brahman and Ishvara

[Guest guest]

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.

 

 

praNAms Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

Yes, in our day to day business we do confront *this*...But dont you think

that *this* which is appearing as time, space, casuality appropriate to

each different state?? Dont we are subject to joys and sorrows of the

particular state/world?? And, again, the scenario where this *this* is not

existent at all also is very much there in our day to day experience..you

know which state I am talking about here:-)) the state in which we know no

limitation of time, space or causation, that is deep sleep state!!!

 

 

Oh, I think we are going back to old days once again, wherein we had not so

good/healthy dialogues on this issue :-))...Let us leave it at that..

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Hi Durga,

 

 

 

I really do not understand what I have written that prompts you to write any

of this. I agree with all that you say and have said much the same things

myself and written them in my books. I have even quoted Swami Dayananda's

'mithyA is satyam'. I have never implied that name and form are 'only

apparent'. All that I have insisted upon is that everything is actually only

brahman and that, in reality, there has never been any creation. Both these

ideas are pure advaita. Where is there a problem? If you want to persist in

countering what you think are my views, could you please quote actual

statements that I have made so that I can explain where you have

misunderstood what I was saying?

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

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.>>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Humble praNAms Shri Shyam prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Sri S prabhuji :

 

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.

 

bhaskar :

 

I am infact consciously aware that some of the post shankaran works are not

really reflecting the true purports of prasthAna trayi bhAshya. My parama

guruji has shown this clearly in his work dedicated exclusively for this

purpose...But while saying this, kindly be rest assured that none of the

names that you have mentioned in the mail is there in my mind :-))

 

Sri S prabhuji :

 

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!

 

bhaskar :

 

I am afraid prabhuji, you are reading too much between the lines of my mail

....When I am asking for shankara's views, my concern was quite genuine & I

did not have an iota of disrespect to downplay the teachings of these great

souls...have I talked anyther about sampradAya?? have I said anywhere

these spiritual teachers are not following shankara?? have I anywhere

compared their teachings with that of shankara bhAshya?? Infact I am

hearing the name of Shri Neem Karoli Baba* first time in this list...I dont

know anything about his teachings & his tradition...Same is the case with

Swamy Dayananda Saraswati prabhuji & Swamy paramArthananda prabhuji..Sofar

I've read only 3-4 books written by Swami Dayanandaji (I think *value of

values*, *Sri rudram* etc. which deal with some general topic & not pure

shAstric in its contents ) I dont know anything about his works on

prasthAna trayi & its compliance with shankara bhAshya. Under these

circumstances, how can I adjudge whether swamiji is the follower of

vivaraNa or bhAmati or shankara?? Only recently I came to know that (from

your postings) Swamiji is the follower of vivaraNa school....So, kindly

note that I am the last man to evaluate their traditional belongingness...

 

After reading your above statement, one curious question is coming to my

mind...what makes you to say 'dont put my guruji-s name *alongwith* Neem

Karoli Baba & paramahamsa...In what way you see the difference between the

teachings of these two spiritual teachers?? Kindly clarify.

 

Sri S prabhuji :

 

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.

 

bhaskar :

 

I am really happy to know that prabhuji. My humble prostrations to them.

 

Sri S prabhuji :

 

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.

 

bhaskar :

 

Again, I am happy to note that...Kindly tell me what is their conclusion

about the concept of Ishvara according to advaita?? Shankara makes it

explicitly clear that Ishvara is only the vyAvahAri reality & there is no

Ishvara, jIva, jagat bedha in the absolute reality. However, since there

is no *second chaitanya* apart from brahman, shankara continues to say that

the secondless brahman only is equated with Ishvara (ruler) who is

omniscient and omnipotent. (example sutra 1-1-2). In short, shankara

without any ambiguity concludes that The very brahman conditioned by name

and form set up by avidyA becomes Ishvara (sUtra bhAshya 2-1-14) ...Whether

this is what poojya Swamiji teaches?? pls. clarify... if not, kindly tell

me what is his stand on this concept & based on which part of the bhAshya

he is holding to prove it otherwise. And also let me know whether he

anywhere talks about apara brahman & Ishvara and their differences (if

any)...

 

Sri S prabhuji :

 

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.

 

bhaskar :

 

I agree. But if you read my mail carefully, you will come to know that I

was not talking about the etymology of this word Ishwara...I was just

talking about the conventional belief system existing here in South Indian

smArtha tradition. Some examples, vishveshvara means shiva (namaste astu

bhagavan vishveshwaraya, mahAdEvAya etc.), srikanteshwara means shiva,

Ishvara means shiva, manjunAtheshvara means shiva, nanjundeshvara means

shiva, maheshvara means shiva...see, all these prefixes to the term Ishvara

invariably depict the various names & forms of shiva bhagavan only...Having

said this, I dont have any issues if you say this Ishvara is nArAyaNa or

shiva-nArAyaNa both :-))

 

Again, coming back to the main topic, the derivative meaning of the word

Ishvara is *the ruler* or *the lord*...Dont you think it would be

interesting to know how bhagavadpAda, an absolute proponent of non-duality

who repeatedly says brahman is One & only one without a second, reconciles

this idea of personified form of Ishvara, the ruler, the lord and the

ruled, ordained into his system without any self contradiction?? How can

there be distinction of a ruler and someing being ruled?? dont you think

this would counter the fundamental tenet of accepting Isvara as the cause

of the world?? shankara gives answer to this by saying the doctrine of

causality is mAyik, does not hold any water from the absolute sense.

Hence, the Ishvara who is conditioned by name & form is just like universal

ether limited as it were by jars, pots etc. and from the empirical point of

view this Ishvara rules over the souls (jeeva-s) conditioned by individual

consciousness (vijnAnamAtmanaH)...If this is what ultimately your poojya

guruji-s also saying I dont have anything in disagreement...Kindly clarify

how they interpret this position of shankara on Ishvara. Hopefully with

appropriate quotes from shankara bhAshya.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

I have even quoted Swami Dayananda's 'mithyA is satyam'.

