Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 praNAms Hare Krishna I am afraid, we are over stretching the scope of vyavahArik reality and taking undue advantage of this extra cushion in advaita vedanta...When something questioned about reflection theory of consciousness, we say no, it holds good in vyavahAra, (though shankara calls this theory as avidyaka ( I reckon he says this from vyavahAra stand point only since no words can explain the absolute reference ;-))... when anything questioned about individuality of Atman/jnAni, we comfortably say yes, the individuality, ego, separate mind, parichinna chaitanya etc. etc. are all running currencies even for the jnAni 'in 'his' vyavahAra' :-)) And when these theories being questioned, we are ready to bring the concept of 'reference levels' comfortably to dilute the counter viewpoint and at the same time argue that there is no word to explain the paramArtha :-)) We often give the example of sun rise and sun set and say sun neither sets nor rises, but we still continue to see this phenomena daily. So, jnAni-s absolute jnAna also like that and despite his blemish less jnAna he would continue to see mithya vyavahAra under the scope of vyavahArik reality !!! ..Is our Atma jnAna also like that only?? just like mere intellectual understanding that sun never sets nor rises?? is there no room for the jnAni to see 'sun' is constant and earth is moving around?? is his Atma jnAna remains for him only as his 'mind baby' ?? After all, l want to know, what exactly is the scope of vyavahAra in advaita?? When shankara takes some poorvapaksha for refutation, from which reference he treated them as his opponents?? If vyavahAra is an big umbrella where all and sundry can take shelter, where there is any need for discussion/debates on certain methodologies & doctrines and what is the need for siddhAnta nirNaya in the name of non-duality?? Kindly let me know what are all the concepts/theories not acceptable to advaita vedanta even it is presented in the name of 'vyavahArik reality' and why?? Normally we say, whatever presented here in the name of advaita (vyavahAra) should comply with the shruti, yukti and anubhava...but can we say whatever we are presenting here in the name of vyavahArik reality would satisfy those conditions?? Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > > > > > > After all, l want to know, what exactly is the scope of vyavahAra in > advaita?? When shankara takes some poorvapaksha for refutation, from which > reference he treated them as his opponents?? If vyavahAra is an big > umbrella where all and sundry can take shelter, where there is any need for > discussion/debates on certain methodologies & doctrines and what is the > need for siddhAnta nirNaya in the name of non-duality?? > > > Kindly let me know what are all the concepts/theories not acceptable to > advaita vedanta even it is presented in the name of 'vyavahArik reality' > and why?? Normally we say, whatever presented here in the name of advaita > (vyavahAra) should comply with the shruti, yukti and anubhava...but can we > say whatever we are presenting here in the name of vyavahArik reality would > satisfy those conditions?? > > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > > > bhaskar > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 --- On Sat, 5/16/09, ymoharir <ymoharir wrote: What is being superimposed on what ? IMO - Ultimate satya needs to be superimposed on the aparant vyavahaarika ? If this is doe successfully then only ther can be progress !? Yaduji - PraNams The answer to the above question is really very simple and straight forward too. First, Vedas define the ultimate truth as Brahman - Hence the inquiry into the nature of Brahman. Brahman means infiniteness or limitless and therefore ananda swaruupam since any limitation causes sorrow. Next what is that Brahman which cannot be defined - It says as its swaruupa lakshNa - Pragnaanam Brahma - that is consciousness is that infiniteness. Being infinite by the very definition there is nothing other than Brahman since anything other than Brahman limits Brahman. Now combining these two versions of Brahman - we conclude that anything other than consciousness if it exists cannot be real - since consciousness infinite Brahman alone is real. By defining in converse way, scripture also establishes that if there is a conscious entity anywhere - it must be Brahman. Now follows the answer to your question directly. Anything other than consciousness if one sees then that can only be a superimposition on that Brahman which being infinite is indivisible. Therefore anything other than Brahman is a superimposition on Brahman. So any 'thing' that is appears to be different from consciousness is by definition is superimposition only and has no independent existence. Let us look in a simple way - there are only two things that we find in the universe. One the conscious entity that I am and the unconscious entity - this is. Thus we have aatma and anaatma. aatma being a conscious entity by definition is Brahman. Therefore it follows that anything other than aatma is anaatma which is a superimposion on aatma. This is what yukti means. Anaatma can be of further differentiated into two. One that is Iswara sRiShTi and the other is jiiva SRiShTi. We can say broadly say (nor rigidly)- It is, therefore I see it - that is Iswara sRiShTi; and second one is - I see it, therefore it is - is jiiva sRisShTi. Iswara sRiShTi there