Practical Problems.

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

There seems to be a great chasm between what we read and how we live.

For example, we talk that every thing is Brahman and Brahman only. It

is all intellectual knowledge; not of experience. How to bridge it

exactly? There may be a great number of sincere souls who want to

synchronize their life-styles with what is declared in the Upanishads,

that is jeeva-Brahma-iykyam. (Unity of Jeeva and Brahman) That is why

I am placing this query before you all.

 

With regards,

Anupam.

[Guest guest]

Namaskar and best wishes of Deepavali to all

 

Dear Anupam,

 

Spot on observation. While I am expressing myself as below, I dont want to

appear as sermonising, but only as a fellow traveler who has the same

difficulty as yours.

 

In fact your email goads one to think more deeply about this issue. As you

have rightly pointed out, the huge abyss between intellectual knowledge and

experiential knowledge cannot be crossed by remembrance of spiritual

values alone. When it comes to act in a situation, more often than not, I

find that it is in accordance with our intrinsic nature molded by the

Samskaras.

 

IMHO, the chasm can be bridged only by spiritual practices and continual

introspection. Even this may not be enough, ultimately, the intrinsic nature

has to be completely rejunevated and replaced by the birth of a new

'person'. This is possible only after enlightenment.

 

Intellectual knowledge in itself is not of much value unless converted into

experiential knowledge. That is why Adi Sankarachrya has said somewhere....

**

**

*Shabdajhari, Vakvaikhari, Shastravyakyanakaushalam*

*Vaidushyam Vidushametat, Bhuktaye Na Tu Muktaye.*

**

Thanks once again for bringing up this most important issue.

 

Warmly,

 

Dilip

 

 

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:58 AM, anupam srivatsav <

anupam.srivatsav wrote:

 

>

>

> Dear All,

>

> There seems to be a great chasm between what we read and how we live.

> For example, we talk that every thing is Brahman and Brahman only. It

> is all intellectual knowledge; not of experience. How to bridge it

> exactly? There may be a great number of sincere souls who want to

> synchronize their life-styles with what is declared in the Upanishads,

> that is jeeva-Brahma-iykyam. (Unity of Jeeva and Brahman) That is why

> I am placing this query before you all.

>

> With regards,

> Anupam.

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Namaste, Sri Anupamji,

You have raised a very important point and I think this aspect requires very

deep attention by all.

Whether self knowledge i.e. All is Brahman, Jeeva Brahma eva na apara, sarvam

khalu idam Brahma, etc. is  there or not, one has to live till the body drops.

Once swamiji asked “What is the purpose of life?†So many answers came, like

“to attain moksha, to be helpful to others,†“to be successful†etc.

Swamiji said “I asked what is the purpose of life?†so many answersâ€!

“Is it not “to liveâ€, is the purpose of life is to live.

We all live our lives based on pre-conceived knowledge we have and we continue

to conceive pieces of Knowledge. However, universally, without any doubt all are

manipulating their lives/their activities to achieve happiness or remove sorrows

and pain. Somehow, it goes on and on, and when one hole is plugged another hole

comes up.  It seems all our life we are plugging holes only to see that all

holes are removed. As swamiji says, when headache is treated and removed,

backache starts and when one gets it treated, knee ache starts, etc., and by the

time if one is successful in getting all the problems solved, it is time to

quit! That is how it is.

With the wisdom resulting from self-knowledge, when one lives, he is able to see

that the holes were just appearances and they will pop and go. It does not mean

he does not make any effort to plug them, but he does it knowing that such holes

will continue to appear and that is the way how practical life is.

He starts accepting first he himself and then others rather whatever he

confronts with. More than that, he lives and interacts in such a manner that he

is no more a headache for others. When one lives with this wisdom when he gets

hurt, though he may feel pain equally like others, he remains calm. Like when

one bites his tongue with his own teeth. Such wisdom may not be there just by

academic or intellectual knowledge but only by proper assimilation of the

knowledge and then only it reflects in our action.

To  be short, as the self knowledge gets assimilated one becomes emotionally

mature and no more emotional build up even when there may appear disturbances

from time to time. In due course that will also disappear with total acceptance

of self and nonself i.e. Aham and Idam and also Iswara.

This is the way I understand from whatever little exposure I have had under my

Teachers and not only that I also experience now a then how my emotions get

themselves taken care of by dwelling in this knowledge. To me it is most

important.

When I mentioned this to my swamiji, some time ago, he said, “I must ask your

relatives, particularly your wife, and friends whether there is any truth in

whatever you saidâ€. I humbly told him “Swamiji, I can always put up a show

to my relatives and friends so that they accept me, but I alone know exactly

what I am in this matter, I alone is the person who is able to say anything

about itâ€. This means we must honestly judge ourselves whether self knowledge

is having any effect in our day to day life.

Let us wait for the enlightened views of our learned members. 

With kind regards and hari om

R.S.Mani

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, send attachments up to 25MB with India Mail. Learn how.

http://in.overview.mail./photos

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- On Fri, 10/16/09, anupam srivatsav <anupam.srivatsav wrote:

 

 

 

Dear All,

 

There seems to be a great chasm between what we read and how we live.

For example, we talk that every thing is Brahman and Brahman only. It

is all intellectual knowledge; not of experience. How to bridge it

exactly? There may be a great number of sincere souls who want to

synchronize their life-styles with what is declared in the Upanishads,

that is jeeva-Brahma- iykyam. (Unity of Jeeva and Brahman) That is why

I am placing this query before you all.

 

Shree Anupam - PraNams

 

Here is my understanding.

 

First, Brahman need not be experienced and also cannot be experienced. Any

experience involves objectification - experiencer and experienced division.

Being Brahman, Brahman cannot be an object of experience for anyone much less

for a jnaani. Similarly I cannot experience myself either since I am the subject

and cannot be an object of my experience.

 

So what is involved in the so-called brahma jnaanam or aatma jnaanam - It is not

the experience - it involves pure knowledge only that I am that Brahman with

clear knowledge that it cannot be experienced and that it need not be

experienced, since I am there in all the experiences. All seeking should stop

since there is nothing separate from me to seek or even to give up.

 

Then where is the problem since everybody says I am not a jnaani. The problem

lies in the very seeking for Brahman or very longing to experience Brahman -

that very seeking or longing for Brahman or longing to experience Brahman is

itself a sign of not clear understanding of what Brahman or aatma stands for.

 

The so-called bridge that you mentioned is what was discussed with reference to

'tu' in the tat tu samanvayaat - in the Brahma suutra notes that Ram gave

reference few days ago in terms of what constitutes nidhidhyaasanam - in terms

of obstacles for the so called bridge. This is vipariita bhaavana due to

habitual notion that I am this; that is objectification of I am as this - this

includes some Brahman that I want to experience. This problem you can call it as

vaasanaas pressure or simply habitual notions in the mind - due to many lives of

misunderstanding of myself - even though there is a teaching or discussion on

Brahman- it is just remains as discussion of some remote Brahman regarding which

Shankara says this or Ramana says this, etc. This is where or why Nidhidhyaasana

is required.

 

We have also constant pounding that I have to have sanyaasa to realize I am

Brahman or I have to do something or these are great souls who have done

something to realize Brahman - In these very statements there is inherent

implications that there is something that one has to do, including giving up

some doing or taking some ashrama which I have to do. Please note that I am

making the problem bare to see the facts clearly. It has to be crystal clear

that - I am nitya suddha mukta caitanya swaruupam - ever liberated nature of

pure consciousness - no experience no sanyaasa no non-sanyaasa. All involve

trying to do or trying not to do - For this to recognize,

 

I have to do sanyaasa –

 

sanyaasa to the fundamental notion - that I have to do - it is not something to

experience or have something to give up or something to gain - but just

recognition I am just pure existence-consciousness as I am, without objectifying

without codifying without quantifying with out expecting anything, without

seeking - That pure awareness of everything including constant awareness of the

so called longing to experience – constant awareness of the notion that I have

not realized something – constant awareness that there is nothing to seek,

nothing to understand but something to Be as I am - without any qualifications

that I am jnaani or ajnaani. There are really no jnaanis and ajnaanis – there

is only pure consciousness that I am – conscious of everything including the

notional jnaanis and ajnaanis. That clear understanding is what is needed. That

comes only when one gives up sanyaasa to all the wrong notions - it is difficult

to give up due to

habitual thinking that there is something I want to be than what I am as I am.

For that only discussions are intended - or shravaNa, mananam and nidhidhyaasana

are intended. But to put it bluntly even that it is difficult to give up -

itself is problem that makes it difficult to give up. This is not an answer to

your question – but recognition of the fundamental problem and the very

recognition of the problem helps in solving the problem. Otherwise we will be

back to some other doos or don't that includes taking up sanyaasa or not taking

up sanyaasa. The truth is nothing to do with any of these. That is the bare

fact.

