brahman and Ishvara

April 18, 2008

Dear Durga-ji and Shyam-ji,

(I have started a new thread here because my post is triggered by two

separate threads and effectively starts a new topic.)

In the 'Free Will ' thread (to which I am no longer contributing!), Durga

says:

<<My first guru, Neem Karoli Baba, was famously quoted

as saying, " I do nothing. God does everything. "

Until recently I had thought how humble and self-effacing

this statement was. Now I realize that what he was saying

was literally true, meaning, " I (brahman) do nothing.

God (Ishwara) does everything. " IMO this is a perfect

statement.>>

and:

<< Once the mind realizes 'I' am brahman, unchanging,

and the body/mind belong to Ishwara, then who

is acting?>>

I find these statements a bit confusing and wonder if you are effectively

mixing paramArtha and vyavahAra. I would have said that Neem Karoli Baba

meant by his statement that I, the jIva, do nothing while God, Ishvara, does

everything. Surely, once I realize that 'I am brahman', I realize that there

is no jIva and I also realize that there is no Ishvara either. If I know

that everything is brahman, I must also know that there is nothing other

than brahman. I know that the apparent manifestation is only movement of

name and form; no one is doing anything at all.

To my mind, one can only talk about Ishvara *actually* doing things in the

same context as jIva, from an unrealized state of mind. Subsequent to

realization, there is only the *appearance* of action.

I may be being pedantic here (as I often seem to be!) but it seems that this

may also be the point of conflict between Bhaskar-ji and Shyam-ji in the

latest post on that thread. Shyam says:

<< Who are " you " to dismiss Ishwara as unreal?

Are you real or unreal?

If you say I am real then let me ask you if it is the real you the

Atman that is dismissing Ishwara? Can the Atman do any dismissing?

If you say I am unreal then how can a unreal you dismiss anything let

alone Ishwara?

If you say " I alone am " then Lord Narayana has allowed you to realize

your oneness with Him!

Ishwara is (at least) as Real as you are prabhu-ji. :-)

The only thing that is shaken off in advaita (there is only ONE kind

no question of shuddha and ashuddha at least in advaita!) Prabhu-ji is

the ego's notional separation from Ishwara.>>

Of course, the jIva cannot dismiss Ishvara as unreal because both are

equally real from the vyAvahArika standpoint of the unenlightened. But

surely, once there is enlightenment, it is known that both are equally

*unreal*. It is not a case of 'dismissal'. Once non-duality is realized,

there can be no further duality in reality. Of course, the appearance

continues and we may (must?) continue to speak of Ishvara and the world but

this does not alter what we now know to be the truth.

Best wishes,

Dennis

April 21, 2008

-- In advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Durga-ji and Shyam-ji,

>

> (I have started a new thread here because my post is triggered by two

> separate threads and effectively starts a new topic.)

>

> In the 'Free Will ' thread (to which I am no longer contributing!),

Durga

> says:

>

> <<My first guru, Neem Karoli Baba, was famously quoted

> as saying, " I do nothing. God does everything. "

>

> Until recently I had thought how humble and self-effacing

> this statement was. Now I realize that what he was saying

> was literally true, meaning, " I (brahman) do nothing.

> God (Ishwara) does everything. " IMO this is a perfect

> statement.>>

>

> and:

>

> << Once the mind realizes 'I' am brahman, unchanging,

> and the body/mind belong to Ishwara, then who

> is acting?>>

>

> I find these statements a bit confusing and wonder if you are

effectively

> mixing paramArtha and vyavahAra. I would have said that Neem Karoli Baba

> meant by his statement that I, the jIva, do nothing while God,

Ishvara, does

> everything. Surely, once I realize that 'I am brahman', I realize

that there

> is no jIva and I also realize that there is no Ishvara either. If I know

> that everything is brahman, I must also know that there is nothing other

> than brahman. I know that the apparent manifestation is only movement of

> name and form; no one is doing anything at all.

>

> To my mind, one can only talk about Ishvara *actually* doing things

in the

> same context as jIva, from an unrealized state of mind. Subsequent to

> realization, there is only the *appearance* of action.

>

> Of course, the jIva cannot dismiss Ishvara as unreal because both are

> equally real from the vyAvahArika standpoint of the unenlightened. But

> surely, once there is enlightenment, it is known that both are equally

> *unreal*. It is not a case of 'dismissal'. Once non-duality is realized,

> there can be no further duality in reality. Of course, the appearance

> continues and we may (must?) continue to speak of Ishvara and the

world but

> this does not alter what we now know to be the truth.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

Namaste Dennisji,

I've written two replies to your post. The one

below includes some quotes and some other things

which I've heard and read. The second post was

written after speaking with my teacher about all

of this, who advised me to just write what I felt.

So here is post #1, written prior to speaking to

my teacher.

First of all, the two people whom I trust most

in the world, Swami Dayananda and my teacher,

his disciple, who are both mature jnanis, who do not

speak from the standpoint of the 'unenlightened,'

or from 'an unrealized state of mind' (both terms you

used above), continually speak of the importance

of understanding Ishwara.

I do not feel that they are doing this as some sort

of preliminary teaching which will then later be

withdrawn. My teacher once said, " Swamiji gives

you the whole truth. He doesn't hold anything back. "

Both Swamiji and my teacher have said that the

'equation (the aikyam) is between the jiva and Ishwara.'

My teacher translates 'Tat Tvam Assi' as

'You are the Whole,' or 'You are Ishwara.'

When my teacher asked Swamiji in an interview:

" What about Ishwara, Swamiji? A lot of westerners

want to escape Ishwara? "

Swamiji replied: " Without Ishwara there is no equation. "

I think that sometimes people like to 'go around,' dismiss,

avoid talking about, considering, or trying to understand

Ishwara, because it makes them uncomfortable, perhaps

because of some 'God' concepts they were exposed to

early in life, and have now dismissed as illogical

and therefore untrue.

For myself, I no longer find that I am uncomfortable

in the understanding of Ishwara, because that

understanding is totally different from any illogical

or ill-informed God concept I was exposed to in my

youth. I feel that understanding Ishwara provides

a locus of integration for the whole teaching.

I also think it's important to understand that the

world is not 'unreal' as I infer you are saying

above. What is unreal is that which doesn't

exist, such as the horn of a rabbit.

What is real is that which is satyam, brahman.

What is neither real nor unreal, not available

for categorization, but available for experience,

is the creation.

So according to the above definitions, we cannot

apply the word 'unreal' to the creation. Even the

word 'apparent' is a word which Swami Dayananda

says he doesn't like, and he doesn't it use any more.

I think until one really has jnana nishta one cannot totally

comprehend what mithya is, and after that it's a marvel.

You said in your post: " If I know that everything is

brahman, I must also know that there is nothing other

than brahman. I know that the apparent manifestation

is only movement of name and form; no one is doing

anything at all. "

Well, what power is moving those names and forms?

Does that movement have an order? Are there observable

laws in operation or not? Can we provide a name for

that order, that movement, and perhaps call it, 'Ishwara?'

And, if everything is brahman, which cannot be seen as an

object, why do these names and forms appear at all?

Do we have a way to account for any of it?

Here are a few quotes and a few more things to add.

There is a famous story, the details of which can be

found in the 'Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna.' It is

the story of the sage, Totapuri, who felt the creation

was unreal and that all that existed was the nondual.

He had terrible pains in his stomach, and decided to drown

himself in the Ganga. But he found that the farther he

proceeded into the river, the more the water receded.

He eventually found that he had walked to the other

side of the river.

Finally he gave up trying to drown himself and gained

some respect of the power of Maya. (Anyone wanting to read

this story in its entirety can look it up in the Gospel.)

Quote from the 'Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna'

given after the telling of Totapuri's story:

" When I think of the Supreme being as inactive—neither

creating nor preserving, nor destroying—I call Him

Brahman or Purusha, the Impersonal God. When I think of

Him as active—creating, preserving, and destroying—,

I call Him Sakti or Maya or Prakriti the Personal God.

But the distinction between them does not mean a difference.

The Personal and the Impersonal are the same thing, like

milk and its whiteness, the diamond and its luster,

the snake and its wriggling motion. It is impossible

to conceive of the one without the other. The Divine

Mother and Brahman are one. "

Here are some words of Swami Dayananda's on the

subject of the creation:

Swamiji: In the Taitriya, we have this statement:

" That from this self-existent consciousness, not

limited by time or space, which was the only thing

that was there before this jagat, this nama/rupa,

from this alone everything has come.

[Then Swamiji chants the verse in Sanskrit]

Space, time, air, fire, water, earth, that's the Vedic

model of the universe. All these came from that

satyam/jnanam/anantam, self-existent, self-revealing,

not limited by time/space, not being any one object,

anantam, limitless. So from self-revealing,

self-existing consciousness, limitless, for which

all these nama/rupas are attributes.

