brahman and Ishvara

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

 

Once, during a discussion

> on " pUrNamadaH... " , he [swami Dayanandaji] 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.

 

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

Namaste Sri Nairji,

 

The thing is, being a westerner is not really

a bar to understanding Swamiji, because IMO

Swamiji can explain just about anything to

anyone. He is on that level.

 

I've seen him speak to a group of little children.

I've seen him speak to a group of western high school kids,

a group of Indians, who didn't really know about

Vedanta, but whose devotion to their own

guru was very strong, to westerners whose

Sanskrit seems perfect, to all sorts of

people, and every time he seems to know

what to say in such a way that those people

come away feeling happy and content that

they understood, and were understood, on

whatever subject he has spoken to them

about.

 

Swamiji has hundreds of western students. After

all he taught two three-year teacher training

retreats in the west, and most of the attendees

were western, and he continues to teach in the

west to this day.

 

So being a western student of Swamiji's

is probably not any more rare than being

a mumukshu is. It does not make it

difficult to understand Swamiji, if one

is interested because he is the one with

the talent, and all the listener needs

to do is be available for the words to

work. He does the rest.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Hi Vaibhav-ji,

 

 

 

<<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.>>

 

 

 

Both are mithyA - they have no reality separate from brahman. Or, to put it

another way, the essence of both is brahman. Just as the essence of both

ocean and wave is water. This is not to say, therefore, that they 'do not

exist'.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Hi Durga,

>

>

>

> One last attempt! :-)

 

 

> 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,

 

We can say what you've said above, but we can also

say 'I' (brahman) am not the body, but the body is

'I' (brahman).

 

You seem to like the gold bangle analogy.

 

Swamiji often goes like this, reversing the

substantive and the word which modifies it.

 

Gold bangle. Bangly Gold

 

Wheat bread. Bready wheat.

 

Clay pot. Potty clay.

 

Thus without dismissing the attribute of

the substantive, we see that all that

is there substantive, despite the attribute.

 

If there is a clay relief tableaux. What is

there? People, clay people. Birds, clay birds,

Trees, clay trees. Houses, clay houses.

 

What is there is name and form. What is there

is clay. Is the clay the 'essence' of the houses

the people, the birds, the trees? No, it is

the people, the birds, and the trees.

 

You can't take away the clay and have

the people. You can take away the people

and have the clay. But while they exist,

you have peopley clay, birdy clay, housey clay,

which does not change clay, clay ,clay. The

clay is not the 'essence' of the people.

It is the people. When the people go,

what have you got? Clay.

 

Pranams,

Durga aka clay

[Guest guest]

Hi Durga,

 

 

 

I agree with all of this but don't see how you are using it to support your

argument. (In fact, I seem to recall I used Swamiji's 'tably' wood in 'Back

to the Truth', attributed of course. The argument is that the table is

mithyA, it is the wood that is satyam.)

 

 

 

If you have a clay pot, it is the pot that holds the water, not the clay.

You cannot say that the clay *is* the pot. It is the pot which is always

only clay. By analogy, it is Ishvara that 'does' the manifesting of the

apparent creation, not brahman. You cannot say that brahman *is* Ishvara,

only that Ishvara is always only brahman. Ishvara is mithyA, brahman is

satyam.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

<<If there is a clay relief tableaux. What is

there? People, clay people. Birds, clay birds,

Trees, clay trees. Houses, clay houses.

 

What is there is name and form. What is there

is clay. Is the clay the 'essence' of the houses

the people, the birds, the trees? No, it is

the people, the birds, and the trees.

 

You can't take away the clay and have

the people. You can take away the people

and have the clay. But while they exist,

you have peopley clay, birdy clay, housey clay,

which does not change clay, clay ,clay. The

clay is not the 'essence' of the people.

It is the people. When the people go,

what have you got? Clay.>>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Hi Durga,

>

 

 

> If you have a clay pot, it is the pot that holds the water, not the

clay.

> You cannot say that the clay *is* the pot. It is the pot which is always

> only clay. By analogy, it is Ishvara that 'does' the manifesting of the

> apparent creation, not brahman. You cannot say that brahman *is*

Ishvara,

> only that Ishvara is always only brahman. Ishvara is mithyA, brahman is

> satyam.

>

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

Hi Dennis,

 

The pot *is* the clay. Without clay,

where is the pot? The pot form is

mithya.

 

The table *is* the wood. The wood form

is mithya.

 

Therefore whatever is mithya, (name

and form) *is* in the final analysis

satyam. That's the vision of the

Upanishads, as far as I know.

 

All that is here is brahman, nondually one.

 

I'm going to transcribe something of Swamiji's

which I just listened to, that explains this

all so well. It may take me sometime, but it

will be good mananam. So to be continued...

 

Best to you also,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Jai Guru

 

To everybody discussing the above topic.

 

What Sri Krishna himself says about Brahman and Ishwara, Mithya and Sathya, etc.

are all clearly explained by Swami Paramarthananda in his talk on 21st April

2008 on Verses 16,17, and 18 of Ch.15 (Purushotthama Yoga) of Gita. It can be

listened to at www.yogamalika.org. In that link, Swamiji's talk may be selected

and BG221 Side B may be clicked on. It is enough if first 10 min. of the talk is

listened.

 

Harih Om

 

Natarajan

 

 

______________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

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

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Guest guest]

Therefore whatever is mithya, (name and form) *is* in the final analysis

satyam. That's the vision of the Upanishads, as far as I know.

 

 

praNAms

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

However, vedAnta repeatedly insists that the *continuity of existence

without modification* is the test of reality. Such continuity of existence

without modification can be attributed ONLY to attributeless (nirvishesha)

brahman (clay devoid of name & form)...pot is the vikAra of clay & has time

& space restricted existence. Hence it cannot be the truth..It is because

of the simple fact that the *reality* (satyaM) is not in time, nor it can

be restricted with limited space, nor it is anyway related to cause or

effect..It is the ONLY untainted absolute reality...

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji.

 

May be I am wrong, Bhaskarji. But, this *continuity of existence* in

relation to Brahman sounds strange. Where is continuity when there

is no time?

 

So, we are describing something in the vyAvahArika that cannot be

truly described. Why don't we then accept Ishwara as the vyAvahArika

description of the ineffable, immutable Brahman?

 

Will this be acceptable to Dennis-ji et al? We then have something

to immediately relate to, don't we?

