Liberation through God's grace (reply to Sastriji, Sadanandaji and Vinayakaji)

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

>