is nothing I can do other than accept what it is and live with it and what need to be done. Jiiva sRiShTi comes with ahankaara and mamakaara - this is me and this is mine - There is emotional value attached to the objects and consequently suffering. The very ahankaara itself involves combining two basic things stated above - I am with this is - as I am this. anaatma that is represented by this is desha-kala -vastu parimitam - that is limited by space, time and object wise. I am this automatically excludes I am not that and therefore inherent limitation. I am - involves pure existence and consciousness which by definition is Brahman and there cannot anything other than Brahman. Hence in the very ahankaara where I am = this is, I am already superimposing something other than myself on myself. Now we are bringing the superimposition to the core of individuality. That is the cause of samsaara - the identification of the real, I am , with that which is neither real (since it can be negatable) and nor unreal (since it has borrowed reality from the substantive Brahman when we say, this IS, that is its existence comes from Brahman, which alone exists in the absolute sense). Hence in simple terms Vyaavahaarika is Iswara sRiShTi and praatibhaasika is jiiva SriShTi. Both are objectifiable. One as external objects and the others mental projections, nevertheless the projected mind sees as object as in dream. Even the snake that I see where rope is, is also a praatibhaasika only. The pratibhaasika errors get dissolved in the knowledge of the substantive. Thus snake that you see is no more when one sees Rope. On the other hand the Vyaavahaarika errors may not disappear when we know the truth - the simple example is sunrise and sunset or mirage waters - these come under Iswara sRiShTi. These concepts are actually simple and part of everybody's experience - hence anubhava is included as part of analysis in discovering the truth underlying the experiences. Anubhava itself is not knowledge but one has to analyze the anubhava as in the case of sunrise and sunset to arrive at the truth behind the anubhava. Hope this helps Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Dear Sada-ji: Thank you for that very beautiful and clear logic in your explanation. One thing that you said, after you said it, is very obvious to me but I have not come across this before due to my very limited exposure to scriptures. I refer to the following statement. " First, Vedas define the ultimate truth as Brahman - Hence the inquiry into the nature of Brahman. Brahman means infiniteness or limitless and therefore ananda swaruupam since any limitation causes sorrow. " This equivalence between Anant (infinite in Sanskrit) and Ananda (Bliss or Joy) that you have easily brought out makes perfect sense. Namaste and love to all Yours in Bhagavan Harsha advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of kuntimaddi sadananda Saturday, May 16, 2009 7:27 PM advaitin Re: vyavahArik reality and some relative questions... --- On Sat, 5/16/09, ymoharir <ymoharir wrote: What is being superimposed on what ? IMO - Ultimate satya needs to be superimposed on the aparant vyavahaarika ? If this is doe successfully then only ther can be progress !? Yaduji - PraNams The answer to the above question is really very simple and straight forward too. First, Vedas define the ultimate truth as Brahman - Hence the inquiry into the nature of Brahman. Brahman means infiniteness or limitless and therefore ananda swaruupam since any limitation causes sorrow. Next what is that Brahman which cannot be defined - It says as its swaruupa lakshNa - Pragnaanam Brahma - that is consciousness is that infiniteness. Being infinite by the very definition there is nothing other than Brahman since anything other than Brahman limits Brahman. Now combining these two versions of Brahman - we conclude that anything other than consciousness if it exists cannot be real - since consciousness infinite Brahman alone is real. By defining in converse way, scripture also establishes that if there is a conscious entity anywhere - it must be Brahman. Now follows the answer to your question directly. Anything other than consciousness if one sees then that can only be a superimposition on that Brahman which being infinite is indivisible. Therefore anything other than Brahman is a superimposition on Brahman. So any 'thing' that is appears to be different from consciousness is by definition is superimposition only and has no independent existence. Let us look in a simple way - there are only two things that we find in the universe. One the conscious entity that I am and the unconscious entity - this is. Thus we have aatma and anaatma. aatma being a conscious entity by definition is Brahman. Therefore it follows that anything other than aatma is anaatma which is a superimposion on aatma. This is what yukti means. Anaatma can be of further differentiated into two. One that is Iswara sRiShTi and the other is jiiva SRiShTi. We can say broadly say (nor rigidly)- It is, therefore I see it - that is Iswara sRiShTi; and second one is - I see it, therefore it is - is jiiva sRisShTi. Iswara sRiShTi there is nothing I can do other than accept what it is and live with it and what need to be done. Jiiva sRiShTi comes with ahankaara and mamakaara - this is me and this is mine - There is emotional value attached to the objects and consequently suffering. The very ahankaara itself involves combining