 

 

praNAms

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

This is what I am finding it difficult to understand in line with shankara

bhAshya...First, is there any difference in the usage of terminologies

mithyA and mAya according to Swamiji ?? If both mAya & mithyA are synonyms

then shankara says this mAya/mithyA is anirvachanIya (cannot be defined to

be identical with brahman or quite distinct from brahman)...Elsewhere in

the bhAshya the same concept of mAya has been explained by shankara with

the example of foam and water and says foam which is NOT quite the same as

water, but yet not a different entity from water..(tattva anyatvAbhyAm

anirvachanIya)...If this mysterious entity called mithyA is *satyaM*

shankara would have not viewed it as above...He would have definitely said

here, if the mithyA is viewed distinct from brahman is mithyA and if it is

viewed as brahman then it is satyaM...is it not?? Please clarify.

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Hari OM~

Bhaskar ji,

I always stick to Prasthana traya Bashyams when I deal with crucial

issues in Vedanta. And those references were from Gita Bhasya. In my

opinion, we must not extend views of Acharya in any direction even

if it is 'seemingly' logical. So, if Acharya uses the term Iswara

for Narayana or Visnu, it is simply Narayana and Visnu alone. We

aint give scope for any sort of extensions here to bring in Brahma

Shiva and so on. Theories like 'San matha sthapana' are all

constructed only on these wrong extensions. There is no evidence for

Iswaratva being ascribed to Shiva Brahma Indra or any other deities

in the Prasthana traya Bashyams. Even Sureswara in the Antharyami

Brahmana and in many other Vartika instances coin Visnu for the term

Iswara. Padmapada gives no reference to Shiva to the term Iswara.

Even in Hastamalakiya Bashyam, Visnu is equated with Bimba svarupa

where Pratibimba bheda is regarded to be aupAdhika. This Bimba

svarupa in Advaita is 'Evam eva' non-dual Iswara. Hence Visnu is the

non-dual Iswara in our Sampradaya. there can be no second thought.

Even though Pratibimba is non-different from Bimba, the aupAdika

bhedas persist in that plane and hence subjected to different

gradations. Apart from Visnu, all other bhuta-bautika-daiva bhutas

fall under the Pratibimba category, while Iswara - Sarvajna

Visnu 'Vyapana Sila' is celebrated as the Paramartha Tattvam.

Sankara says 'tatha Buddhibedhesu nAnabuddhishu te tavApi nAnAtvam

he Visno ParamArthastu tava Bhedo BuddhyupAdikrtastu Vidyata

ityarthaH' iti.

With Narayana Smrthi,

[Guest guest]

Hari OM~

Shyam ji,

I dont think we deserve such a question first of all. We are not

here to catalyze tussle between Siva - Visnu Supremacy. Please. The

question that we work on is this: 'What according to Advaita does

the term Iswara mean?' Listen. Each system has there own techical

terms. Say for instance the term 'Purusa' according to Advaita (as

Adi Sesa - a pre Gaudapada Advaitin) means Brahman-Iswara while

Kapila treats it entirely in a different sense. Similarly the

term 'Paramarsa' (mark) to a Naiyayika refers to subsumptive

reflection while in Advaita we take it in a different sense. So what

does the term Iswara refer to ? To fix a contextual meaning to this

term in Advaita, we will have to trace the term in Sruti, Smrti or

Nyaya prasthanas, where we will find Bashyakara's definition. In

that sense, in Bagavad Gita, we find many references to

term 'Iswara' which Acharya refers it for Visnu - Narayana alone.

This usage is very crucial and all sampradayins have systematically

followed it. Why not we use the same term to other deities ? Why not

the etymological root signify a different sense ? What is that which

stops Sankara to use Shiva or Brahma for Iswara? Is Sankara then

against Saivism ? All these questions are irrelevant here. These

questions are not worth questioning on the first hand.

 

Bagavad Pada has emphasized the notion of Visnu Drsti in all his

canonical scriptures. In my view, Vernacular Verbos are pivotal and

needs special attention essentially for all serious students of

Advaita.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis-ji

The shruti references I gave you clearly mention the

terms IshAnA and pUrUshA - both synonyms of IshwAra.

You rightly read them as referring to Brahman -

because that is 100% correct.

I fully agree with you - that is the whole point!

 

This is also what the Gita and Shankarabhashya talk

about:

 

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.

 

The Panchadashi (by the way neither shruti nor smrti

nor even shankarabhashya) talks about " ishwaratvam "

and " jivatvam " as being interdependent variables and

of relevance only with regards to each other. It needs

to be understood in the context in which it is said.

That is how tat tvam asi is to be rightly understood -

but a right understanding tat tvam asi MUST result in

an understanding and appreciation of Vasudeva sarvam

iti - as this Bhagawad Gita verse I have quoted shows.

If you read my prior posts this is what I have been

saying (quite unsuccessfully!) as well.

 

I don't think you are being pedantic at all Dennis-ji,

primarily because I don't know what that word means!

:-)

 

Seriously, though, one can never be pedantic in

Vedanta. An understanding of God or Ishwara is

extremely central to the understanding of Vedanta. You

cannot have any room for even an iota of vagueness

about this. It is either " all there " or " not at all " .

This is why even spiritual ginats like RAmAnujAchArya

and MAdhavAchArya miss the boat and go off on a

tangent.

 

If there is devotion in the heart to NarAyanA and the

intellect keeps thinking He is shaky, unreal,

pseudoreal, illusory, a crutch, to be taken with a

pinch of salt, etc - then both aspects of the

personality - the emotional and the intellectual -

have to further mature - unless this schizoidal

approach is clarified in the light of right

understanding of Vedanta, one's progress towards

self(is God)-realization is both impeded and rendered

impossible (- this is just a general statement to all

seekers and I don't intend that this is applicable to

anyone involved in this discussion.)

 

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

 

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

 

> 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.>>

>

>

[Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

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

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Guest guest]

--- On Thu, 4/24/08, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

 

 

Dennis - Under the title the discussion has diverged to various directions that

I did not or could not really keep track off.

 

 

 

Can you crystallize your thoughts and express clearly what the issue is. If you

are looking for scriptural references to Brahman vs. Iswara - there are many -

starting from Mandukya mantra 6 for Iswara and Mantra 7 for Brahman.

 

Krishna emphasizes the Iswara part in - maayadhyaskhena prakRitiH.. and

gatirbhaktaa, prabhuH saakshii .. I think in the 9th ch.

 

avyakta aspect of brahman in the 8th chapter as aksharam paramam as well as in

9th - mayaa tatam idam sarvam ..