These attributes, nama/rupas, they have a certain status,

in terms of reality. They are not illusion, much less

they are non-existent. They have their own status. "

Then later in same talk Swamiji says:

" These, all the names, mean only certain forms. We

are not dismissing [them] as non-existent. We are not

dismissing [them] as delusion also. We are not dismissing

[them] as illusion also. Understand this, no delusion,

no illusion, no non-existence, nor are they self-existing.

They enjoy a status of no non-being, no self-existent being.

What is the status?

Why do you want a status? Human intellect has this

problem of categorical grasping. We like categories,

so that is the mediocrity of our mind. Is it real or unreal?

Satyam, self-existent, or tuccham, non-existent?

The whole life is lived in between. All that you have

is form, sometimes it has a function too. Every function

can be reduced to different forms, nama/rupas. And therefore,

'sat asat bhyam anirvacaniyam.' It is neither satyam or asatyam,

anirvacaniyam.

Nirvacaniyam means that which is subject to categorical

bracketing. So that which can be categorically bracketed.

Anirvacaniyam means that which cannot be categorically

bracketed. Then they say 'inexplicable.' So why are you

opening your mouth?

That which is not categorically bracketed. That is your shirt.

That is your house. That is the universe. That is your body.

That is the particle behavior too. "

[End quote]

In February I had the great good fortune to personally

ask Swamiji a question which had been puzzling me for a

long time. " Swamiji, I don't understand what is meant

when it is said that the jnani becomes Ishwara after death. "

Swamiji replied, " You are Ishwara right now, but you

don't know it due to the limitation of the upadhi.

There is nothing other than Ishwara. "

At this time I was attending some talks which Swamiji

was giving in Australia. One evening a musician came

and played some compositions of Swamiji's. While I don't

understand Sanskrit, there was one bhajan to Mother Meenakshi

which was so beautiful that the memory of it seemed to

stay with me.

As we were sitting in the airport with Swamiji before

he departed, I said to him, " Swamiji, that Meenakshi

bhajan was really lovely. "

Swamiji just sat there in silence for awhile, then he

started to quietly hum, then he began to sing the bhajan,

and then he graciously translated the words into English.

Although I cannot remember all of the beautiful words which

he said, (and how I wish I could!) I do remember this one thing.

" That very mithya maya, which is the cause of self-ignorance,

conveys self-knowledge in the form of a vritti. "

Because I trust the words of my teachers, I accept

that the Mahavakya 'Tat Tvam Assi,' means 'You are the whole,

You are Ishwara,' and that directly seeing the truth of

those words, constitutes the complete gain of self-knowledge.

Perhaps until one has jnana nishta, one may not be able

to see how 'it all really is.' After gaining jnana nishta,

perhaps only some few can help another to see the same thing.

But I do feel that we need to look into the subject of

Ishwara, and listen with sraddha to the words of teacher

when Ishwara is explained and spoken of, and not just

dismiss the understanding of Ishwara, as some sort of

'preliminary teaching' because it isn't. In fact, if we

want to categorize it that way, I'd say it was an advanced

teaching. And if we dismiss it, I don't think we've grasped

the teaching of Vedanta at all.

For myself, I feel amazingly lucky to have encountered,

not only one, but two who seem to really know and

understand the totality of which they speak, and

through proper listening to whose words the student can gain

'the total vision' of Vedanta, which is 'You are Ishwara.'

Both of these teachers speak of the importance of integrating

the understanding Ishwara into knowledge, so that the mind

becomes mature and gains nishta in jnanam.

Perhaps this is because in the creation, although we

can know that every object is an attribute of brahman,

an attribute which does not change brahman in any way,

our minds need to mature in the light of that knowledge.

And perhaps there still may be 'things' in our minds, or

in the creation, which trip us up and confuse us. So we

need to understand the total, and not just say " Oh,

that isn't real. " But rather say, " Oh this is Ishwara, "

and offer Him our pranams.

Pranams,

Durga

April 21, 2008

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Durga-ji and Shyam-ji,

> In the 'Free Will ' thread (to which I am no longer contributing!),

Durga

> says:

> <<My first guru, Neem Karoli Baba, was famously quoted

> as saying, " I do nothing. God does everything. "

>

> Until recently I had thought how humble and self-effacing

> this statement was. Now I realize that what he was saying

> was literally true, meaning, " I (brahman) do nothing.

> God (Ishwara) does everything. " IMO this is a perfect

> statement.>>

>

> I find these statements a bit confusing and wonder if you are

effectively

> mixing paramArtha and vyavahAra. I would have said that Neem Karoli Baba

> meant by his statement that I, the jIva, do nothing while God,

Ishvara, does

> everything.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

Here is post #2.

Dear Dennis,

First of all, last night I mentioned the

Neem Karoli Baba quote to my teacher, along with

my interpretation of it. The response that I received

from my teacher was that my interpretation of that quote

was indeed correct. I told my teacher that I was having

some trouble responding to what you had said, and was

advised to just write what I felt. So here goes.

It seems very evident to me that the mind can know and

recognize that 'I' do nothing. I am that very self which

doesn't change, doesn't modify, doesn't do, just is,

self-evidently so. I am the locus of all happiness which

the mind enjoys. I am the most beloved. There is nothing

dearer to the mind than this unchanging 'me,' which I am.

And despite all its angst to the contrary, oh mind,

you are never ever at any time apart from 'me.'

Well, what about everything else? If we are speaking from

the POV of paramarthika satyam, then we can say, 'there is no

creation.' But actually, I don't think it is quite possible

to speak from the POV of paramarthika satyam, because in

paramarthika satyam there is no creation, and paramarthika

satyam can't speak, any more than the self, which the mind has

recognized my self to be, can speak. That self and paramarthika

satyam are the same.

I also do not think that we can say 'there is no creation.'

It seems pretty evident that there is one here to be

experienced. So let's try and analyze it.

If we try and do that analysis by taking one object,

we will quickly notice that we can take an object apart,

divide it up into smaller and smaller parts, and what

we once called by a name is now seen to be a collection of

other things with different names. Where, oh, where

does it stop? And does it?

Perhaps we might also be able to see that the one 'thing'

that all of these differing objects seem to have in common

is being. Hmmmmm. One might ask the question, is there

anything else which the mind has recognized to have being?

Yes, the self-evident being which I am. Okay, being seems

to be something which these changing objects and the

unchanging 'me' share.

Is there more than one being? Well, if there is I can't

seem to find it, because the more I analyze the objects,

the less I find any single object. One object seems to be

made of many objects. I cannot find an object which is

constant, while all the while, what the objects and I have

in common, the one constant 'thing,' is being.

Just from a logical POV, one might then draw the conclusion

from this exercise that there is only being here. And since

the mind has recognized 'me,' (my self) as self-evident

being itself, one might surmise that the being of the

objects and my own being are the same.

However, although the objects and I both share being,

there does seem to be a difference, between the objects

and me, because the objects change and I don't. How can

that be accounted for if the objects and I have the same

being, which has been seen directly by the mind to be the

locus of my self and unchanging? Do the teachings of Vedanta

account for that? They do!

What the teachings say is these objects, in fact the

whole creation, are 'sat asat bhyam anirvacaniyam.'

Well, " Thanks a lot, " one might say, " translation please. "

They are neither real from the paramarthika standpoint

of reality because they change, nor are they unreal

because they exist. They are not available for

categorization in that way.

" Thanks a lot, " one might say again, " meaning please. "

How can my being, which has been recognized as unchanging,

be the same being of all of these objects which do change?

Well, we have seen that the one constant in all of this,

despite change, is being.

Vedanta tells us that the only 'thing' which exists

absolutely is my being. The only thing which can be

called 'paramarthika satyam' is my being.

The teachings further inform us that the universe

manifests from my being through a power of my being

called 'maya shakti.'

So, where did the universe come from? My being,

because there is nothing else. What is the universe

made of? My being, because there is nothing else.

Is the universe intelligent? It appears to have intelligence

in that it seems to display a perfect order. Where did

that perfect order come from? It came from my being because

there is nothing else.

Did the universe exist before it came to be manifest?

It existed in my being as 'pure knowledge,' pure intelligence,

like the 'knowledge' of a tree exists in a seed.

What caused the universe to manifest? A power of my being

(the paramarthika), which power is called 'maya shakti.'

Where does that power come from? My being, because there

is nothing else.

What can we call this manifestation that comes from my being,

is sustained by my being, which has my being for its material,

and for its cause, which manifests in the form of an order

so perfect, that intelligence can be seen to operate in the

smallest particle? Perhaps we can call it Ishwara.

