Who is Krishna?

[Guest guest]

Namaskarams, regarding the moderator's note:

 

"All advaitins Krishna because He resides within the hearts of advaitins as their guiding spirit and advaitins do not treat Him as a separate Entity! "

 

in what sense do orthodox advaitins accept the smrithi stories of Vishnu, Shiva, Rama, Krishna, etc? It seems Advaita has room to accept (without being bound to accepting) the devathas as separate entities (in vyavahaarika), just as we find ourselves as separate. Of course, I don't think advaitins accept a ranking even if they consider them as separable manifestations of Ishvara. In the acceptant viewpoint: Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are like the three eyes of Ishvara, operating simultaneously, yet capable of representing Him in entirety, and their Reality (as also ours) being the common I that is He.

 

I request any comments and clarifications from scholarly members aware of how the puranas intertwine with Indian culture, to specify the acceptable standpoints. Are they entirely stories or can they be taken as having vyavaharika reality, as I do the members of this forum?

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Namaste Putran-ji.

 

I see that you frequently pop in to ask questions, roll a discussion

on and then suddenly disappear on a sabbatical without helping

conclude the issues raised!

 

Well, now to your question. First of all, I am no scholar. However,

in my personal opinion, purANas are great literary dramatizations

which embody a lot of wisdom helpful for one to realize the

puruShArthas. One will therefore find in them information useful in

daily life (dharma, arttha, kAma) as well as the highest of spiritual

truths (mokSha). E.g. srImad bhagawad gItA.

 

Now you may catch me on my calling them literary dramatizations and

ask if I didn't think Lord Krishna was a real person. I would only

say that such questions are important only for students of history.

For an Advaitin like me, Krishna, Anjaneya, the Devis et al are as

much a living presence as Jesus and the other Prophets about whose

once having really lived historical records are claimed to exist.

So, the question whether our Indian Gods existed once before or not

doesn't arise. They always exist as part of our collective conscious

and unconscious and can manifest again and again depending on our

icchAShakti and sankalpa.

 

I notice that we were not to continue any discussion under this

title. I ventured to answer only because you asked a very

interesting question which perhaps had been addressed here before by

our scholars.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin , putranm <putranm wrote:

> I request any comments and clarifications from scholarly members

aware of how the puranas intertwine with Indian culture, to specify

the acceptable standpoints. Are they entirely stories or can they be

taken as having vyavaharika reality, as I do the members of this

forum?

[Guest guest]

Namasté,

 

Knowing and seeing all as atomic, sub and sub sub atomic particles and electrons

and energy etal is one way. Having known those aspects, and retaining the sense

of humour, humility, clarity and the ability to taste, smell , touch, see and

feel 'Life' is all 'Krishna' is about. 'Krishna' adds flavour to the otherwise

dry, bland, scorching and  tiring facts. Refer verse no 3,4,5/12(ye

tvakSaram....avApyate) of 'gita' too. In any case, at the end of the day it is

upto one to decide 'how' he wants to 'realise' and the view from the top of the

hill is the same for all.

 

Regards

 

Balagopal

 

PS: I think 'why krishna' is more important than 'who is krishna'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Check out the all-new face of India. Go to http://in./

[Guest guest]

Dear Putran,

The object of the purANas is to convey the teachings of Vedanta in

an easily understandable manner. In Srimad Bhagavata there are many

stutis (hymns of praise) by various devotees which contain the

essence of the upanishads. Apart from such explicit teachings, the

various episodes in the purANas lend themselves to allegorical

interpretation by means of which the truths of Vedanta are conveyed.

Thus the object of the purANas is the same as that of the

upanishads, namely, teaching the means to liberation.

Shri Shankara says in his bhAshya on brahma sutra, 1.1.20: " Ishvara

may take various forms at His will by using His mAyA for the sake of

blessing devotees, as is declared in the smRiti, `O nArada, it is an

illusion created by Me, that you see Me in this form possessed of

all the substances and qualities. You must not understand Me thus' " .

So, according to Shri Shankara, the forms attributed to Ishvara by

various devotees are actually taken by Him. In Bhagavata, Dhruva was

asked by sage nArada to meditate on Lord viShNu in a particular

form. The story says that God appeared before him in that form.

In brahma sutra, 1.3.26, Shri Shankara comes to the conclusion that

the various gods like Indra have bodies.

The purANas say that the incarnations such as Rama, Krishna, were

terminated by them when the purpose for which they came had been

accomplished. But we believe that they are present even now and

worship them. According to Bhagavata the main object of these

incarnations was to establish dharma and to provide a basis for

future generations to worship God by narrating and listening to the

deeds and teachings of these incarnations. Thus, reading of works

such as Bhagavata and Ramayana and listening to discourses on them

form an important aspect of worship.

There is another kind of incarnation known as `archAvatAra'. It is

believed by the devout that the images in such temples as those in

Guruvayur, Tirupati, Kashi, etc., are not mere symbols of God, but

living incarnations.

As regards your question whether the gods are vyAvahArika, brahman

alone is pAramArthika. From the absolute point of view there are no

jivas, no Ishvara and no world. There is nothing other than

brahman.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

 

 

advaitin , putranm <putranm wrote:

>

> Namaskarams, regarding the moderator's note:

>  

> " All advaitins Krishna because He resides within the hearts of

advaitins as their guiding spirit and advaitins do not treat Him as

a separate Entity! "

>  

> I request any comments and clarifications from scholarly members

aware of how the puranas intertwine with Indian culture, to specify

the acceptable standpoints. Are they entirely stories or can they be

taken as having vyavaharika reality, as I do the members of this

forum?

>  

> thollmelukaalkizhu

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , putranm <putranm wrote:

 

Dear Putranmji:

 

>Are they entirely stories or can they be taken as having vyavaharika

reality, as I do the members of this forum?

 

 

According to Carl Jung, the psychologist there is a

collective 'brain' of Mankind (akin to the Mahat of Sankhya) where

are stored 'Archetypes' which are symbolic images of Mankind. Thus if

Kumar, the personal noun has a brain that stores images, 'Man' the

common noun also has a brain where are stored the images of all men.

Plato with his 'ideas in the brain of God' and our own Vedantic

discussions around " Sphota " are similar ideas.

 

So, according to Jung, when we are watching a daughter in law and a

mother in law fight in a TV serial, we are actually watching the

implementation of an Archetype; and when we, during a family fight,

grow angry with our brother and ask for partition of our family HUF

property, we have just 'downloaded' as it were, an Archetype from

the 'internet-sky'

 

The thing with such images is that it is stored at the level of the

proper noun (Kumar) and at the common noun level (Man) -- jung calls

it Archetype and Anima respectively. So, the Biblical story of Cain

and Abel results in an Archetype of brothers hating each other and

the proper noun implementation is when you ask your property to be

partitioned and put walls up in the house to separate your brother

and you, or when Ekta Kapoor beams her daily soap.

 

Now the Archetype is, as it were, a symbol of the collective wisdom

of mankind and is stored in the collective mind; but it can be

changed and modified by strong thoughts of men who propose a new

meaning to the symbol and put it out in the 'Internet - sky' to be

evaluated, accepted and 'downloaded' by other men.

 

Aurobindo, in the introduction to his Essays on the Gita says that,

to him, it does not matter if the real Krishna actually lived or not -

- it is the meaning inherent in the symbol of Krishna that is

important to him. Similarly, Vivekananda says somewhere that the

historical existence of a Buddha or a Christ is not important; what

is important -- that someone, somewhere had those noble thoughts.

 

So, Krishna, to me, is an Archetype -- the best thought of the

collective wisdom of a people. That the symbolic meaning of an

Archetype can be changed is shown by the recent attempts of VHP in

attempting to arm Ram with a AK 47 instead of a bow and an arrow.

 

rgds

IK

[Guest guest]

--- On Wed, 11/26/08, snsastri <sn.sastri wrote:

 

 

Shri Shankara says in his bhAshya on brahma sutra, 1.1.20: " Ishvara

may take various forms at His will by using His mAyA for the sake of

blessing devotees, as is declared in the smRiti, `O nArada, it is an

illusion created by Me, that you see Me in this form possessed of

all the substances and qualities. You must not understand Me thus' " .

 

-----------

PraNAms to all

 

Just to add to the beautiful write up of Shree Sastriji, puraaNas also depict

how a realized soul acts in the world of plurality. The life of Krishna, Rama

and other incarnations - who have full knowledge of Brahman as there is nothing

in three worlds that the need or depend on for their happiness - yet operate at

vyavahaara level - themselves following Dharma and make sure others do as well.

- Krishna say I pervade this entire universe in unmanifested form - yet operate

locally as though separate from the rest of the world - punishing those who

deviate from Dharma and blessing those who surrender or approach them with

devotion. The living example of how jiivan mukta acts and deals with the world

outside and inside, knowing very well that everything is Him and He is in

everything.

Listening to the stories of puraaNas fascinates young and old alike, however

many times we listen, we still want to listen - they are not histories - but His

stories.

When we see others photos we do not much attention, but if we are in that photo

every body want to see and save the photo also - because they are there in that

photo - The fascination of seeing oneself out there is intrinsic - and that is

exactly the fascination of listening to the pouranic stories - it is not His

stories but our stories - if one can see through.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Sri Shastriji, Sadaji, Nairji, Balagopalanji, thank you for your replies.

 

Shastriji's reply below pretty much settles my question. The question is regarding whether advaita can accomodate for reality in the devathas and avataras; we need not be restricted to thinking of Krishna only as the antaryami: the Krishna of the Mahabharatha and Bhagavatha also have a 'real' place for advaitins, should they seek it. Historically for a millenium, great advaitins have found no conflict between the philosophy and puranic accounts of Ishvara's lila. Today our scientific mentality makes us run away from it all, almost with shame; but previously, advaitins were on level ground with other sampradayas on many of these details, only differing in final philosophical points. Even if we reject them personally, we need not present the idea that the philosophy is incompatible with them.

 

My question made me re-read some lectures by the Kanchi Paramacharya:

http://kamakoti.org/newlayout/template/hindudharma.html/14/1/hindu/Puranas

Whether we agree or not, from the Indian cultural context, the puranas/itihasas are not considered mere stories. The acharya also stresses that the purpose of the smrithis is in alignment with the highest end, far from just a history lesson.

 

Nairji's point that the deities are part of our collective consciousness independent of their actual validity is significant. For that, we must thank the fact that we may have grown in a culture that never undermined them. That is not the case today, when teachers of religion feel obligated (for valid reasons as well, along with their own disbelief) to present the 'right' way to view everything. That's the shift in cultural viewpoints. Good or bad, it is happening, and we must be aware enough to support or oppose, instead of being silent, ignorant sheep pulled along.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

--- On Wed, 11/26/08, snsastri <sn.sastri wrote:

snsastri <sn.sastri Re: Who is Krishna?advaitin Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 7:03 AM

 

 

Dear Putran,The object of the purANas is to convey the teachings of Vedanta in an easily understandable manner. In Srimad Bhagavata there are many stutis (hymns of praise) by various devotees which contain the essence of the upanishads. Apart from such explicit teachings, the various episodes in the purANas lend themselves to allegorical interpretation by means of which the truths of Vedanta are conveyed. Thus the object of the purANas is the same as that of the upanishads, namely, teaching the means to liberation. Shri Shankara says in his bhAshya on brahma sutra, 1.1.20: "Ishvara may take various forms at His will by using His mAyA for the sake of blessing devotees, as is declared in the smRiti, `O nArada, it is an illusion created by Me, that you see Me in this form possessed of all the substances and qualities. You must not understand Me thus'". So, according to Shri Shankara, the forms

attributed to Ishvara by various devotees are actually taken by Him. In Bhagavata, Dhruva was asked by sage nArada to meditate on Lord viShNu in a particular form. The story says that God appeared before him in that form.In brahma sutra, 1.3.26, Shri Shankara comes to the conclusion that the various gods like Indra have bodies. The purANas say that the incarnations such as Rama, Krishna, were terminated by them when the purpose for which they came had been accomplished. But we believe that they are present even now and worship them. According to Bhagavata the main object of these incarnations was to establish dharma and to provide a basis for future generations to worship God by narrating and listening to the deeds and teachings of these incarnations. Thus, reading of works such as Bhagavata and Ramayana and listening to discourses on them form an important aspect of worship. There is another

kind of incarnation known as `archAvatAra' . It is believed by the devout that the images in such temples as those in Guruvayur, Tirupati, Kashi, etc., are not mere symbols of God, but living incarnations. As regards your question whether the gods are vyAvahArika, brahman alone is pAramArthika. From the absolute point of view there are no jivas, no Ishvara and no world. There is nothing other than brahman. Best wishes,S.N.Sastri advaitin@ s.com, putranm <putranm > wrote:>> Namaskarams, regarding the moderator's note:> > "All advaitins Krishna because He resides within the hearts of advaitins as their guiding spirit and advaitins do not treat Him as a separate Entity! "> > I request any comments and clarifications from scholarly members aware of

how the puranas intertwine with Indian culture, to specify the acceptable standpoints. Are they entirely stories or can they be taken as having vyavaharika reality, as I do the members of this forum?> > thollmelukaalkizhu>

[Guest guest]

>Are they entirely stories or can they be > taken as having vyavaharika reality?Dear All, Pranams,DIfferent True Traditions of Humanity have always presented texts that carry, embedded in themselves, different levels of meaning and understanding. The reading of these different levels will be in accordance, and directly proportional, to the capacity we have to understand ourselves. As long as I take myself as someone living amongst an external world, then the historical reading of those texts will prevail, they will be not only stories, but also History, and Laws of behavior within the social and cultural environment they are told. As the understanding grows, and the vantage point of reference of my own identity changes, considering "my" story as one more in the total weave of Life, like an actor perceives its role in a play, then the relationship with the Texts becomes one of Guidance, the screenplay of our life. We discover them as the road map of our own inner territory. We identify the heroes and the villains with our own individual tendencies fighting for supremacy. And within the Texts themselves I find the tools and the means to further the understanding, to "push the limits of my own boundaries", that, in fact, really means the dissolution of my original notional identity.In the final Understanding we become the Hero, and the answer to the question: "Who is Krishna?" is: "I Am Krishna" or more precisely: "I IS Krishna". From now on we take responsibility for this Ultimate Understanding and live accordingly, but spontaneously.At this point there is no more denial of the different stages that lead us to Understand (since it became our own story), but rather an acknowledgement and respect of the importance of those stages of development in the general scheme of things. Adi Shankara writing of Baja Govindam and Ramana Maharshi's hymn to Arunachala (Aksharamanamalai) are just two examples of this respectful attitude, besides the emotional and didactic aspect they carry.In the end, we could echo that Sage that once being asked if the Gods were real, replied: "As real as you take yourself to be".Pranams to All,Mouna

[Guest guest]

Hari OM!

 

When I read, or more correctly " misread " , that Krishna is us

and Krishna's stories are our stories I feel humbled and even

sorry for Krishna.

 

Swami Chinmayanandaji used to say that electricity manifests as light

in the bulb, sound in the speaker, heat in the heater, cold in the

fridge etc., But it is different story if bulb starts saying it is

electricity, or a " speaker " says it/he is electricity.

 

The " claiming factor " in us certainly seems to belong to only ego,

never to Krishna! Of course ego can be deceptive, as always!

But then what about the mahaavaakya " aham brahmasmi " ? I heard the

following story that made deep impression on me.

 

Once Swami Tapovan Maharaj in himalayas heard a sadhu screaming

loudly " aham brahmasmi " . But that is a anubhava-vaakya, most

sublime utterance out of the highest realization and not said

as merely a claiming factor. So Tapovan Maharaj wondered why in the

middle of night he is screaming that. It turns out that person was

held in the jaws of a tiger then. To uplift his mind that was slipping

drowning into body-consciousness due to pain, the Sadhu was

screaming the mahavaakaya.

-

Hari OM!

-Srinivas

[Guest guest]

Dear Putranm,

 

Greetings.

 

Although what follows in this mail is not from Advaita stand point

per se, but a general understanding about correct position and

significance of purANa-s from Dvaita stand point.

 

purANa-s are indeed valid shabda pramAna. Quite often there exist a

out cry and objection on many occasions from other schools

opposing Dvaits's quoting of purANa-s in its understanding of vEdic

doctrine. It is alleged that purANa-s are mythology

and will not form the valid means of knowledge.

 

This is my humble attempt, what ever it is worth, to eradicate such

misunderstanding and educate on significance of purANa-s in all our

pursuit of truth.

 

purANa-s occupy an important role in Dvaita doctrine. They are

considered valid means of knowledge. The reason for this quite

vEdic.

 

What constitutes sad-Agamas (true scriptures)?

 

Madhva quotes brahmANDa purANa in this regard ;

 

RigAdyA bhArataM chaiva paJNcharAtramathAkhilam.h |

mUlarAmAyaNaM chaiva purANaM chaitadAtmakam.h ||

 

ye cha anuyAyinastveshhAM sarve te cha sadAgamAH |

durAgamastadanye ye tairna j~neyo janArdanaH ||

 

j~neya etaissadA yuktairbhaktimadbhiH sunishhThitaiH |

na cha kevalatarkeNa nAxajena na kenachit.h |

kevalAgamavij~neyo bhaktaireva na chAnyathA ||

 

-- iti brahmANDe

 

brahmANDa says ;

 

" vEda-s starting from Rig, and the pancharAtra in their entirety,

the mUla rAmAyaNa in its entirety, and those purAaNa-s that

follows the previous. These, and others that follow these, are all

sadAgamA-s; others are durAgama-s, and from these janArdana

(Brahman) is not known "

 

" He is known from these to those who steadily engaged in attempting

to know Him, to those with steady devoted to Him;

not from mere logic alone, not ever from mere observation; only from

scripture is He known, with devotion, and not otherwise. "

 

But isn't it the very objection that how can we accept brahmANDa's

words on this issue, for itself is another purANa? Validity for

purANa from purANa?

 

Not so.

 

Validity for purANa is coming from nowhere other than shruti itself

in some instance:

 

`itihAsapurANaH panchamO vEdAnAm vEdaH' (itihAsa and purANa-s are

fifth vEda) asserts shruti itself.

 

Another clear attestation by shruti regarding validity of purANas is

seen in Br.up 4th adhyAya :

 

Upanishad :

 

sa yatHaadreidhAgnErabhyahitasya pruTHag dhUmA vinischaranti, Evam

vA arE asya mahatO bhUtasya niHshwasitamEvaitad

yadrigvEdO yajurvEdaH sAmavEdO athH vrAngIrasa itihAsaH purANAm

vidyA upanishadaH shlOkaH sUtrANyanu vyAkhyAnAni vykhyAnisTaM hutA

mAtisham pAyitamayam cha lOkaH parachaH lOkaH sarvANi cha

bhUtanyasaivaitAni sarvANi niHshwasitAna ||

 

(Just like how smoke and sparks emits from the raw firewood,

similarly; from the Great Being of `hayagrIva' rUpi parabrahman, all

these of Rig-yajur-sAma-atharvaNa vEda-s, itihAsa (mahAbharata,

ramAyaNa, pancharAtra), purANa, mUla vEda, Upanishads, brahma sUtra,

vEda-vykhyAna-s, yAga, hOma, annadAna, jaladAna, aids to achieve

paralOka, all charAchara creatures emits at the beginning of

creation. )

 

 

Also, skAnda purANa has some thing to say about what constitutes

true shAstra and what constitutes mithyA jnyAna janaka shAstra-s :

 

RigyAjuH sAmAtharvAshchha bhArataM pancharAtrakam | mUlarAmayaNaM

chaiva shAstramityAbhidhIyatE ||

yachhAnukUlamEtasya tachha shAstram prakIrtitaM | athOnyO graMtha

vistArO naiva shAstraM kuvatmra tat ||

 

-- iti skAndE (Madhva in sUtra bhAshya)

 

(It is said in skAnda purANa that Rig, yajur, sAma and atharvaNa

vEda-s; bhArata; pancharAtrAgama; mUla rAmAyaNa constitutes sad-

Agama-s . Any other shAstra-s which are ancillary to these shAstra-s

are also sad-shAstra-s. Other shAstra-s, such as paShupatA-s etc

which goes against above shAstra-s are not shAstra-s but mithyA

jnyAna sources. )

 

Thus, it follows that purANa-s are also valid scriptures and should

be considered in arriving at any vEdic tenets in any doctrine.

More over, the real purport of sUtra-s and gIta (two of

prastAnatrayI) lies behind the words of purANa-s, for the author for

those two prastAnas is srI. vEdavyAsa , who is also author for

purANa-s. Thus the validity for purANa-s is due to srI. vEdavyAsa's

sarvajnyatva . Thus, it follows that Dvaita's quoting of purANa-s in

their doctrinal assertion is quite vEdic and valid.

 

Regards,

Srinivas Kotekal

[Guest guest]

Sri Kotekalji, thanks for your reply and info. I am aware of dvaita's standpoint, but my question was not exactly on the merit of puranas as a scripture, but to what extent the storyline is acceptable as real-history, etc, without conflicting with advaita philosophy. The point to stress is that even in advaita-tradition, it is accepted that Rama is incarnation of Vishnu and his story is treated as real; similarly with Krishna - the name refers first to Devaki's child, the One who preached the Gita to Arjuna -- then use whatever be our philosophy to also understand that He is the antaryami, saguna Brahman, etc. Our acharyas did not find conflict with such an acceptance. It is possible to interpret the puranic people/stories symbolically, metaphorically, or as just stories for teaching real-stuff, etc; true or not, that should not be given as a standard position of Shankara or the matha, unless it is really the case.

 

Whether Advaita can survive independent of considerations (or in rejection) of puranic history, and how the puranas should be interpreted as scriptures are different questions in whose answers we may differ. But I am not at present directing at them, even if they be related. thollmelukaalkizhu --- On Wed, 11/26/08, Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p wrote:Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p Re: Who is Krishna?advaitin Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2008, 3:14 PMDear Putranm,Greetings.Although what follows in this mail is not from Advaita stand point per se, but a general understanding about correct position and significance of purANa-s from Dvaita stand point. purANa-s are indeed valid shabda pramAna. Quite often there exist a out cry and

objection on many occasions from other schools opposing Dvaits's quoting of purANa-s in its understanding of vEdic doctrine. It is alleged that purANa-s are mythologyand will not form the valid means of knowledge.

[Guest guest]

--- On Wed, 11/26/08, Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p wrote:

 

Although what follows in this mail is not from Advaita stand point

per se, but a general understanding about correct position and

significance of purANa-s from Dvaita stand point.

 

Shree Srinivas

- PraNAms.

 

I would like to remind you Srinivasji that this list serve is from the Advaita

stand point only, although we do not monitor strictly with the hope that the

readers and posters follow the guide lines. It was in that spirit only the

original post, likely from Hare Krishna group member, is posted with the

moderators request not to pursue the discussion in those lines.

 

From advaita point - Shruti comes first as shabda pramaaNa as it is considered

as apourusheyam, not authored by a human being.

 

The puraaNas and Brahma suutra authored by human being only follow next in that

order as long as the contents are agreeable with the shruti. Shankara refers to

Vishupurana only in his bhaashyas and not even bhagavatam. Other puraNams may be

even authored much later. I am not getting into discussion of which puruNa is

valid pramaaNa here. They are all secondary in relation to shruti.

 

In the ultimate truth, the personified god-forms are all rejected in adivata in

the spirit of Upanishadic statements -any form is limited and that which is

limitless can only be infiniteness and attribute less. Even Iswara along with

jiiva and jagat falls under the category of mityaa only when the substantive

Brahman is understood.

 

tad eve brahma tvam vidhhi nedam yadidam upaasate| - that alone is Brahman not

this that you worship -repeatedly declared by the Shruti. Both the worshiper and

the worshiped get sublimated in the knowledge of aham brahmaasmi. That is

advaita that follows the shruti pramaaNa closely. In that sense all puraaNas are

considered only as secondary pramaaNas.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

I had read an English book (perhaps translated from Tamil) by a lady

inmate of Ramanashram about her life in the Ashram with Bhagwan. I

forgot the name of the book and the author (She was some Amma -

perhaps Achchamma). She was there in the Ashram until after Bhagwan

attained samAdhi.

 

It contains a vivid account of Bhagwan's insightful explanation on

the reality of our Gods. This occurs when Bhagawan was asked about

Auvaiyar's (a saintly poetess of Tamil Nadu - 1st-2nd Century A.D.)

frequent escapades to Mount Kailas. If I remember right, Bhagwan had

said in unambiguous words that the Gods are really real.

 

Can any one please locate this reference? I am sure Bhagwan's words

will clarify this issue better.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

If I remember right, Bhagwan had said in unambiguous words that the Gods are really real.

praNAms Hare Krishna

Yes, that is the reason why I think, ramaNa used to bow to aruNAchalEshwara lingam at temple...Even today, we can see chandramouleshwara & shAradAmba pooja being performed by our Jagadguru-s at shrungeri mutt...Yes, as long as we are thinking that we are tiny soul with limited boundaries like body, mind and intellect, Ishwara, the almighty mighty soul, is very much there to rescue us...But strictly from the philosophical point of you, the Ishwara, apara or kArya brahman is kEvala avidyA kruta & it has to be identified through upAdhi-s only...So, one & only brahman has been labelled as para & apara brahman according to its assosication or disassociation with limited adjuncts..yekaM yevaM api brahma apekshitOpAdhi saMbandhaM nirastOpAdhi saMbandhaM cha upAsyatvena ( apara brahman) jneyatvena (para brahman) cha vedAnteshu upadishyate...says shankara in sUtra bhAshya.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

" Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote:

 

> Can any one please locate this reference? I am sure Bhagwan's words

> will clarify this issue better.

>

 

Nairji, Pranams,

 

It's long, but it's worth.

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

 

*****

Question: God is described as manifest and unmanifest. As the former

he is said to include the world as a part of his being. If that is so,

we as part of that world should have easily known him in the manifest

form.

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Know your self before you seek to decide about

the nature of God and the world.

 

Question: Does knowing myself imply knowing God?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes, God is within you.

 

Question: Then, what stands in the way of my knowing myself or God?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Your wandering mind and perverted ways.

 

Question: Is God personal?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes, he is always the first person, the I, ever

standing before you. Because you give precedence to worldly things,

God appears to have receded to the background. If you give up all else

and seek him alone, he alone will remain as the `I', the Self.

 

Question: Is God apart from the Self?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: The Self is God. `I am' is God. This question

arises because you are holding on to the ego self. It will not arise

if you hold on to the true Self. For the real Self will not and cannot

ask anything. If God be apart from the Self he must be a self-less

God, which is absurd. God, who seems to be non-existent, alone truly

exists. Whereas the individual, who seems to be existing, is ever

non-existent. Sages say that the state in which one thus knows one's

own non-existence (sunya) alone is the glorious supreme knowledge.

 

You now think that you are an individual, that there is the universe

and that God is beyond the cosmos. So there is the idea of

separateness. This idea must go. For God is not separate from you or

the cosmos. The Gita also says:

 

The Self am I, O Lord of sleep,

In every creature's heart enshrined.

The rise and noon of every form,

I am its final doom as well.

-Bhagavad Gita, Ch.10, Verse 20.

 

Thus God is not only in the heart of all, he is the prop of all, he is

the source of all, their abiding place and their end. All proceed from

him, have their stay in him, and finally resolve into him. Therefore,

he is not separate.

 

Question: How are we to understand this passage in the Gita: `This

whole cosmos forms a particle of me'?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: It does not mean that a small particle of God

separates from him and forms the universe. His sakti (power) is

acting. As a result of one phase of such activity the cosmos has

become manifest. Similarly, the statement in Purusha Sukta, `All the

beings form his one foot', does not mean that Brahman is in several parts.

 

Questioner: I understand that. Brahman is certainly not divisible.

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: So the fact is that Brahman is all and remains

indivisible. It is ever realised but man is not aware of this. He must

come to know this. Knowledge means the overcoming of obstacles, which

obstruct the revelation of the eternal truth that the Self is the same

as Brahman. The obstacles taken together form your idea of

separateness as an individual.

 

Question: Is God the same as Self?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: The Self is known to everyone, but not clearly.

You always exist. The be-ing is the Self. `I am' is the name of God.

Of all the definitions of God, none is indeed so well put as the

Biblical statement `I am that I am' in Exodus 3. There are other

statements, such as Brahmaivaham (Brahman am I), Aham Brahmasmi (I am

Brahman) and Soham (I am he). But none is so direct as the name

Jehovah which means `I am'. The absolute being is what is. It is the

Self. It is God. Knowing the Self, God is known. In fact God is none

other than the Self.

 

Question: God seems to be known by many different names. Are any of

them justified?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Among the many thousands of names of God, no name

suits God, who abides in the Heart, devoid of thought, so truly,

aptly, and beautifully as the name `I' or `I am'. Of all the known

names of God, the name of God `I' – `I' alone will resound

triumphantly when the ego is destroyed, rising as the silent supreme

word (mouna-para-vak) in the Heart-space of those whose attention is

Selfward-facing. Even if one unceasingly meditates upon that name

`I-I' with one's attention on the feeling `I', it will take one and

plunge one into the source from which thought rises, destroying the

ego, the embryo, which is joined to the body.

 

Question: What is the relationship between God and the world? Is he

the creator or sustainer of it?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Sentient and insentient beings of all kinds are

performing actions only by the mere presence of the sun, which rises

in the sky without any volition. Similarly all actions are done by the

Lord without any volition or desire on his part. In the mere presence

of the sun, the magnifying lens emits fire, the lotus-bud blossoms,

the water-lily closes and all the countless creatures perform actions

and rest.

 

The order of the great multitude of worlds is maintained by the mere

presence of God in the same manner as the needle moves in front of a

magnet, and as the moonstone emits water, the water-lily blossoms and

the lotus closes in front of the moon.

 

In the mere presence of God, who does not have even the least

volition, the living beings, who are engaged in innumerable

activities, are embarking upon many paths to which they are drawn

according to the course determined by their own Karmas, finally

realise the futility of action, turn back to Self and attain liberation.

 

The actions of living beings certainly do not go and affect God, who

transcends the mind, in the same manner as the activities of the world

do not affect that sun and as the qualities of the conspicuous four

elements (earth, water, fire and air) do not affect the limitless space.

 

Question: Why is samsara- creation and manifestation as finitised- so

full of sorrow and evil?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: God's will!

 

Question: Why does God will it so?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: It is inscrutable. No motive can be attributed to

that power –no desire, no end to achieve can be asserted of that one

infinite, all-wise and all-powerful being. God is untouched by

activities, which take place in his presence. Compare the sun and the

world activities. There is no meaning in attributing responsibility

and motive to the one before it becomes many.

 

Question: Does everything happen by the will of God?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: It is not possible for anyone to do anything

opposed to the ordinance of God, who has the ability to do everything.

Therefore to remain silent at the feet of God, having given up all the

anxieties of the wicked, defective mind, is best.

 

Question: Is there a separate being Iswara (personal God) who is the

rewarder of virtue and punisher of sins? Is there a God?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes.

 

Question: What is he like?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Iswara has individuality in mind and body, which

are perishable, but at the same time he has also the transcendental

consciousness and liberation inwardly.

 

Iswara, the personal God, the supreme creator of the universe really

does exist. But this is true only from the relative standpoint of

those who have not realised the truth, those people who believe in the

reality of individual souls. From the absolute standpoint the sage

cannot accept any other existence than the impersonal Self, one and

formless.

 

Iswara has a physical body, a form and a name, but it is not so gross

as this material body. It can be seen in visions in the form created

by the devotee. The forms and names of God are many and various and

differ with each religion. His essence is the same as ours, the real

Self being only one and without form. Hence forms he assumes are only

creations or appearances.

 

Iswara is immanent in every person and every object throughout the

universe. The totality of all things and beings constitutes God. There

is a power out of which a small fraction has become all this universe,

and the remainder is in reserve. Both this reserve power plus the

manifested power as material world together constitute Iswara.

 

Question: So ultimately Iswara is not real?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Existence of Iswara follows from our conception

of Iswara. Let us first know whose concept he is. The concept will be

only according to the one who conceives. Find out who you are and the

other problems will solve themselves.

 

Iswara, God, the creator, the personal God, is the last of the unreal

forms to go. Only the absolute being is real. Hence, not only the

world, not only the ego, but also the personal God are of unreality.

We must find the absolute – nothing else.

 

Question: You say that even the highest God is still only an idea.

Does that mean that there is no God?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: No, there is an Iswara.

 

Question: Does he exist in any particular place or form?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: If the individual is a form, even Self, the

source, who is the Lord, will also appear to be form. If one is not a

form, since there then cannot be knowledge of other things, will that

statement that God has a form be correct? God assumes any form

imagined by the devotees through repeated thinking in prolonged

meditation. Though he thus assumes endless names, the real formless

consciousness alone is God.

 

With regard to his location, God does not reside in any place other

than the Heart. It is due to illusion, caused by the ego, the `I am

the body' idea, that the kingdom of God is conceived to be elsewhere.

Be sure that the Heart is the kingdom of God.

 

Know that you are perfect, shining light, which not only makes the

existence of God's kingdom possible, but also allows it to be seen as

some wonderful heaven. To know this is alone jnana. Therefore, the

kingdom of God is within you. The unlimited space of Turiyatita

(beyond the four states, i.e. the Self), which shines suddenly, in all

its fullness, within the Heart of a highly mature aspirant during the

state of complete absorption of mind, as if a fresh and previously

unknown experience, is the rarely attained and true Siva-loka (the

kingdom of God), which shines by the light of Self.

 

Question: They say that the jiva (individual soul) is subject to the

evil effects of illusion such as limited vision and knowledge, whereas

Iswara has all-pervading vision and knowledge. It is also said that

Jiva and Iswara become identical if the individual discards his

limited vision and knowledge. Should not Iswara also discard his

particular characteristics such as all-pervading vision and knowledge?

They too are illusions, aren't they?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Is that your doubt? First discard your own

limited vision and then there will be time enough to think of Iswara's

all-pervading vision and knowledge. First get rid of your own limited

knowledge. Why do you worry about Iswara? He will look after himself.

Has he not got as much capacity as we have? Why should we worry about

whether he possesses all-pervading vision and knowledge or not? It is

indeed a great thing if we can take care of ourselves.

 

Question: But does God know everything?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: The Vedas declare God to be omniscient only to

those who ignorantly think themselves to be people of little

knowledge. But if one attains and knows him as he really is, it will

be found that God does not know anything, because his nature is the

ever-real whole, other than which nothing exists to be known.

 

Question: Why do religions speak of Gods, heaven, hell, etc.?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Only to make the people realise that they are on

a par with this world and that the Self alone is real. The religions

are according to the view-point of the seeker.

 

Question: Do Vishnu, Siva, etc., exist?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Individual human souls are not the only beings known.

 

Question: And their sacred regions Kailasa or Vaikuntha, are they real?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: As real as you are in this body.

 

Question: Do they possess a phenomenal existence, like my body? Or are

they fictions like the horn of a hare?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: They do exist.

 

Question: If so, they must be somewhere. Where are they?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Persons who have seen them say that they exist

somewhere. So we must accept their statement.

 

Question: Where do they exist?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: In you.

 

Question: Then it is only an idea, which I can create and control?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Everything is like that.

 

Question: But I can create pure fictions, for example, a hare's horn,

or only part truths, for example a mirage, while there are also facts

irrespective of my imagination. Do the Gods Iswara or Vishnu exist

like that?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes.

 

Question: Is God subject to Pralaya (cosmic dissolution)?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Why? Man becoming aware of the Self transcends

cosmic dissolution and becomes liberated. Why not Iswara who is

infinitely wiser and abler?

 

Question: Do devas (angels) and pisachas (devils) exist similarly?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes.

 

Question: These deities, what is their status relative to the Self?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Siva, Ganapati and other deities like Brahma,

exist from a human standpoint; that is to say, if you consider your

personal self as real, then they also exist. Just a government has its

high executive officers to carry on the government, so has the

creator. But from the standpoint of the Self all these gods are

illusory and must themselves merge into the one reality.

 

Questioner: Whenever I worship God with name and form, I feel tempted

to think whether I am not wrong in doing so, as that would be limiting

the limitless, giving form to the formless. At the same time I feel I

am not constant in my adherence to worship God without form.

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: As long as you respond to a name, what objection

could there be to your worshipping a God with name or form? Worship

God with or without form till you know who you are.

 

Question: I find it difficult to believe in a personal God. In fact I

find it impossible. But I can believe in an impersonal God, a divine

force which rules and guides the world, and it would be a great help

to me, even in my work of healing, if this faith were increased. May I

know how to increase this faith?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Faith is in things unknown, but the Self is

self-evident. Even the greatest egotist cannot deny his own existence,

that is to say, cannot deny the Self. You can call the ultimate

reality by whatever name you like and say that you have faith in it or

love for it, but who is there who will not have faith in his own

existence or love for himself? That is because faith and love are our

real nature.

 

Question: Should I not have any idea about God?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Only so long as there are other thoughts in the

Heart can there be a thought of God conceived by one's mind. The

destruction of even that thought of God due to the destruction of all

other thoughts alone is the unthought thought, which is the true

thought of God.

 

*******

 

The teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi

Edited by David Godman

 

[Note: By David Godman: The original texts from which these

conversations are taken are characterised by a luxuriant

profusion of capital letters. I have eliminated most of them,

leaving only three terms, Guru, Self and Heart, consistently

capitalised.]

 

Preamble

By David Godman

 

At first sight Sri Ramana Maharshi's statements on God appear to be

riddled with contradictions: on one occasion he might say that God

never does anything, on another that nothing happens except by God's

will. Sometimes he would say that God is just an idea in the mind,

while at other times he would say that God is the only existing reality.

 

The contradictory statements are largely a reflection of the differing

levels of understanding he encountered in his questioners. Those who

worshipped personal Gods would often be given anthropomorphic

explanations. They would be told that God created the world, that he

sustains it by his divine power, that he looks after the needs of all

its inhabitants and that nothing happens that is contrary to God's

will. On the other hand, those who were not attracted to such a theory

would be told that all such ideas about God and his power were mental

creations, which only obscured the real experience of God, which is

inherent in everyone.

 

At the highest level of his teachings the term `God' and `Self' are

synonyms for the immanent reality which is discovered by

Self-realisation. Thus realisation of the Self is realisation of God;

it is not an experience of God, rather it is an understanding that one

is God. Speaking from this ultimate level, Sri Ramana's statements on

God can be summarised in the following way:

 

1. God is immanent and formless; God is pure being and pure

consciousness.

2. Manifestation appears in God and through God's power, but God is

not its creator. God never acts, God just is. God has neither will nor

desire.

3. Individuality is the illusion that we are not identical with

God; when the illusion is dispelled, what remains is God.

 

On a lower level Sri Ramana Maharshi spoke about Iswara, the Hindu

name for the supreme personal God. He said that Iswara exists as a

real entity only so long as one imagines that one is an individual

person. When individuality persists there is a God who survives the

activities of the universe; in the absence of individuality Iswara is

non-existent.

 

Beside Iswara, Hinduism has many deities which resemble the gods and

demons of Norse and Greek mythology. Such deities are a central

feature of popular Hinduism and their reality is still widely

accepted. Sri Ramana surprised many people by saying that such beings

were as real as the people who believed in them. He admitted that

after realisation they shared the same fate as Iswara, but prior to

that, he seemed to regard them as senior officials in a cosmological

hierarchy which looked after the affairs of the world.

[Guest guest]

Although what follows in this mail is not from Advaita stand point

per se, but a general understanding about correct position and

significance of purANa-s from Dvaita stand point.

praNAms Sri Srinivasa Kotekal prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Since in the beginning itself you've mentioned that it is not advaita view point & you know that it is indeed dvaita point...why you are trying to push-in dvaita stand in exclusive advaita forum like this ?? Offlate, I could see from you some extreme anxiety to convince advaita followers about dvaita stand (your recent detailed mail to Sri Sastri prabhuji proved that point:-))!! but I am not able to understand why this desparation!!?? is dvaita forum lacking activity nowadays??:-)) you know how difficult it is to convince an advaitin from dvaitic view points or vice versa :-))

Yes, shankara does say itihAsa, purANAdi too valid pramANa in brahma jignAsa but it does not mean that whatever we find in paurusheya purANa texts should be there in apaurusheya shruti also...smruti & purANAdi texts are subservient to shruti pramANa..Hence paurusheya texts & purports have been accepted as pramANa as long as it is in line with shruti siddhAnta...Now, dont ask me what is shruti siddhAnta?? you know we (dvaitins & advaitins) differ drastically on this core issue itself :-)) Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> If I remember right, Bhagwan had said in unambiguous words that the Gods

> are really real.

 

BhaskarJi, Pranams

 

As Sri Sadaji said once, we can't take Bhagavan Ramana's sayings out

of context. Here some excerpts of the post I sent a few minutes ago

directly connected to your statement, but in context. I doubt we can

find more advaitic position than this one.

 

All the best,

Mouna

 

*******

 

Question: So ultimately Iswara is not real?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Existence of Iswara follows from our conception

of Iswara. Let us first know whose concept he is. The concept will be

only according to the one who conceives. Find out who you are and the

other problems will solve themselves.

 

*******

Question: You say that even the highest God is still only an idea.

Does that mean that there is no God?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: No, there is an Iswara.

 

Question: Does he exist in any particular place or form?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: If the individual is a form, even Self, the

source, who is the Lord, will also appear to be form. If one is not a

form, since there then cannot be knowledge of other things, will that

statement that God has a form be correct? God assumes any form

imagined by the devotees through repeated thinking in prolonged

meditation. Though he thus assumes endless names, the real formless

consciousness alone is God.

 

*******

 

Question: Why do religions speak of Gods, heaven, hell, etc.?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Only to make the people realise that they are on

a par with this world and that the Self alone is real. The religions

are according to the view-point of the seeker.

 

Question: Do Vishnu, Siva, etc., exist?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Individual human souls are not the only beings known.

 

Question: And their sacred regions Kailasa or Vaikuntha, are they real?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: As real as you are in this body.

 

Question: Do they possess a phenomenal existence, like my body? Or are

they fictions like the horn of a hare?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: They do exist.

 

Question: If so, they must be somewhere. Where are they?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Persons who have seen them say that they exist

somewhere. So we must accept their statement.

 

Question: Where do they exist?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: In you.

 

Question: Then it is only an idea, which I can create and control?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Everything is like that.

 

Question: But I can create pure fictions, for example, a hare's horn,

or only part truths, for example a mirage, while there are also facts

irrespective of my imagination. Do the Gods Iswara or Vishnu exist

like that?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes.

 

Question: Is God subject to Pralaya (cosmic dissolution)?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Why? Man becoming aware of the Self transcends

cosmic dissolution and becomes liberated. Why not Iswara who is

infinitely wiser and abler?

 

Question: Do devas (angels) and pisachas (devils) exist similarly?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes.

 

Question: These deities, what is their status relative to the Self?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Siva, Ganapati and other deities like Brahma,

exist from a human standpoint; that is to say, if you consider your

personal self as real, then they also exist. Just a government has its

high executive officers to carry on the government, so has the

creator. But from the standpoint of the Self all these gods are

illusory and must themselves merge into the one reality.

 

*******

[Guest guest]

Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> If I remember right, Bhagwan had said in unambiguous words that the Gods

> are really real.

praNAms Sri Mouna prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Actually, I was responding to the above observation from Sri MN prabhuji...Above is not my words..However, I have found that ramaNa too has endorsed the vedantic (shankara/advaita) view that Ishwara is as real as *the self /jIva* !!??

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

>

> Hare Krishna

>

>

> Actually, I was responding to the above observation from Sri MN

> prabhuji...Above is not my words..However, I have found that ramaNa

too has

> endorsed the vedantic (shankara/advaita) view that Ishwara is as

real as

> *the self /jIva* !!??

>

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

>

> bhaskar

 

 

Namaste,

 

 

this is indeed an interesting point!...

 

" Ishwara is as real as the self/jiva "

 

 

.....

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

From the below excerpts, it is clear that ramaNa saying all mythological abodes, like kailAsa, vaikunTa etc. are mere mental creations !! (One can observe that first Sri Bhagavan says these loka-s must be there somewhere coz. some known people saying that!!...and then goes on to confirm that it is only mental creation and concludes that *everything is like that*!!)...But shankara in sUtra bhAshya says there exists a brahma lOka wherein jIva have all the power and Ishwarya of Ishwara except srushti..Shankara describes this as *kArya brahma lOka*...shankara insists here concept of *krama mukti* (gradual liberation) and says those who attain jnAna in this lOka would not return to saMsAra...Point here I am trying to take note is shankara accepts here that there exists a lOka apart from vyAvahArik lOka...and confirms that through apara brahma upAsana jIva would reach this region..So, according to shankara, this lOka is not mere mental creation of Jiva..but it has a phenomenal existence...Has RamaNa anywhere clarified & discussed this point?? kindly clarify. Otherwise, Sri Sastri prabhuji kindly tell us how to reconcile shankara bhAshya with ramANa's declaration....

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

// quote //

Question: Do Vishnu, Siva, etc., exist?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Individual human souls are not the only beings known.

 

Question: And their sacred regions Kailasa or Vaikuntha, are they real?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: As real as you are in this body.

 

Question: Do they possess a phenomenal existence, like my body? Or are

they fictions like the horn of a hare?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: They do exist.

 

Question: If so, they must be somewhere. Where are they?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Persons who have seen them say that they exist

somewhere. So we must accept their statement.

 

Question: Where do they exist?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: In you.

 

Question: Then it is only an idea, which I can create and control?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Everything is like that.

 

Question: But I can create pure fictions, for example, a hare's horn,

or only part truths, for example a mirage, while there are also facts

irrespective of my imagination. Do the Gods Iswara or Vishnu exist

like that?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes.

//unquote//

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> praNAms

>

>

> Hare Krishna

>

>

> From the below excerpts, it is clear that ramaNa saying all

mythological

> abodes, like kailAsa, vaikunTa etc. are mere mental creations !!

(One can

> observe that first Sri Bhagavan says these loka-s must be there

somewhere

> coz. some known people saying that!!...and then goes on to confirm

that it

> is only mental creation and concludes that *everything is like

> that*!!)...But shankara in sUtra bhAshya says there exists a brahma

lOka

> wherein jIva have all the power and Ishwarya of Ishwara except

> srushti..Shankara describes this as *kArya brahma lOka*...shankara

insists

> here concept of *krama mukti* (gradual liberation) and says those

who

> attain jnAna in this lOka would not return to saMsAra...Point here

I am

> trying to take note is shankara accepts here that there exists a

lOka apart

> from vyAvahArik lOka...and confirms that through apara brahma

upAsana jIva

> would reach this region..So, according to shankara, this lOka is

not mere

> mental creation of Jiva..but it has a phenomenal existence...Has

RamaNa

> anywhere clarified & discussed this point?? kindly clarify.

Otherwise,

> Sri Sastri prabhuji kindly tell us how to reconcile shankara

bhAshya with

> ramANa's declaration....

>

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

>

> bhaskar

>

>

 

Namaste,

 

 

your words....

 

" So, according to shankara, this lOka is not mere

> mental creation of Jiva..but it has a phenomenal existence " ....

 

 

i think that within this your own words could be the answer.

 

" mental creation " and " Jiva " are One, so identique...no?...

 

( " Jiva " is already the " creation " ....but " Jiva " couldn't be the

creator of anything realy)

 

Depending on the level/kind of " Jiva " ....it's possible

to " see & percieve " or to don't " see & percieve " (whatever lokas)...

 

.....

 

few thoughts

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

I also look forward to others' viewpoints. But this business of everything being

mental creation has to be taken from " a matter-of-fact " perspective, wherein all

conceptions are ultimately located in one's own mind, as a bundle of our

thoughts. I also recall his story of two young men going on some work or trip,

one died and the info to the families switched the deceased. Whereupon the wrong

family was crying. Ramana concludes that like the family's sorrow is in their

mind and not real, so also... Naturally it does not mean that the death of the

other person did not happen; it did, but the stress Ramana wants is in the fact

that your perception, reaction, etc ultimately belongs to you (i.e. your mind).