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

> However, vedAnta repeatedly insists that the *continuity of

existence

> without modification* is the test of reality. Such continuity of

existence

> without modification can be attributed ONLY to attributeless

(nirvishesha)

> brahman (clay devoid of name & form)...pot is the vikAra of clay &

has time

> & space restricted existence. Hence it cannot be the truth..It is

because

> of the simple fact that the *reality* (satyaM) is not in time, nor

it can

> be restricted with limited space, nor it is anyway related to cause

or

> effect..It is the ONLY untainted absolute reality...

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji.

 

 

Humble praNAms Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

Sri MN prabhuji:

 

 

May be I am wrong, Bhaskarji. But, this *continuity of existence* in

relation to Brahman sounds strange. Where is continuity when there is no

time?

 

 

bhaskar :

 

 

Yes, you are right, continuity implies time factor..I just talked about the

*unmodified continuity* of reality (clay) to emphasize the fact that

modified existence (pot) has only time & space restricted reality...Hence I

concluded absolute reality is not in time nor in space.It is only the

evidence of transcedence of time and other elements.

 

 

 

Sri MN prabhuji :

 

 

So, we are describing something in the vyAvahArika that cannot be truly

described. Why don't we then accept Ishwara as the vyAvahArika

description of the ineffable, immutable Brahman?

 

 

bhaskar :

 

 

Yes, as long as jIva is there identifying his/her existence with body, mind

& intellect, Ishvara is also very much there sitting comfortably in the

drawing room of the heart of a jeeva with a *mAya* remote in his hand !!

(IshvaraH sarvabhUtAnAM hruddeshe tishTati, bhrAmayan sarvabhUtAni

yaMtrArUdhAni mAyaya, says lord krishna to arjuna in geeta). So, there is

absolutely no problem in accepting the existence of Ishwara with all super

human powers & there is absolutely no problem in accepting that he is the

mOksha dAta in this avidyAtmaka world :-)) But dragging this reality to

the non-dual absolute reality leads to the duality (dvaita) in non-duality

(advaita) :-))

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Thank you, dear Bhaskarji, for your prompt response.

 

I am happy I got the right answer.

 

However, in the portion excerpted below from your reply, I would like

to change " as long as jIva is there identifying his/her existence

with ... " to " as long as jIva is there *operating* his/her existence

through....), because even after one gains the basic knowledge that

he is verily Brahman and not the BMI, one necessarily has to

*operate* or transact through the BMI. Hope that would be acceptable

to you.

 

About the last sentence of your message, there is no way one

operating in this vyAvahArika can drag Ishwara into the non-dual

simply because the non-dual is not a 'where' or 'there'. Ishwara's

scope is in the vyAvahArika (idam vishwam), where there is nothing

other than Ishwara. That is akin to saying sarvaM khalvidaM Ishwara

or sarvam khalvidaM brahma.

 

It is this basic minimum that we (or at least I) request our Dennisji

to concede.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________

 

 

 

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

> Yes, as long as jIva is there identifying his/her existence with

body, mind

> & intellect, Ishvara is also very much there sitting comfortably

in the

> drawing room of the heart of a jeeva with a *mAya* remote in his

hand !!

> (IshvaraH sarvabhUtAnAM hruddeshe tishTati, bhrAmayan sarvabhUtAni

> yaMtrArUdhAni mAyaya, says lord krishna to arjuna in geeta). So,

there is

> absolutely no problem in accepting the existence of Ishwara with

all super

> human powers & there is absolutely no problem in accepting that he

is the

> mOksha dAta in this avidyAtmaka world :-)) But dragging this

reality to

> the non-dual absolute reality leads to the duality (dvaita) in non-

duality

> (advaita) :-))

>

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

I am really happy to note that atlast atleast with one prabhuji of this

group I am finding more agreements than disagreements :-))

 

 

Sri MN prabhuji :

 

 

because even after one gains the basic knowledge that

he is verily Brahman and not the BMI, one necessarily has to

*operate* or transact through the BMI. Hope that would be acceptable

to you.

 

 

bhaskar :

 

 

Again, no problem with this as far as we are keeping vyAvahAric reality in

mind..shankara tells us that through avagati jnAna (sublativeknowledge)

jnAni would continue to do the *socalled* operations .But if we analyse

this scenario from shAstra drushti, question is, even after samyak jnAna,

how can a (the) jnAni still *recognizes* his own BMI & operates through

it?? Unless he identifies himself with *upAdhi paricchinna chaitanya*

(conscious that is circumscribed by limited adjuncts), he can not assert

" it is my BMI " is it not?? To avoid this problem, later commentators said

there is avidyA lEsha even in jnAni (even after realization), only after

the physical death he attains the ultimate..But shankara clearly says

though jnAni looks like saSharIri (embodied) he is always asharIri only,

there is no delusion for him to say that it is *his* upAdhi & that is

anothers' etc...This reminds me an episode in Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna

....When paramahamsa was in death bed, down with acute throat cancer, he

could hardly eat anything...His devotees forced him to ask his beloved

mother kAli to give some relief from this pain, so that he can take some

food...Paramahamsa hesitatingly agreed...Next day, when devotees asked him

about it...he said, I asked my mother (kAli) but she inturn asked me " are

you not taking food through somany mouths?? why do you so particular about

*your* throat?? Sri paramahamsa concluded, after hearing this, I could not

ask her anything more about *my* health...( I just narrated what I

remembered...see the gospel for more details)...what I am trying to say

here is, jnAni's socalled association with *his* BMI is only the

*perception* of ajnAni-s who are still recognizing the jnAni with his

upAdhi-s...Whereas for a jnAni, his realization reveals the fact that he

was/is/never associated with avidyAkruta upAdhi-s. he has the sarvataH

pAni pAdaM ( all upAdhi-s are his) and at the same time he is sarvendriya

vivarjita (he is devoid of any senses)...

 

 

Sri MN prabhuji :

 

 

About the last sentence of your message, there is no way one operating in

this vyAvahArika can drag Ishwara into the non-dual

simply because the non-dual is not a 'where' or 'there'. Ishwara's scope

is in the vyAvahArika (idam vishwam), where there is nothing

other than Ishwara. That is akin to saying sarvaM khalvidaM Ishwara or

sarvam khalvidaM brahma.