Is the manifestation of the universe non-existent?

How can that be so when it enjoys my being.

Is it paramarthika satyam? No, because it changes.

So what is it? It is neither totally real, nor is it

totally unreal (non-existent). It is not available to

be categorized in that way, as either totally real or

totally unreal. Does that make for two, dvaita? No,

because all that is here is my being.

From the POV of the mind, my being can be recognized

as unchanging, and the changing universe can be recognized

as my being. To understand this is to understand

'Tat Tvam Assi. You are Ishwara. You are the whole.'

But because it changes, the universe cannot be

categorized as paramarthika satyam, nor can it be

called non-existent. It is here to be experienced.

It isn't unreal, nor is it paramarthika.

It is my being which manifests as Ishwara, perfect order.

A perfect order which governs the whole, and with which the

individual mind can come into relationship.

This is the paradox, and this is the wonder, which cannot

be categorically understood or dismissed. And it is this

wonder, (that Ishwara), which I believe, Sri Shankaracharya

wrote hymns in praise of at the end of his life. Now, tell me,

was he a beginner?

Pranams,

Durga

April 22, 2008

Pranams Dennis-ji

Thank you for your observations.

Let me try to clarify with an example.

I happen to accidentally some dhatura seeds. Very

shortly I find myself in a strange forest. There are

fires burning all around. Hundreds of goblins are

shrieking and I am filled with terror. I meet a

passerby who I find to be not as terrified. He tells

me to mutter " RaRa " continuously and that this would

protect me from these goblins. When asked about " RaRa "

he tells me that RaRa is the God of this world and if

I chant his name I will be saved. I proceed to do the

same and this seems to alleviate my anxiety

temporarily, and seems to give me some solace.

Shortly therafter, I find myself lying on my couch in

my home, smiling sheepishly at my hallucination,

finding it sublated by my appreciation of reality.

Now in that hallucination, the entire forest was

unreal, as were the goblins, as was the Lord RaRa.

The whole package was nothing but I alone projecting a

completely unreal world

This is how a lot of neo-vedantins and some so-called

traditional vedantins also view Ishwara.

That this is a fictitious character who is relevant

only as long as my duality delusion lasts, and upon

the end of the delusion i come this realization, and

find my " self " .

The trouble with this sort of a approach is based on

the mistaken idea that this world is a illusion and

that enlightenment results in a grand sublative

disappearance of the illusory world.

This is neither true nor what vedantA conveys.

Let us examine this a bit further.

Thuis jagat that we cognize is not my mental

projection but Ishwara srshti. If it was my mental

projection it would be a dream or worse a

hallucination - and would disappear in a poof with

self-realization - what would be left would be

nothingness - now misguided interpreters of ajAtivAdA

will say - this is precisely what GaudapAda talks

about - that nothing IS, and again i am afraid this is

incorrect.

If this were correct, there would be no realized souls

amidst us, let alone would they have any ignorant

people to teach and guide.

The truth is that the world remains the same

regardless of whether a person attains

self-realization. The sun still rises in the east and

sets in the west, the starts still twinkle in the

moonlit skies. Then what?

The realization is this and this only, that there is

no separate subtantive thing called world. Everything

is the Self alone, everything is Ishwara alone, and

everything is I alone. That Ishwara i am - tat tvam

asi.

It is infinity alone that I as a conscious entity

cognize and categorize, assign names and forms, and

interact with. All these names and forms are in

essence I, or Ishwara. What about now? Now also it is

the same but because " i " the notional ahankAra am at

this point viewing this Infinity through the prism of

my own beginigless ignorance, i suffer from a sense of

separation from the Infinite, the Whole.

It is this notion alone that is discarded in the

process of self-enquiry or vichArA. When I come to the

realization that my true nature is of Knowing alone,

that in and through every cognition, the known, the

knowing and the knower are all Me alone, the very

consciousness principle, that, wonder of wonders, I

the true subject, the Saakshi, alone am the Support of

all there Is, that the Divinity that is immanent in

and through all of manifest Nature is really my only

true nature, then in that simple choiceless Awareness

alone is Divinity and abidance in that Divinity alone

in which my sense of limitation has permanently died

is Being.

The culmination of vichArA can only result in an

absorption into the Total - and the Total is IshwarA!

Who got sublated? me, the phantom.

What remains? Truth, God, Consciousness.

When One realizes the truth about Himself he cannot

but discover it to be the Truth of the whole Jagat.

Then He is Divine - everything He as though cognizes

is nothing but the Divine. In the words of the Gita -

" Yo mam pashyati sarvatra sarvatra sarvam cha mayi

pashyati;

TasyAham na pranashyAmi sa cha me na pranashyati. "

" One who sees Me in everything, and sees all things in

Me-I do not lose out of his vision, and he also is not

lost to My vision. "

and further

" Samam pashyan hi sarvatra samavasthitam Ishwaram;

Na hinasty Atmana AtmAnam tato yAti parAm gatim. " Since

by seeing equally God who is present alike everywhere

he does not injure the Self by the Self, therefore he

attains the supreme Goal.

And notice the similar lines in the Kaivalya Up.

" Sarva bhutastham AtmAnam sarva bhutAni ca Atmani

Sampasyan brahma paramam yanti, na anyena hetunA. "

Seeing the Atman in all beings, and all beings in the

Atman, one attains the highest Brahman – not by any

other means.

It is only the ignorant who look at self-realization

and god-realization as two different entities - who

look at atma-vichAra as being superior and bhakti as

being inferior. In the words of Shankaracharya

" mokSha-kAraNa-sAmagryAM bhaktireva garIyasI* " - Among

the instruments of moksha, bhakti is the most

important.

That is because what one seeks, what one is devoted

to, what one yearns for is one and the same thing -

the Infinite within, or the Infinite without - isnt it

obvious then that the one that seeks the without or

the within is the phantom - what is true is only the

Infinite!

If I say I found God but could not lose my identity,

my notion of separation from Him who is the All, in

that realization, then my devotion my bhakti is

incomplete. In this way Jnana completes devotion. If I

say I have found myself, but find it empty, bereft of

Divinity, of all-encompassing Love, then my

self-discovery is incomplete as well, and in this way

devotion alone will culminate in a true understanding

of advaita.

This is precisly what is meant when Neem Karoli Baba

said " I do nothing, God does everything " - there is no

mixing up of levels here at all!

What is the one thing that every realized Master has

discovered is, sublimate the Ego, and what remains is

only Truth, and that Truth is God. " I am the way and

the truth and the life "

And it is for the direct appreciation of this eternal

transcendental Truth that Vedanta provides an

intellectual framework.

It is precisely for this reason that a parAbhaktA and

a JnAni are one and the same - one cant be a

parAbhaktA without dying onto oneself. When as JnAni

one has died to onself what remains is an appreciation

of one's own inherent intrinsic Divinity.

That is why the spontaneous bhakti of a Jnani has no

comparison. If you see the numerous stotras that Adi

Shankara and many many other realized Masters have

composed, this fact becomes very clear. These were

certainly not outpourings of devotion to a fictitious

character named Ishwara meant for equally fictitious

beginners in the unreal field of self-knowledge to

serve as illusory tools to help train their

undeveloped minds by making them focus on a unreal

God. These represent spontaneous outpourings of a

realized intellect, that revels in its intrinsic

Divinity - " Shivoham Shivoham "

If one has ever had the fortune of witnessing a

jivanmukta in bhakti " bhAva " - be it Ramakrishna

Paramahamsa, or Ramana Maharshi or the Sage of Kanchi,

one will be able to relate to this simple fact - this

is a devotion that is spontaneously expressed from the

wellspring of Pure Being - and is nothing but

All-encompassing Love.

Ishwara is the totality, he is BOTH immanent and

transcendent. From the standpoint of the ego he is

Personal. From an absolute, He is Impersonal. Either

way He Alone is.

What then is jnAna?

When in Awareness

one " dis " -cover's oneSelf,

then there is neither acceptance of Ishwara

nor

rejection of Ishwara,

but

a simple, choiceless recognition of Ishwara

as one's own " Be " ing.

Humble pranams

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

> Dear Durga-ji and Shyam-ji,

> <<My first guru, Neem Karoli Baba, was famously

> quoted

> as saying, " I do nothing. God does everything. "

>

> Until recently I had thought how humble and

> self-effacing

> this statement was. Now I realize that what he was

> saying

> was literally true, meaning, " I (brahman) do

> nothing.

> God (Ishwara) does everything. " IMO this is a

> perfect

> statement.>>

> I find these statements a bit confusing and wonder

> if you are effectively

> mixing paramArtha and vyavahAra.

