Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Namaste Shri Sunder, In your message #44815 (May 4, Re: Doubt and faith) you asked for more clarity on 'how and when to categorize a quotation as correct only in a " cultural context " . And you asked about universal principles, as exemplified particularly in the Gita. I've been thinking a little about how to answer this question. And it strikes me that the Gita speaks of two basic principles. One is the principle of knowing, called 'purusha' or 'consciousness'; and the other is the principle of 'doing', called 'prakriti' or 'nature'. Somewhat paradoxically, it's through the complete distinction of these two principles that the Gita points toward the ultimate principle of non-duality. The paradox is that each of these two derives from that one principle; and it is only there that their seeming opposition may come to be resolved. So I am appending below an article which asks how the Gita treats these two principles. And how this might be taken to suggest a resolution of their seeming difference. Ananda ----- Knowing and doing in the Bhagavad Gita ----- How can knowledge be impartial, beneath the partialities of physical and mental perception? According to traditional conceptions, nature is essentially complete and thus impartial, in itself. It is itself the source of all the actions that take place in it, of all the phenomena through which it manifests itself. It includes not only the environment, but also our personal and technological capabilities. And yet, despite this inherent completeness, we keep on thinking of our personalities and their technologies in opposition to nature, as though our actions could somehow go against the nature that they manifest. There is a glaring contradiction here, which we go on ignoring. In the Bhagavad Gita, a basic reason is given, for our persistent ignorance. It is a false image that we have of ourselves: as personal, doing egos. 3.27 ---- prakR^iteH kriyamANAni guNaiH karmANi sarvashaH aha~NkAra-vimUDhA-'tmA kartA 'ham iti manyate Everywhere, all acts are done by nature's constituting qualities. Mistaking ego for the self, a person thinks: 'I am the doer.' Each particular doer is inevitably limited, by particular faculties and capabilities of action. If one identifies oneself as a doer, one's perception becomes inevitably limited, and therefore partial. There's no escape, the Gita says, through technical sophistication; nor through personal restraint. 3.33 ---- sadR^ishaM ceShTate svasyAH prakR^iter j~nAnavAn api prakR^itiM yAnti bhUtAni nigrahaH kiM kariShyati One acts according to one's own nature. A learned, knowledgeable person is no exception. Beings follow nature. What will holding back achieve? Here, 'holding back' is treated as a negative action. Accordingly, the driven partiality of action cannot be avoided by doing or not doing anything, by any action or restraint towards some limited object. To attain impartiality, a deeper understanding is required, beyond our senses and our minds. 3.42 ---- indriyANi parANy Ahur indriyebhyaH paraM manaH manasas tu parA buddhir yo buddheH paratas tu saH Our senses are transcendent, it is said. Beyond the senses is the mind. Beyond the mind as well is understanding. Beyond the understanding is just 'that'. At the depth of understanding, all faculties are known objectively, as nature's happenings. 5.8-9 ----- nai 'va kiMcit karomI 'ti yukto manyeta tattva-vit pashya~n shR^iNvan spR^isha~n jighrann ashnaM gacchan svapa~n shvasan pralapan visR^ijan gR^ihNann unmiShan nimiShann api indriyANI 'ndriy-'ArtheShu vartanta iti dhArayan As truth is known, one who joins into it can understand: 'I don't do anything. Sight, hearing, touch, smell, eating, going here and there, sleeping, breathing, speaking, holding on and letting go, eyes opening and closing... these are just faculties, acting towards their various objects.' This detachment is meant to uncover a pure impartiality of knowledge: as Krishna tells Arjuna, in the last chapter of the Gita. 18.20 ----- sarva-bhUteShu yenai 'kaM bhAvam avyayam IkShate avibhaktaM vibhakteShu taj j~nAnaM viddhi sAttvikam Pure knowledge is just that by which one changeless principle of undivided nature is seen in all divided things. That's what you need to know. In the approach taken here, knowledge is completed by detaching it from nature's manifesting actions. Through such a detachment, all objects and all faculties are left to nature: where they are seen objectively, as instruments of nature's happening. No faculty of body or of mind is then left out, to act on nature from outside. Thus nature is conceived to act spontaneously, moving of its own accord, from its own source within. Since our perceiving faculties belong to nature, it manifests itself through them. In everyone's experience, it produces the appearances that come and go, succeeding one another in the course of time. At each moment, what appears is lit by consciousness. That consciousness is pure illumination, witnessing what comes and goes. It is not a changing act, but just that silent knowing which illuminates the changing acts that nature manifests. As changing acts and objects come and go, they are manifested 'noisily', competing for attention in a stream of clamouring replacement at the surface of appearance. Throughout this passing stream, consciousness continues quietly, at the underlying background of experience. There, consciousness is utterly detached, from the appearances that nature manifests before its light. Thus consciousness and nature are described as complementary aspects of an indivisible reality: (1) Nature is the manifesting aspect, acting to express its underlying ground of consciousness, which manifests it from within. (2) Consciousness is the illuminating aspect, shining out through nature's manifesting acts. Each of these two aspects is complete within itself, in its own right. The problem of partiality arises from an unreal confusion between the two. In particular, our acts of physical and mental perception are only partial manifestations of nature. But we confuse them with the impartial knowing of consciousness, which lights them all from underneath. Through that confusion, the partiality of personal, perceiving acts is falsely superimposed upon a true impartiality of knowing, which is thus obscured. Here's what the Gita says about these differing, but complementary aspects: 13.19 ----- prakR^itiM puruShaM cai 'va viddhy anAdi ubhAvapi vikArAMsh ca guNAMsh cai 'va viddhi prakR^iti-saMbhavAn You need to know that consciousness and nature are both unbegun; and that all changes and all qualities are nature's happenings. 13.20 ----- kArya-kAraNa-kartR^itve hetuH prakR^itir ucyate puruShaH sukha-duHkhAnAM bhoktR^itve hetur ucyate In doing, doership and what is done, the underlying principle is spoken of as 'nature'. In the experience of enjoyments and dissatisfactions, the underlying principle is spoken of as 'consciousness'. 13.21 ----- puruShaH prakR^iti-stho hi bhu~Nkte prakR^iti-jAn guNAn kAraNaM guNa-sa~Ngo 'sya sad-asad-yoni-janmasu In manifesting nature, it is consciousness that stands within, experiencing the qualities born forth as nature manifests. For good or ill, as wombs give rise to passing births, in every case the cause is an association of some manifesting qualities with consciousness itself. 13.22 ----- upadraShTA 'numantA ca bhartA bhoktA maheshvaraH paramAtme 'ti cA 'py ukto dehe 'smin puruShaH paraH It is the witness, looking on, confirming and supporting what is seen. It is the subject of experience, the boundless Lord to whom all that's experienced belongs. It is the truth of self, with nothing to be found beyond. But these are only ways of speech: describing consciousness here in the body, and yet quite beyond. This passage (like many others from the Gita) can be interpreted two ways: one religious and the other philosophical. In particular, consciousness is described as the one 'subject of experience, the boundless Lord to whom all that's experienced belongs'. Here a religious interpretation is obvious: that an ultimate 'consciousness' may be approached through faith and worship, with an attitude of personal surrender towards an infinite God who is conceived to rule the universe. But there is also a philosophical interpretation, which takes a sceptical approach of reasoned questioning. Then it is asked exactly what is meant by 'consciousness' and any other concepts that may be associated with it. As the questioning proceeds, it turns reflectively upon its own assumptions, in search of their own knowing ground. So long as any trace of anything constructed may remain, the questioning is not complete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Namaste Anandaji: You have beautifully summarized the distinction between the principles of `knowing - purusha' and `doing - prakriti' by providing examples using Gita Verses. What you have provided is a good treat for contemplation for understanding and practicing. Your article is quite profound and insightful for those who have been following the Gita Satsangh and the on the ongoing discussions on several topics. I want to take up the two verses that you have quoted from Gita (3.33 and 3.42) for some additional observations from my own understanding. These verses are quite useful who want to follow the Gita Satsangh discussions of chapter 14. Before I begin my observations, I want to express my sincere thanks for posting the nice article. In verse 3.33 the statement that " all living creatures follow their tendencies " is quite profound. This statement can be further understood by paying attention on how the rivers from the top of the mountain through the lands to merge with the ocean. The water of the various rivers naturally flows towards the ocean, and none can forcibly obstruct its course. The rivers have the tendency to finally merge in spite of all ups and downs during the course of its flow. We the living beings similarly tied down to our own nature are drifting along the course of nature towards Nature itself. Therefore it is not possible for anybody to renounce all activities forcibly. Of course, even as the course of a river can be turned from one direction to another, so can we by changing the aim of our life turn the course of life from one direction to another. In other words, renouncing likes and dislikes, we can use our actions as aids to God-Realization. The word `Prakriti' here denotes the distinctive nature of an individual, representing the sum-total of tendencies of actions done in previous lives and stored up in one's mind. The `Jnanavan' refers to the God-realized saint who knows the real truth about God. The word `Api' shows that when even the wise man, who has risen above all the Gunas, acts according to the tendencies of own nature, much less can the ignorant man, who is completely under the sway of Prakriti, forcibly arrest the course of Prakriti. In this connection it must be encoded that the nature of even God-realized saints varies in each individual case. This difference is inevitable owing to differences the course of discipline that was followed by them, and diversity in the nature of the Prarabdha which has been responsible for their birth. The illumined soul, in fact, has nothing to do with the latencies of Karma, nor does it performs any action. Of course, seeds of Prarabdha, sowed by jiva in previous lives remain stored in the mind, and it is by force of these seeds that the intellect, mind and senses function of their own accord without any subject just for the fruition of that Prarabdha in the interest of the world order. Attributing these actions of the intellect, mind and sense to the man of Knowledge from the point of view of the world, it is alleged that " the wise too acts according to the tendencies of own nature. " Inasmuch as the actions of the wise take place without any agent, they are altogether free from likes and dislikes; and the sense of doership as well as the feeling of possession are also absent in them. That is why they are nothing more than mere gestures of action, and cannot be called actions as such. Those with wisdom in fact cease to have any connection with the mind; much less can they have any connection with the modifications of the mind in the shape of noble qualities or morbid feelings. But it must be remembered in this connection that even the mind of the wise becomes exceptionally pure. Those practice succeed in realizing God only when through the constant practice of meditation on God the evils of impurity and distraction and the veil of ignorance have totally disappeared from the mind. Therefore, morbid feelings like egoism; the sense of possession, attraction and repulsion, joy and grief, hypocrisy and duplicity, lust and anger, greed and infatuation and so on cannot exist in that mind. All the above outlined negative tendencies totally disappear from such a mind. That is why in the exceptionally pure and unsullied mind of the saint virtues like equanimity, contentment, compassion, forgiveness, desirelessness and tranquility etc, naturally reveals themselves. It is under the impulse of these sentiments that actions enjoined by the scriptures continue to be performed by one's mind, senses and body in the interest of the world order. All forms of vice and evil conducts take leave of the wise for good. Although in the stories narrated in the puranas and the class of literature known by the name of `Itihasa' (history) we come across a number of episodes which go to show that evil impulses of lust, anger etc, appear even in the mind of wise men and perfect souls and influence the actions proceeding from their senses, it must be remembered in this connection that positive injunctions (Vidhi-Vakyas) contained in the scriptures possess a greater force than such episodes; and ordinances of an introductory nature (Nisedha-Vakyas) are even more authoritative than positive injunctions. Moreover, it is difficult to make out the inner meaning of the episodes we come across in the stories of the Puranas and other books. The right conclusion, under such circumstances, seems to be that if the mind of any of the saints referred to in those stories was really possessed by the evil impulses of lust, anger etc, and their actions were also swayed by them, they were not, really speaking, God-realized saints; for, nowhere in the scriptures do we come across positive injunctions which may lead us to conclude that such evil propensities do exist in the mind of an illumined soul. On the other hand, we find the scriptures denying at many places the existence of evil propensities in an enlightened soul. Even in the Gita, wherever we find the characteristics of God-realized saints mentioned, they are invariably declared to be totally free from attraction and repulsion, lust and anger and other forms of vice and evil conduct(V. 26,28; XII.l7). It however, in the interest of the world order, they ever found it necessary to act under these impulses as in a drama, such an action on their part cannot be held to be blame worthy. By saying " what use is external restraint? " the Lord show that none can forcibly remain inactive even for a moment(III.5); jiva would be helplessly driven by nature to act (XVIII. 59,60). Therefore, instead of seeking to obtain release from the bondage of Karma through renunciation of prescribed duties, one should attempt to free from such bondage while continuing to perform actions enjoined by one's own nature. One can succeed only by following this latter method. Renunciation of prescribed duties, on the other hand would further tighten the knot of bondage and bring about one's own downfall. Evil actions, prohibited by the scriptures, continue from attraction and repulsion; whereas noble deeds sanctioned by the scriptures are mainly inspired by faith, devotion and other virtues. Man is free to renounce evils like attraction and repulsion, lust and anger, etc, and awaken faith, devotion and other virtues. Therefore, abandoning vices, and cherishing faith and devotion to God and to the scriptures, we should perform our duties for the pleasure of God. Those who perform action, keeping this ideal before them can never be guilty of any prohibited action. They will perform only virtuous deeds; and they will always be conducive to liberation and will never lead to bondage. In other words, we are not free to restrain our actions; we will invariably be driven to action. But we always have the freedom to free to reform our nature by cultivating the Sattvika virtues. By doing so, we will progressively improve, our actions will automatically become purer and purer. Therefore, depending on God, everyone should attempt to reform one's nature and this is the only way to elevate oneself. Now let us turn our attention to verse # 3.42 indriyANi parANy Ahur indriyebhyaH paraM manaH manasas tu parA buddhir yo buddheH paratas tu saH Our senses are transcendent, it is said. Beyond the senses is the mind. Beyond the mind as well is understanding. Beyond the understanding is just 'that'. The Kathopanisad metaphorically speaks of the body as a coach, and of the senses as horses (I 3, 4). Horses are possessed of life and are superior to the coach and can draw it after them according to their will. Even so the senses alone take the body wherever they like; therefore, they are stronger than the body, and are sensitive too. Again the physical body is perceptible to the eye, but not so the senses; hence they are subtler too than the body. Besides this, the superiority of the senses over the body, and their being subtler and more powerful are obvious too. The Kathopanisad (I.iii.10, 11) says:- " Greater than the senses are their objects greater than the objects of the senses is the mind; greater than the mind is the intellect; greater than the intellect is the Cosmic Intelligence or Mahat-tattva; greater than the Mahat-tattva is the Unmanifest or Prakriti (Primordial Matter); and greater than the Unmanifest is Purusa (Spirit or Soul). There is nothing superior to and subtler than the Purusa. That is the final limit and that is the supreme goal. " The Lord, however, makes no mention of the objects of the senses, the `Mahat-tattva' and the Unmanifest. The reason for their omission is that He has furnished us with a mere outline of the progressive series mentioned in the Upanisad; for with a view to urging one to kill `desire' the superiority of the soul alone requires to be demonstrated, and it is needless to point out the superiority of objects of the senses, Mahat-tattva and the Unmanifest. The Kathopanisad speaks of the objects of the senses as superior to the senses, because the objects of the senses, there are present the five Tanmatras, which are unquestionably subtler than the senses; hence it is but reasonable to declare them as greater than the senses. In the present verse the Lord speaks of the mind as superior to, and subtler and more powerful than, the senses, and even so of the intellect as superior to, and subtler and more powerful than, the mind. But in Chapter II He says that " By nature, the turbulent senses even of wise who practice self-control forcibly carry away their mind, " (2. 60). He further tells us that " of the senses moving among sense-objects, the one to which the mind is joined takes away man's discrimination. " (2. 67). These statements lead one to conclude that the senses are not only more powerful than the mind, but conjoined with the mind they are even more powerful than the intellect. Thus the Lord seems to be contradicting in this verse His earlier statements. But deeper thought would reveal that in reality there is no contradiction between the two types of statements. The Kathopanisad has made this point amply clear by using the metaphor of the coach. It says that the Self or Soul represents the owner of the coach, intellect the coachman, the body corresponds to the coach, the mind to there ins, the senses to the horses, and the objects of senses like sound etc, constitute the track on which the coach moves. Though in the usual course the coachman should be under the control of the owner of the coach, the reins should be under the control of the coachman, and the horses should be under the control of the reins; nevertheless in the case of the Jivatma whose coachman in the form of the intellect is devoid of judgment and discrimination, and does not therefore hold the reins in the form of the mind properly, the horses in the form of the senses become unruly and wayward and, forcibly dragging the coach along a wrong path, finally overturn it. This proves that so long as the soul or Jivatma does not exercise control over the intellect, mind and senses, and forgetting its inherent power submits to their control, the senses misleading the mind and intellect succeed in dragging them forcibly behind them along the wrong path. That is to say, the senses first of all win over the mind by tempting it with prospects of enjoyment; then the senses in conjunction with the mind win over the intellect; and they all combine to bring the soul under their thumb. Nevertheless, in reality, the mind is stronger than the senses, the intellect is stronger than the mind, and the soul is the strongest of all. That is why the Kathopanisad says that the Jivathma whose coachman in the form of the intellect is wise and discriminating, whose rein in the form of the mind is properly controlled, and whose horses in the form of the senses are well-disciplined,-such a soul, possessed of a pure heart; reaches the supreme state, where from he/she does not return. (Gita also speaks of the self which has conquered the mind, intellect and senses as one's friend, and the self which has no control over the mind, intellect and senses as one's enemy – 6. 6). Therefore, the uncontrolled senses, though inherently weaker than the mind and the intellect, gain ascendancy. Therefore, there is no real contradiction between the two statements. Gandhiji has considered chapter 3 to be key for getting a good grasp of Gita as it is revealed through his own observation (Gandihiji's book on Bhagavad Gita): " I call this chapter the key to an understanding of the Gita, and the gist of it is that life is given us for service and not for enjoyment. We have therefore to impart a sacrificial character to our lives. Intellectual assent to this proposition is only the first step, but such assent and conduct in terms of that assent are bound to rid our heart of its impurities in course of time. But what is real service? In order to obtain the right answer to this question, restraint of the senses is essential, as it gives us a clearer and clearer vision of the God of truth. Service rendered with selfish motives ceases to be sacrifice. Hence the urgent need for the spirit of detachment. When this is understood, all manner of controversies lose their meaning for us. Did Krishna really ask Arjuna to kill his relatives? Could such killing ever be a part of ones duty?, Questions like these are set at rest for ever. When detachment governs our actions, even the weapon raised in order to strike an enemy down falls out of our hand. But a mere pretense of detachment serves no useful purpose. If only we persevere in our effort, detachment may come to us, perhaps the very first day, or may be only after a thousand years. We must not worry over the time this takes, for the effort carries within itself the seeds of success. We must however be on our guard and make sure that it is a genuine effort, and that there is no self-deception. And this is certainly possible for us all. " With my warm regards, Ram Chandran advaitin , " Ananda Wood " <awood wrote: > 3.33 > ---- > sadR^ishaM ceShTate svasyAH prakR^iter j~nAnavAn api > prakR^itiM yAnti bhUtAni nigrahaH kiM kariShyati > > One acts according to one's own nature. > A learned, knowledgeable person > is no exception. Beings follow nature. > What will holding back achieve? > > Here, 'holding back' is treated as a negative action. Accordingly, the driven partiality of action cannot be avoided by doing or not doing anything, by any action or restraint towards some limited object. To attain impartiality, a deeper understanding is required, beyond our senses and our minds. > > 3.42 > ---- > indriyANi parANy Ahur indriyebhyaH paraM manaH > manasas tu parA buddhir yo buddheH paratas tu saH > > Our senses are transcendent, it is said. > Beyond the senses is the mind. > Beyond the mind as well is understanding. > Beyond the understanding is just 'that'. > > At the depth of understanding, all faculties are known objectively, as nature's happenings. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Namaste dear all: Sri Ananadaji has recently updated his homepage with the title: " Advaita enquiry and educating disciplines. " This ia great treasure for Vedantins who want to enhance their knowledge. Here is the link for the page: http://www.advaitin.net/Ananda/ Enjoy, With my warm regards, Ram Chandran advaitin , " Ananda Wood " <awood wrote: > > Namaste Shri Sunder, > > In your message #44815 (May 4, Re: Doubt and faith) you asked for more clarity on 'how and when to categorize a quotation as correct only in a " cultural context " . And you asked about universal principles, as exemplified particularly in the Gita. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Anandaji - PraNAms Excellent post. Some observations. Ram has provided some. .. The kriya shakti and jnaana shakti forms two branches that make it total. Hence Krishna declaration - lokesmin dvividhaa nishTaa .. defining the jnaana yoga and karma yoga centered on these two branches. Bhagavan Ramana says in Upadesa saara -cittavaayavaH citkriyaayutaaH| shaakhayoH dvayii shakti muulakaa| For mind and life, expressed in thought and action are divergent as two branches of life-tree. Both of them spring forth from one single source. PrakRiti covers a lot as Ram has noted - the basis for the nature to act also arises from previous actions all put together as Karma which from the seed for the next creation - or prakRiti projects the whole creation under my presidentship. Thus the notion of doer-ship is ingrained in the prakRiti's projection of the world of plurality. This cycle of creation-sustenance-dissolution is eternal and only way to transcend is to recognize the muulam, the source for these two or substantive of these two which in fact is indivisible. Krishna says as karmayoga one can slowly recognized this problem without further getting entangled - yagyaartham karmanonyatra lokoyam karma bhandhanaH - perform the action in the spirit of yagna - otherwise it is going to cause bondage. Yagna, swami Chinmayanandaji says is - every one together performing cooperative action in self-sacrificing mode for the benefit of the totality- then the action will be successful - devas, the phenomenal forces that give fruits of the action have to rain down the results of the action. That is the wheel of actions set forth in the beginning of the creation itself by prajaapati or creator. As one recognizes the futility of actions to attain the highest, then one is advised to approach a teacher for knowledge - tad viddhii praNipaatena pari prashnena sevayaa - is the advice of Krishna. This it to recognize as you pointed out that I am never a doer or enjoyer - pasyan, shRinvan... etc. where senses as part of prakRiti act and I can stand apart and be a witnessing consciousness that witnesses the actions of the prakRiti. That is shifting to the muulam or the source. That shift can occur with clear understanding - where Jnaanam has to come in to recognize that I was never a doer but all doing takes place in my presence. Hari Om! Sadananda --- On Fri, 6/12/09, Ananda Wood <awood wrote: ------------ --------- --------- -------- Knowing and doing in the Bhagavad Gita ------------ --------- --------- -------- How can knowledge be impartial, beneath the partialities of physical and mental perception? According to traditional conceptions, nature is essentially complete and thus impartial, in itself. It is itself the source of all the actions that take place in it, of all the phenomena through which it manifests itself. It includes not only the environment, but also our personal and technological capabilities. And yet, despite this inherent completeness, we keep on thinking of our personalities and their technologies in opposition to nature, as though our actions could somehow go against the nature that they manifest. There is a glaring contradiction here, which we go on ignoring. In the Bhagavad Gita, a basic reason is given, for our persistent ignorance. It is a false image that we have of ourselves: as personal, doing egos. 3.27 ---- prakR^iteH kriyamANAni guNaiH karmANi sarvashaH aha~NkAra-vimUDhA- 'tmA kartA 'ham iti manyate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Namaste all Missed out that Sri Ananadaji's __excellent__ site has been updated. Thank you for the information. I totally agree with you stating that the site is a " great treasure " of knowledge - especially e-mail discussion " Some teachings from Shri Atmananda " - http://www.advaitin.net/Ananda/SomeTeachings.pdf Pranams. -- Bengt Frost advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote: > > Namaste dear all: > > Sri Ananadaji has recently updated his homepage with the title: " Advaita enquiry and educating disciplines. " This ia great treasure for Vedantins who want to enhance their knowledge. Here is the link for the page: http://www.advaitin.net/Ananda/ > > Enjoy, > > With my warm regards, > > Ram Chandran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 advaitin , " Ananda Wood " <awood wrote: > > > > In your message #44815 (May 4, Re: Doubt and faith) you asked for more clarity on 'how and when to categorize a quotation as correct only in a " cultural context " . And you asked about universal principles, as exemplified particularly in the Gita. > > This passage (like many others from the Gita) can be interpreted two ways: one religious and the other philosophical. In particular, consciousness is described as the one 'subject of experience, the boundless Lord to whom all that's experienced belongs'. Here a religious interpretation is obvious: that an ultimate 'consciousness' may be approached through faith and worship, with an attitude of personal surrender towards an infinite God who is conceived to rule the universe. > > But there is also a philosophical interpretation, which takes a sceptical approach of reasoned questioning. Then it is asked exactly what is meant by 'consciousness' and any other concepts that may be associated with it. As the questioning proceeds, it turns reflectively upon its own assumptions, in search of their own knowing ground. So long as any trace of anything constructed may remain, the questioning is not complete. > Namaste Ananda-ji, Thank you very much for your usual lucid and penetrating analysis. I assume you mean 'religious' when referring to the cultural context, and 'philosophical' in the universal context. Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Dear Anandaji sAshtang Pranams. Every time I read one of your posts I keep wishing if only they would be more frequent! What a fabulos choice of Gita verses - each a gem! Turly a delight to read. I do want to offer a perspective on two points - one minor and the other more substantive. The minor point - In the shloka 3.33 Here you freely translate jnAnavAn as a learned person. My contention is - if you look at the context and at Shankara's bhashya - it indicates a jnAni - a KNower of Truth, as opposed to simply a panditah, a wise man. Now the second point- You talk about a sceptical approach. I think this approach is alien to vedAntA. The consciousness itself as you point out is uninvolved - it has neither any desire to goad nor replulse the seeker. The inquiring intellect is the one that is under the spell of avidyA. Its only means to know itself is the Shruti, the Veda-pramAnA. So even from a so-called philosophical standpoint, keeping aside the devotional aspect(something by they way that is completely alien to sanAtana dharmA) the inquiry cannot be based on scepticism - reasoned or otherwise, but purely on faith - shraddhavAn labhate jnAnam. The intellect - itself a product of avidyA - and under its firm spell - completely lacks a self-informing capacity. Even if all the learned people of the world try to determine the nature of this world, they will find themselves confronted at some stage or other by ignorance - says Swami Vidyaranya. So scepticism - however well meaning and reasoned - has no role here, at least as a bedrock on which to base the enquiry. The only foundation is the Shruti - and from the seeker's standpoint - faith and surrender. I have faith in the words of the ShastrA as a revealer of the Truth and I surrender to those words in order that they do the job of revelation of the Truth. Whence is scepticism here? If the ear is the pramAnA for sound, then what is heard is immediately evident to me, if I trust my ears to hear, impediments to my hearing are absent and my mind is focussed - is not otherwise distracted. Why the Shastra may not seem to give us aparoksha jnanam has little to do with us lacking in reasoned scepticism - it is on account of us being distracted - just like if in that example there are other sounds in the background the mind is more interested in at that particular point in time. So in my way opinion, the approach in Vedanta is - accept, approach, ask, assimilate, and awaken - all within the construct of total faith and surrender. Reasoning is only to question why that I already have unshakeable faith and conviction in is yet to clearly unfold as knowledge to my limited intellect. I happen to think Sunderji's question to you was also articulated in a similar context alone, and this is the Vedantic perspective that I wanted to provide. Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam --- On Fri, 6/12/09, Ananda Wood <awood wrote: 3.33 ---- sadR^ishaM ceShTate svasyAH prakR^iter j~nAnavAn api prakR^itiM yAnti bhUtAni nigrahaH kiM kariShyati One acts according to one's own nature. A learned, knowledgeable person is no exception. Beings follow nature. What will holding back achieve? But there is also a philosophical interpretation, which takes a sceptical approach of reasoned questioning. Then it is asked exactly what is meant by 'consciousness' and any other concepts that may be associated with it. As the questioning proceeds, it turns reflectively upon its own assumptions, in search of their own knowing ground. So long as any trace of anything constructed may remain, the questioning is not complete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Namaste Shri Ram, Shri Sadananda, Shri Sunder and Shri Shyam, Thank you for the kind responses in your messages #45709, #45717, #45724 and #45731 (Jun 13 & 14). 'jnyAnavAn' in the Gita 3.33 ---------------------------- Shri Ram and Shri Shyam are of course quite right to point out that, in the Gita 3.33, the word 'jnyAnavAn' describes a realized sage, in a specially significant way. The Gita is saying here that each one of us acts according to one's own nature. This would of course include both the scholar who is skilled at expounding the texts and the sage who has realized that truth from which all texts receive their proper meaning. But where a scholar identifies the knowing self as a learned person, this sense of personal identity confuses the impartial truth of knowing with an inevitably partial show that gets produced (however impressively) by any scholarly expertise. What the scholar takes as 'my' own nature is accordingly compromised. And the compromise perpetuates the persistently confused and misleading partiality of scholarly expositions thus produced. As such scholarship gets to be institutionalized, the confusion gets propagated and ingrained in those whom such scholars teach. No true correction can be brought about by this instituted scholarship. For any true correction, there is no alternative to learning directly from a living individual who has broken free from this vicious circle of confusion about 'my' or 'your' or 'her' or 'his' own true nature. Institutions are concerned with a competitive doing, in external society. It's only by reflection inward that true knowing may be shown -- as that which is identically the same -- beneath all different acts of our doing personalities. Shri Sadananda's observation is quite helpful here: " As one recognizes the futility of actions to attain the highest, then one is advised to approach a teacher for knowledge - tad viddhii praNipaatena pari prashnena sevayaa - is the advice of Krishna. " 'Religious' and 'philosophical' ------------------------------- Yes indeed, Shri Sunder, you are quite right to interpret my use of the word 'religious' as referring to the cultural context, and 'philosophical' as referring to the universal. And I must admit that I have here used the word 'religious' in a rather narrow and superficial sense, to imply unexamined habits of ritual and belief. This word is of course better used in its more basic sense, to imply a 'binding back' to the underlying ground of truth (from 're-' meaning 'back', and the verbal root 'lig-' meaning to 'bind' as in 'ligament'). Skeptical approaches and faith in shruti ------- I don't see that a sceptical approach is necessarily opposed to faith in Shruti texts. A good part of the problem comes from different ways of using words. Like the word 'religious', so also the word 'sceptical' can be used in two ways. Yes, the word 'skeptical' has come to be used rather often in a degraded way, to imply a blindly dogmatic disbelief which does not properly consider the beliefs that it attacks and condemns. But this degraded usage hides a far more essential meaning of the word. The English 'sceptic' comes from the Latin 'scepticus' and the Greek 'skeptikos'. These words most definitely imply a careful looking and hence a painstaking and sustained examination of doubts that arise through the partial and imperfect perceptions, thoughts and feelings of our bodies and senses and minds. The essential meaning here is shown by the ancient Greek 'skopein', which means to 'view'. Our common English word 'scope' and its derivatives (like 'microscope' or 'telescope' or 'periscope') come from this ancient Greek origin. Accordingly, in Western philosophy, the use of this word 'skepticism' has a root which essentially concurs with our Indian view of philosophy as 'darshana' or 'seeing'. What's basically implied here is not any outward attack on someone else's beliefs. Instead, it is a deepening of faith, by taking care to examine where one's own perceptions, thoughts and feelings may have gone wrong and where they may be thus doubtful and confused. A depth of faith is thus approached, by a reflective investigation which inwardly clarifies external forms that have been outwardly perceived. And this reflective investigation must go on to clarify the meaning of external words and names that have been conceived by mind and thus outwardly spoken. And so also the clarification must go on, reflecting even deeper into qualities and values that are felt to motivate our thoughts and actions. But how then can this clarifying be completed? Where does it lead to, in the end? The clarifying cannot be complete until all outward forms have been removed from pure seeing, all outward names and thoughts from pure intelligence, all outward qualities and motivations from an unaffected knowing of pure consciousness. That unaffected knowing is direct. It alone illuminates itself, without an intermediary. It's that alone which is 'shruti' -- or directly 'heard' -- in listening to texts that are held truly sacred. But it is only found where any form or name or quality is utterly dissolved, by attaining a non-dual knowing in identity. Sadly, this must stay very paradoxical of course, as we poor sadhakas try so inadequately to discuss it. Ananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Namaste Ananda-ji. Thank you very much for your eloquent 45770 in which you contrasted a scholar with a realized person. Referring to the last three paragraphs of your mail quoted below, may I attempt a clarification? _________________ QUOTE But how then can this clarifying be completed? Where does it lead to, in the end? The clarifying cannot be complete until all outward forms have been removed from pure seeing, all outward names and thoughts from pure intelligence, all outward qualities and motivations from an unaffected knowing of pure consciousness. That unaffected knowing is direct. It alone illuminates itself, without an intermediary. It's that alone which is 'shruti' -- or directly 'heard' -- in listening to texts that are held truly sacred. But it is only found where any form or name or quality is utterly dissolved, by attaining a non-dual knowing in identity. Sadly, this must stay very paradoxical of course, as we poor sadhakas try so inadequately to discuss it. UNQUOTE _________________ I believe by `outward forms' you meant everything other than oneself which is pure intelligence. Thus, what remains is pure intelligence alone `knowing' pure intelligence. The `remains' is because it is Existence. The `alone' is because it is Fullness. The `knowing' is because it is Knowledge. There are no intermediaries in the scene, which means the senses have drowned and lost themselves in their origin which is pure intelligence and there is no `scene' at all as such to speak about. The mind is no more the erstwhile mind. It has in fact taken the `form' (an unfortunate word too difficult to avoid) of pure intelligence. What is that pure intelligence like? Does it talk, does it walk, does it hawk? Perhaps, these are the questions which you chose to bury in your last sentence quoted above. Nevertheless, we, the poor sAdhakAs will make it do all that and more! Infested with intermediaries, we have no better vocation to pursue. Whatever, since you mentioned a 'complete clarification', I am sure you didn't mean the pure intelligence's illuminating itself to be an occasional thing like a trance or a lightning bolt after the cessation of which the intermediaries creep in again to perpetuate their silly hide-and-seek. Am I right, Sir? Best regards. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Dear Ananda-ji Thank you for your kind clarifications. Not being a linguist nor a scholar such as you, I took your recommendation of " scepticism " as the operational characteristic of a spiritual search - to mean it in the convenitonally understood sense of the term. Scepticism in Webster's is thus defined: 1. an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object 2. a: the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b: the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics 3. doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation) Certainly none of these would conform to the sense of " deepending of faith " that you clarify, or feel, is the correct interpretation of this term. Obviously, none of the above three dictionary meanings of scepticism are compatible with our emphasis on shraddha, especially in the Shruti, as the cornerstone of the spiritual search. Again, a reflective investigation, at least in Vedanta, as taught by Shankara, cannot be done independent of Shruti. vakyartha vicharanyadhyavasananivrrtah hi brahmavagatih natu anumanaadi pramananataranivrtta Knowledge of Brahman arises from an analysis of the Shruti vAkya alone, not by any other means of knowledge such as inference, etc And the Shruti herself recommends reasoning, and logic - in other words - reflective reasoning which is otherwise called mananam in this regard - to ascertain both the tatparya or intended meaning of the Shruti vakya, as well as artha vichara to ascertain how the conclusions so arrived at are valid. So shraddha in the Shruti, followed by shravanam-mananam-nidhidhyasanam, is, and has always been, the traditional methodology in Vedanta, and perhaps this is what you mean as well when you say - " faith " followed by " reflective investigation " culminating in an internalizing that clarifies from " direct unaffected knowing " ? Also - I am not sure what you are referring to by the term " scholarship gets to be institutionalized " which are " concerned with competitive doing " and " no true correction can be brought about by this instituted scholarship. " I am presuming it is not referring to the Vedanta sampradaya, which is essentially a unbroken tradition of teachings from a Guru to a shishya - Om nArAyaNam. padmabhuvam. vasishTham. Saktim. ca tatputra parASaram. ca vyAsam. Sukam. gauDapadam. mahAntam. govindayogIndram athAsya Sishyam. | SrI Sam.karAcAryam athAsya padmapAdam. ca hastAmalakam. ca Sishyam. tam. toTakam. vArttikakAramanyAn asmad gurUn santatamAnatosmi || sadASiva samArambhAm. SankarAcArya madhyamAm. asmadAcArya paryantAm. vande guru paramparAm. || As you yourself clarify - " no alternative to learning directly from a living individual who has broken free from this vicious circle of confusion " Humble pranAms Hari OM Shyam advaitin , " Ananda Wood " <awood wrote: > Skeptical approaches and faith in shruti > ------- > > I don't see that a sceptical approach is necessarily opposed to faith in Shruti texts. A good part of the problem comes from different ways of using words. > > Like the word 'religious', so also the word 'sceptical' can be used in two ways. > Instead, it is a deepening of faith, by taking care to examine where one's own perceptions, thoughts and feelings may have gone wrong and where they may be thus doubtful and confused. > > > That unaffected knowing is direct. > As such scholarship gets to be institutionalized, the confusion > gets propagated and ingrained in those whom such scholars teach. > No true correction can be brought about by this instituted > scholarship. > Institutions are concerned with a competitive doing, in external > society. > Ananda > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 advaitin , " shyam_md " <shyam_md wrote: > > > Knowledge of Brahman arises from an analysis of the Shruti vAkya alone, not by any other means of knowledge such as inference, etc > > And the Shruti herself recommends reasoning, and logic - in other words - reflective reasoning which is otherwise called mananam in this regard - to ascertain both the tatparya or intended meaning of the Shruti vakya, as well as artha vichara to ascertain how the conclusions so arrived at are valid. > > So shraddha in the Shruti, followed by shravanam-mananam-nidhidhyasanam, is, and has always been, the traditional methodology in Vedanta, and perhaps this is what you mean as well when you say - " faith " followed by " reflective investigation " culminating in an internalizing that clarifies from " direct unaffected knowing " ? > > Also - I am not sure what you are referring to by the term " scholarship gets to be institutionalized " which are " concerned with competitive doing " and " no true correction can be brought about by this instituted scholarship. " I am presuming it is not referring to the Vedanta sampradaya, which is essentially a unbroken tradition of teachings from a Guru to a shishya - Namaste, In fact, Krishna in Gita 4:34, states that 'praNipAtena pariprashnena sevayA'- surrender, questioning to remove doubts, and service to the Sage will culminate in the the latter instructing the student in spiritual knowledge. Most of Arjuna's questions (e.g. 6:37-39) are such 'doubts'. The whole of Prashna Upanishad, and most dialogues in the Upanishads are of such nature. For more on skepticism, please see: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-ancient/ For those who may have missed viewing the link Dennis-ji had had given, it is worth repeating it here (re: Guru, Teacher and Student/Disciple) - Message #45754 Mon Jun 15, 2009 http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/guru_teacher.pdf. Guru, Teacher A teacher requires obedience and discipline from the pupil A Guru requires trust and humility from the pupil A teacher clothes you and prepares you for the outer journey A Guru strips you naked and prepares you for the inner journey A teacher is a guide on the path A Guru is a pointer to the way A teacher sends you on the road to success A Guru sends you on the road to freedom A teacher explains the world and its nature to you A Guru explains yourself and your nature to you A teacher makes you understand how to move about in the world A Guru shows you where you stand in relation to the world A teacher gives you knowledge and boosts your ego A Guru takes away your knowledge and punctures your ego A teacher instructs you A Guru constructs you A teacher sharpens your mind A Guru opens your mind A teacher shows you the way to prosperity A Guru shows the way to serenity A teacher reaches your mind A Guru touches your soul A teacher gives you knowledge A Guru makes you wise A teacher gives you maturity A Guru returns you to innocence A teacher instructs you on how to solve problems A Guru shows you how to resolve issues A teacher is a systematic thinker A Guru is a lateral thinker A teacher will punish you with a stick A Guru will punish you with compassion A teacher is to pupil what a father is to son A Guru is to pupil what mother is to her child One can always find a teacher But a Guru has to find and accept you A teacher leads you by the hand A Guru leads you by example When a teacher finishes with you, you graduate When a Guru finishes with you, you celebrate When the course is over you are thankful to the teacher When the discourse is over you are grateful to the Guru Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Namaste Shri Madathil, Yes indeed, I most certainly agree with your line of questioning about that direct knowledge which illuminates itself (message #45772, Jun 16). That self-shining knowledge is no changing action carried out by an objective instrument, towards some further object. It's not the walking of a body, set in motion by its legs, in order to proceed elsewhere. It's not the talking of a mouth, producing sounds that carry meaning from one person to another. Its knowing is just what it always is: beyond all change of passing time, unchanged beneath all differing appearances that seem to show it changingly. Acts are what seem to change, misleadingly. True knowing is what stays the same, found always utterly unmixed with anything besides itself. Its shining is none other than itself, remaining utterly unchanged in its unblemished clarity. It's only known uncompromised, identified as one's own self, beneath all false identity of mixed-up personality. As you point out, its self-illumination cannot be occasional. It can't be like a state of trance or any lightning bolt that flashes from the sky. Its shining is no ostentatious hide-and-seek, producing an impressive show. It is a silent, steady light: completely unconcerned with impressions made by changing states on petty personality. Ananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Namaste Shri Shyam, Thank you for your message #45787 (Jun 16) where you say: " ... the Shruti herself recommends reasoning, and logic - in other words - reflective reasoning which is otherwise called mananam in this regard - to ascertain both the tatparya or intended meaning of the Shruti vakya, as well as artha vichara to ascertain how the conclusions so arrived at are valid.... " So shraddha in the Shruti, followed by shravanam-mananam-nidhidhyasanam, is, and has always been, the traditional methodology in Vedanta, and perhaps this is what you mean as well when you say - 'faith' followed by 'reflective investigation' culminating in an internalizing that clarifies from 'direct unaffected knowing'? " Yes indeed, I agree with you here. But I would go on to emphasize that the reflective investigation of 'manana' must be inward and subjective. It must turn back into the depth of one's own understanding, so as to uncover habitually assumed beliefs that are mistaken and confused. It's these mistakes and confusions of belief that make us ignorant. By questioning back into them, they are exposed to that light of knowing which alone can correct them properly. Uncovered in this way, as confused mistakes, they get accordingly burned up, in the clarifying fire of true knowing. As mistakes are thus corrected by reflective questioning, faith deepens and true knowing is progressively clarified. But it is essential here that the questioning is directed at one's own mistakes. When such a questioning is used to attack what someone else believes, it has the reverse effect, of reinforcing the questioner's own unexamined prejudice. And it is liable to have a decidedly harmful effect upon the one who is thus attacked, by a hostile intrusion from outside. It's thus that there's a problem with schools of learning that are outwardly institutionalized. They tend to attack one another in competitive debates that keep on reinforcing their various forms of instituted prejudice. This outward institutionalism can be a problem even for the Shankara tradition of Advaita Vedanta. The Kanci Mahasvami speaks of this problem in his book called " The Guru Tradition " (Part 4). Here institutionalism is described as " Shankara's work for a necessary evil " . The Kanci Mahasvami says: " It is when a guru is on his own as an individual, without the backing of an institution, that he has greater reason to remain pure of heart and mind. I make this statement in spite of the fact that I myself head an institution and have the title of 'Acarya'. Shri Shankara Bhagavadpada ... brought together the followers of our religion ... on an institutional basis, thereby enabling it to flourish.... I, who praise Shankaracarya for his work of institutionalization, at the same time support the system of individual acaryas (teachers without the backing of an institution). " Praising Shri Shankara (for what he accomplished) is justified. What would happen to the vast community of our people if there were only a few ashramas under individuals functioning on their own and a handful of disciples however virtuous they be? " ...it became imperative to bring together people belonging to our religion as a united body.... To accomplish this our Acarya had to bring our people under an institutional order.... " However, even this (uniting our people under an order) must be described as a necessary evil: a lesser evil with which it became necessary to repulse a bigger evil. When there is organizational backing it is possible that the acarya of a school or a mathalaya may not always be awake to the need to preserve the strength of his Self (Atma-bala). The backing of the people, monetary strength and ownership of property are 'disincentives' as far as fostering an acarya's Atma-bala is concerned. That is why, in the beginning, the gurukulas were under individual acaryas. " Through this long quote, you will see that the problems of external institutes have been traditionally recognized. And I am happy to agree with you that the essential institution of Vedanta is not carried outwardly, in social organizations. As you quite rightly say, it is carried inwardly and individually, as an " unbroken tradition of teachings from a Guru to a shishya " . My teacher, Shri Atmananda, said plainly that he belonged to such a tradition that had come down from Shri Shankara. And he also made it clear that his disciples thus belong to this same tradition. But, even so, he very often taught in a way that was not formally traditional. His teaching did not require any study or quotation from traditional texts. He taught in simple Malayalam to his Malayali disciples, and in plain English to those many other disciples who came to see him. He even discouraged many of his disciples from learning Sanskrit and from studying traditional Vedanta texts, saying that this was not necessary and that it could even be an unhelpful and confusing distraction. Please don't take this to mean that he showed any lack of respect for the tradition and its ancient texts. He spoke of them with great respect, while pointing out that they were meant for people of quite different times and thus required an especially careful interpretation to understand them today. I heard him speak thus as a boy; and it was this that made me turn back to a study of the Indian tradition, when I was dissatisfied with my university studies in England and America. From what little study has thus been inspired, I am convinced that there is much to be learned in the present from our shruti and our smriti texts; but that it will take much work of interpretation through a quite radical enquiry, by many generations of sustained modern scholarship. But this, of course, is just my personal view: from which I can report that my faith in the tradition has been deepened by a sceptical questioning. Ananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy Pranams to all. advaitin , " Ananda Wood " <awood wrote: > > Namaste Shri Shyam, > > Thank you for your message #45787 (Jun 16) where you say: Dear Sri Ananda Wood, This posting of yours is an excellent commentary to verse 33 of Advaita Prakarana (3rd Chapter) Of Mandukya Karika Of Sri Gaudapada. Well done , Sir! Thank you. With warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa Murthy 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.