 

 

bhaskar :

 

 

prabhuji, dont we get the question here, what is the meaning of *sarvaM*

when brahman is *eka* (one)...*sarva* does not imply that there are

multiple upAdhi-s? What is the intention of shruti when Ishvara is called

sarvajna (omniscient), sarvashakta (omnipotent) sarvavyApaka (omnipresent)

etc.?? When brahman is *ekam eva advitIyaM, how does this *sarva* can fit

into the bill of *ekatva*?? Here *sarvaM* is mAya *jna*, *vyApaka*,

*shakta* etc. is the satya/Atman denoted by attribution..Hence *sarvaM* is

mere attribution by shAstra to name the *nameless* brahman as *sarvajna*,

sarvashakta etc. It is because of the fact that the upAdhi of sarva is

conjured up by avidyA & holds good only in empirical reality.

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

But Bhaskarji, we call Brahman 'eka' because we confront a 'sarvam'

right in front of us. In that sense, even 'eka' is an attribute

that we attach to the attributeless. Even the adjective

attributeless is an attribute because we are eager to say that

Brahman has nothing whatsoever to do with the vyAvahArika of

attributes. This applies to all the words we use to refer to

Brahman, like immutable, ineffable, limitless etc. Thus, isn't " eka "

also conjured up due to avidya?

 

Best regards.

 

Nair

___________

 

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

> prabhuji, dont we get the question here, what is the meaning of

*sarvaM*

> when brahman is *eka* (one)...*sarva* does not imply that there are

> multiple upAdhi-s? What is the intention of shruti when Ishvara is

called

> sarvajna (omniscient), sarvashakta (omnipotent) sarvavyApaka

(omnipresent)

> etc.?? When brahman is *ekam eva advitIyaM, how does this *sarva*

can fit

> into the bill of *ekatva*?? Here *sarvaM* is mAya *jna*, *vyApaka*,

> *shakta* etc. is the satya/Atman denoted by attribution..Hence

*sarvaM* is

> mere attribution by shAstra to name the *nameless* brahman as

*sarvajna*,

> sarvashakta etc. It is because of the fact that the upAdhi of

sarva is

> conjured up by avidyA & holds good only in empirical reality.

[Guest guest]

This applies to all the words we use to refer to

Brahman, like immutable, ineffable, limitless etc. Thus, isn't " eka "

also conjured up due to avidya?

 

 

Humble praNAms Sri MN prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

Bit free time at office...hence somany mails today...moderators, kindly

pardon me.

 

 

Whatever you said above is absolutely right prabhuji..pointing brahman as

*eka* is just to drive home the point that it is secondless..Intention is

not to show that it is ONE...shankara in geeta commentary says that since

brahman is without genus it cannot be expressed by words like *being*,

since brahman does not have any quality nor it could be expressed by an

adjective of quality, nor it can be expressed by means of its actions coz.

it is actionless...The best way to express it is *nEti, nEti*...*not this*

or according to you *not like this*...Ofcourse, everyone would agree that

brahman is *sankhyAvAchaka* to say it is *eka*...

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar-ji.

 

This is getting interesting. I too have already crossed the limit

of allowed posts. Yet, can't resist asking, if you and others can

kindly tolerate me.

 

It is only because we confront this " this " (idam) that we can

say " not this " or " not like this " . Need we then not to be thankful

to Brahman for providing this " this " in the first place to begin the

enquiry? We can't even visualize a scenario where this " this " is

not existent at all.

 

However, the problem then is that we have made the actionless

Brahman active by making It a giver of " this " . That is not

acceptable to advaita because no agency can be attributed to

Brahman. But, the " idam sarvam " prods us from all the sides. What

do we do then but exclaim: " sarvam khalvidam brahmam " after the

Upanishads and accept this world as an erroneous understanding of

Brahman Itself?

 

Thanks and regards, Bhaskarji.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

....The best way to express it (brahman) is *nEti, nEti*...*not this*

> or according to you *not like this*...Ofcourse, everyone would

agree that

> brahman is *sankhyAvAchaka* to say it is *eka*...

[Guest guest]

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

>

> I do not think that any of the shruti quotations

> from Shyam-ji shows that

> Ishvara is being spoken of rather than brahman.

>

_________________________________

Shyam:

 

Dear Dennis-ji - This is like you asking me to show

some apples which are reddish in colour and when I

show you red apples you say these may be red but they

are not " apples which are reddish in colour " ! :-)

 

If you remember your original question was - " does the

shruti state anywhere that sarvam is ishwara? " - I

have shown you a multitude of examples - in fact there

are dozens more! - in which it is crystal clear that

both the shruti and the smrti talk only about God or

Ishwara as being sarvam, and also as it being Him

alone we need to realize in his transcendental form

which alone is Atman in our very hearts.

 

The exact terms may be different in each Upanishad or

the Gita. While I don't have the time to give you the

original Sanskrit on all the verses I have referenced

the two words most commonly used to denote Ishwara in

these verses are Purusha and IshAna. They both mean

the Lord.

 

If there is some allergy to the word Ishwara, you can

substitue the word Purusha or Uttamapurusha or Ishana

or Lord or ParamAtma or AntaryAmi etc etc in all that

I have written about on this topic, For Him who is

beyond all forms and for Him who is beyond all names,

all names are equally applicable, including the name

Brahman.

 

In any case this is only my view and I think I have

tried to explain it as clearly as possible. We all

approach the Scriptures in some ways with our

colorations and we all get from it what we need.

__________

Bhaskar:

The discussion thread *brahman and Ishvara*, sofar has

seen various notes, comments & clarification from well

known scholars, saints & seers like Sri Dayananda

Saraswati, Swamy Vivekananda, Neem Karoli Baba,

Ramakrishna Parama Hamsa etc. etc. It is indeed

required to have the thoughts of those noble souls on

the very complex concept of Ishvara especially when we

are trying to understand this concept from the

perspective of non-dual philosophy.. .But, to my

surprise, we are not trying to understand this concept

based on what our mUlAchArya shankara bhagavadpAda

said in his prasthAna trayi bhAshya

______

Shyam:

You are surprised Bhaskar-ji because I think you

(perhaps subconsciously??) regard the views of any

AchArya, other than your paramaGuru, to not represent

" pure " Shankara advaita. Please do not include my

paramaGuru-ji Swami (not Shri) Dayananda-ji who is

very much in the sampradAya of Shankara Advaita

alongwith Neem Karoli Baba and Ramakrishna Parahamsa!

Amongst all the teachers of traditional vedanta as

taught by Adi Shankara, Swami Dayananda and Swami

Paramarthananda stand as amongst the foremost in the

world today. So what they are saying is not " their "

perspective or opinion, but what is taught by Shankara

in his bhashyas which is based on the Shruti alone.

___________________________

Ishvara means shiva bhagavAn!