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

______________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

April 22, 2008

Namaste,

I feel this is a very interesting topic, I felt like posting Swami Vivekananda's

take on this very subject, as, like almost everything else related to Vedanta,

my little understanding about this comes from his teachings.

http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_5/vol_5_frame.htm

" Ishwara is the sum total of individuals; yet He Himself also is an individual

in the same way as the human body is a unit, of which each cell is an

individual. Samashti or the Collective is God. Vyashti or the component is the

soul of Jiva. The existence of Ishwara, therefore, depends on that of Jiva, as

the body on the cell, and vice versa. Jiva, and Ishwara are co-existent beings.

As long as the one exists, the other also must. Again, since in all the higher

spheres, except on our earth, the amount of good is vastly in excess of the

amount of bad, the sum total or Ishwara may be said to be All-good, Almighty,

and Omniscient. These are obvious qualities, and need no argument to prove, from

the very fact of totality. Brahman is beyond both of these, and is not a

state. It is the only unit not composed of many units. It is the principle which

runs through all, from a cell to God, and without which nothing can exist.

Whatever is real is that principle or Brahman. When I

think " I am Brahman " , then I alone exist. It is so also when you so think, and

so on. Each one is the whole of that principle. . . . "

=======

Again, in another lecture, he says:

" Who is Ishvara? Janmâdyasya yatah — " From whom is the birth, continuation, and

dissolution of the universe, " — He is Ishvara — " the Eternal, the Pure, the

Ever-Free, the Almighty, the All-Knowing, the All-Merciful, the Teacher of all

teachers " ; and above all, Sa Ishvarah anirvachaniya-premasvarupah — " He the Lord

is, of His own nature, inexpressible Love. " These certainly are the definitions

of a Personal God. Are there then two Gods — the " Not this, not this, " the

Sat-chit-ânanda, the Existence-Knowledge-Bliss of the philosopher, and this God

of Love of the Bhakta? No, it is the same Sat-chit-ananda who is also the God of

Love, the impersonal and personal in one. It has always to be understood that

the Personal God worshipped by the Bhakta is not separate or different from the

Brahman. All is Brahman, the One without a second; only the Brahman, as unity or

absolute, is too much of an abstraction to be loved and worshipped; so the

Bhakta chooses the relative aspect of

Brahman, that is, Ishvara, the Supreme Ruler. To use a simile: Brahman is as

the clay or substance out of which an infinite variety of articles are

fashioned. As clay, they are all one; but form or manifestation differentiates

them. Before every one of them was made, they all existed potentially in the

clay, and, of course, they are identical substantially; but when formed, and so

long as the form remains, they are separate and different; the clay-mouse can

never become a clay-elephant, because, as manifestations, form alone makes them

what they are, though as unformed clay they are all one. Ishvara is the highest

manifestation of the Absolute Reality, or in other words, the highest possible

reading of the Absolute by the human mind. Creation is eternal, and so also is

Ishvara. "

He then discusses the fourth pada of the fourth chapter of the Sutras (whether

a jnAni gets the power of Creation of the worlds etc.) as interpreted by the

three acharyas from different viewpoints, and concludes finally thus:

" True it is that we cannot have; any idea of the Brahman which is not

anthropomorphic, but is it not equally true of everything we know? The greatest

psychologist the world has ever known, Bhagavan Kapila, demonstrated ages ago

that human consciousness is one of the elements in the make-up of all the

objects of our perception and conception, internal as well as external.

Beginning with our bodies and going up to Ishvara, we may see that every object

of our perception is this consciousness plus something else, whatever that may

be; and this unavoidable mixture is what we ordinarily think of as reality.

Indeed it is, and ever will be, all of the reality that is possible for the

human mind to know. Therefore to say that Ishvara is unreal, because He is

anthropomorphic, is sheer nonsense. It sounds very much like the occidentals

squabble on idealism and realism, which fearful-looking quarrel has for its

foundation a mere play on the word " real " . The idea of Ishvara covers all

the ground ever denoted and connoted by the word real, and Ishvara is as real

as anything else in the universe; and after all, the word real means nothing

more than what has now been pointed out. Such is our philosophical conception of

Ishvara. "

=================================

So, if my understanding of the whole concept is on the correct path, I would

summarize this as:

1. Ishwara is the samasthi, collection of all jIvAs, just like the body is to

individual cells.

2. Ishwara is the highest conception of human mind, is Eternal and hence

Almighty. It comes into existence along with the duality, or the Primal thought

in the One that " I should be many " .

3. Ishwara is real; as much as a jiva is real, since it is the collection of all

jivas. The Eternal Brahman, when seen through the concept of mind, becomes

Ishwara.

4. Just like in the body, although individual cells act to perform an action, we

say the body performs an action; similarly although individual jivas do the

karmas, which runs the Universe (since there wont be universe if no jivas did

any karma); we say Ishwara performs the action of running the Universe. Indeed,

it is in this way that Ishwara is the bestower of the results of all karma.

This is my understanding, and I would be delighted to know the thoughts of

others.

Pranam,

Vaibhav.

Bring your gang together. Do your thing. Find your favourite Group.

April 22, 2008

Dear Durga-ji,

The bottom line is that there is only brahman - end of subject. Anything

else - anything at all, including all of the teaching of advaita, no matter

by whom - is only a rationalization for the benefit of the mind. This is

what advaita itself says so I do not see how any teacher can say otherwise

if pressed. So, whatever we discuss here is about mithyA concepts and not

about how things 'really are'.

<<Both Swamiji and my teacher have said that the

'equation (the aikyam) is between the jiva and Ishwara.'

My teacher translates 'Tat Tvam Assi' as

'You are the Whole,' or 'You are Ishwara.'>>

Sorry, but I do not understand this. To use the wave-ocean metaphor, my

understanding is that the wave is a part of the ocean but both are (in

essence) water alone. Similarly, the jIva is a part of Ishvara but both are

(in essence) brahman alone. From the standpoint of the mANDUkya upaniShad,

which along with the kArikA I regard as the definitive statement on advaita,

all three states are mithyA and the only reality is turIya. Ishvara on this

model is effectively the macrocosmic causal form, analogous to the

microcosmic deep-sleep state of the jIva.

I am not attempting to dispute the teaching value of Ishvara for a certain

type of mind but I would refute that it is an *essential* concept. Indeed,

as you indicate, it actually causes problems for some westerners.

<<I feel that understanding Ishwara provides

a locus of integration for the whole teaching.>>

I agree with this statement. I accept that a failure to address Ishvara at

all *also* causes problems, even if the westerner would rather not!

<<I also think it's important to understand that the

world is not 'unreal' as I infer you are saying

above. What is unreal is that which doesn't

exist, such as the horn of a rabbit.>>

I think you know that when I use the word 'unreal' in such a context, I

intend 'mithyA' (I have written about the subject plenty of times).

<<Well, what power is moving those names and forms?

Does that movement have an order? Are there observable

laws in operation or not? Can we provide a name for

that order, that movement, and perhaps call it, 'Ishwara?'

And, if everything is brahman, which cannot be seen as an

object, why do these names and forms appear at all?

Do we have a way to account for any of it?>>

All of this is now an attempt to rationalize the appearance - describe and

explain the dream if you will - so is beyond the scope of the point that I

was making.

<<But I do feel that we need to look into the subject of

Ishwara, and listen with sraddha to the words of teacher

when Ishwara is explained and spoken of, and not just

dismiss the understanding of Ishwara, as some sort of

'preliminary teaching' because it isn't. In fact, if we

want to categorize it that way, I'd say it was an advanced

teaching. And if we dismiss it, I don't think we've grasped

the teaching of Vedanta at all.>>

As I said, I do accept this and acknowledge yet again the depth of your own

knowledge and your ability to communicate to others.

><Pranams,

Durga>>

And my humble praNam-s to you also,

Dennis

(I will now move onto your next post on the subject!)

April 22, 2008

praNAms

Hare Krishna

The bottom line is that there is only brahman - end of subject. Anything

else - anything at all, including all of the teaching of advaita, no matter

by whom - is only a rationalization for the benefit of the mind. This is

what advaita itself says so I do not see how any teacher can say otherwise

if pressed. So, whatever we discuss here is about mithyA concepts and not

about how things 'really are'.

> This is beautifully said Sri Dennis prabhuji...The brahman with

attributes or Ishwara is meant for meditation for the medium & lower

category aspirants (like most of us) this brahman can not be compared with

the highest reality of attributeless parabrahman & say Ishwara-hood of

parabrahman is the highest reality of brahman..It is only empirical reality

nothing else. ..As you have rightly pointed out, the distinctions among

jIva, jagat & Ishwara is there just for teaching purpose and ultimately

dissolved into ONE non-dual reality.