two basic things stated above - I am with this is - as I am this. anaatma that is represented by this is desha-kala -vastu parimitam - that is limited by space, time and object wise. I am this automatically excludes I am not that and therefore inherent limitation. I am - involves pure existence and consciousness which by definition is Brahman and there cannot anything other than Brahman. Hence in the very ahankaara where I am = this is, I am already superimposing something other than myself on myself. Now we are bringing the superimposition to the core of individuality. That is the cause of samsaara - the identification of the real, I am , with that which is neither real (since it can be negatable) and nor unreal (since it has borrowed reality from the substantive Brahman when we say, this IS, that is its existence comes from Brahman, which alone exists in the absolute sense). Hence in simple terms Vyaavahaarika is Iswara sRiShTi and praatibhaasika is jiiva SriShTi. Both are objectifiable. One as external objects and the others mental projections, nevertheless the projected mind sees as object as in dream. Even the snake that I see where rope is, is also a praatibhaasika only. The pratibhaasika errors get dissolved in the knowledge of the substantive. Thus snake that you see is no more when one sees Rope. On the other hand the Vyaavahaarika errors may not disappear when we know the truth - the simple example is sunrise and sunset or mirage waters - these come under Iswara sRiShTi. These concepts are actually simple and part of everybody's experience - hence anubhava is included as part of analysis in discovering the truth underlying the experiences. Anubhava itself is not knowledge but one has to analyze the anubhava as in the case of sunrise and sunset to arrive at the truth behind the anubhava. Hope this helps Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Namaste Sada-Ji: The question I am trying to understand and explore is the application of advaita in vyavahara? Once we start talking about brahman and consciousness everything gets lost. Kindly elaborate, in your view is this principle followed by any of the followers of Acharya ? IMO - Acharya's greatest contributin his efforts to unite vaishNava, shaakta (devi upaasaka), saiva, gaaNapatya .... etc through the introduction pa~Nacaayata puujaa. What we see now is that none of the maThaa have any sort of interaction within themselves, let alone trying the unify the nation or community as a real advaitic principle and aspects. Indeed sanyaasa is being regarded as the highest, where munDakaa 1.2.7 expresses the gauNatva of 18 R^itvija and henece the kamakaaNDa. plavaa hyete adR^iDhaa yaGYaruupaa ashhTaadashoktamavaraM yeshhu karma | etachchhreyo ye.abhinandanti muuDhaa jaraamR^ityuM te punarevaapi yanti || 7|| We often talk about the ghaTa and mR^ittikaa example that realization that mR^ittikaa is the real truth. but after realization of the truth one does not destroy the ghaTa ! One needs to utilize the ghaTa for it's maximum utility. Probably that is way Acharya, travel led all over bhaaratadesha by establishing the various schools. Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts, Kind regards, Dr. Yadu advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > > --- On Sat, 5/16/09, ymoharir <ymoharir wrote: > > > What is being superimposed on what ? > > IMO - Ultimate satya needs to be superimposed on the aparant vyavahaarika ? If this is doe successfully then only ther can be progress !? > > > Yaduji - PraNams > > The answer to the above question is really very simple and straight forward too. > > First, Vedas define the ultimate truth as Brahman - Hence the inquiry into the nature of Brahman. Brahman means infiniteness or limitless and therefore ananda swaruupam since any limitation causes sorrow. > > Next what is that Brahman which cannot be defined - It says as its swaruupa lakshNa - Pragnaanam Brahma - that is consciousness is that infiniteness. Being infinite by the very definition there is nothing other than Brahman since anything other than Brahman limits Brahman. Now combining these two versions of Brahman - we conclude that anything other than consciousness if it exists cannot be real - since consciousness infinite Brahman alone is real. By defining in converse way, scripture also establishes that if there is a conscious entity anywhere - it must be Brahman. > > Now follows the answer to your question directly. Anything other than consciousness if one sees then that can only be a superimposition on that Brahman which being infinite is indivisible. Therefore anything other than Brahman is a superimposition on Brahman. So any 'thing' that is appears to be different from consciousness is by definition is superimposition only and has no independent existence. > > Let us look in a simple way - there are only two things that we find in the universe. One the conscious entity that I am and the unconscious entity - this is. Thus we have aatma and anaatma. aatma being a conscious entity by definition is Brahman. Therefore it follows that anything other than aatma is anaatma which is a superimposion on aatma. This is what yukti means. > > Anaatma can be of further differentiated into two. One that is Iswara sRiShTi and the other is jiiva SRiShTi. We can say broadly say (nor rigidly)- It is, therefore I see it - that is Iswara sRiShTi; and second one is - I see it, therefore it is - is jiiva sRisShTi. Iswara sRiShTi there is nothing I can do other than accept what it is and live with it and what need to be done. Jiiva sRiShTi comes with ahankaara and mamakaara - this is me and this is mine - There is emotional value attached to the objects and consequently suffering. The very ahankaara itself involves combining two basic things stated above - I am with this is - as I am this. anaatma that is represented by this is desha-kala -vastu parimitam - that is limited by space, time and object wise. I am this automatically excludes I am not that and therefore inherent limitation. I am - involves pure existence and consciousness which by definition is Brahman and there cannot anything other than > Brahman. Hence in the very ahankaara where I am = this is, I am already superimposing something other than myself on myself. Now we are bringing the superimposition to the core of individuality. That is the cause of samsaara - the identification of the real, I am , with that which is neither real (since it can be negatable) and nor unreal (since it has borrowed reality from the substantive Brahman when we say, this IS, that is its existence comes from Brahman, which alone exists in the absolute sense). > > Hence in simple terms Vyaavahaarika is Iswara sRiShTi and praatibhaasika is jiiva SriShTi. Both are objectifiable. One as external objects and the others mental projections, nevertheless the projected mind sees as object as in dream. Even the snake that I see where rope is, is also a praatibhaasika only. The pratibhaasika errors get dissolved in the knowledge of the substantive. Thus snake that you see is no more when one sees Rope. On the other hand the Vyaavahaarika errors may not disappear when we know the truth - the simple example is sunrise and sunset or mirage waters - these come under Iswara sRiShTi. > > These concepts are actually simple and part of everybody's experience - hence anubhava is included as part of analysis in discovering the truth underlying the experiences. Anubhava itself is not knowledge but one has to analyze the anubhava as in the case of sunrise and sunset to arrive at the truth behind the anubhava. > > > Hope this helps > Hari Om! > Sadananda > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 advaitin , " ymoharir " <ymoharir wrote: > > Namaste Sada-Ji: > > The question I am trying to understand and explore is the application >of advaita in vyavahara? > > Once we start talking about brahman and consciousness everything gets >lost. > > Kindly elaborate, in your view is this principle followed by any of >the followers of Acharya ? IMO - Acharya's greatest contributin his >efforts to unite vaishNava, shaakta (devi upaasaka), saiva, >gaaNapatya .... etc through the introduction pa~Nacaayata puujaa. >What we see now is that none of the maThaa have any sort of >interaction within themselves, let alone trying the unify the nation >or community as a real advaitic principle and aspects. > Namaskarams Yaduji, very interesting questions; we can look forward to Sadaji's response. I want to point out that although the mathas may not directly interact, they have the common Sruthis and Smrithis as foundation, and this gives a common solidarity. The unification of the nation in older times was based on Dharma, which was taught through shastras, itihasas and ancestral ways of life. Now we have lost the foundation of dharma based on astika-buddhi and want to create it anew with jnana-buddhi, before attaining to jnana through astika-buddhi. I think India (or a nation basing itself on the Vedas) is doomed (so far as its religious-stamina is concerned) if we keep teaching things in reverse order. Since this already seems to be the trend, we probably have to focus more carefully at the local levels like our children etc and ensure that their faith in the mathas etc is more than lip-service for the Vedantic conclusions. Then perhaps a more unified future will follow which will not compromise local unities and yet possess the global universal outlook. thollmelukaalkizhu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > > Now follows the answer to your question directly. Anything other >than consciousness if one sees then that can only be a >uperimposition on that Brahman which being infinite is indivisible. >Therefore anything other than Brahman is a superimposition on >Brahman. So any 'thing' that is appears to be different from >consciousness is by definition is superimposition only and has no >independent existence. > > Let us look in a simple way - there are only two things that we >find in the universe. One the conscious entity that I am and the >unconscious entity - this is. Thus we have aatma and anaatma. aatma >being a conscious entity by definition is Brahman. Therefore it >follows that anything other than aatma is anaatma which is a >superimposion on aatma. This is what yukti means. > > Sadaji, can you explain the distinction between referring to Brahman as " Consciousness " and as " the support of Consciousness " ? Does the latter imply Brahman as an entity or substratum which reveals as Conscious or being conscious? Are both usages valid in Advaita as referring to Nirguna Brahman? etc. thollmelukaalkizhu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 --- On Sun, 5/17/09, putranm <putranm wrote: Sadaji, can you explain the distinction between referring to Brahman as " Consciousness " and as " the support of Consciousness " ? Does the latter imply Brahman as an entity or substratum which reveals as Conscious or being conscious? Are both usages valid in Advaita as referring to Nirguna Brahman? etc. ---------- Putramji - PraNAms There is an unwritten rule in this list that one should not ask complicated questions! I will try to answer only simple ones. When it is said Brahman is consciousness and one without a second, from Brahman point there is no superposition no substratum. It is one without a second. That is the absolute fact. No further questions can be there since questions and answers and any distinction of any kind and even saying it is consciousness is not possible. It is said it is consciousness only to distinguish from unconsciousness for those who see the two. Hence from Brahman reference the whole discussion is not valid - this is the problem I find in all the limitless posts of our friend Shree santthoshkumaar. Hence the discussion is valid only for those who see the duality; that is unconscious entities, that is the whole world. Anything that is seen is only unconscious enitty since consciousness can never be object of perception. Since there is only Brahman which is consciousness and anything else is only an adhyaasa or superimposition on consciousness. If the superimposed things are real, then we have a problem of duality and it violates Brahman which is infiniteness. Therefore the only correct interpretation, despite objections of all dvaitins, is the superimpositions are mithyaa or apparent. Hence we have stated before repeatedly that the existence of the unconscious entities cannot be established without the conscious entity while the presence of conscious entity can be established without the unconscious entity – this is what is called anvaya-vyatireka logic. That is the yukti part in the saadhana. Recognition that I am Brahman requires the mind which has currently wrong notions about oneself and the world. It has to drop those notions and all the teachings are only for that ignorant mind. Now look at the questions – is there anytime you are not conscious or do not exit? ---------- Does the latter imply Brahman as an entity or substratum which reveals as Conscious or being conscious? Are both usages valid in Advaita as referring to Nirguna Brahman? etc. --------- It is not that Brahman is some seprate entity - It is I, the subject which cannot be objectified and which is existent-consciousness. For saadhana the instruction is to shift our attention from the idam or unconscious entity to that because of which I am even conscious of the idam. I am as Brahman conscious of the existence of idam as superimpostion on myself or absence of idam when I go to sleep or nirvikalpa samaadhi. This is anubhava or experience. Now understanding that I am that consciousness and not this idam that I am conscious off, is the knowledge. In order to distinguish from idam that I am not, all the adjectives are provided – nirguNa, niraakara, etc., not that Brahman has any qualifications of any kind, not even advaita! Hence so called referring to Brahman as advaita is to negate dvaita as mithyaa and nirguNa is to negate anything that has guNa as mithyaa– these are only indicators to understand my own nature that cannot be indicated since I am subject and not an object; but yet indicated as upaaya or means of knowledge by using negative terms to reject what it is not. Validity in the teaching is justified if it helps to shift from dviata to underlying advaita. The rest is only acadamics and also useless unless they helps to shift the mind to the underlying reality, that I am. Hope this helps. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Yaduji - PraNams Here is my understanding. --- On Sat, 5/16/09, ymoharir <ymoharir wrote: The question I am trying to understand and explore is the application of advaita in vyavahara? ----------First let me address this first. Fundamentally all human pursuits or transactions or vyavahaara are to find happiness only. Advaita teaches that you are that absolute happiness that you are longing for - there is no need for any search since seeker himself is the sought - as in the missing 10th man story. If that is not understood, any transactions in the world will only give only samsaara or mental agonies only. Hence the first and primary goal in life is to shift attention to understand 'who am I'. That understanding will prepare me also how to play with the world in correct perspective. The mahaatmaas who realized have contributed to the welfare of the world more than any other social, political, religions - workers - in the world. Generations to come are benefited by their very presence in this world. That is the highest service to the humanity and that is the direct and immediate application of advaitic understanding not as thought but as a FACT, to the vyavahaara. With advaitic understanding the vyavahaara is put in its right place - that is it is reduced to transactional reality than absolute reality. That is the greatest practical application of Vedanta. Now I realize you are asking me from the sadhak's point how to apply the advaita to day to day life. Currently we are studying 'shiikshaavalli' - of Taittiriiya Upanishad. Swami Chinmayanandaji has provided beautiful explanations for some of the mantras - trying as though to whip the student to recognize his role in the society. By uniting his mind from the microcosmic aspects with macrocosmic aspects, the student's mind is raised to such great heights - embarrassing the whole universe in himself as his-ownself where he has to contribute by way of - brahma yagna, deva yagna, pitRi yagna, manushya yagna and buuta yagna - for the upliftment of the society. The missionary zeal emphasized - as swaadhyayanam and pravachanam where not only studying for oneself but to inspire others and toinsure that this knowledge is propagated to generations to come as part of the responsibility of every Vedic student. The importance of this, as swamiji emphasizes, is more evident now when the other religions are trying to convert Hindus into their religion eventually to destroy the religion. Not only one has to study our scriptures but make sure they passed on to the next generation as perennial flow of knowledge - Hence whole instruction to the student in shiikshaavalli is to learn and teach other - svaadhyaayanam and pravacanam - The Upanishad is chanted in the temples but that is the end of it - the instructions provided are not understood. That is the first thing every Hindu has to do. If he cannot teach at least help the institutions that teach these. That is our Rishi RiNa. We all claim we bolong to some Rishi lineage by claiming a gotram - but we have no knowledge what that Rishi has done. They are veda dRiShTaas who could realize the truth and passed it on to generations to get benefit of their knowledge. That is the first application of the study of Vedanta in vyavahaara. Second of course in the values and dharmaas that need to be followed - these are also provided in terms of yagnaas discussed above. As long as I am in the society, I have to contribute to the welfare of the society. Swami Chinmayanandaji says we should not be door-mats but raise to the occasion to fight against all low tendencies and false values. We are seeing some useless ones getting elected only because we are not united as one. Other religious group vote as one group and therefore politicians cater to their needs while we are divided and therefore we do not count although we are majority. I am not giving a political message but what a Vedic student should do in order fight against these demonic forces - is to fist acquire the daivii sampatthi that Krishna teaches and follow not by speech but by action - dharmam cara not dharmam vada. If the instructions are followed as given in the scriptures that is the application of advaita in vyavahaara. One can go on but I will stop here realizing I could not beyond your first two sentences. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 I wrote: macrocosmic aspects, the student's mind is raised to such great heights - embarrassing the whole universe in himself as his-ownself where he has to contribute by way of ---------- It may not that embarrassing to change it to embracing the world. One can embrace the world without getting embarrassed. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 yaduji and ks ji : my comments.. " A-dvaita " means " Not Two " .Realised Advaithins say that Jivathma and Paramathma are not two (i.e., different) but they are One, i.e., identical. Hence this system of philosophy is called Advaitham. The founder of Advaitham philosophy is Adi Shankara Achaaryal or rather who propagated this ever existing vedantham from time immemorial. Acceptance of a-bheda sruthis as pramanams,is advaitham vedantham.=all in all=brahman. We Advaithins explain three types of reality. We say that the Brahman is the only real thing or the ultimate reality; and everything else is transitory illusion or maya=transformational occurences. 1.=Apparent Reality=Prati-bhasikam sathyam. examples;a) We see a shell in less illuminated area from a distance and we think it is silver. Only when we go near and examine, we find that it is really a shell.Our drishti makes our buddhi to do chinthanam incorrectly. b) Similarly, from a distance or in less lighted area=we see a rope and mistake it to be a snake.=mental illusion. c) Again, in a hot summer, on a road, we see at some distance appearance of water on the road, which is not actually so. It is only the reflection of the sun on the road which gave us the mirage=optical illusion. 2.=Relative Reality=Vyava-h-arikam Sathyam. examples;In this classification, come the universe=earth, air, sky, water,ether,space etc and so on. All these things are there and still, ultimately, they are only an illusion or transformational occurences of matter according to us Advaithins. But, for all practical purposes, universe=earth, air, water,ether,space,fire and other elements are real things. 3.Absolute Reality=Para-m-arthikam Sathyam.=Brahman.all in all.whatever said or written or seen or experianced or felt is brahman only which is the pramanam for all vedantham. From brahman only=self.Everything originates and therefore all objects of, destruction of avidya,creation of vidya,and sustainment of vidya occurs.The trinity of consciouness=Brahman. suresh. advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > Yaduji - PraNams > > Here is my understanding. > > > --- On Sat, 5/16/09, ymoharir <ymoharir wrote: > > The question I am trying to understand and explore is the application of advaita in vyavahara? > > ----------First let me address this first. > > Fundamentally all human pursuits or transactions or vyavahaara are to find happiness only. Advaita teaches that you are that absolute happiness that you are longing for - there is no need for any search since seeker himself is the sought - as in the missing 10th man story. > > If that is not