__________________________

Shyam:

The word Ishwara, dear Bhaskar-ji, comes from the root

" ish " - which means the Lord. In the smarta tradition

the Lord refers to both Shiva as well as Vishnu and

the two are used interchangeably. I had posted the

views of ParamAchArya - the Sage of Kanchi - a few

weeks back on this - let me know if you need me to

send it to you again by private mail.

So Eeshana refers to both Shiva and Narayana.

" Ishana sarvavidyAnam Ishwara sarvabhutAnam " - you

rightly say refers to Shiva

" Ishana pranadaprana jyeshta shreshta .. " - here is

Ishana referring to Lord Vishnu in the sahasranama for

Vishnu. (In fact Eesha is likely also the original

uncorrupted name for Jesus - in south India he is

referred to by his original name of Eshu or Yeshu)

The word Purusha also in the Smarta tradition can

represent both Hari and Hara. When we chant the

Purusha Suktam we can chant it while praying to both

Shiva and Vishnu.

When we talk about the Paramatman or the Purusha we

are not referring to any deities, be they " neelagreeva

shitikanthA " , etc or " shankachakragadha-dhari " We are

referring to the transcendental Lord, the Supreme One,

beyond all names and forms, and yet inclusive of them

all, alone!

_______________________

Bhaskar

To get rid of this mAyA bandhana (bondage), jiva has

to surrender to god/Ishvara and

by IshvarAnugraha (grace of god) one will get

solvation or mOksha...

_________________________

Shyam

This is not merely the traditional view, but what is

the truth that the Shruti proclaims. " naanyapantha

ayanayavidyate. " " SarvadharmAn parityaja mamekan

sharana vraja " Vedanta provides a wonderful

intellectual framework for this provided one has

humility and devotion in his heart - thats all.

 

Humble pranams

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

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

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Guest guest]

Hi Durga,

 

 

 

Please read what I wrote again - this is exactly what I said. But I also

pointed out that the reverse is not true - i.e. the clay is not the pot.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Durga

Thursday, April 24, 2008 12:12 AM

advaitin

Re: brahman and Ishvara

 

 

 

advaitin <advaitin%40> ,

" Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Hi Durga,

>

 

> If you have a clay pot, it is the pot that holds the water, not the

clay.

> You cannot say that the clay *is* the pot. It is the pot which is always

> only clay. By analogy, it is Ishvara that 'does' the manifesting of the

> apparent creation, not brahman. You cannot say that brahman *is*

Ishvara,

> only that Ishvara is always only brahman. Ishvara is mithyA, brahman is

> satyam.

>

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

Hi Dennis,

 

The pot *is* the clay. Without clay,

where is the pot? The pot form is

mithya.

 

The table *is* the wood. The wood form

is mithya.

 

Therefore whatever is mithya, (name

and form) *is* in the final analysis

satyam. That's the vision of the

Upanishads, as far as I know.

 

All that is here is brahman, nondually one.

 

I'm going to transcribe something of Swamiji's

which I just listened to, that explains this

all so well. It may take me sometime, but it

will be good mananam. So to be continued...

 

Best to you also,

Durga

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Nair-ji,

 

 

 

This is the effective definition of 'reality' - trikAlAtIta, that which

exist in all three periods of time, past, present and future. I thought we

had agreed that all discussion, 'definitions' etc. were inevitably at the

level of vyavahAra.

 

 

 

It is not acceptable to use Ishvara as the vyAvahArika definition of brahman

because the former only relates to the macrocosmic causal aspect, not to the

gross or subtle. Just as the waker is not the deep sleeper, so the virAT is

not Ishvara. All, of course, are brahman alone.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

<<So, we are describing something in the vyAvahArika that cannot be

truly described. Why don't we then accept Ishwara as the vyAvahArika

description of the ineffable, immutable Brahman?

 

Will this be acceptable to Dennis-ji et al? We then have something

to immediately relate to, don't we?>>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Shyam-ji,

 

 

 

I can understand that I must be seeming extremely, even unreasonably

pedantic to some readers. However, although the verses you have quoted could

certainly be interpreted as referring to Ishvara, I read them as referring

to brahman. Since they do not at the same time explicitly clarify which is

being spoken of, I suggest that my interpretation is perfectly valid. I am

also following the instruction of Gaudapada in MU kArikA III.23 ( " That which

is supported by shruti and corroborated by reason is alone true. "

 

 

 

On the other hand, the verse that I quoted from the pa~nchadashI *does*

specifically mention both:

 

" 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) "

 

 

 

satyaM j~nAnamanantaM yadbrahma tadvastu tasya tat

 

IshvaratvaM cha jIvatvamupAdhi dvayakalpitam

 

 

 

But no one has commented on this yet.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

<<Dear Dennis-ji - This is like you asking me to show

some apples which are reddish in colour and when I

show you red apples you say these may be red but they

are not " apples which are reddish in colour " ! :-)

 

If you remember your original question was - " does the

shruti state anywhere that sarvam is ishwara? " - I

have shown you a multitude of examples - in fact there

are dozens more! - in which it is crystal clear that

both the shruti and the smrti talk only about God or

Ishwara as being sarvam, and also as it being Him

alone we need to realize in his transcendental form

which alone is Atman in our very hearts.

 

The exact terms may be different in each Upanishad or

the Gita. While I don't have the time to give you the

original Sanskrit on all the verses I have referenced

the two words most commonly used to denote Ishwara in

these verses are Purusha and IshAna. They both mean

the Lord.>>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Hi Durga,

>

>

>

> Please read what I wrote again - this is exactly what I said. But I also

> pointed out that the reverse is not true - i.e. the clay is not the pot.

>

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

 

Hi Dennis,

 

Although it's true I don't have much time right

now, I just wanted to say that the clay *is* the

pot, while there is a pot form there to be called

a pot. They are inseparable. They are the exact

same 'thing.' Now, let's say the pot form goes,

and perhaps that same clay now looks like a cup,

or some other clay vessel. So what's there? Clay

What has always been there clay.

 

The clay is not modified by the pot form because

it is always clay. The clay doesn't go out of

existence, because that which we called a clay pot,

by any other name (now maybe a plate) is clay.

 

(This is if we are using the drishtantah of 'clay'

as in 'the clay alone is real,') It is true.

The clay alone is real, but the pot, being clay,

is also real when it is seen that it is clay.

So we 'transcend' the pot form and see the clay.

 

The thing is, as I understand it, the vision

of the Upanishads is 'everything is brahman.'

 

Sometimes I think you may be using the word

'appearance,' as in 'apparition.' Like some

ghostly thing which isn't really there, and

then poof it vanishes, in a puff of smoke, leaving

nothing behind, because it never was in the

first place.

 

I also think that you are not understanding

the dream analogy as it is used in Vedanta.

The dream analogy is not that I wake up and

see that the dream didn't exist, that it wasn't

real.

 

The dream analogy is used in Vedanta to illustrate

that all of the variety of objects I saw in the dream

were made from my being. So in truth what were they?

My being.

 

Then for the moment stop there. Don't take that

drishtantah any farther.

 

It is the same thing here. Every single object is

made from brahman, which in fact, is my being,

(and yours too, since there is only one

'my being.') You can call it yours. I can call it mine.

That's what is so completely personal

about it. (Anyway, to continue).

 

I think the proper way to use the word

appearance is to say, " Well, there do

*appear* to be different things here.

One thing *appears* to be different from another. "

But even if we examine this statement from the POV

of physics, we see that things are not necessarily

what they *appear* to be.

 

I have a friend who is a Vedanta teacher, not

my main teacher, but she is also a jnani, and trained

as a teacher by Swmami Dayananda. I used to study

with her, but after sometime I found the driving

distance too far.

 

One day she stood up started walking back

and forth in front of me, saying, " I'm

walking around in brahman. I'm walking

around in my self. "

 

Then she said, " When you do not see that all

of this creation is brahman, you just don't

see it, and when you do see it, you see that

everything is screaming 'brahman' at you. "

 

So, this is not to say that those things (which

is everything) that are brahman, but appear

to be different from each other, don't exist.

They exist as brahman, as my being. (Okay

its yours too) :-)

 

What it seems to me you are saying,

is that you've read that the creation never

existed, and on the basis of that, it

further seems to me, that you've concluded

that name and form are only apparent. IOW name

and form don't really exist because the

creation doesn't exist.

 

Well what do you mean by exist? They don't

'ultimately' exist as name and form, but

they exist as brahman. That's all that

really exists. Every single thing has

That/brahman for its existence.

 

So, IMO, you cannot say that the creation

doesn't exist, because that is the same

as saying, brahman doesn't exist, since

everything in the creation is brahman.

 

If we analyze names and forms and find

that in reality they are brahman, then

do they exist or not? IOW, does brahman

exist or not?

 

This, in my understanding, is what Swami Dayananda

means when he says " Wherever there is mithya, there is

satyam, " or even more directly " mithya is satyam "

(and he does say that.)

 

That which is mithya is satyam, brahman.

All that is here is brahman. All of this

mithya, which *appears* to be different

names and forms, is actually names of

forms of brahman.

 

Apple brahman. Table brahman. Water brahman.

Earth brahman. Fire brahman. Air brahman.

How is that possible, when brahman cannot

modify? Mithya! Maya Shakti.

 

If you don't accept maya shakti (which is

a power of brahman) as making it possible

for brahman to appear as all of these names

and forms, then I think you will arrive at

the conclusion which I believe you have come

to, that the creation doesn't exist at all.

 

But if you do accept it, then I think you

will come to the conclusion that the

creation is brahman.

 

The vision of the Upanishads is that all

of these names and forms are brahman.

You, oh jiva, are brahman. All of

these names and forms are brahman.

 

Tasmat 'You are the Whole'

 

Okay, this mithya body, which is brahman,

with the help of some maya shakti, which is brahman,

has got to go *do* some mithya dishes, which are

also brahman.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Durga, pranams:

 

I have a few questions for you regarding what you just stated in your

previous postings, thanks.

 

" Durga " <durgaji108 wrote:

>

> ..,I just wanted to say that the clay *is* the

> pot, while there is a pot form there to be called

> a pot. They are inseparable. They are the exact

> same 'thing.' Now, let's say the pot form goes,

> and perhaps that same clay now looks like a cup,

> or some other clay vessel. So what's there? Clay

> What has always been there clay.

 

How could you say that they are the same " thing " since one, as you put

it, never goes and the other is transformed into something else?,

already there is a difference there, is it just a " semantic " one?.

 

 

> (This is if we are using the drishtantah of 'clay'

> as in 'the clay alone is real,') It is true.

> The clay alone is real, but the pot, being clay,

> is also real when it is seen that it is clay.

 

If you see the pot as clay, where is the pot?, you are saying that you

are seeing clay, not pot. You are adscribing reality to the pot

because you are seeing it as clay?

 

> The thing is, as I understand it, the vision

> of the Upanishads is 'everything is brahman.'

 

Isn't this the same as saying: All pots are only Clay?

 

> Sometimes I think you may be using the word

> 'appearance,' as in 'apparition.' Like some

> ghostly thing which isn't really there, and

> then poof it vanishes, in a puff of smoke, leaving

> nothing behind, because it never was in the

> first place.

>

Isn't the vedantic classic example of the snake and the rope depicting

the idea of the " appearance " of a snake " on " the rope, meaning that we

take something that it's not real as something real, that's appearance

for me... It appears to be there, but under investigation with the

proper means of knowledge, it's not.

 

 

> I also think that you are not understanding

> the dream analogy as it is used in Vedanta.

> The dream analogy is not that I wake up and

> see that the dream didn't exist, that it wasn't

> real.

>

Nobody said that the dream didn't exist, it existed allright,

specially if you were, within the dream, scared to death or you were

being in love with a lovely partner. From the point of view of the

waker after waking up, where is the threat?, and where did that lovely

lady evaporated into?

 

>

> I think the proper way to use the word

> appearance is to say, " Well, there do

> *appear* to be different things here.

> One thing *appears* to be different from another. "

 

At the relative level, they ARE different, a cup is different from a

pot, right? What they " appear " to be is things with inherent

substantive reality in themselves. If I say to you: " show me a cup " ,

then you go to the kitchen and bring your cup... and I say no, that's

brahman, I told you to show me a cup! so... what would you say?, if I

see only brahman, how would you explain to me that what you have in

your hand is a cup? I would continue saying: describe me the essence

of the cup that makes it essentially different from any other object

in the world. Would you be able to do that?

 

 

 

> But even if we examine this statement from the POV

> of physics, we see that things are not necessarily

> what they *appear* to be.

 

Agree, physics is saying that at the quantum level, " objects " are

just patterns of probabilities, patterns of inter-relationships. Isn't

that the same as saying nama-rupa?

 

 

 

> So, this is not to say that those things (which

> is everything) that are brahman, but appear

> to be different from each other, don't exist.

 

Again, Vedanta don't say they don't exist (like would be the case with

the son of a barren woman), Vedanta says: it appears to exist, and the

technical term is surimposition. They are unreal in that sense, in the

sense that " those things (which is everything) " are finite in time and

space, hence not-real, if we consider REAL what is infinite and

timeless without beginning or end.

 

 

> What it seems to me you are saying,

> is that you've read that the creation never

> existed, and on the basis of that, it

> further seems to me, that you've concluded

> that name and form are only apparent. IOW name

> and form don't really exist because the

> creation doesn't exist.

> Well what do you mean by exist? They don't

> 'ultimately' exist as name and form, but

> they exist as brahman...

 

I thought that you said that name and form were real...

 

 

> So, IMO, you cannot say that the creation

> doesn't exist, because that is the same

> as saying, brahman doesn't exist, since

> everything in the creation is brahman.

 

It appears to exist is different than not-existing... again and

again... like the mirage in the sand, I don't think is you are thirsty

you'll go drink that water, right? But you are seeing it allright!!

and on top of that it's making you even more thirsty!.

 

 

> If we analyze names and forms and find

> that in reality they are brahman, then

> do they exist or not? IOW, does brahman

> exist or not?

 

When we analyze names and forms we find that there is ONLY brahman, so

I give you back the question, do they exist or not? Brahman, of course

it exists!, because is the only thing we find after investigation.

 

 

> Apple brahman. Table brahman. Water brahman.

> Earth brahman. Fire brahman. Air brahman.

> How is that possible, when brahman cannot

> modify? Mithya! Maya Shakti.

 

What you are describing here is only brahman... there is no

modification, the modification is adscribed to our limited perception,

to the fact that you are taking ourselves as a " limited " body seeing

" different " objects...

 

> If you don't accept maya shakti (which is

> a power of brahman) as making it possible

> for brahman to appear as all of these names

> and forms, then I think you will arrive at

> the conclusion which I believe you have come

> to, that the creation doesn't exist at all.

 

Right, from Brahman point of view, there is no creation, of course!!

>

> But if you do accept it, then I think you

> will come to the conclusion that the

> creation is brahman.

 

And that is also right!!!

 

 

 

> The vision of the Upanishads is that all

> of these names and forms are brahman.

> You, oh jiva, are brahman. All of

> these names and forms are brahman.

 

A small talk from Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi:

 

" Question: Sri Bhagavan (Ramana Maharshi) often says that Maya

(illusion) and reality are the same. How can that be?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Sankara was criticised for his views on Maya

without being understood. He said that

1. Brahman is real, 2. The universe is unreal, and 3. The universe is

Brahman.

He did not stop at the second, because the third explains the other

two. It signifies that the universe is real if perceived as the Self,

and unreal if perceived apart from the Self. Hence Maya and reality

are one and the same. "

 

Some people stop at the second, granted, but you may be skiping it!!

 

Dear Durga, please take all these statements and questions challenging

your views in the spirit of a learning process of my own, thanks.

 

All the best,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

>

> --- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

> >

> > I do not think that any of the shruti quotations

> > from Shyam-ji shows that

> > Ishvara is being spoken of rather than brahman.

> >

> _________________________________

> Shyam:

>

> Dear Dennis-ji - This is like you asking me to show

> some apples which are reddish in colour and when I

> show you red apples you say these may be red but they

> are not " apples which are reddish in colour " ! :-)

>

> If you remember your original question was - " does the

> shruti state anywhere that sarvam is ishwara? " - I

> have shown you a multitude of examples - in fact there

> are dozens more! - in which it is crystal clear that

> both the shruti and the smrti talk only about God or

> Ishwara as being sarvam, and also as it being Him

> alone we need to realize in his transcendental form

> which alone is Atman in our very hearts.

>

> The exact terms may be different in each Upanishad or

> the Gita. While I don't have the time to give you the

> original Sanskrit on all the verses I have referenced

> the two words most commonly used to denote Ishwara in

> these verses are Purusha and IshAna. They both mean

> the Lord.

>

> If there is some allergy to the word Ishwara, you can

> substitue the word Purusha or Uttamapurusha or Ishana

> or Lord or ParamAtma or AntaryAmi etc etc in all that

> I have written about on this topic, For Him who is

> beyond all forms and for Him who is beyond all names,

> all names are equally applicable, including the name

> Brahman.

>

> In any case this is only my view and I think I have

> tried to explain it as clearly as possible. We all

> approach the Scriptures in some ways with our

> colorations and we all get from it what we need.

> __________

> Bhaskar:

> The discussion thread *brahman and Ishvara*, sofar has

> seen various notes, comments & clarification from well

> known scholars, saints & seers like Sri Dayananda

> Saraswati, Swamy Vivekananda, Neem Karoli Baba,

> Ramakrishna Parama Hamsa etc. etc. It is indeed

> required to have the thoughts of those noble souls on

> the very complex concept of Ishvara especially when we

> are trying to understand this concept from the

> perspective of non-dual philosophy.. .But, to my

> surprise, we are not trying to understand this concept

> based on what our mUlAchArya shankara bhagavadpAda

> said in his prasthAna trayi bhAshya

> ______

> Shyam:

> You are surprised Bhaskar-ji because I think you

> (perhaps subconsciously??) regard the views of any

> AchArya, other than your paramaGuru, to not represent

> " pure " Shankara advaita. Please do not include my

> paramaGuru-ji Swami (not Shri) Dayananda-ji who is

> very much in the sampradAya of Shankara Advaita

> alongwith Neem Karoli Baba and Ramakrishna Parahamsa!

> Amongst all the teachers of traditional vedanta as

> taught by Adi Shankara, Swami Dayananda and Swami

> Paramarthananda stand as amongst the foremost in the

> world today. So what they are saying is not " their "

> perspective or opinion, but what is taught by Shankara

> in his bhashyas which is based on the Shruti alone.

> ___________________________

> Ishvara means shiva bhagavAn!

> __________________________

> Shyam:

> The word Ishwara, dear Bhaskar-ji, comes from the root

> " ish " - which means the Lord. In the smarta tradition

> the Lord refers to both Shiva as well as Vishnu and

> the two are used interchangeably. I had posted the

> views of ParamAchArya - the Sage of Kanchi - a few

> weeks back on this - let me know if you need me to

> send it to you again by private mail.

> So Eeshana refers to both Shiva and Narayana.