> Due to severe time constraints I am not able to participate in the

discussions...I have a small question here, whether there is any

difference among apara brahma, Ishwara, hiraNya garbha, kArya brahma

(effect brahma), sOpAdhika brahma (brahman with limiting adjuncts) ??

Shankara uses these variants while denoting the *brahman with

attributes*..Please clarify.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

April 22, 2008

It is only the ignorant who look at self-realization

and god-realization as two different entities - who

look at atma-vichAra as being superior and bhakti as

being inferior.

praNAms Sri Shyam prabhuji

Hare Krishna

I shall come back to you on brahma sUtra & vivaraNa's avidyA discussion

later (if possible next week) ...I really have plenty to share with you

about it:-))

In the meanwhile may I say shankara himself says there is difference

between Atma/brahma (ultimate) jnAna & jnAna that obtained through upAsana

& archirAdi path which only leads to *krama mukti*...Shankara says an

upAsaka, after the physical death, would travel in dEvayAna path & reach

brahma lOka, where he enjoys all superhuman powers (like aNimAdi subtle

powers) & luxuries but does not have the powers of creation etc. that what

*Ishwara* has...Shankara continue to say, this type of realization is still

on the platform of avidyA whereas in the ultimate jnAni/jnAna there is no

transactions like this which is based on duality..This does not anyway mean

that bhakti is inferior to Atma vichAra as these two spiritual practices

have its own importance in its respective sphere. vEdAnta sUtra 4th

chapter & 4th adhikaraNa (for example 4-4-16 to 4-4-21) has extensive

discussions on these topics...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

April 22, 2008

Durga-ji.

Your two posts are very interesting.

However, the part excerpted below steered me in a different direction:

QUOTE

> So, where did the universe come from? My being,

> because there is nothing else. What is the universe

> made of? My being, because there is nothing else.

>

> Is the universe intelligent? It appears to have intelligence

> in that it seems to display a perfect order. Where did

> that perfect order come from? It came from my being because

> there is nothing else.

>

> Did the universe exist before it came to be manifest?

> It existed in my being as 'pure knowledge,' pure intelligence,

> like the 'knowledge' of a tree exists in a seed.

UNQUOTE

Having concluded that everything is indeed your own being, aren't you

bringing in an unfortunate chronology by asking the questions " Where

did the universe come from? " and " Did it exist before it became

manifest? " ? Are these questions not tantamount to asking " Where did

I come from? " and " Did I exist before? " .

Can't we stay put with the understanding that everything is our own

being, as you rightly concluded, and has always been there and will

always be there? (I know even my question is drenched in inescapable

temporality! That is the pity of language!)

In other words, we need to entertain questions such as the ones you

asked only if we need to conclude the existence of an Ishwara to whom

the intelligence and order of the universe can then be attributed.

Am I right or totally outside your frequency?

Best regards.

M.R. Nair

April 22, 2008

Dear Durga-ji,

I don't actually think I have much to add from my last response.

<<But actually, I don't think it is quite possible

to speak from the POV of paramarthika satyam, because in

paramarthika satyam there is no creation, and paramarthika

satyam can't speak, any more than the self, which the mind has

recognized my self to be, can speak. That self and paramarthika

satyam are the same. >>

I would say that it is definitely not possible to speak from a pAramArthika

standpoint. What we do is to talk about it from a vyAvahArika standpoint, as

does the shruti.

<<I also do not think that we can say 'there is no creation.'

It seems pretty evident that there is one here to be

experienced. So let's try and analyze it.>>

But this is clearly the message of advaita, Gaudapada states in the kArikA:

" No kind of jIva is ever born nor is there any cause for any such birth. The

ultimate truth is that nothing whatsoever is born. " (IV.71) and " All

aggregates (such as body etc.) are produced by the illusion of the Atman

(i.e. the perceiver) as in a dream. No rational arguments can be adduced to

establish their reality, whether they be equal or superior (to one

another). " (II.10), to which Shankara adds: " That is to say, they do not

exist from the standpoint of the ultimate reality. If it be argued, in order

to establish their reality, that there is a superiority (among the created

beings)-as in the case of the aggregates of cause and effect constituting

gods who are superior to lower beings, such as birds and beasts-or that

there is an equality (of all created beings), yet no cause can be set forth

regarding their creation or reality. As there is no cause therefore all

these are due to avidyA or ignorance: they have no real existence. "

Obviously I do not dispute the apparent multiplicity of the appearance and

agree with its mithyA status. Within this context, the concept of Ishvara

has its place in the teaching of advaita, as I said in the last post. But,

if we are talking 'bottom line' (as far as this is possible when talking and

vyAvahArika go together) then my original statement (whatever that was - I

can't remember now!) stands.

Best wishes,

Dennis

April 22, 2008

Hi Shyam-ji,

I get the impression from your post that you think I am saying rather more

than, in fact, I am. I agree with practically all that you say (and don't

think that I suggested otherwise). The only part that I would contest is the

statement: " Everything is the Self alone, everything is Ishwara alone, and

everything is I alone. That Ishwara i am - tat tvam asi. "

I think this is 'where we came in', as they say. I would certainly agree

with " Everything is the Self alone " but I would clarify this as: " everything

is brahman " (sarvaM khalvidam brahman). I have not come across a statement

in the shruti which says 'sarvam khalvidam Ishvara'. And, as I think I

pointed out in response to Durga-ji's post, my understanding of tattvamasi

is 'I am That', where That is brahman, not Ishvara.

Best wishes,

Dennis

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Shyam

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:17 AM

advaitin

Re: brahman and Ishvara

Pranams Dennis-ji

Thank you for your observations.

Let me try to clarify with an example.

April 22, 2008

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Durga-ji.

>

> Having concluded that everything is indeed your own being, aren't you

> bringing in an unfortunate chronology by asking the questions " Where

> did the universe come from? " and " Did it exist before it became

> manifest? " ? Are these questions not tantamount to asking " Where did

> I come from? " and " Did I exist before? " .

>

> Can't we stay put with the understanding that everything is our own

> being, as you rightly concluded, and has always been there and will

> always be there? (I know even my question is drenched in inescapable

> temporality! That is the pity of language!)

>

> In other words, we need to entertain questions such as the ones you

> asked only if we need to conclude the existence of an Ishwara to whom

> the intelligence and order of the universe can then be attributed.

> Am I right or totally outside your frequency?

>

> Best regards.

>

> M.R. Nair

Namaste Sri Nairji,

Well, actually I think my two replies to Dennis

were intended to conclude the existence of Ishwara.

Prior to meeting my teacher and Swami Dayananda,

I thought as you and Dennis seem to think.

Because they continually speak of the importance

of understanding Ishwara, and because I have

benefited tremendously from their teaching,

I feel that what they have to communicate on

the subject is worthwhile trying to understand

and assimilate.

I would not want to try and 'cherry pick,' as it

were, from what they say, or dismiss parts of

their teaching prior to totally understanding them.

When I first met my teacher I was heavily influenced

by the western neo-advaitin 'so-called' teachings, which

really are so varied that they cannot be classified

as one particular teaching, except to say that the

one common thread amoung them seems to be ignorance

and confusion on almost every point.

Therefore, I came to the teachings of Vedanta with some

concepts on the subject of advaita which I see now were

really the height of ignorance. And somehow along

the way, because I had been listening to those teachings

for so long, I had also acquired a kind of 'superior'

attitude that I was 'seasoned,' that I really knew the

subject.

So what can one say, ignorance compounded with pride.

Not a great combination.

In the beginning when I listened to the words of

my teacher, I often thought I knew better. At that

time, although I did not express it, I realize

now that my inner attitude when I listened was

at times quite disrespectful. Yet, somehow

through Ishwara's grace, enough of a partical

of shraddha was there which allowed me to stay.

Now, of course, I see I did not know better at all.

So many of the notions and conclusions

I had gathered here and there were totally and utterly

wrong and twisted understandings of the subject,

compounding the basic ignorance of jivatvam

with which everyone comes to the teachings.

With infinite patience, kindness, and love

my questions were answered, my doubts were

knocked off, a certain amount of clarity

was gained, and trust was established.

Now if that same teacher and my teacher's

guru say 'tat tvam asi' means 'You are Ishwara,'

what should I do, think, I know better?

Think they are giving me a 'junior teaching?'

Think there is some type of 'senior teaching'

they are purposely hiding from me?

What type of mind would that bring to the

unfoldment?

The only thing at this point which I now

hope to 'know better' is to listen and to try

and understand what they say.

Hari Om,

Durga

April 22, 2008

Dear Durga-ji,

Just to be pedantic (again!), the mahAvAkya tattvamasi is from the ChAndogya

upaniShad 6.8.7:

" 'That Being which is this subtle essence (cause), even That all this world

has for its self. That is the true. That is the Atman. That thou art, O

Svetaketu.' 'Revered sir, please explain it further to me'. 'So be it, dear

boy', said (the father). "

The 'That' which uddAlaka says that shvataketu 'art' is Atman, not Ishvara.