understood, any transactions in the world will only give only samsaara or mental agonies only. Hence the first and primary goal in life is to shift attention to understand 'who am I'. That understanding will prepare me also how to play with the world in correct perspective. The mahaatmaas who realized have contributed to the welfare of the world more than any other social, political, religions - workers - in the world. Generations to come are benefited by their very presence in this world. That is the highest service to the humanity and that is the direct and immediate application of advaitic understanding not as thought but as a FACT, to the vyavahaara. With advaitic understanding the vyavahaara is put in its right place - that is it is reduced to transactional reality than absolute reality. That is the greatest practical application of Vedanta. > > Now I realize you are asking me from the sadhak's point how to apply the advaita to day to day life. > > Currently we are studying 'shiikshaavalli' - of Taittiriiya Upanishad. Swami Chinmayanandaji has provided beautiful explanations for some of the mantras - trying as though to whip the student to recognize his role in the society. By uniting his mind from the microcosmic aspects with macrocosmic aspects, the student's mind is raised to such great heights - embarrassing the whole universe in himself as his-ownself where he has to contribute by way of - brahma yagna, deva yagna, pitRi yagna, manushya yagna and buuta yagna - for the upliftment of the society. The missionary zeal emphasized - as swaadhyayanam and pravachanam where not only studying for oneself but to inspire others and toinsure that this knowledge is propagated to generations to come as part of the responsibility of every Vedic student. The importance of this, as swamiji emphasizes, is more evident now when the other religions are trying to convert Hindus into their religion eventually to > destroy the religion. > > Not only one has to study our scriptures but make sure they passed on to the next generation as perennial flow of knowledge - Hence whole instruction to the student in shiikshaavalli is to learn and teach other - svaadhyaayanam and pravacanam - The Upanishad is chanted in the temples but that is the end of it - the instructions provided are not understood. That is the first thing every Hindu has to do. If he cannot teach at least help the institutions that teach these. That is our Rishi RiNa. We all claim we bolong to some Rishi lineage by claiming a gotram - but we have no knowledge what that Rishi has done. They are veda dRiShTaas who could realize the truth and passed it on to generations to get benefit of their knowledge. > > That is the first application of the study of Vedanta in vyavahaara. > > Second of course in the values and dharmaas that need to be followed - these are also provided in terms of yagnaas discussed above. As long as I am in the society, I have to contribute to the welfare of the society. Swami Chinmayanandaji says we should not be door-mats but raise to the occasion to fight against all low tendencies and false values. We are seeing some useless ones getting elected only because we are not united as one. Other religious group vote as one group and therefore politicians cater to their needs while we are divided and therefore we do not count although we are majority. I am not giving a political message but what a Vedic student should do in order fight against these demonic forces - is to fist acquire the daivii sampatthi that Krishna teaches and follow not by speech but by action - dharmam cara not dharmam vada. If the instructions are followed as given in the scriptures that is the application of advaita in vyavahaara. > > One can go on but I will stop here realizing I could not beyond your first two sentences. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > > --- On Sun, 5/17/09, putranm <putranm wrote: > ---------- > Putramji - PraNAms > > There is an unwritten rule in this list that one should not ask complicated questions! I will try to answer only simple ones. > Sadaji thanks for the response; whether the questions are answered or not, your answers are always a good recounting of the basics. I did not expect the question to appear complicated; I have read both references to Brahman, although perhaps the latter one (as support of pure consciousness) is possibly only to Ishvara. So when we say " Consciousness is Brahman " , we should understand that " Consciousness " is the constant basis of all awareness of duality; and when we negate all duality, we refer (as 'best' way out) to the reality as Consciousness (or as its support) even though the reference has relevance only in the context of duality. Here I must ask since I did not follow previous discussions. Can you restate or refer to the post regarding your assertion " the presence of conscious entity can be established without the unconscious entity. " You yourself state that recognition that I am Brahman requires the mind (albeit ignorant) which I take is itself unconscious. thollmelukaalkizhu > > Hence we have stated before repeatedly that the existence of the >unconscious entities cannot be established without the conscious >entity while the presence of conscious entity can be established >without the unconscious entity †" this is what is called anvaya->vyatireka logic. That is the yukti part in the saadhana. > > Recognition that I am Brahman requires the mind which has currently >wrong notions about oneself and the world. It has to drop those >notions and all the teachings are only for that ignorant mind. > I am as Brahman conscious of the existence of idam as >superimpostion on myself or absence of idam when I go to sleep or >nirvikalpa samaadhi. This is anubhava or experience. Now >understanding that I am that consciousness and not this idam that I >am conscious off, is the knowledge. In order to distinguish from >idam that I am not, all the adjectives are provided †" nirguNa, >niraakara, etc., not that Brahman has any qualifications of any kind, >not even advaita! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Putranmji - PraNAms --- On Sun, 5/17/09, putranm <putranm wrote: Here I must ask since I did not follow previous discussions. Can you restate or refer to the post regarding your assertion " the presence of conscious entity can be established without the unconscious entity. " You yourself state that recognition that I am Brahman requires the mind (albeit ignorant) which I take is itself unconscious. ------------ Actually Shree Vidyaaranya does this anvaya vyatireka logic beautifully in the First chapter of Pancadasi, to establish that I am independent of any states but the states (anaatma) depends on me. In simple terms - ahankara with I am this is there in the waking and dream states but I deep sleep state I am there and ahakaara is not there and along with it all the problems of the world including the world are gone. I am independent of this is while this is cannot be established without I am. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 advaitin , " sureshbalaraman " <sureshbalaraman wrote: > > yaduji and ks ji : > > > 1.=Apparent Reality=Prati-bhasikam sathyam. > > > > b) Similarly, from a distance or in less lighted area=we see a > > rope and mistake it to be a snake.=mental illusion. > > > suresh. > > Namaste Suresh-Ji: Thanks for sharing your thoughts: My question really pertains to the application of advaita in practice. Not understanding it and applying it in-correctly can or rather has created mess in our culture. As the " saffron colored " snakes keep trying to superimpose as scholars to push their own agenda and there by causing the " diffusion of confusion " . When asked any questions all they want to hide behind the statement of brahman that cannot be understood !? Also, on the superimposition one needs to apply or superimpose the " truth " the observed perception. At the end of the day the observes can only become one with the knowledge. As Acharys expresses in daxiNaamuurtii stotra - " yaH saakshaatkurute prabodhasamaye svaatmaanamevaadvayaM " Lastly, what would happen if the observer does not get scared of his observations and thinks that it is just maayaa " apparent snake / rope " really happens to be a snake can very will be imagined with the observer becoming one with the brahman (as brahmabhuuta) !? The point I was trying to make is that it is up to the observer to remain vigilant and not let his guard down. So watch out for the saffron colored snakes crowding the ignorance of bhaavika affluent Indians in US under the banner of shraddha. Just something to think about. Kind regards, Dr. Yadu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 advaitin , " ymoharir " <ymoharir wrote: > > > My question really pertains to the application of advaita in >practice. Not understanding it and applying it in-correctly can or >rather has created mess in our culture. As the " saffron colored " >snakes keep trying to superimpose as scholars to push their own >agenda and there by causing the " diffusion of confusion " . When >asked any questions all they want to hide behind the statement of >brahman that cannot be understood !? > Lastly, what would happen if the observer does not get scared of >his observations and thinks that it is just maayaa " apparent snake / >rope " really happens to be a snake can very will be imagined with >the observer becoming one with the brahman (as brahmabhuuta) !? >The .point I was trying to make is that it is up to the observer to >remain vigilant and not let his guard down. So watch out for the >saffron colored snakes crowding the ignorance of bhaavika affluent >Indians in US under the banner of shraddha. > > Interesting reference to snakes. The good thing about snakes is that Lord Shiva has no problems with them. As for the banner of shraddha, it has to understood in the context that the concept is central to the Shankara sampradaya, and dharma is central to that and was based on shastras. Instead of snakes and rats arguing among themselves, we should justify our views (as far as applying advaita to vyavahaara) with proper references to recognized saints of the sampradaya - in particular, regarding what exactly is right and wrong application and cause for confusion. (Of course, if we recognize ourselves as such, that problem is avoided.) The viewpoints of the sampradaya may not appeal to " bhaavika affluent Indians in US " . thollmelukaalkizhu [i had by mistake sent this mail (a sharper version!) through another id (that is not registered to this group), so am resending through this - in case that also came through to your mailbox] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 advaitin , " ymoharir " <ymoharir wrote: Namaste, thanks for your clarifying reply to the other id. I had misinterpreted your original post a bit. thollmelukaalkizhu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.