> " Ishana sarvavidyAnam Ishwara sarvabhutAnam " - you

> rightly say refers to Shiva

> " Ishana pranadaprana jyeshta shreshta .. " - here is

> Ishana referring to Lord Vishnu in the sahasranama for

> Vishnu. (In fact Eesha is likely also the original

> uncorrupted name for Jesus - in south India he is

> referred to by his original name of Eshu or Yeshu)

> The word Purusha also in the Smarta tradition can

> represent both Hari and Hara. When we chant the

> Purusha Suktam we can chant it while praying to both

> Shiva and Vishnu.

> When we talk about the Paramatman or the Purusha we

> are not referring to any deities, be they " neelagreeva

> shitikanthA " , etc or " shankachakragadha-dhari " We are

> referring to the transcendental Lord, the Supreme One,

> beyond all names and forms, and yet inclusive of them

> all, alone!

> _______________________

> Bhaskar

> To get rid of this mAyA bandhana (bondage), jiva has

> to surrender to god/Ishvara and

> by IshvarAnugraha (grace of god) one will get

> solvation or mOksha...

> _________________________

> Shyam

> This is not merely the traditional view, but what is

> the truth that the Shruti proclaims. " naanyapantha

> ayanayavidyate. " " SarvadharmAn parityaja mamekan

> sharana vraja " Vedanta provides a wonderful

> intellectual framework for this provided one has

> humility and devotion in his heart - thats all.

>

> Humble pranams

> Hari OM

> Shri Gurubhyoh namah

> Shyam

>

>

>

>

>

>

___________________

_______________

> Be a better friend, newshound, and

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

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

>

[Guest guest]

Hari OM~

The etymological derivation of the term Iswara according to Advaita

denotes on Narayana alone. Sankara makes this point very clear uniform

in all the prasthana traya bashyams. So i think pondering over the

root of the term Iswara and generalizing it makes no sense at all.

Sankaracarya defines the term Iswara thus; 'Iswara iti - IswaraH

IsanasIlaH NarayanaH sarvabhutAnam sarva prAninam Hrdayadese

SuklAntaratma' iti. More, 'Ekam Eva Param Brahma' and that

jnanam 'tacca jnanam evameva' as Sankara puts it to say 'sa eva

Bagavan VisnuH'. In the voice of Lord, Acarya categorically rejects

the pausibility to ascribe the term to other Deities by saying 'mam

Iswaram cApi anye anyAmupAsanAm parityajya upAsate' iti. 'Ananya

bajanAm na' is also what Sankara precribes in his Ananya Yoga. To the

term Ananya, Sankara comments, 'Aprthak bhUtaH - Param Devam Narayanam

atmatvena gata..' - Supreme deity is Narayana alone who is non-dual.

Those who ascribe Iswaratva and devote themselves to other deities in

multitude names and forms are 'ignorant' - 'anyadevatAbhakthAh (..)

ajnanapurvakam'.

 

Shyam ji, I am puzzled to see the proceeding on the etymological

derivations presented on the term Iswara here extending it to Shiva

Jesus so on n so forth. Let me humbly request you and fellow members

to stick to Sankara bhasyams strictly while you speak something under

the banner of Advaita.

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

'Iswara iti - IswaraH IsanasIlaH NarayanaH sarvabhutAnam sarva prAninam

Hrdayadese

SuklAntaratma' iti. More, 'Ekam Eva Param Brahma' and that

jnanam 'tacca jnanam evameva' as Sankara puts it to say 'sa eva

Bagavan VisnuH'. In the voice of Lord, Acarya categorically rejects

the pausibility to ascribe the term to other Deities by saying 'mam

Iswaram cApi anye anyAmupAsanAm parityajya upAsate' iti. 'Ananya

bajanAm na' is also what Sankara precribes in his Ananya Yoga. To the

term Ananya, Sankara comments, 'Aprthak bhUtaH - Param Devam Narayanam

atmatvena gata..' - Supreme deity is Narayana alone who is non-dual.

 

 

praNAms Devanathan prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

Very interesting quotes...Kindly tell me where did you pick this?? I would

be more interested if it is from prasThAna trayi bhAshya...If it is taken

from the other prakaraNa granTha-s (which are floating in the name of

shankara), then I may not be able to comment with the support of shankara

bhAshya. I think you must be talking about gIta bhAshya here, if yes,

kindly give me the reference.

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar-ji and Devanathan-ji

Humble Pranams.

 

If the two of you can please come to a quick decision

- the Real " Non-dual " Parameshwara, the Supreme

Purusha, who is beyond all names and forms, is anxious

to know if He should be called Narayana or Shiva! :-)

 

Should you wish to read what the sage of Kanchi has to

say in this regard please read:

 

http://tinyurl.com/2zuqob

 

I am giving below an excerpt:

 

" If it is pointed out that in all (srI shankara)

matams, only the Chandra MoulIswara pUjA is conducted,

[*then the answer is that*] it is because of a

specific reason.

 

ParamEshwara Himself gave five spatika lingAs to

AchAryAl and wanted Him to ensure the ArAdhanA for

them, for ever, in this lOkA. AchAryAl had ensured

that uninterrupted ArAdhanA by keeping the two out of

five in the matams at SringEri and kAnchi and the

remaining three at the temples of NEpAl, kEdArnAth and

Chidambaram. When we say 'Sankara Matams', should

there not be 'uniformity' amongst all of them? That is

why He introduced Chandra MoulIswara pUja in [*all

His*] matams.

 

Lakshmi Narasimha Murhty gave a 'sAlagrAmam' to

AchAryAl. As IshvarA Himself had given a spatika

lingA, which is [*considered to be*] His SwarUpA,

Narasimha Murhty also gave a sAlagrAmam, which is of

His SwarUpA. As He has kept the spatika lingA in the

pUjA of the matam, He has kept that sAlagrAmam too in

the pUja.

 

He doesn't entertain the Siva-Vishnu Bhedham, even a

bit. As He has done the spatika linga prathishtA at

Chidambaram, He has done the NArAyana prathishtA at

BadhrinAth. There itself, He had establihed a math.

Among the places where He had established the matams,

Puri JagannAth and DwarakA are important Krishna

kshEtrAs. He has not commented on Siva sahasranAmam;

instead He wrote a bhAshyam only for Vishnu

sahasranAmam. Though there are many gItas in our

purAnAs such as Siva gIta, dEvi gIta etc, He has

chosen to give a bhAshyam only to the gIta, presented

by Krishna ParamAthmA. As He has composed devotional

hymns towards IshvarA and ambAl, He composed on MahA

Vishnu, srI RAmA, Krishna and Maha Lakshmi also.