" sa ya eshho.aNimaitadaatmyamida\m+ sarvaM tatsatya\m+ sa

aatmaa tattvamasi shvetaketo iti bhuuya eva maa

bhagavaanviGYaapayatviti tathaa somyeti hovaacha "

Best wishes,

Dennis

April 22, 2008

Dear Durga-ji,

That is helluva lot of explanation!

I just expressed a thought which occurred to me when I read your

post. That is all. I didn't mean to question the concept of

Ishwara or the teachings of Sw. Dayanandaji, from whom I also derive

tremendous advaitic inspiration and enthusiasm.

When I began reading your current post under refernece, I was

chanting the Lalita Sahasranama, which is one of the many Devi hymns

I chant morning and evening. I just finished the Sahasranama and

then began this reply. That would tell you pretty lot about where I

stand vis-a-vis Ishwara.

Your thoughts and the way you express them are just wonderful.

Kindly continue the good work. You definitely have Ishwara's

blessings and grace.

Best regards.

Madathil Nair

___________________

advaitin , " Durga " <durgaji108 wrote:

>>

>

> Now if that same teacher and my teacher's

> guru say 'tat tvam asi' means 'You are Ishwara,'

> what should I do, think, I know better?

> Think they are giving me a 'junior teaching?'

> Think there is some type of 'senior teaching'

> they are purposely hiding from me?

>

> What type of mind would that bring to the

> unfoldment?

>

> The only thing at this point which I now

> hope to 'know better' is to listen and to try

> and understand what they say.

April 22, 2008

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Durga-ji,

>

> Just to be pedantic (again!), the mahAvAkya tattvamasi is from the

ChAndogya

> upaniShad 6.8.7:

>

> " 'That Being which is this subtle essence (cause), even That all

this world

> has for its self. That is the true. That is the Atman. That thou art, O

> Svetaketu.' 'Revered sir, please explain it further to me'. 'So be

it, dear

> boy', said (the father). "

>

> The 'That' which uddAlaka says that shvataketu 'art' is Atman, not

Ishvara.

>

> " sa ya eshho.aNimaitadaatmyamida\m+ sarvaM tatsatya\m+ sa

>

> aatmaa tattvamasi shvetaketo iti bhuuya eva maa

>

> bhagavaanviGYaapayatviti tathaa somyeti hovaacha "

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

Hi Dennis,

Well, atma is brahman, brahman is Ishwara.

If this world has for itself brahmatma,

then why not include the world, and

say 'You are Ishwara' 'You are the whole'

See, when you knock off the things from atma,

as not 'I,' you've got to go back and collect

them again as 'I,' or you've got two things,

one of which is 'I,' and everything else which is

not I.

I think this may be a subtle, but important point.

IMO the understanding of Ishwara is the absolute

locus for the integration of self-knowledge.

Otherwise, I think one is in danger have having

some little places in the mind which have yet not

come to be examined and accepted in the light of

knowledge.

If you say 'this world is just an appearance,' then

I think one is in danger of saying (or thinking)

'it's not real,' so I see that as a problem.

We can use the word 'mithya,' but what do we take that

word to mean? An appearance? Isn't there some little

bit of a thought that the word mithya means 'not real?'

as Sri Shyamji said, like when I wake up from a dream,

I see it wasn't real.

So perhaps that is what my teacher meant when she said

westerners like to escape Ishwara, and frankly it cannot

be done. We can't blast it all into nonduality. We

have to accept it as manifest brahman. If we reject

it, then that is dvaita, not advaita.

I seem to understand what I'm saying, but I guess I cannot

get you to see the same thing.

I am the whole. I am Ishwara. I am that which does not

move and I am the movement. Did I leave something out? :-)

Pranams,

Durga

April 22, 2008

___________

Durga:

My teacher translates 'Tat Tvam Assi' as

'You are the Whole,' or 'You are Ishwara.'>>

____________

Dennis:

Sorry, but I do not understand this. To use the

wave-ocean metaphor, my

understanding is that the wave is a part of the ocean

but both are (in

essence) water alone.

___

Shyam:

Sathyapi bhedhapagame nadha thwaham na

mamakeenasthwam,

Saamudhro hi tharanga kwachana samudhro na tharanga.

Even at the time of true realization, when I see no

differences,

I am but a part of you, and you are never my part,

For a tide is a part of the sea and sea can never be a

part of the tide.

Shat Padi by Adi Shankara

___________

Dennis:

I am not attempting to dispute the teaching value of

Ishvara for a certain

type of mind but I would refute that it is an

*essential* concept. Indeed,

as you indicate, it actually causes problems for some

westerners.

I accept that a failure to address Ishvara at

all *also* causes problems, even if the westerner

would rather not!

__

Shyam:

I am curious and wonder if either of you may choose to

elaborate why this may be so?

After all a spiritual tradition does exist even in

Christianity with emphasis on values, prayer,

faith,surrender, etc Why then should Westerners have a

discomfort (in some I have found almost a anathema) to

the concept of God or Divinity (almost to the point of

as though it were something grounded in superstition.)

________________________________

Dennis:

I get the impression from your post that you think I

am saying rather more

than, in fact, I am. I agree with practically all that

you say (and don't

think that I suggested otherwise). The only part that

I would contest is the

statement: " Everything is the Self alone, everything

is Ishwara alone, and

everything is I alone. That Ishwara i am - tat tvam

asi. "

I think this is 'where we came in', as they say. I

would certainly agree

with " Everything is the Self alone " but I would

clarify this as: " everything

is brahman " (sarvaM khalvidam brahman). I have not

come across a statement

in the shruti which says 'sarvam khalvidam Ishvara'.

___

Shyam

Let us start with the Smrti - a beautiful verse from

the Gita:

bahunam janmanam ante jnanavan mam prapadyate

vasudevah sarvam iti sa mahatma su-durlabhah

At the end of many births the man of Knowledge attains

Me,

(realizing) that Vasudeva is all. Such a high-souled

one is very rare.

Shankara comments on this verse:

Ante, at the end, after the completion; bahunam, of

many; janmanam, births, which became

the repository for accumulating the tendencies leading

to Knowledge; jnanavan, the man of Knowledge,

who has got hiis Knowledge matured; directly

prapadyate, attains; mam, Me, Vasudeva,

who am the inmost Self; (realizing)-in what way?-iti,

that; Vasudeva is sarvam, all.

Sah, such a one, who realizes Me, Narayana, thus as

the Self of all;

is mahatma, a high-souled one. There is none else who

can equal or excel him. Therefore he is

su-durlabhah, very rare among thousands of men.

Let us now turn to the Shruti

Shvetashvara Upanishad

Part 2

15 And when the yogi beholds the real nature of

Brahman, through the Knowledge of the Self, radiant as

a lamp, then, having known the unborn and immutable

Lord, who is untouched by ignorance and its effects,

he is freed from all fetters.

16 He indeed, the Lord, who pervades all regions,

was the first to be born and it is He who dwells in

the womb of the universe. It is He, again, who is born

as a child and He will be born in the future, He

stands behind all persons and His face is everywhere.

17 The Self—luminous Lord, who is fire, who is in

water, who has entered into the whole world, who is in

plants, who is in trees— to that Lord let there be

adoration! Yea, let there be adoration!

Part 3

7 The Supreme Lord is higher than Virat, beyond

Hiranyagarbha. He is vast and is hidden in the bodies

of all living beings. By knowing Him who alone

pervades the universe, men become immortal.

8 I know the great Purusha, who is luminous, like

the sun and beyond darkness. Only by knowing Him does

one pass over death; there is no other way to the

Supreme Goal.

9 The whole universe is filled by the Purusha, to

whom there is nothing superior, from whom there is

nothing different, than whom there is nothing either

smaller or greater; who stands alone, motionless as a

tree, established in His own glory.

10 That which is farthest from this world is

without form and without affliction They who know It

become immortal; but others, indeed, suffer pain.

11 All faces are His faces; all heads, His heads;

all necks, His necks. He dwells in the hearts of all

beings. He is the all— pervading Bhagavan. Therefore

He is the omnipresent and benign Lord.

12 He, indeed, is the great Purusha, the Lord of

creation, preservation and destruction, who inspires

the mind to attain the state of stainlessness. He is

the Ruler and the Light that is imperishable.

13 The Purusha, no bigger than a thumb, is the

inner Self, ever seated in the heart of man. He is

known by the mind, which controls knowledge and is

perceived in the heart. They who know Him become

immortal.

Mundaka Up

Ch2

9 From Him come all the oceans and the mountains; from

Him flow rivers of every kind; from Him have come, as

well, all plants and flavours, by which the inner self

subsists surrounded by the elements.

10 The Purusha alone is verily the universe, which

consists of work and austerity. O my good friend, he

who knows this Brahman—the Supreme and the Immortal,

hidden in the cave of the heart—cuts asunder even here

the knot of ignorance.

Ch3

3 When the seer beholds the self—luminous Creator, the

Lord, the Purusha, the progenitor of Brahma, then he,

the wise seer, shakes off good and evil, becomes

stainless and reaches the supreme unity.

Katha Up

12 There is one Supreme Ruler, the inmost Self of

all beings, who makes His one form manifold. Eternal

happiness belongs to the wise, who perceive Him within

themselves—not to others.

13 There is One who is the eternal Reality among

non—eternal objects, the one truly conscious Entity

among conscious objects and who, though non—dual,

fulfils the desires of many. Eternal peace belongs to

the wise, who perceive Him within themselves—not to

others.

14 The sages realise that indescribable Supreme

Joy as " This is That. " How can I realise It? Is It

self—luminous? Does It shine brightly, or not?

15 The sun does not shine there, nor the moon and

the stars, nor these lightnings—not to speak of this

fire. He shining, everything shines after Him. By His

light all this is lighted.

_____________

Bhaskar:

In the meanwhile may I say shankara himself says there

is difference

between Atma/brahma (ultimate) jnAna & jnAna that

obtained through upAsana

& archirAdi path which only leads to *krama

mukti*...Shankara says an

upAsaka, after the physical death, would travel in

dEvayAna path & reach

brahma lOka, where he enjoys all superhuman powers

(like aNimAdi subtle

powers) & luxuries but does not have the powers of

creation etc. that what

*Ishwara* has...Shankara continue to say, this type of

realization is still

on the platform of avidyA whereas in the ultimate

jnAni/jnAna there is no

transactions like this which is based on duality

__________

Shyam:

Dear Bhaskar-ji

I think you are confusing two things - videhamukti and

the realization " Vasudeva sarvam iti " of a jivanmuktA.

When one has already discovered in his heart the

Supreme Being, then his sense of separation is already

dissolved in toto.

How can there be place for two things in one locus -

that too One who is the Light of Lights and the other

who is of the nature of a shadow?

Where will such a Realized One travel? Where is the

" other " for Him besides Narayana, his own Self??

So please do not confuse the parAbhakti of a

jivanmukta with the upAsana bhakti of a seeker.

UpAsanA arises at the level of the mind - it is a

mental kriya, a activity, that helps train the

seeker's mind and goads it in the direction of a deity

of his choice.

ParAbhakti arises at the level of the Ego or ahankAra

itself - and represents the anguish of a phantom Ego

longing for its own annihilation having fully turned

away from the dance of Samsara it has long-endured in

its own beginingless ignorance of its Real nature.

UpAsanA aims to gain proximity to the Lord. The result

is kramamukti.

ParAbhakti aims to lose oneself entirely in the Lord.

The result is jivanmukti

There is a subtle but crucial difference between the

two.

Humble pranams

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh nam

Shyam

______________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

April 22, 2008

Durgaji said:

> Well, atma is brahman, brahman is Ishwara.

>

> If this world has for itself brahmatma,

> then why not include the world, and

> say 'You are Ishwara' 'You are the whole'

>

Durgaji,

I really like your style of description, and it makes

the reading of such complex concepts easier.

I just remembered that a similar question was asked to

Shri Ramakrishna Paramhamsa once by Keshab Chandra Sen

(the member of Brahmo Samaj). This was his answer:

=================

" MASTER: " The jnanis, who adhere to the non-dualistic

philosophy of Vedanta, say that the acts of creation,

preservation, and destruction, the universe itself and

all its living beings, are the manifestations of

Sakti, the Divine Power. (Known as maya in the Vedanta

philosophy.) If you reason it out, you will realize

that all these are as illusory as a dream. Brahman

alone is the Reality, and all else is unreal. Even

this very Sakti is unsubstantial, like a dream.

" But though you reason all your life, unless you are

established in samadhi, you cannot go beyond the

jurisdiction of Sakti. Even when you say, 'I am

meditating', or 'I am contemplating', still you are

moving in the realm of Sakti, within Its power.

" Thus Brahman and Sakti are identical. If you accept

the one, you must accept the other. It is like fire

and its power to burn. If you see the fire, you must

recognize its power to burn also. You cannot think of

fire without its power to burn, nor can you think of

the power to burn without fire. You cannot conceive of

the sun's rays without the sun, nor can you conceive

of the sun without its ravs.

" What is milk like? Oh, you say, it is something

white. You cannot think of the milk without the

whiteness, and again, you cannot think of the

whiteness without the milk.

" Thus one cannot think of Brahman without Sakti, or of

Sakti without Brahman. One cannot think of the

Absolute without the Relative, or of the Relative

without the Absolute.

" The Primordial Power is ever at play. (This idea

introduces the elements of spontaneity and freedom in

the creation.) She is creating, preserving, and

destroying in play, as it were. This Power is called

Kali. Kali is verily Brahman, and Brahman is verily

Kali. It is one and the same Reality. When we think of

It as inactive, that is to say, not engaged in the

acts of creation, preservation, and destruction, then

we call It Brahman. But when It engages in these

activities, then we call It Kali or Sakti. The Reality

is one and the same; the difference is in name and

form.

" It is like water, called in different languages by

different names, such as 'jal', pani', and so forth.

There are three or four ghats on a lake. The Hindus,

who drink water at one place, call it 'jal'. The

Mussalmans at another place call it 'pani'. And the

English at a third place call it 'water'. All three

denote one and the same thing, the difference being in

the name only. In the same way, some address the

Reality as 'Allah', some as 'God', some as 'Brahman',

some as 'Kali', and others by such names as 'Rama',

'Jesus', 'Durga', 'Hari'. "

=====================

Perhaps this is what Shri Krishna refers to when he

says:

" The one who sees inaction in action,

and action in inaction, is a wise person.

Such a person is a yogi and has accomplished

everything. " ?

Hari Om!

Vaibhav.

Explore your hobbies and interests. Go to

http://in.promos./groups/

April 23, 2008

Namaste Dennis-ji.

You said "

QUOTE

" I would certainly agree with " Everything is the Self alone " but I

would clarify this as: " everything is brahman " (sarvaM khalvidam

brahman). I have not come across a statement in the shruti which

says 'sarvam khalvidam Ishvara'. And, as I think I pointed out in

response to Durga-ji's post, my understanding of tattvamasi is 'I am

That', where That is brahman, not Ishvara. "

UNQUOTE

Then what about 'IsAvAsyamidaM sarvaM' the first line and running

theme of Isopanishad, Dennisji?!

What about this statement by Shankara in Dakshinamurthi Stotram:

" He, whose eight-fold forms are the " Earth, Water, Fire, Air, Ether,

Sun, Moon and Jeeva " , and who manifests Himself as this universe of

the movable and immovable objects - and besides which, the Supreme

All-Pervading Lord, there exists nothing to those who reflect well

upon ..... to Him, the Divine Teacher Sri Dakshinamoorthy, is this

Prostration. " (Translation by Sw. Chinamayanandaji)

Earth, Water and Air are representative of all that is solid, liquid

and gas in creation; Fire is all that burns, Ether is space (time

goes with it), Sun and Moon for all the galaxies, stars, planets and

other heavenly bodies and interstellar matter, and Jeeva for all his

internalizatons and also all that is living which can include all

life forms in this universe that we know of and that we will in

future (I am including the possibility of extra-terrestrials!). That

is sarvaM khalvidaM brahma or sarva< khalvidaM Ishwara!

Dennis-ji, we need to understand the frequency at which Sw.

Dayanandaji is communicating. Once, during a discussion

on " pUrNamadaH... " , he laughingly concluded: " What is mithyA?

MithyA is satyaM " . (Ref: post # 25725). That statement shocked some

of us here.

We know that Swamiji was not going against the tenets of " pure

Advaita " . In fact, he was only expressing the all-encompassing

message and nature of Advaita in his inimitable style. Advaita cannot

be an an alienation. His views on Ishwara are therefore to be

understood in that context.

Durgaji is really fortunate to have been able to understand him

despite being a Westerner.

If sarvamidaM (all this or all this universe or all that is there in

this universe) is brahman, then the rose is brahman, the diamond is

brahman, the roach is brahman and wife is also brahman! There is

nothing other than Brahman. BrahmaivedaM vishwaM.. (Mund. Up.).

How can I relate to this, if I admantly insist that Brahman is

immutable, indefinable etc. etc.? The only way I can relate is to

accept this multiplicity that confronts me as one and the same and

operate in a manner that there is nothing other than that one.