 

and in the 7th Ch. apareyam .. dhaaryate jagat.

 

 

May be you can restate the issue in view of multiple posts in different

directions ending up with Iswara is Vishnu or Shiva etc.

 

 

Hari Om!

 

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Hari Om

 

The entire discussion that is going on, on this subject does not look like

Advaita students talking. Students of Swami Dayananda and Swami Paramartananda

 

Tat tvam Asi Vakyam if well understood and identify all living beings are due to

the consciousness existence principle, then where is the name and the form.

 

I cannot understand how we can say Iswara is not Shiva by one group, Vishnu by

another group.

 

Today morning when I was listening to a discourse by Swami Dayananda Sarawati on

Upadesa Saram, he was mentioning some vaishnavaits prefer not to use iswara as

Venkateswara instead call Venkatesa or Balaji for Peruma, as they are alergic

to the word Iswara thinking that it is the name for Shiva. The discussion that

is going on is on the same lines. Sorry if I hurt devotees feeling. We need to

progress.

 

Hari Om

 

Kalyanasundaram

 

 

 

-

antharyami_in

advaitin

Friday, April 25, 2008 11:51 AM

Re: brahman and Ishvara

 

 

Hari OM~

Bhaskar ji,

I always stick to Prasthana traya Bashyams when I deal with crucial

issues in Vedanta. And those references were from Gita Bhasya. In my

opinion, we must not extend views of Acharya in any direction even

if it is 'seemingly' logical. So, if Acharya uses the term Iswara

for Narayana or Visnu, it is simply Narayana and Visnu alone. We

aint give scope for any sort of extensions here to bring in Brahma

Shiva and so on. Theories like 'San matha sthapana' are all

constructed only on these wrong extensions. There is no evidence for

Iswaratva being ascribed to Shiva Brahma Indra or any other deities

in the Prasthana traya Bashyams. Even Sureswara in the Antharyami

Brahmana and in many other Vartika instances coin Visnu for the term

Iswara. Padmapada gives no reference to Shiva to the term Iswara.

Even in Hastamalakiya Bashyam, Visnu is equated with Bimba svarupa

where Pratibimba bheda is regarded to be aupAdhika. This Bimba

svarupa in Advaita is 'Evam eva' non-dual Iswara. Hence Visnu is the

non-dual Iswara in our Sampradaya. there can be no second thought.

Even though Pratibimba is non-different from Bimba, the aupAdika

bhedas persist in that plane and hence subjected to different

gradations. Apart from Visnu, all other bhuta-bautika-daiva bhutas

fall under the Pratibimba category, while Iswara - Sarvajna

Visnu 'Vyapana Sila' is celebrated as the Paramartha Tattvam.

Sankara says 'tatha Buddhibedhesu nAnabuddhishu te tavApi nAnAtvam

he Visno ParamArthastu tava Bhedo BuddhyupAdikrtastu Vidyata

ityarthaH' iti.

With Narayana Smrthi,

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Hi Durga,

>

>

>

> I really do not understand what I have written that prompts you to

write any

> of this. I agree with all that you say and have said much the same

things

> myself and written them in my books. I have even quoted Swami

Dayananda's

> 'mithyA is satyam'. I have never implied that name and form are 'only

> apparent'. All that I have insisted upon is that everything is

actually only

> brahman and that, in reality, there has never been any creation.

Both these

> ideas are pure advaita. Where is there a problem? If you want to

persist in

> countering what you think are my views, could you please quote actual

> statements that I have made so that I can explain where you have

> misunderstood what I was saying?

>

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

Hi Dennis,

 

Here is what I see as the problem (and of course,

I could be wrong). It is my impression that

you feel that the way the teachings of Vedanta

work, is to first to give one view of the way things

are, then knock that off, give another view,

knock that off, give another, etc., (which

I believe you refer to as sublation).

 

Now, I can only speak from my own experience

as a Vedanta student from within a very

solid sampradaya. In terms of the 'sublation'

technique, yes, I was exposed to this when

the idea of 'sakshi' was introduced, sakshi

being a teaching device, and later it is

seen that there is in reality no sakshi.

Sakshi was a pointer to consciousness.

 

However, that was pointed out all along.

 

So it seems to me that you are viewing the

teachings of Vedanta as a ladder approach,

and as one progresses, one view of 'the

way things actually are' gets replaced

by another, and then by another and

so on, the former views left behind as

untrue.

 

I have not experienced the teachings of

Vedanta in this way. The analogy which

I feel to be more accurate is that of

watching a polaroid picture develop, or

that which my teacher uses, which goes

like this:

 

It's as if the teacher is painting a picture.

First you see the broad brush strokes, then

over-time all of the details get filled in.

 

At the same time as the picture is being painted,

the student gains more and more clarity, many

'aha' moments, and finally the 'whole' is

revealed or recognized by the student.

 

And what is the whole? You are the whole.

That's the way the teaching works.

 

The initial rejection, neti, neti, is only

to help the student recognize my self (atma).

which is in fact brahman, unchanging, but then

the whole, which is changing, must also be

recognized as my self.

 

Swami Dayanada once said a nice thing " Vedanta

swallows everything, and then it gives it back

to you. And when it gives it back to you, it

is entirely different. " Meaning what? Meaning

'You are the Whole. " The whole picture is in

you, and the whole picture is You. There is no

need to reject it.

 

Okay, I feel that I've said enough. I find

I'm neglecting my other duties and as much as

I love discussing Vedanta, I need to stop

for now.

 

Koti pranams and love,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Dear Shyam-ji,

 

Thank you for posting this. What the Paramacharya states would have to be

the implicit understanding of all Advaitins.

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Shyam

Friday, April 25, 2008 12:24 AM

advaitin

Re: Re: brahman and Ishvara

 

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:

 

 

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

bit.

 

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'. "

[Guest guest]

Hi Bhaskar-ji,

 

 

 

All I understand by it is that, since there is *only* brahman, even those

things that are not entirely real from the vyAvahArika standpoint must also

be brahman. (What else could they be?) mithyA is simply a term that is

useful in vyavahAra to bring the mind to a realization of the truth.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Bhaskar YR

Friday, April 25, 2008 11:30 AM

advaitin

RE: Re: brahman and Ishvara

 

 

 

I have even quoted Swami Dayananda's 'mithyA is satyam'.