 

As all these points are not properly considered, He is

interpreted to be a saivaite [*albeit wrongly*].

 

What is being conducted [*daily*] in AchAryAl's matams

is not only [*an exclusive*] Siva pUja. As I mentioned

in the begining, the very panchAyathana pUja is the

pUjA of the matam too. AchAryAl is the combined

avthAram of IshvarA and ambAl; Uma and MahEshwara

themselves gave Him the pancha lingAs at KailAsh; that

is why He established Ishwara and ambAl as the main

deities of the pUja of the matam. But still, as per

Siva panchAyathanA, even Maha Vishnu, Ganapathy and

SuryA are also present in the pUja. Here [*in the

matam*], similar to Siva rAthri and nava rAthri, we

celebrate rAma navami, gOkulAshtami, Narasimha

jayanthi etc also [*in the same scale*].

 

Whenever srImukams [1] are issued, from the matam,

what do we [*the presiding AchAryAs*] say? In that, we

say, for a particular activity, " kriyathE nArAyana

smrthihi " . That is, any book or an activity [*sacred

or secular*], for which this srImukam is issued as a

token of blessing, to become a success, we say that

'we remember NArAyanA'. We don't say that 'we remember

Siva'.

 

What do I say when you prostrate before me? I say

only, " NArAyana NArAyana " . All the shankarAchAryAs

also say only so. This is the rule made by the Adi

AchAryAl Himself. Inorder to get the good [*and

auspicious*] things to happen to this lOka, He has

ordained the remembrance of NArayanA only, as He is

the sustainer of this world

(jagadh-paripAlana-karthA).

 

For so long, I was talking about the existence of the

impression that advaitins are saivaites. Diagonally

opposite to this, there are some who hold that Sankara

worshipped only MahA vishnu. They quote this NArayana

smaranam and Vishnu sahasranAma bhAshyam etc as the

supportive evidence for their claim. In addition to

that, they also point to the fact of establishing the

Ishvara or the saguna Bhraman, which does all these

lOka-vyavahAra, to be none other than NArAyanA

Himself, by AchAryAl, while elaborating about Him

[*Ishvara*] in His BhAshyAs.

Even then, the very identification of AchAryAl either

as a saivaite or as a sAkthA or as a vaishnavaite, is

nothing but viewing Him in a very narrow prespective.

It is not correct to categorise Him, thus, as a

bhakthA of a particular deity alone.

 

If it is asked as to why He has identified the saguna

bhrahman as NArAyanA, in His bhAshya granthAs, it is

because MahA Vishnu has been entrusted with the

responsibility of lOka rakshanAm, during the division

of three primary activities. He has referred to the

one who is incharge of protection [*of this creation*]

as the very energy which takes care of this entire

'prapancham'.

 

AchAryAl is a saivaite and also a vaishnavaite and

sAkthA too. We, the smArthAs also should be like that.

The one who remains as a role-model for all smArthAs

is srI Muthuswamy DhIkshidhar. He has viewed all the

deities including even mAriamman [1], iyyanAr [2] and

navagrahAs as the svarUpa of paramAathmA and

worshipped all of them through [*His*] kIrthanAs.

 

The only paramAthmA, appearing as various deities is

our objective. The attitude to view all of them with

equanimity should be cultivated in us. Though, it is

pointed out that even among advaitins, there existed

vIra saivaities and vIra vaishnavaites, actually it

[*such groupings*] is not in conformance with the

manObhAva of AchAryAl and also with His advice/

instructions to us.

 

There is nothing wrong in having extra-oridnary

devotion towards any particular ishta-dEvathA like

Appaya dhIkshitA who remained a devout sAmbhavA

(devotee of Siva) and LIlA sukar who was a devout

bhAghavathA having deep love for Krishna, to quote a

few from among advaitins. But, as these saints

dissolved themselves in their bhakti for their ishta

dEvathA without indulging in the 'nindhA' of other

deities, we should also develop deep devotion towards

our ishta mUrthy, without resorting to any criticism

of any other deity.

 

This is one of cardinal principles of the vEdic

religion known as smArthA matham. While denigrating

the other deity, if one's dEvathA is claimed to be

'the' dEvathA, then it can not be considered to have

the acceptance of vEdA. Going by this test, only we -

the smArthAs, who follow the AchAryAl alone are 'pUrna

vaidIkAs'. "

 

--- Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

> 'Iswara iti - IswaraH IsanasIlaH NarayanaH

> sarvabhutAnam sarva prAninam

> Hrdayadese

> SuklAntaratma' iti. More, 'Ekam Eva Param Brahma'

> and that

> jnanam 'tacca jnanam evameva' as Sankara puts it to

> say 'sa eva

> Bagavan VisnuH'. In the voice of Lord, Acarya

> categorically rejects

> the pausibility to ascribe the term to other Deities

> by saying 'mam

> Iswaram cApi anye anyAmupAsanAm parityajya upAsate'

> iti. 'Ananya

> bajanAm na' is also what Sankara precribes in his

> Ananya Yoga. To the

> term Ananya, Sankara comments, 'Aprthak bhUtaH -

> Param Devam Narayanam

> atmatvena gata..' - Supreme deity is Narayana alone

> who is non-dual.

>

>

> praNAms Devanathan prabhuji

>

>

> Hare Krishna

>

>

> Very interesting quotes...Kindly tell me where did

> you pick this?? I would

> be more interested if it is from prasThAna trayi

> bhAshya...If it is taken

> from the other prakaraNa granTha-s (which are

> floating in the name of

> shankara), then I may not be able to comment with

> the support of shankara

> bhAshya. I think you must be talking about gIta

> bhAshya here, if yes,

> kindly give me the reference.

>

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

>

> bhaskar

>

>

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

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

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar-ji and Devanathan-ji

Humble Pranams.

 

If the two of you can please come to a quick decision

- the Real " Non-dual " Parameshwara, the Supreme

Purusha, who is beyond all names and forms, is anxious

to know if He should be called Narayana or Shiva! :-)

 

 

praNAms Sri Shyamprabhuji,

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

Dear Shyam prabhuji, you are asking me the question in such a way that as

if I am biased against one particular deity :-)) Being a meticulous

follower of shankara siddhAnta how can I be prejudiced like that :-)) for

me both shiva & vishNu are one and same personification of parabrahman who

are equally potential & equally influential in my vyAvahArik life :-))...I

dont want to see any fight between sudarshana & trishUla, not even on

television :-)) So, please dont ask me this type of irrelevant question

to me :-))

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar