > > Rishi. > 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.