Mund. Up. effectively uses the spider-cobweb analogy to help us

here. The material of the web is not different from the spider. The

spider releases the web matter from itself and withdraws it into

itself. This is the way the universe manifests from brahman and

later goes into dissolution into the same brahman.

The immutable brahman of the shruti seen as manifesting as this

universe is our Ishwara who pervades its multiplicity as itself as

stated in Isopanishad.

So, when I do suryanamaskar in the morning, I am not saluting just a

yellow star who is an insignificant entity when compared to the other

gigantic asterisms that glitter our skies. I am prostrating before

Ishwara, the Lord of the Universe, who is none other than the brahman

of vedanta. When an ant or roach passes by, then that again is the

Lord. Why each and every atom of my body and the trillions of

microorganisms that inhabit it are verily the Lord himself. What

remains other than Him. Nothing. He alone remains. Brahman alone

remains. That is Advaita - the way it is lived (not the way it is

intellectually understood). Such living is a thrill, the pleasure of

all pleasures.

Best regards.

Madathil Nair

April 23, 2008

Dear Vaibhav-ji,

Pranams,

thank you for posting this story. It makes it so beautifully clear that

while there might be differences in the philosophical terms of Brahman

and Ishvara,

in TRUTH they are on and the same.

Nair-ji clarified this further.

Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti

Sitara

advaitin , vaibhav khire <vskhire wrote:

> " Thus Brahman and Sakti are identical. If you accept

> the one, you must accept the other. It is like fire

> and its power to burn. If you see the fire, you must

> recognize its power to burn also. You cannot think of

> fire without its power to burn, nor can you think of

> the power to burn without fire. You cannot conceive of

> the sun's rays without the sun, nor can you conceive

> of the sun without its ravs.

>

> " The Primordial Power is ever at play. (This idea

> introduces the elements of spontaneity and freedom in

> the creation.) She is creating, preserving, and

> destroying in play, as it were. This Power is called

> Kali. Kali is verily Brahman, and Brahman is verily

> Kali. It is one and the same Reality. When we think of

> It as inactive, that is to say, not engaged in the

> acts of creation, preservation, and destruction, then

> we call It Brahman. But when It engages in these

> activities, then we call It Kali or Sakti. The Reality

> is one and the same; the difference is in name and

> form.

>

April 23, 2008

Hi Durga,

One last attempt! :-)

My (simplistic) understanding of the microcosmic and macrocosmic views of

the manifestation:

Microcosmic:

gross body, sthUla sharIra - the waker ego, vishva in jAgrat avasthA

subtle body, sUkShma sharIra - the dreamer ego, taijasa in svapna avasthA

causal body, kAraNa sharIra - the deep sleeper, prAj~na in suShupti avasthA

Macrocosmic:

gross body, virAt

subtle body, hiraNyagarbha

causal body, antaryAmin or Ishvara

I.e. Ishvara is that which holds the entire universe in potential form prior

to or post manifestation.

But, just as we can say that I, the Atman, am not the gross, physical or

causal body but turIya, that which is the essence of all of these, so we can

that I, brahman, am not the gross physical universe, the subtle

manifestation or that which is the cause of these but turIya, that which is

the essence of all of them.

This is my understanding from the Mandukya Upanishad. Apologies if any of

the fine detail is incorrect but I think the essential point is clear.

Best wishes,

Dennis

<<Hi Dennis,

Well, atma is brahman, brahman is Ishwara.

If this world has for itself brahmatma,

then why not include the world, and

say 'You are Ishwara' 'You are the whole'

See, when you knock off the things from atma,

as not 'I,' you've got to go back and collect

them again as 'I,' or you've got two things,

one of which is 'I,' and everything else which is

not I.>>

April 23, 2008

That indeed is a new angle, Vaibhav-ji. But I am afraid it doesn't

fit the particular context in BG, i.e. karma yoga, where inaction

signifies action without agency.

May be I am wrong.

I would, therefore, love to hear what others have to say.

Best regards.

Madathil Nair

______________

advaitin , vaibhav khire <vskhire wrote at

the conclusion of an answer given by Shri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa

regarding actionless Brahman and active Shakti being one and the same:

> Perhaps this is what Shri Krishna refers to when he

> says:

> " The one who sees inaction in action,

> and action in inaction, is a wise person.

> Such a person is a yogi and has accomplished

> everything. " ?

April 23, 2008

Dear All:

When Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi was asked:

-Is God (Ishwara) real? he responded: Yes, as real as you are.

This single lines encompases, in a PRACTICAL way, all the Advaitic

knowledge regarding all differences (or apparent similarities) between

Brahman (Nirguna) and Jeeva/Ishwara (Saguna).

All depends what we ourselves assume our-selves to be:

either completely " separate " from That,

a " part " of That,

" simply " That...

or All " and " None of the Above.

Yours in All,

Mouna

April 23, 2008

Hi Vaibhav-ji and Shyam-ji,

I do not think that any of the shruti quotations from Shyam-ji shows that

Ishvara is being spoken of rather than brahman.

I like the quotation from Shri Ramakrishna and I think it does illustrate

where the misunderstanding is arising. In particular the following extract

is revealing:

<< " The Primordial Power is ever at play. (This idea

introduces the elements of spontaneity and freedom in

the creation.) She is creating, preserving, and

destroying in play, as it were. This Power is called

Kali. Kali is verily Brahman, and Brahman is verily

Kali. It is one and the same Reality. When we think of

It as inactive, that is to say, not engaged in the

acts of creation, preservation, and destruction, then

we call It Brahman. But when It engages in these

activities, then we call It Kali or Sakti. The Reality

is one and the same; the difference is in name and

form. " >>

The metaphor of gold and bangle explains the point. Bangle can be melted

down and made into ring, ring into chain. The bangle is not the chain; the

chain is not the ring and so on. Gold is that which exists in and through

all three. Similarly, the waker is not the dreamer is not the deep-sleeper;

turIya is that which exists in and through all three states. Bangle is gold;

ring is gold; chain is gold but gold is not any of them. In the quotation

above, Kali *is* verily brahman but brahman is *not* Kali.

'I' am brahman; 'you' are brahman; Ishvara is brahman. brahman is the

essence of all three but is not any of these things, which are all only

mithyA name and form of brahman.

Best wishes,

Dennis

April 23, 2008

Just another quotation to add to the mix:

Brahman who is existence, consciousness and infinity is the reality. Its

being Ishvara (the omniscient Lord of the world) and jIva (the individual

soul) are (mere) superimpositions by the two illusory adjuncts ( mAyA and

avidyA, respectively). pa~nchadashI (III.37)

Dennis

April 23, 2008

Dennisji, you said:

> The metaphor of gold and bangle explains the point.

> Bangle can be melted

> down and made into ring, ring into chain. The bangle

> is not the chain; the

> chain is not the ring and so on. Gold is that which

> exists in and through

> all three. Similarly, the waker is not the dreamer

> is not the deep-sleeper;

> turIya is that which exists in and through all three

> states. Bangle is gold;

> ring is gold; chain is gold but gold is not any of

> them. In the quotation

> above, Kali *is* verily brahman but brahman is *not*

> Kali.

>

I think the ocean-wave analogy is better suited. If I

understand the whole thing correctly, Brahman is the

water, Ishwara is the ocean and jiva is a wave. The

definition of Ishwara as being the samashti/collection

of jivas as given by Swami Vivekananda (my first mail

in this thread) fits this analogy perfectly.

So, is Ishwara real/unreal? The same question can be

asked as " Is jiva real/unreal " ? I dont think anyone

says a jiva is unreal; infact existence of Self is the

basic axioms of Advaita.

So if jiva is real, how can a collection of jivas be

unreal? True, in reality there is only 1 jiva, and the

multiplicity is only apparent, but that whole

collection of jivas or 1 jiva apprearing as many IS

REAL. And that is Ishwara!

As Mounaji quoted Ramana Maharshi, " Ishwara is as real

as you are " , meaning Ishwara is as real as the jiva.

Otherwise, it is like saying a wave exists, water

surely exists, but the ocean is unreal!

=================================

My guess is the 'discomfort' with the concept of

Ishwara starts with the various " attributes " the

devotees give to It. But there again, isnt there a

saguna Ishwara and a nirguna Ishwara? Only the nirgun

Ishwara is equated to Brahman. It is like saying, if

the Ocean is Infinite, there is no water outside the

Ocean; then the Ocean is water and water is Ocean.

In this case, noone has to worry about someone calling

the Ocean blue, since it does not mean that water is

blue!

Hari Om!

~Vaibhav.

From Chandigarh to Chennai - find friends all over India. Go to

http://in.promos./groups/citygroups/

brahman and Ishvara

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation