“ thyagena eka amrutatwam�.

[Guest guest]

Namaste, all,

The Sruti Says “ thyagena eka amrutatwamâ€.

Thyaga of what? Naturally it must  be thyaga of that which comes in the way of

amrutatwam. What is that?

What exactly is hinted by Amrutatwam or immortality in this context?

With kind regards to all

Mani

 

R. S. Mani

 

 

Love Cricket? Check out live scores, photos, video highlights and more.

Click here http://cricket.

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " R.S.MANI " <r_s_mani wrote:

>

>

>

> Namaste, all,

> The Sruti Says “ thyagena eka amrutatwamâ€.

> Thyaga of what? Naturally it must  be thyaga of that which comes in the way

of amrutatwam. What is that?

> What exactly is hinted by Amrutatwam or immortality in this context?

> With kind regards to all

> Mani

>

> R. S. Mani

>

>

> Love Cricket? Check out live scores, photos, video highlights and more.

Click here http://cricket.

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " R.S.MANI " <r_s_mani wrote:

>

>

>

> Namaste, all,

> The Sruti Says “ thyagena eka amrutatwamâ€.

> Thyaga of what? Naturally it must  be thyaga of that which comes in the way

of amrutatwam. What is that?

> What exactly is hinted by Amrutatwam or immortality in this context?

> With kind regards to all

> Mani

>

> R. S. Mani

>

Namaste all,

 

Tyagenaikena amRtatvam.

 

The one verse answer to the question raised is given by the first verse of

Ishopanishad. `The entire visible universe should be seen as the Lord dwells in

it', says the Upanishad. As SvetAshvatara Upanishad says, He dwells in it as

oil dwells in the oil seed as curd dwells in milk, as water in a groundwater

source or as fire in firewood. The analogy of the oil in the oil seed indicates

the pervasiveness of the Lord. The curd in milk analogy expresses the fact that

the abstract reality gets a form and content by Bhakti. The groundwater source

example shows the uninterrupted flow of bliss in the heart of the realised soul.

The firewood analogy says that He can be seen, obtained by effort. To see this

Imperishable (because it is unconditioned by Time), Indivisible (because it is

unconditioned by Space) and Immutable (because it is unconditioned by Causality)

Lord everywhere is the first maxim of the Ishopanishad. This Seeing is

amRtatvam. It is not an academic injunction, however because in the very second

line of the verse we are given the rule for a daily divine life : Enjoy by

renouncing it. Here `it' refers to the `jagat' (universe), in the first line.

The enjoyment is in the establishing of oneself in the bliss of the Atman.

 

Only in Vedanta does renunciation reach such a powerful and purposeful

consummation, comments Swami Vivekananda. The renunciation is not an alibi for

indifference or negligence of duties. Renunciation is of desires and not a

physical renunciation of one's possessions or obligations. Possessions by

themselves are not wrong. More than KAma, desire, it is the attachment to

desires that is wrong. One who is attached to his desires , one who hugs his

desires, one who is overwhelmed by a desire for desires, is called KAma-kAmI in

the Gita. A KamakAmI does not obtain peace (B.G.II – 70). He goes again and

again into the circle of samsAra (B.G. IX -21). This subtle point about

enjoyment through renunciation is what is generally missed. Renunciation is an

attitude and not necessarily physical. Because the word bhunjIthAh, stands for

the experiencing and enjoying whatever is the visible universe. So the

`enjoyment' comes after renunciation of attachment to the desires. How is this

so? This is so because, everything is His, there is nothing that is ours, so

there is nothing that we may call or covet as ours. So the very idea of

possession by us insignificant mortals is ludicrous. In fact even saying that is

His is wrong. It is He. Everything is the Lord. Sarvam khalvidam brahma. This

oft-quoted truism from the Upanishads is to be felt in the bones and perceived

as a way of life. This is the application of all the theoretical knowledge that

we gain from Shravana, etc. The two cornerstones of such application are:

renunciation (tyAga) of attachment and non-covetousness of another's wealth.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " profvk " <profvk wrote:

>

> advaitin , " R.S.MANI " <r_s_mani@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > Namaste, all,

> > The Sruti Says “ thyagena eka amrutatwamâ€.

 

> > Thyaga of what? Naturally it must  be thyaga of that which comes in the way

of amrutatwam. What is that?

> > What exactly is hinted by Amrutatwam or immortality in this context?

 

Because the word bhunjIthAh, stands for the experiencing and enjoying whatever

is the visible universe. So the `enjoyment' comes after renunciation of

attachment to the desires. How is this so?

 

Namaste,

 

The phrase " tyAgenaike amRRitattvamaanashuH " occurs in Kaivalya Upanishad

(#3), and Mahanarayana upan. (12:14).

 

The word 'bhu.njIthAH' has been puzzling me, as Shankara defines it as

'pAlayethAH' - protect, [and not 'enjoy'].

 

Is there an explanation for this? Thanks.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " R.S.MANI " <r_s_mani wrote:

 

>

> Thyaga of what?

> What exactly is hinted by Amrutatwam or immortality in this context?

> R. S. Mani

>

 

Hari Om Shri Maniji, Pranaams!

 

For your first question the same upanisad mantra states dhanena thyAgena eke.

 

As regards second one, immortality, the following upanisad mantra and AcArya's

commentary could provide a slightly different meaning:

 

tapasA cIyate brahma .... karmasu cAmrtam. Mundaka 1.1.8

 

karmasu in the karmas, that acted as the cause; (there evolved) amrtam

immortality, the fruit of karmas. It is called immortality, since it is not

destroyed as long as karma is not eliminated even in billions of kalpas(cycles).

bASya translated by Sw. GambhIrAnandaji.

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " sunderh " <sunderh wrote:

>

 

> > > Namaste, all,

> > > The Sruti Says “ thyagena eka amrutatwamâ€.

>

> > > Thyaga of what? Naturally it must  be thyaga of that which comes in the

way of amrutatwam. What is that?

> > > What exactly is hinted by Amrutatwam or immortality in this context?

>

> Because the word bhunjIthAh, stands for the experiencing and enjoying

whatever is the visible universe. So the `enjoyment' comes after renunciation

of attachment to the desires. How is this so?

>

> Namaste,

>

> The phrase " tyAgenaike amRRitattvamaanashuH " occurs in Kaivalya

Upanishad (#3), and Mahanarayana upan. (12:14).

>

> The word 'bhu.njIthAH' has been puzzling me, as Shankara defines it as

'pAlayethAH' - protect, [and not 'enjoy'].

>

> Is there an explanation for this? Thanks.

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

>

 

Namaste all.

 

In the Mahabharata, in the portion of SanatsujAtiyam, the first question that

Dhritarashtra asks of Sanatsujata is: What is this Immortality that I am hearing

about? This is the amRtatvam that we are questioning about now.

Is it possible to avoid death?

Sanat-sujata, without beating about the bush, goes straight into the subject and

begins his discourse with a bang. " PramAda is death " , says he, " living without

PramAda is Immortality " . PramAdam vai mRRityum-ahaM bravImi. sadApramAdaM

amRRitatvaM bravImi

What is this pramAda, which Sanatsujata introduces so suddenly? `pramAda' comes

from the root verb `mad' to be intoxicated, to be drunk. `PramAda' means

therefore intoxication, carelessness, negligence of duties. Shankara in his

commentary, elaborates it:

Man's natural state is divine. Any slipping from that divine status is a

default, slip, negligence, pramAda. From that Brahman-consciousness, which is

the natural state of man, if he slips, that becomes the seed and cause for all

knowledge of falsity, ignorance of the Self within. This is Death, for it

becomes the further cause for future births and consequent deaths and therefore

a total chaos.

prachutiH svAbhAvika-brahma-bhAvAt tam pramAdaM mithyA-jnAnasyApi kAraNaM

AtmA-anavadhAraNaM AtmAjnAnaM mRRityuM janana-maraNAdi sarvAnartha-bIjaM ahaM

bravImi.

If one is always in a state of the opposite of pramAda, that is, stabilised in

the state of one's natural divinity, that is Immortality:

sadA apramAdaM svAbhAvika-svarUpeNa avasthAnaM amRRitatvaM bravImi

Immortality in Hinduism is not in any sense a continuance in time. Time or

Eternity is an out-of-place concept in the Absoluteness of Vedanta. Immortality

means coming into its own of the Self. Very often in a Vedic passage the words

`we have become immortal' or `this would make you immortal' would occur. This

does not mean that they have transcended physical death. Naive translations of

such Vedic passages without an understanding of the full meaning and

significance in relation to the total philosophy involved, have given rise, to

misconceptions about Hinduism that it promises `immortality' through its

mumbo-jumbo of mantras!

If Realisation of one's true status is Immortality, then surely Ignorance is

bondage and enlightenment is release. The scriptures also say: Having known that

one reaches beyond Death; there is no other path for release:

tameva viditvA ati-mRRityum-eti,

na anyaH panthA vidyate ayanAya – SvetAshvatara U. III – 8.

If so, and if that is all there is to it, shall we not have to do our duties and

actions? Not so. A jnAni does not have to do action. He delights in the Self and

he is fully satisfied with the Self. For him there is no action:

yastvAtmaratir-eva syAt Atma-tRRiptascha mAnavaH /

Atmanyeva ca santushhTaH tasya kAryaM na vidyate // B.G. III – 17

Then who has to do the works? Only an unenlightened person, only a seeker. That

is why the Lord says that he has prescribed two distinct ways: that of jnAna

yoga for the evolved ones and karma yoga for the practitioners.

But, even for the latter kind, namely, the seekers and those who are involved in

worldly actions, would not the maxim that karma (action) always leads to bondage

apply? No, not if the works are done with dedication – IshvarArpaNa, is the

word Shankara uses.

But why at all have they to be involved with works or action or karma? The

answer comes with the same emphasis throughout the scriptures:

*sattva-shuddyarthaM*.

That is, the mind has to be purified and so works have to be done, and done

with dedication, dedication to the Lord, and without an egocentric desire or

attachment to the fruits thereof. They should be done just by the senses and

the body, with a complete absence of attachment or feeling of proprietorship,

for the purpose of purifying the lower self. This is the considered opinion of

the Lord Himself as he winds up in the eighteen th chapter of the Gita:

Acts of sacrifice, giving and askesis are purifiers of the wise, so they have

certainly to be donebut without hankering for their fruits:

Yajno dAnaM tapashchaiva pAvanAni manIshhiNAM /etAnyapi tu karmANi sangam

tyaktvA phalAni ca /kartavyAnIti me pArtha nishcitaM matam-uttamaM // B.G.

XVIII – 5, 6.

 

Regarding the enjoyment word used in Ishopanishad, Shankara does translate it as

`protection' but it is protection of the Self. And protection of the Self is

the `apramAda' elaborated by SanatsujAta and interpreted as above by Shankara

himself.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Maniji - PraNAms

 

From my understanding:

 

Tyaga is renunciation - what can I renounce? - That which is inherent with me, I

cannot renounce. That which I do not have, I cannot renounce. What I can

renounce is that which is not intrinsic and that which I have. That is the

misunderstanding of myself due to the ignorance of myself- the very basis of the

notion that I am finite and therefore subject to six modifications - asti,

jaayate, vardhate, vipariNamate, apakshiiyate and vinasyati. By renouncing what

I am I not (neti) by process of negation, I can full establish in myself as the

self that is eternal and infinite that does undergo any modifications. That is

the amRitatvam - Only by renunciation (tyaganaike) one can ascertain once own

true nature his immortality - mRityormaa amRitam gamaya - Oh! Lord, lead me from

mortality to immortality - It is clear reminder that it is only through

knowledge that on can recognize once own true identity.

 

Interestingly this sloka is chanted while receiving Sanyaasins by Gruhastaas

either to remind him the purpose his renunciation or to remind themselves the

goal of human life itself.

 

By the by, the 18th of Gita starts with the question by Arjuna what is tyaga and

what is sanyaasa. Krishna essentially says both are the same - while discussing

exhaustively the tyaga from the point of satvick, rajasic and tamasic mentality.

Here the Upanishad sloka pertains to the renounciation from the Satvick point.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

advaitin@ s.com, " R.S.MANI " <r_s_mani@.. .> wrote:

>

>

>

> Namaste, all,

> The Sruti Says ��� thyagena eka amrutatwam���.

> Thyaga of what? Naturally it must�� be thyaga of that which comes in the

way of amrutatwam. What is that?

> What exactly is hinted by Amrutatwam or immortality in this context?

> With kind regards to all

> Mani

>

> R. S. Mani

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

By renouncing what I am I not (neti) by process of negation, I can full

establish in myself as the self that is eternal and infinite that does undergo

any modifications. That is the amRitatvam - Only by renunciation (tyaganaike)

one can ascertain once own true nature his immortality - mRityormaa amRitam

gamaya - Oh! Lord, lead me from mortality to immortality - It is clear reminder

that it is only through knowledge that on can recognize once own true identity.

>

 

Namaste,

 

Another reference for study of 'amRRitatvam' is Brahmasutra 4:2:7 -

 

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_4/bs_4-2-04.html

 

There is no departure for the knower of Nirguna Brahman. His Pranas are absorbed

in Brahman.

 

The Purvapakshin maintains that the mode of departure from the body for the

knower of Saguna Brahman and the ignorant or the ordinary man ought to be

different, because they attain different abodes after death. The knower of

Saguna Brahman goes to Brahmaloka while the ordinary man is reborn in this

world.

 

The present Sutra says that the knower of the Saguna Brahman enters the Sushumna

Nadi at death and then goes out of the body and then enters the Devayana or the

path of the gods while the ordinary ignorant man enters some other Nadi and goes

by another way to have rebirth.

 

But the mode of departure at death is common to both till they enter on their

respective ways.

 

Chhandogya Upanishad VIII.6.6 and Kathopanishad II.3.16 declare " There are a

hundred and more Nadis in the interior of the heart, of which only one leads

from the heart to the head; by that, progressing upwards, the departing soul

attains immortality, i.e., emancipation; all the other Nadis are for the egress

of the ordinary people for undergoing bondage of frequent births and deaths. "

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Prof VK-ji,

 

Thanks for the beautiful explanations.

 

advaitin , " profvk " <profvk wrote:

>

> > The word 'bhu.njIthAH' has been puzzling me, as Shankara defines it as

> > 'pAlayethAH' - protect, [and not 'enjoy'].

> >

> > Is there an explanation for this? Thanks.

 

> Regarding the enjoyment word used in Ishopanishad, Shankara does translate

> it as `protection' but it is protection of the Self. And protection of

> the Self is the `apramAda' elaborated by SanatsujAta and interpreted as

> above by Shankara himself.

 

Could you also explain 'bhuN^.hkshva' of Gita 11.33? Shankara interprets

this as 'enjoy'. I think the difference of the 'bhoja'-s (in the Upanishad

and in this verse of Gita) has to do with the two-fold (pravR^itti and

nivR^itti) dharma. I am asking this because I think there is a close

connection/difference between the first two verses of Isha Upanishad, and

the verses 11.32-11.34 of Gita, with Shankara's commentary to each of them

being the link.

 

About 'kaama-kaamii', Swami Dayananda points out that it means 'desirer of

sense-objects (or desire-objects)' or simply 'desirer'. Many English

commentaries have missed this point. Swami Gambhirananda makes the right

translation.

 

In 2.70, He translates it as: " 'kaama-kaamii': desirous of objects. 'kaama'

means objects which are sought after. He who is given to desire them is

'kaama-kaamii' "

 

In 9.21, He translates it as: " kaama-kaamah: desirous of pleasures " .

 

praNAm-s to all Advaitins,

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

Pranaams Sunderji

 

" Thyagena " , If I understand this word to mean " Sacrifice " as implied in

several posts,

then my Interpretation would be "

 

Sacrifice of " amritatwam " !! itself, (eka, , that One Amrutatwam).

 

Not As a Goal, but I sacrifice " Immortality/Am.. ) as " My Fruits of Action " , so

that I am not bound by my very act of Sacrifice.

 

In this Context, I understand the Word " Thyaga as a " Yagna " , an act that is

performed without any Expectation or attachment to the " fruits of action " which

is " Amrutatwa " .

The Act so performed is a " Sacrifice " similar to the Sacrifice mentioned in "

Purusha Suktham " .

 

Thyagena= I sacrifice my " I " ( ahankara " I " )

rather I perform an act by the " I " " ( ahankara I) at a thought Level,

so that I could attain the Amrutatwa of the " I " as Brahman.

 

Now, I can't call this act of " I " as a sacrifice, as When i think of the word "

in order to attain " , then the Fruits of action is implied, and , rather than

Becoming the Word sacrifice, it stands to mean " GOOD Riddance of the Ahamkara "

I " )

 

Why should I attain to " Immortality " ?

Why should I say " lead me from Mortality to immortality? when The Essence of

" I " is immortal any way?

or should i say, lead me from the PATH of mortality to Immortality " ?

 

In any case, I interpret the word THYAGA, to mean Renunciation of Not Something

else to Achieve Amrutatwa

But to Sacrifice , the " fruits of action of the sacrifice, which is

Sacrifice of " amrutatwa itself,

Or Sacrifice the Ignorance, that " I'm not Amritatwa.

 

It is strange that the word " Amrutatva is juxtaposed to the word Thyagena,

separated be EKA..

so I only sacrifice Amrutatwa , the understanding of ignorance associated with

Amrutatwa.

 

and this Act of KNOWLEDGE , Just the Act of detaching myself from Amrutatwa,

will lead me the path to who the real " I " is.

 

i get confused at times with the title of the Book on Sri Ramanamaharishi,

 

 

 

" BE as YOU are "

 

" I am what I am "

 

I cant be what I am " .

 

Pranams

RK ( stands for Ramakrishnan, to avoid confusioin with others who have the same

name

 

 

--- On Thu, 10/9/09, sunderh <sunderh wrote:

 

 

sunderh <sunderh

Re: “ thyagena eka amrutatwamâ€.

advaitin

Thursday, 10 September, 2009, 4:55 PM

 

 

--- On Thu, 10/9/09, sunderh <sunderh wrote:

 

 

sunderh <sunderh

Re: “ thyagena eka amrutatwamâ€.

advaitin

Thursday, 10 September, 2009, 4:55 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin@ s.com, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada@ ...>

wrote:

>

By renouncing what I am I not (neti) by process of negation, I can full

establish in myself as the self that is eternal and infinite that does undergo

any modifications. That is the amRitatvam - Only by renunciation (tyaganaike)

one can ascertain once own true nature his immortality - mRityormaa amRitam

gamaya - Oh! Lord, lead me from mortality to immortality - It is clear reminder

that it is only through knowledge that on can recognize once own true identity.

>

 

Namaste,

 

Another reference for study of 'amRRitatvam' is Brahmasutra 4:2:7 -

 

http://www.swami- krishnananda. org/bs_4/ bs_4-2-04. html

 

There is no departure for the knower of Nirguna Brahman. His Pranas are absorbed

in Brahman.

 

The Purvapakshin maintains that the mode of departure from the body for the

knower of Saguna Brahman and the ignorant or the ordinary man ought to be

different, because they attain different abodes after death. The knower of

Saguna Brahman goes to Brahmaloka while the ordinary man is reborn in this

world.

 

The present Sutra says that the knower of the Saguna Brahman enters the Sushumna

Nadi at death and then goes out of the body and then enters the Devayana or the

path of the gods while the ordinary ignorant man enters some other Nadi and goes

by another way to have rebirth.

 

But the mode of departure at death is common to both till they enter on their

respective ways.

 

Chhandogya Upanishad VIII.6.6 and Kathopanishad II.3.16 declare " There are a

hundred and more Nadis in the interior of the heart, of which only one leads

from the heart to the head; by that, progressing upwards, the departing soul

attains immortality, i.e., emancipation; all the other Nadis are for the egress

of the ordinary people for undergoing bondage of frequent births and deaths. "

 

Regards,

 

Sunder