 

praNAms

 

Hare Krishna

 

This is what I am finding it difficult to understand in line with shankara

bhAshya...First, is there any difference in the usage of terminologies

mithyA and mAya according to Swamiji ?? If both mAya & mithyA are synonyms

then shankara says this mAya/mithyA is anirvachanIya (cannot be defined to

be identical with brahman or quite distinct from brahman)...Elsewhere in

the bhAshya the same concept of mAya has been explained by shankara with

the example of foam and water and says foam which is NOT quite the same as

water, but yet not a different entity from water..(tattva anyatvAbhyAm

anirvachanIya)...If this mysterious entity called mithyA is *satyaM*

shankara would have not viewed it as above...He would have definitely said

here, if the mithyA is viewed distinct from brahman is mithyA and if it is

viewed as brahman then it is satyaM...is it not?? Please clarify.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

bhaskar

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Hi Durga,

>

All that I have insisted upon is that everything is actually only

> brahman and that, in reality, there has never been any creation.

Both these

> ideas are pure advaita. Where is there a problem?

 

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

 

> Dennis

 

Namaste Dennis,

 

While I have already sent this letter to you

privately, and while yesterday I said I

wasn't going to write any more on the list

about the topic, I felt it might be useful

to post the letter on the list, (with a couple

of additions to it), since it's already

been written, and since we have been

discussing the topic here.

 

__________________________

 

 

I've been giving some more thought to this subject,

and trying to think of how to convey more exactly

the problem that my teacher saw with what you were

saying, and how it was resolved in class.

 

Above you said:

 

" All that I have insisted upon is that everything

is actually only brahman and that, in reality,

there has never been any creation. Both these ideas

are pure advaita. "

 

Both of these ideas are pure advaita from a

certain standpoint (the paramarthika only),

but putting them together in a certain way,

and then applying them to the creation,

which is 'mithya,' makes for confusion.

 

One can say " In reality there is only the paramarthika.

There is no creation. " That's okay to say from the

standpoint of the paramarthika. That's okay to say

from the standpoint of the reality which is only

paramarthika. But what about from the standpoint

of the creation, of mithya, of experience?

 

The creation is mithya. If you call the creation mithya,

and you say there is no creation, then you are effectively

saying that mithya is tuccham, non-existent. Vedanta

doesn't say that. This is the first thing which my teacher

pointed out.

 

From the standpoint of the creation you can't say

that there never has been a creation. What you can

say is this creation is brahman, mithya brahman,

not paramarthika brahman. It has a dependent

reality.

 

While you are within the creation, it exists as mithya,

which although depending on brahman for its existence,

does not mean that it does not exist to be experienced.

 

One cannot transactionally experience the son of a

barren woman, the horn of a rabbit, etc. (that which

is non-existent) here within the creation, because they

do not exist to be experienced.

 

One can experience heat/cold, hunger/ thirst,

pain/pleasure, etc. So those things which can

be experienced are mithya brahman, or also can

be referenced as being " in the 'given' scheme of things, "

or " Ishwara shristi, " because our individual minds did

not make them up.

 

If we say there is only brahman, there has never

been any creation, then we effectively have only two

orders of reality, paramarthika brahman, and tuchham.

If tuccham doesn't exist, then we just have paramarthika.

That's okay too from thr standpoint of the paramarthika.

 

But Vedanta teaches us there are three orders of

reality, paramarthika, mithya and tuccham. While

tuccham, being non-existent, doesn't really need to be

discussed, mithya does.

 

If we leave out or dismiss the creation, we've

left out and dismissed mithya, and the teachings

of Vedanta do not do that.

 

So from the paramarthika standpoint, it is true there

is no creation, but from the creation standpoint, there is;

and we call it 'mithya,' which as Swami Dayanandaji says is

a word which 'accounts' for what the creation is,

or explains it.

 

My teacher, like Swamiji, does not like the phrase

'apparent reality,' therefore it is not used in our

classes because my teacher feels it makes for confusion.

Instead the phrase, 'dependent reality,' is used which

is felt to convey more accurately what the creation is.

 

Why can what we see and experience be called

" Ishwara shristi? " Because it is not the creation

of our individual minds.

 

We can see that the creation is highly logical,

orderly and complex, and that it is held together

by, and functioning through, an intricate set of laws,

which our individual minds cannot change or make

to function differently.

 

*That* is the 'intelligence' which is manifest

and operating here, woven through the creation

warp and woof. That intelligence is a called a

'power' of brahman; and we also call that intelligence

'Ishwara,' which is brahman manifest as the creation.

 

So, IMO, that is why those born as Hindus, within that

tradition, whose very culture is based upon this

understanding, do not have any problem with seeing

every manifest thing as Ishwara or divine, which being

a manifestation of brahman it would have to be. And

unlike the son of a barren woman, one can have a

transactional relationship with Ishwara, which means

one can see every single thing as divine, and relate

to it as such, or one can choose one single thing to

focus on and relate to it as such. [i apologize to

those who read here if I've gotten any part of that wrong]

 

Sometimes words such as the above may seem dualistic,

but we have to use them to understand the experience

of the creation. If we are trying to understand the

creation which is here to be experienced, and we just say,

'there never has been one,' that isn't exactly correct.

 

So mithya is not some sort of intermediate teaching,

which is later withdrawn and replaced by the teaching

of paramarthika satyam, as in 'everything is actually

only brahman and in reality, there has never been any

creation.' This statement only applies from the standpoint

of paramarthika satyam, and not from the standpoint of the

creation, which exists to be experienced and has a

'dependent' reality.

 

brahma/satyam. brahman is being.

 

The jiva is brahman. I am brahman.

 

Jivatvam is mithya. I do not depend upon name and

form for my being. Or one can say, my being does not

depend on name and form for existence.

 

Jagan/mithya. Name and form depend upon me.

The creation depends upon me for its existence.

The creation (the whole jagat) all name and form,

depend upon me/brahman for their existence.

 

Therefore, I am the whole.

 

I hope that explains a bit more clearly what it was

that my teacher told me.

 

Thanks for this discussion. It has been very

useful for me.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Hi Sada-ji,

 

 

 

Yes, it's a pity you were not 'in from the start' of this discussion as I

would value your input. I'm not sure if I can easily and fairly represent

the essential points. Certainly it would be from my own viewpoint obviously

and, since that seems to be a large part of the problem, might fail

miserably to express the other views. However, with that proviso, I will

attempt to summarize very simply the essence as I see it and my apologies in

advance to other participants who might see the whole thing entirely

differently.

 

 

 

It all began, as I recall, when I queried a statement (from, I believe,

Durga-ji) which appeared to say effectively that 'everything is Ishvara' or

'I am the whole', rather than 'everything is brahman' or 'I am brahman'. I

argued subsequently that, while 'I am brahman' and 'Ishvara is brahman', the

reverse is not the case. I pointed out that (according to the Mandukya

Upanishad) Ishvara is that which holds the gross and subtle forms of

creation in unmanifest form, i.e. the macrocosmic causal state, paralleling

the microcosmic, causal state of deep sleep for the jIva.

 

 

 

Shyam-ji and others quoted many verses from the scriptures purporting to

support the contention that Ishvara and brahman are somehow interchangeable.

These quotations referred variously to 'the Lord', 'Narayana' and so on. I

stated that, when I encounter such statements, I always understand that

'brahman' is meant. I asked if there were any explicit statement anywhere

that contained both actual words 'brahman' and 'Ishvara' and said they were

the same. I gave the following quotation from the pa~nchadashI which *does*

specifically mention both and appears to state plainly that they are *not*

the same:

 

" 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

 

 

 

I asked how this could be explained by the objectors but I don't believe

anyone has attempted to answer this, other than to point out that this is

not prasthAna traya and, moreover, is post-Shankara.

 

I'm sure that we would all be grateful for any input you may have.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

<<May be you can restate the issue in view of multiple posts in different

directions ending up with Iswara is Vishnu or Shiva etc.

 

Hari Om!

 

Sadananda>>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

My understanding is provided in the end.

 

--- On Sat, 4/26/08, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

 

It all began, as I recall, when I queried a statement which appeared to say

effectively that 'everything is Ishvara' or 'I am the whole', rather than

'everything is brahman' or 'I am brahman'. I

argued subsequently that, while 'I am brahman' and 'Ishvara is brahman', the

reverse is not the case. I pointed out that (according to the Mandukya

Upanishad) Ishvara is that which holds the gross and subtle forms of

creation in unmanifest form, i.e. the macrocosmic causal state, paralleling

the microcosmic, causal state of deep sleep for the jIva.

 

Others quoted many verses from the scriptures purporting to

support the contention that Ishvara and brahman are somehow interchangeable.

These quotations referred variously to 'the Lord', 'Narayana' and so on. I

stated that, when I encounter such statements, I always understand that

'brahman' is meant. I asked if there were any explicit statement anywhere

that contained both actual words 'brahman' and 'Ishvara' and said they were

the same. I gave the following quotation from the pa~nchadashI which *does*

specifically mention both and appears to state plainly that they are *not*

the same:

 

" 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

 

I asked how this could be explained by the objectors but I don't believe

anyone has attempted to answer this, other than to point out that this is

not prasthAna traya and, moreover, is post-Shankara.

I'm sure that we would all be grateful for any input you may have.

----------

(From some reason when I press replay button I used to get the (>) sign to

differentite the contents that I am replying it. This new mail does not

give and also leaves me in Rich text the that does not accept. I

have to change to plane text that does not give the greater than sign.)

----------------------

 

Dennisji – First I am glad that you are persistent. Here is my understanding

as I see from yours and Durgaji’s last post. Durgaji, I will respond slowly to

your post since it is big.  

 

The above sloka indeed says that existence – consciousness- infiniteness –

satyam-jnaanam- anantam is the swaruupa lakshaNa of Brahman. That is the

Upanishadic definition – in Tai. Up. – In that there is no Sajaati, vijaati

and swagata bhedaas – since it is part-less. Hence Iswara-jiiva-jagat

distinctions have no meaning, from that reference. This is the essence of mantra

7 of Mandukya and both GauDapaada and Shankara’s commentaries echo that

essence.

Durgaji, if I may say so, the mantra 7 of Mandukya exists describing that state

which is not a state as it says ‘people call it as the fourth’ – caturtham

manyante –but not really the fourth since it pervades all the three states. 

  Yet upanishad provide a description of Brahman- the paaramaarthikam –(even

though any description of paaramaarthikam is a futile exercise) but is provided

only to help us (who are not in that state) to transcend to that state from the

three states – that as Dennisji rightly pointed out involves transcending

jiiva-jagat-Iswara both from the point of micro (jiiva) and macro (Iswara)

perspectives. Ontologically jiiva-jagat-Iswara are all mithyaa only, since the

substantive for all the three is Brahman. They are taught as mithyaa – you can

call it as apparent and not real, or dependent and not independent, with the

additional definition that dependent (existence) has to be apparent and nor real

since its

existence depends on that which is independent. Not real does not mean unreal

or tuchhaa, as other darshanikaas pound us to accept, since not real can also be

at the same time not unreal too, and that is what we call as sat asat

vilakshanam or mityaa – a separate category by itself.  Mithyaa is –

vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam  - the name and form is only the vak or

speech level. For transactional purposes or vyaavahaarika satyam – a name is

required for transactions but from the substantive which is beyond the name and

form, it has no name and form. Any indulgence giving importance to name for

Iswara as NarAyaNa or Shiva is giving importance to superficiality that could

distract the mind from transcending to substantive – yan manasaa na manute

yenaahur manomatam tadeva tvam viddhi nedam yadidam upaasate – that which mind

cannot think of, but because of which the mind has the capacity to think –

know that alone is Brahman not this

that you worship here – say Kena.  When I have to drop all names and forms

what name should I drop becomes irrelevant from the point of those who want to

drop all ‘this’ nedam yadidam upaasate – not this that you worship here.

Iswara-jiiva and jagat – come together as a package since they are mutually

exclusive. Iswara is with maaya as adjunct as His upahita chatanya and jiiva as

avidya as adjunct as his upahita chaitanya.  Jagat is mityaa which is kalpitam.

Brahman being substantive for all – Iswara-jiiva-jagat where sat-chit and

anantatva aspects are expressed to varying degrees depending on the upAdhiis or

adjuncts. 

 

Iswara is different from Brahman since creation involves modification and

infinite cannot undergo modification or vikaara. Brahman identified with maaya,

the power of creation is Iswara. Aham brahmaasmi is the teaching not aham

Iswarosmi, because it is the unity of jiiva-jagat-iswara, the contradictory

qualifications of each has to be dropped – That is what bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa

implies – where the identity is from the point of the essence of

jiiva-jagat-Iswara. – from the conscious-existence point from jiiva-Iswara and

just existence point from jjiva-jagat. Aham brahmaasmi incudes oneness of all

the three.

 

 

Dennisji – If I may say so – I am brahman and Iswara is brahman and jagat is

brahman (sarvam khalvidam brahma) – involves identity only at the substantive

levels ( I know that you know) and not at the attributive level. Hence, if the

identity is understood that it is only at that level and from the attribute

level, then the converse is also true – since there is nothing other than

Brahman at that level. Hence Brahman is jiiva, Brahman is Iswara and Brahman is

jagat – that is what is implied in the BrahmaarpaNam brahma haviH … sloka

– Gita 4-24.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

>

>

> Iswara is different from Brahman since creation involves

modification and infinite cannot undergo modification or vikaara.

Brahman identified with maaya, the power of creation is Iswara. Aham

brahmaasmi is the teaching not aham Iswarosmi, because it is the unity

of jiiva-jagat-iswara, the contradictory qualifications of each has to

be dropped " That is what bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa implies " where the

identity is from the point of the essence of jiiva-jagat-Iswara. †"

from the conscious-existence point from jiiva-Iswara and just

existence point from jjiva-jagat. Aham brahmaasmi incudes oneness of

all the three.

>

>

 

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda.

>

 

 

Namaste Sadnanda-ji,

 

Thank you for your very detailed, logical and

step by step reply, which I do feel that I

understand. I do have tremendous admiration and

appreciation for the way in which you were able

to explain such a big topic so concisely.

 

The statement, 'You are the Whole' is the one

which my teacher and her guru, Swami Dayananda

Saraswati, continually use, and say is the tat

pariya of the Upanishads, so that is the

understanding which I am working toward gaining.

 

I know that the wording " You are the Whole, "

might seem a bit unusual, but I trust that they

know what they mean, and also that by Ishwara's grace

someday I may gain the same 'vision,' which I

actually think is what you referred to by saying

" Aham brahmaasmi incudes oneness of all the three. "

The three being jiva, jagat and Ishwara, having

'oneness' in the way that you so clearly described

above.

 

Swami Dayanandaji has written a book entitled

" You are the Whole, " which I believe I have

in my library, so I will reread it again.

 

The posts on this thread have been many and

varied, spinning off into other threads, and

other subjects, with different titles,

which I'm sure would be difficult to try

and trace back in order to untangle and make

sense of them all at this point.

 

From my own perspective I feel the most important

point which I was trying to address in various

ways was the observation that for some westerners

the topic of the creation as taught by the Upanishads

is a challenging one, because in those teachings is

posited an Ishwara, and a creation, which is divine in

nature.

 

For myself, personally, this does not present a problem.

In fact, I like it. What else can this creation

be but divine? Some other westerners don't seem

comfortable with this understanding or view, so

it seems at times as if they might prefer to say

'the creation never happened,' and thus bypass

the topic altogether.

 

So that was my initial point, and many people

had other points, which they felt were the

most important ones. We had some nice discussions,

and I learned a lot.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadananda-ji,

 

 

 

Many thanks for your view on the topic. I think we have probably all now said

(more than) enough on the topic and hopefully clarified our understanding. I

think, in the end, we have established that we are all effectively in agreement

–at least I hope we all now think this way! I had continued the discussion in

parallel with Durga-ji off-line but I don’t now think it would be useful to

post these other thoughts to the group.

 

 

 

I think you have hit the nail on the head with your last point about equating

substantive and not attribute. I have always happily stated that jIva is

brahman, world is brahman etc. but I have always objected to saying that brahman

is jIva, brahman is world etc. As you say, as long as we know that we are

talking about substantive only, then these must also be true (If A=B, then B=A).

The reason I have always balked at doing this is because the very words

‘jIva’ and ‘world’ for me *mean* their associated attributes and not

their essence. If I was talking about the essence of the world, I would use the

word ‘brahman’ and not ‘world’. I believe that, for myself at least, I

will continue to do this since it seems to minimize confusion. But I will now

try to be open to the fact that, for others, the alternative view may be

minimizing confusion!

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of

kuntimaddi sadananda

Sunday, April 27, 2008 12:26 AM

advaitin

Re: brahman and Ishvara

 

 

 

My understanding is provided in the end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- On Sat, 4/26/08, Durga <durgaji108 wrote:

 

 

>

I know that the wording " You are the Whole, "

might seem a bit unusual, but I trust that they

know what they mean, and also that by Ishwara's grace

someday I may gain the same 'vision,' which I

actually think is what you referred to by saying

" Aham brahmaasmi incudes oneness of all the three. "

The three being jiva, jagat and Ishwara, having

'oneness' in the way that you so clearly described

above.

>

 

Durgaji - PraNAms.

 

First thanks for your kind comments. Swami Dayanandaji and more so his disciple

Swami Paramarthanandaji are my teachers too.

 

Yes 'whole' excludes nothing and hence it is infinite - and therefore Brahman.

Please study Swami Dayanandaji's analysis of Purnam adhaH Purnam idam - that is

whole and this is whole,etc. Nairji has written beautiful analysis of that and

the file is stored in the advaitin list.

Iswara's grace is always there, owning it our problem. With His/Her grace we can

own it too. All the best.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

--- On Sun, 4/27/08, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

>

The reason I have always balked at doing this is because the very words

‘jIva’ and ‘world’ for me *mean* their associated attributes and not

their essence. If I was talking about the essence of the world, I would use the

word ‘brahman’ and not ‘world’. I believe that, for myself at least, I

will continue to do this since it seems to minimize confusion. But I will now

try to be open to the fact that, for others, the alternative view may be

minimizing confusion!

>

 

Dennisji - PraNAms

 

Although attributes make distinctions of one object from the other, we know that

attributes cannot exist without substantive. GouDapaada's statement - adou

naasti ante naasti vartamaanepi taddathaa - pot was not there before and pot

will not be there later and if you look carefully pot is really not there even

now. YOu may call it a pot based on attributes but actually it is only clay and

the attributes are just adhyaasa. If you know it and can still call it as a pot

for transactional purposes to differentiate it from jug etc, there is no

problem. But if you give importance to the attributive knowledge only and ignore

the substantive then samsaara starts. Hence it is not just to relive the

confusion but to have clear view of the substantive of the jiiva-jagat-iswara

even while transacting with the attributive knowledge - makes us wise.