[but if we want some objective analysis, we can turn to a newspaper (ie

scripture).]

 

Ramana was always redirecting our attention to the Self, so often took a stance

that is quite like " eka-jiva-vada " or endorsed " Drishti-shristi " as the quickest

way beyond considerations that take us away from Self. However he also points

that if we consider ourselves as individual self (i.e. accept the superimposed

state the mind find itself in, to be real), then in the context of that state,

Ishvara, lokas, devas, etc are equally real. There is only one vyavahaarika: i

am jiva means the rest follows (one loka or many did not matter to Ramana): BUT

if we push too much on the premise, Ramana attacks it, as belonging to the mind

and impresses that all is as unreal as your limited assumption of Self. It is

his way of teaching; I don't think he was trying to impose another viewpoint

than Vedanta, but was ever intent on stressing its conclusion.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

--- On Thu, 11/27/08, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

> Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr

> Re: Re: Who is Krishna?

> advaitin

> Thursday, November 27, 2008, 3:19 AM

> praNAms

>

>

> Hare Krishna

>

>

> From the below excerpts, it is clear that ramaNa saying all

> mythological

> abodes, like kailAsa, vaikunTa etc. are mere mental

> creations !! (One can

> observe that first Sri Bhagavan says these loka-s must be

> there somewhere

> coz. some known people saying that!!...and then goes on to

> confirm that it

> is only mental creation and concludes that *everything is

> like

> that*!!)...But shankara in sUtra bhAshya says there exists

> a brahma lOka

> wherein jIva have all the power and Ishwarya of Ishwara

> except

> srushti..Shankara describes this as *kArya brahma

> lOka*...shankara insists

> here concept of *krama mukti* (gradual liberation) and says

> those who

> attain jnAna in this lOka would not return to

> saMsAra...Point here I am

> trying to take note is shankara accepts here that there

> exists a lOka apart

> from vyAvahArik lOka...and confirms that through apara

> brahma upAsana jIva

> would reach this region..So, according to shankara, this

> lOka is not mere

> mental creation of Jiva..but it has a phenomenal

> existence...Has RamaNa

> anywhere clarified & discussed this point?? kindly

> clarify. Otherwise,

> Sri Sastri prabhuji kindly tell us how to reconcile

> shankara bhAshya with

> ramANa's declaration....

>

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

>

> bhaskar

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Putran-ji.

 

Your " Who is Krishna? " question is spawning a long thread indeed!

Hare Krishna!

 

Good to see that the person who raised the issue has himself found

the answer in Bhagwan's words (Ref: your statement quoted below).

 

Personally, I would look at it this way:

 

1. The driShti-sriShti (eka jIva) angle is easier and I prefer to go

that way. Here, an understanding of advaita or an advaitic vision,

academic though it is, is a pre-requisite. However, even in it,

Ishwara cannot be done away with initially. Ishwara remains a

relatable substratum there. And that Ishwara (or IshwarI) is really

real because He/She is the Self/Brahman Itself despite imposed

nomenclature and individuality.

 

2. The nAna-jIva angle can accommodate persons with or without an

understanding of advaita. For the latter, Ishwara is as real as his

jIvahood. (This is another way of saying that both are mithyA!) For

the former, as in eka jIva, Ishwra is Brahman. However, nAna-jIva

angle demands consensus for reality. The Ishwara of nAna-JIva cannot

pass that test. This problem is not faced with eka jIva.

 

3. The problem with us moderners is that we demand consensus

for 'reality'. Our ancients were not that particular about it

because they knew they were dealing with mithyA any way.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________

 

advaitin , putranm <putranm wrote:

>

(ie scripture).]

>

> Ramana was always redirecting our attention to the Self, so often

took a stance that is quite like " eka-jiva-vada " or endorsed " Drishti-

shristi " as the quickest way beyond considerations that take us away

from Self. However he also points that if we consider ourselves as

individual self (i.e. accept the superimposed state the mind find

itself in, to be real), then in the context of that state, Ishvara,

lokas, devas, etc are equally real. There is only one vyavahaarika: i

am jiva means the rest follows (one loka or many did not matter to

Ramana): BUT if we push too much on the premise, Ramana attacks it,

as belonging to the mind and impresses that all is as unreal as your

limited assumption of Self. It is his way of teaching; I don't think

he was trying to impose another viewpoint than Vedanta, but was ever

intent on stressing its conclusion.

>

[Guest guest]

--- On Thu, 11/27/08, putranm <putranm wrote:

 

> It is his way of teaching; I don't think he was

> trying to impose another viewpoint than Vedanta, but was

> ever intent on stressing its conclusion.

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

>

 

 

A more critical discussion of Ramana (by other advaitins) should center on his

method of teaching, rather than on differences in final conclusions. We should

see the way traditional sampradaya teaches Vedanta to public, how/where it

stresses points like dharma, karma, bhakthi, etc. in an all-encompassing manner,

how/where it stresses Ishvara, etc., and discuss on the scope of Ramana's

bare-hands approach which *seems* to cast aside the gradual and graded methods

of tradition. The sampradaya upholds a Vedic tradition that has survived for

eons, hence has the entire gamut of ways through which seers have purified the

mind and realized the Self. It also contains a niche for Ramana's more direct &

to-the-point approaches for surrender and enquiry. Whether that alone should be

stressed, in such a way that Ramana perhaps does, the benefits and potential

inadequacies, etc. can be brought into analysis.

 

However such a discussion may go out of the scope of this list. And I probably

won't be a further participant in it, anyway.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , putranm <putranm wrote:

>

> Namaskarams, regarding the moderator's note:

>  

> " All advaitins Krishna because He resides within the hearts of

advaitins as their guiding spirit and advaitins do not treat Him as a

separate Entity! "

>  

> in what sense do orthodox advaitins accept the smrithi stories of

Vishnu, Shiva, Rama, Krishna, etc? It seems Advaita has room to

accept (without being bound to accepting) the devathas as separate

entities (in vyavahaarika), just as we find ourselves as separate. Of

course, I don't think advaitins accept a ranking even if they

consider them as separable manifestations of Ishvara. In the

acceptant viewpoint: Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are like the three eyes

of Ishvara, operating simultaneously, yet capable of representing Him

in entirety, and their Reality (as also ours) being the common I that

is He.

>  

> I request any comments and clarifications from scholarly members

aware of how the puranas intertwine with Indian culture, to specify

the acceptable standpoints. Are they entirely stories or can they be

taken as having vyavaharika reality, as I do the members of this

forum?

>  

> thollmelukaalkizhu

>

Namaste,

 

I think we can look at Krishna in different ways. One way like Sri

Aurobindo as the total Sakti or manifestation of Saguna Brahman. The

other way as a dweller in the Brahmaloka consciousness that has

preserved a mind to come back aid humanity---or an Avatar, Karana

Janma or Bhodisattva..............Tony