 

Chandogya Upanishad's sad vidya teaching - eka vijnaanena sarva vijnaanam

bhavati - knowing onething everything is (as well) known - comes from not

attributive knowledge but substantive knowledge only.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Sada-ji:

 

Thank you for putting forward and explaining the classical Upanishadic teaching

in the context of Advaita. The heart of the teaching of the Upanishads as you

point out is, " Aham Brahmasmi " . I Myself am Brahman. Heard from the Guru in whom

one has complete faith produces the strong conviction, " I Myself am Brahman " .

This is the same as " Brahman I am " . This strong conviction plays an essential

role in Self-Realization.

 

I recall reading (it was posted on this list I believe) one of the

Shankracharyas stated that Ishwara (Brahman identified with Maya) through grace

helps in Self-Realization. Being a non scholar this made sense to me as we have

all grown up hearing that there is no difference between Guru, God in their

grace toward the devotees.

 

Also, many of us use the term Ishwara, Bhagavan, and God interchangeably. If

there is a more precise distinction that should be kept in mind, I would

appreciate learning of that. Thank you.

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of

kuntimaddi sadananda

Saturday, April 26, 2008 7:26 PM

advaitin

Re: brahman and Ishvara

 

---

The above sloka indeed says that existence – consciousness- infiniteness –

satyam-jnaanam- anantam is the swaruupa lakshaNa of Brahman. That is the

Upanishadic definition – in Tai. Up. – In that there is no Sajaati, vijaati

and swagata bhedaas – since it is part-less. Hence Iswara-jiiva-jagat

distinctions have no meaning, from that reference. This is the essence of mantra

7 of Mandukya and both GauDapaada and Shankara’s commentaries echo that

essence.

 

Iswara is different from Brahman since creation involves modification and

infinite cannot undergo modification or vikaara. Brahman identified with maaya,

the power of creation is Iswara. Aham brahmaasmi is the teaching not aham

Iswarosmi, because it is the unity of jiiva-jagat-iswara, the contradictory

qualifications of each has to be dropped – That is what bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa

implies – where the identity is from the point of the essence of

jiiva-jagat-Iswara. – from the conscious-existence point from jiiva-Iswara and

just existence point from jjiva-jagat. Aham brahmaasmi incudes oneness of all

the three.

 

 

Dennisji – If I may say so – I am brahman and Iswara is brahman and jagat is

brahman (sarvam khalvidam brahma) – involves identity only at the substantive

levels ( I know that you know) and not at the attributive level. Hence, if the

identity is understood that it is only at that level and from the attribute

level, then the converse is also true – since there is nothing other than

Brahman at that level. Hence Brahman is jiiva, Brahman is Iswara and Brahman is

jagat – that is what is implied in the BrahmaarpaNam brahma haviH … sloka

– Gita 4-24.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

[Guest guest]

2008/4/27 Harsha :

> Also, many of us use the term Ishwara, Bhagavan, and God interchangeably.

> If there is a more precise distinction that should be kept in mind, I would

> appreciate learning of that. Thank you.

 

My personal opinion is that we should stop using the English word God.

It comes with a whole lot of baggage that only causes confusion.

 

But others might think that I am being pedantic :-) To each his own, I guess.

 

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

Ramesh,

 

My personal opinion is that we should stop using the

English word God.

It comes with a whole lot of baggage that only causes

confusion.

 

Ramesh, I could not agree more. It's one of those

catch-all words and I never know if people are talking

about the same thing I am. Same with " love " ,

" patriotism " , " duty " ...I have a whole bunch of words

where I have to ask people's definition of their usage

of the words before we can speak.

 

 

______________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

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

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

 

> Durgaji - PraNAms.

>

> First thanks for your kind comments. Swami Dayanandaji and more so

his disciple Swami Paramarthanandaji are my teachers too.

>

> Yes 'whole' excludes nothing and hence it is infinite - and

therefore Brahman. Please study Swami Dayanandaji's analysis of

Purnam adhaH Purnam idam - that is whole and this is whole,etc.

Nairji has written beautiful analysis of that and the file is stored

in the advaitin list.

> Iswara's grace is always there, owning it our problem. With His/Her

grace we can own it too. All the best.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

 

Namaste Sadananda-ji,

 

Thank you for the recommendation. Looking at Swamiji's

book " You are the Whole, " last night, I realized that

it is an analysis of Purnam adhaH Purnam idam. I will also

try and find Nairji's writing which you recommended.

 

I do have a question for you, if you have the time

to address it, which I will preface with a small

anecdote.

 

One of the students in my Vedanta class once

had a private interview with Pujya Swami Dayananda-ji.

 

Pujya Swamiji said to him, " All of my disciples, who

are teaching have various strengths, and the

strength of your teacher is the total understanding

of Ishwara. "

 

My teacher often says, " You are the Whole. You are

Ishwara. "

 

Furthermore, I recently had an opportunity to ask

Pujya Swamiji the following question directly, which was

something that had puzzled me for some time,

and it still does in a certain way.

 

What I said was this, " Swamiji, I don't

understand what is meant when it is said

that the jiva becomes Ishwara after death. "

 

Swamiji replied, " You are Ishwara right now,

but you do not know it due to the limitation

of the upadhi. Everything is Ishwara. "

 

I have also heard Swamiji say, " You are the Whole.

You are Ishwara. "

 

So, I am wondering, what this can mean. My interpretation

of it is this. All of this jagat is a manifestation of

Ishwara, including of course, the jiva upadhi.

 

What is the 'truth' of the jagat? brahman.

What is the truth of Ishwara? brahman.

What is the truth of the jiva? brahman.

 

Where did the jagat come from, of which this

jiva upadhi is a part? Ishwara

 

Where did Ishwara come (or emanate) from?

Brahman. So brahman is the bottom line

reality of everything.

 

Now I come to the point I don't quite

understand, but here is my surmise.

 

If the truth of Ishwara is brahman,

and the truth of the jiva is brahman,

and then one can further say that Ishwara,

emanates from brahman, and the

creation manifests from Ishwara,

then working in this way, one can

say 'You are the Whole. You are

Ishwara,' because maya shakti

(Ishwara) emanates from brahman,

which is the truth of Ishwara

and the jiva and the jagat.

 

So, if the truth of the jiva is brahman,

then one can even say, 'the creation

comes from me, is sustained by me,

and is resolved in me, if one knows

that by the word 'me' one means

brahman.'

 

So once we gotten to the truth by

'giving' up the upadhis of Ishwara

and jiva, then can we from that

place (brahman) now come back out

and work the other way round (in a sense)

by saying 'You are Ishwara,'

'You are the Whole?'

'You' being brahman, which

the jnani has recognized him

or herself to be.

 

As long as the jiva upadhi is there

experience will be limited by it. The

jnani can know 'I am brahman,' and

by logical extension, 'I am Ishwara'

However experience will be

limited by the jiva upadhi.

 

I suppose in a sense what I am saying,

is we transcend the upadhis to realize

our oneness with all things, as 'brahman.'

but then we can come back out and say

there is nothing here other than my being,

there is nothing here other then Ishwara.

Therefore, I am Ishwara, because Ishwara comes

from my being, although I do not have the

Ishwara experience due to the limitation

of the upadhi.

 

Furthermore, because the upadhi of Ishwara

is the total, much greater than the

upadhi of the jiva, the jiva can then

have a 'relationship' with Ishwara,

while knowing at the same time,

jiva, jagat and Ishwara are one/brahman.

 

Added to that, through this understanding, all

of the parts of the jiva, which were once

rejected as 'not I,' can now be seen

in a different light.

 

After the recognition of myself as brahman,

and the parts of the jiva as Ishwara,

then I think that this recognition

helps to make for a 'whole and complete'

human being.

 

I surmise perhaps the reason that Pujya Swamiji

places emphasis the understanding of

'You are the Whole' is that he saw that

people were becoming, in a sense, fragmented

by rejecting everything changing as 'not I,' in order

to recognize 'I am brahman unchanging' and

that they then needed to come back out

into the creation, as it were, to further

recognize that there is no part of the jiva

which is not brahmaishwara, thus leaving

room for no a particle of alienation to

exist on any level.

 

I hope that this question is clear. I also

once heard Pujya Swamiji say, " If the answer

is not clear to the person, then the question

will not be all that clear. " Since I am

asking the question, obviously I don't have

a completely clear answer, and thus I apologize if

the question is somewhat murky.

 

Would it possible for you to comment

on any of what I have written? If so, I would be

extremely grateful.

 

Heartfelt pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Namaste Durga-ji.

 

Reference your post # 40486.

 

Although it is addressed to Sadaji, kindly permit me to jump the gun.

 

For the time being, can we set aside the entities that go by the

names of jIva, upAdhis, Ishwara etc. and look simply at our moment-

to-moment anubhava (experience)?

 

We find that there is a subject (you, me or anybody else) having

objectifications which constitute the world. That world, by

analysis a la neti neti, includes the BMI of the so-called subject,

so much so that effectively there is no tangible subject for us to

point out to. Yet, because the sense of experiencer is, we are

compelled to conclude that there is a subject, or, in other words,

there is something on which the objectifications are reflected on a

continuous basis – the objectifications being " I know " (where all

sensory knowledge and awareness of thoughts (internalizations) are

included) and " I know that I don't know " (which takes care of the

rest or all that I am ignorant of or I *know* I am ignorant of.).

Thus, both knowledge and ignorance turn out to be knowledge in the

ultimate sense.

 

Thus, the subject is like a screen on which things known and unknown

arise and subside like waves on the ocean surface. At any time,

there is only the ocean. The ocean alone remains, whole, despite

all the arisings! If you want the screen analogy, then all that

arise and subside are only permutations and combinations of the

screen fabric. There is nothing imported, for there cannot be

anything external to the screen, for the whole cannot brook

externality! There is only the screen. The screen alone remains.

 

Now what does it matter if that whole (ocean or screen) is Brahman

from the absolute point of view or Ishwara from the phenomenal point

of view. You are Brahman, as well as Ishwara, and the Whole.

 

Sorry for this simpleton or simplistic explanation. I like it that

way, for terminology scares and mires me.

 

I know that I have been accused of subjective idealism and solipsism

for espousing this view. But, I am sure, being a serious student of

Vedanta, you would know that solipsism and idealism are light-years

distant from what I am saying. Beyond everything, I am sure this is

what Shankara said in his famous Dakshinamurthi Ashtakam, which I

hold closer to my heart than all our Upanishads, the complexity of

which, I confess, I am yet to understand fully. I would strongly

recommend that you listen to Sw. Dayanandaji's beautiful exposition

of the Ashtakam, for which audio is available.

 

Hope this has answered your questions. Or am I deluded in thinking

so? Pardon me for being over-enthusiastic.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Durga-ji.

>

> Reference your post # 40486.

>

 

 

> Now what does it matter if that whole (ocean or screen) is Brahman

> from the absolute point of view or Ishwara from the phenomenal point

> of view. You are Brahman, as well as Ishwara, and the Whole.

>

 

>

Beyond everything, I am sure this is

> what Shankara said in his famous Dakshinamurthi Ashtakam, which I

> hold closer to my heart than all our Upanishads, the complexity of

> which, I confess, I am yet to understand fully. I would strongly

> recommend that you listen to Sw. Dayanandaji's beautiful exposition

> of the Ashtakam, for which audio is available.

>

> Hope this has answered your questions. Or am I deluded in thinking

> so? Pardon me for being over-enthusiastic.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

 

Thank you Nair-ji,

 

Yes, that is the view I have, which

you have described so beautifully.

 

I also found and read the writing of yours,

which I believe was the one Sadanandaji

pointed me to. I couldn't find it in the

advaitin files, but I found it here on Dennis's site

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/purnamadah_nair.htm

 

It is wonderfully well-written and

clear. It flowed right into the mind,

and I had no trouble with any of it.

I truly appreciate and marvel at your

clear and lovely manner of expression.

 

When you say above " You are Brahman, as well as

Ishwara, and the Whole, " this is what I

have been trying to say all along, but it

seems, rather unsuccessfully so.

 

I will definitely try and obtain a copy

of Ashtakam, as you have suggested.

 

Pranams,

Durga