 

Hope this helps

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

.. For that only discussions are intended - or shravaNa, mananam and

nidhidhyaasana are intended. But to put it bluntly even that it is difficult to

give up - itself is problem that makes it difficult to give up. This is not an

answer to your question †" but recognition of the fundamental problem and the

very recognition of the problem helps in solving the problem. Otherwise we will

be back to some other doos or don't that includes taking up sanyaasa or not

taking up sanyaasa. The truth is nothing to do with any of these. That is the

bare fact.

>

> Hope this helps

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadanand

 

>>>>>>>

Manana repeating the same verse

sravana hearing the verse

Nidhidhyasana Contemplating the verse heard

 

These three stages are essential to accumulate knowledge what so ever it may

be.Linguistic system can only function in these three stages.Later forms as

knower-known-knowledge.Language is dynamic since it is functioning as

trio.Triangle is well explained in Lalitha sahasranamams as a discussion between

Hayagreeva and agastya.Problem lies with the seer and seen but not with

seeing.Seeing is in the present with no attachments but seen and seer are of

past and time bound.

SANKARA Acharya said that group of symbols is a word and expression of these

words is creation. However, mature logical ideology may be still it is partial

and different from the real. Negation of all psychological impressions is to be

wise.

 

thank you

sekhar

[Guest guest]

Dear Anupamji,

 

Your question is obviously a very important one and we have already seen several

very nice answers.

 

I was thinking about this in connection with the second chapter of the gItA.

First, Sri Krishna teaches Arjuna the nature of the Self. While there is a lot

of content in these teachings, the two main points seem to be: 1) the Self is

absolutely unaffected by whatever goes on in the world, 2) the Self does not do

anything. Both of these are already accomplished truths, one does not need to

accomplish these.

 

After discussing the nature of the Self, Sri Krishna discusses kshatriya dharma

and then discusses karma yoga. In this discussion on karma yoga two points are

given importance: a) one should remain equanimous in success and failure,

etc..., b) one should not act in order to seek gratification through the fruits

of actions.

 

The interesting point is that a) deals with the chief obstacle to abide in 1)

and b) deals with the chief obstacle to abiding in 2). When the jIva is not

greatly affected by pleasant and unpleasant cirucmstances, it becomes easy for

it to abide in the truth that in essence it is absolutely unaffected by the

world. Similarly, when the jIva acts without seeking anything from prakriti, the

sense of doership with respect to an action persists only so long as that action

is taking place and thus it becomes easy for it to abide in the truth that in

essence it is not a doer.

 

Thus, I think that karma yoga is really the heart of the matter. In the 15th

chapter of the gItA, Sri Krishna says that someone who is not a yogI (i.e. does

not abide in equanimity and non-attachment) cannot see the Self despite striving

for it. While the gItA discusses karma yoga in great detail from different

points of view, I think the main point is that it requires vigilence. When there

are favourable circumstances, we have to remember our goal and thus not be

over-joyed. Similarly, when there are unfavourable circumstances, we have to

remember our goal and not overly saddened or afraid. If excessive sadness, joy

or fear comes inspite of us being aware of our goal, then we (the jIva) should

be indifferent to these mental activities too which are temporary. We should

also be indifferent to setbacks in sAdhanA which are bound to happen For every

action we perform, we should have a good reason and it should not be done just

to indulge a desire or a fear.

 

Of course in addition to this, the worship of the paramAtmA is very heavily

emphasised in the gItA and taught in countless ways. Thus, we should spend our

extra time in regularly performing actions such as japa, pUjA, and other forms

of worship for the sake of knowing the paramAtmA's true nature; we should feel

that our external circumstances and our own svabhAva come from the paramAtmA and

thus see our duties as a worship of the paramAtmA; whenever we do our duties

towards anyone, we should remember that the paramAtmA is the real bhoktA and

thus should feel that we are directly interacting with the paramAtmA when

performing these duties; whenever our mind is atracted by any beauty,

magnificence, greatness in anything in the world, we should remember that any

such greatness is included in the Cosmic Form of the paramAtmA and that the

greatness is a reflection of the paramAtmA alone. There is of course a lot more.

 

This is my understanding of this topic. I look forward to reading more members

opinions on this very important matter.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

What we read, learn, and know can be completely at odds with how we live. You

can quote the scriptures at length and be a rascal at heart - the two have very

often little to do with each other.

 

This is because being aware about the self being Brahman is not necessarily the

same thing as being established in the awareness that IS Brahman. See how Ma

Shruti in the Kena Upanishad tries to express herself in this regard:

 

'Student: " I do not think I know It well, nor do I think I do not know It. He

among us who knows the meaning of " Neither do I not know, nor do I

know " & #8722;knows Brahman!

 

He by whom Brahman is not known, knows It; he by whom It is known, knows It not.

It is not known by those who know It; It is known by those who do not know It.'

 

In the schema of vedanta there are only two paths - the path of yoga for

attaining fitness for the teaching and the path of nivrtti or renunciation of

karma in order to gain abidance in the knowledge obtained from the teaching.

 

We can think of our lives as people waiting at a airport terminal. Only problem

is we dont know the time of departure of our flight and the destination.

 

And just like travellers, we fritter away the time by occupying ourselves with

various mundane activities - browsing through the terminal at leisure - we make

an acquaintance or two, get some work done, consume some food, and do some

shopping, and watch some TV or the news, and daydream. It is in this situation

that we obtain from a benevolent Guru the ticket called Vedanta? What is this

ticker? It is that which gives us the crucial information about the flight and

destination - no longer are we waiting for the Vaikuntha flight or the Pearly

gate flight etc etc. Not only that we are also told that nothing that we buy in

that terminal, none of our baggage, is going to be allowed on flight? What are

we supposed to do with that knowledge? Drop whatever it is that we are doing,

drop all our temporary belongings, bid goodbye to our temporary acquaintances,

and rush to catch the flight " home " .

 

How effectively we do this depends on so many factors - how caught up are we in

our terminal activities and with our terminal acquaintances, how utterly are we

tired of the activities at the terminal, how convinced we are that the terminal

is not our home, how reliable do we consider the flight-ticket information to be

and most importantly how urgently do we wish to reach our destination - our

permanent originl " real " home - the abode of the Self.

 

Unfortunately for us, if we miss this flight, the flight of Lord Yama can come

at anytime, and that truly would be terminal! Because we dont know when the next

time we have the fortune of landing at a terminal from where the flight of

Self-knowledge can take off.

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , anupam srivatsav <anupam.srivatsav wrote:

>

> Dear All,

>

> There seems to be a great chasm between what we read and how we live.

> For example, we talk that every thing is Brahman and Brahman only. It

> is all intellectual knowledge; not of experience. How to bridge it

> exactly?

> With regards,

> Anupam.

>

[Guest guest]

> >

> > Dear All,

> >

> > There seems to be a great chasm between what we read and how we live.

> > For example, we talk that every thing is Brahman and Brahman only. It

> > is all intellectual knowledge; not of experience. How to bridge it

> > exactly?

> > With regards,

> > Anupam.

> >

>Let us examine knowledge and its functions as well as its capacities and

dimensions. Knowledge requires a platform to operate, which called language. As

a beginning, will it not be easy to explore what we speak and write? How do we

acquire linguistic skills? Is not the word an abstract entity all by itself?

Finally, are we using the word or used by it?

To think of thinking is the need of the day, but do we know what thinking is or

do away by the process itself? Word is a window to its knowledge and feelings

generated. The teacher and taught, without two elements there is neither

education nor the world we visualize. The same gap is from word to real, since

the word apple is not real, so the gap is the problem. To solve this problem are

we not creating innumerable problems? Simply we say that the problem lies in

ones own perception, alternatively the world we experience.

Do we aware of the functioning of linguistic patterns or just carried away by

presumptions and assumptions, which are part of linguistic ideology? It is

surprising to note that all philosophical statements are logical derivations.

Logic based on two, one is constant and the other is variable. Out of these we

derive, the third, which is a name, imposed on real. Name – its image – feeling

– idea, the steps we call functioning of language. Linguistic operation is three

dimensional in its volume, directional, and dynamic in its character. Is it not

the whole of the intellect, which we carry all the time with different names,

such as mind, heart, consciousness, inner world etc?

Knowledge is the outcome of interactive principle which is result oriented in

its conceptual form. Therefore, concept drives humans to its result. However

voluminous in its stature and predictive in its character still it is partial

and indirect by its nature. The relational arrangement between nouns – verb –

tense is the relational attitude between subject and object. This relation may

be rational or irrational. Opposites ingrained in language, so pessimism verses

optimism, order – disorder, theism – atheism, and so on rooted in language but

not anywhere in nature. Essentially languages constructed for memorizing past

events and experiences so to refine them in present. Even the refined state of

consciousness is inadequate to meet the present. Therefore, there is continuous

strife for better knowledge in the world in which we live. By its very

inception, knowledge is divisive phenomena hence can offer division only. It is

the witness to its own activity, which is the reason of its expansion. These are

the grounding factors for conceivable reality and experience. Memory is past and

functioning in present and projects the future project.

It is clear that the trio KNOWER – KNOWN – KNOWLEDGE is all past and time bound.

If there is no transformation to intelligence, this knowledge remains a mere

tin. Formulas require explanation. Explanation may be in the shape of a song,

dance, and drama but there is every chance of deriving mythical ideology, so to

save from this kind of diversions, there is philosophical enquiry. Enquiry is

full of logic, which is based on mathematics, when not used in conjunction of

subject, express disastrous and conflicting statement

Knowledge is a cluster of statements. Essence of accumulated knowledge is called

as intuition, which instigate, HOW? Word as is an image and its produced image

is mounted upon primary image. Two lifeless images are interacting because of

sound.

The whole of thought process depends on calculation. Movement of thought is

calculation, but only factual but not real. Natural intelligence is covered by

accrued intellect like fire is covered by smoke, mirror is covered by dust, but

smoke is taken for granted as fire. Since there is no clear distinction between

factuality and reality, all suffocated ideas are expressed as real. Ignorance

verses intelligence, these two opposites are responsible for tons of literature.

Phenomenal approach to language may solve problems since it deals with what we

see, hear, feel etc in contrast to what may be real and true about the world we

feel and live.

We have to bear in mind that we are exploring virtual world, otherwise known as

linguistic knowledge, which has a fraction of relation with the real. This

relation is only with image, which we get out of sound. Sound and touch are the

basic ingredients to formulate a picture. Our so-called mind is nothing but the

analysis of these pictures. Here we are not going to propose any new idea or

concept but investigating the gifted knowledge from our ancestors and trying to

find out its relative strength, which we inherit as a language. So let us begin

with our own mother tongue, which we learn in the form of a song, story, an

epic, or sayings, which stand as a translator throughout the rest of our lives.

We call this translator as mind, heart, etc. We live in a pluralistic world

which in fact is not real but a virtual one, which is also called MAYA

(Sanskrit).

Belief plays a vital role in our lives, without which, we cannot even imagine.

Thus, derived imagination is the stepping-stone for entire human activity.

Language is not as simple as it appears to be. Arranged relation between sound

and symbol and their picture is thought and its provocation, now the question is

whether it would be possible to examine this invisible provocation? If with

what?

Relation with a mirror is the same with a language. Whatever formulae, theories,

explanations, and concepts thus derived are only limited to those images which

help our movement both inside and outside. Habituated to live in a conceptual

environment, without which we feel homeless. Yet we talk of mukthi, moksha,

freedom etc. This we may call self-deception. Education through a language

advocated since eons. Veda (Sanskrit) means to know and this functions over two,

one is (memory) smrithi and the other is sruthi (order of sound) but both are

invisible. Therefore, there are different names for the outcome of combinations

and permutations. Unfortunately, we hang on to these names. All invisible

feelings are generated in-between two images, one is of self and the other is of

the object, and the activity continues forever until there is true enquiry. Then

only knowledge acquired can function in a sane order.

KUMARILA BHATTU (Vedic exponent) said that words convey their own meanings, not

related to something else. Descriptive sentences are significant. Sentence

meaning as composed of separate word meanings held together in a relational

structure. Word meaning formed is the simplest unit of sense. Persons thus learn

the meaning of words by seeing others talking as well as from advice of elders.

MANDAN MISRA said that phenomenal distinctions are unreal and appearance of

immutable word essence.

K LANGER said that language is only means of articulating thought. Essential act

of thought is symbolization. World of humans made of symbol and its meaning.

PRABHAKARA said that all knowledge is verbal which is inferential in its

character.

HUXLEY said that we sin by attributing concrete significance to meaningless

pseudo knowledge as real understanding. We are amphibians living simultaneously

in the world of experience and the world of notions.

SANKHYA PHILOSOPHY explains that the language is the base of intellectual games

we play with ourselves. It is responsible for the division of SEER – SEEN which

is an egocentric ideology. This virtual reality is the cause and its effect of

illusion.

PATANJALI YOGA describes that two different feelings like pain and pleasure

never occur simultaneously. Inference we derive out of a paragraph is only

feeling.

POORVA MEEMAMSA said every symbol is a picture and its experience is SEER.

Entire linguistic pattern is only indicative. So the index and indicated are

images. Combinations of several meanings of words are the meaning of a

paragraph.

GOUDAPADA (mandookya karikalu) explained that cause and its effect are

interdependent and prone to change.

SANKARA Acharya said that group of symbols is a word and expression of these

words is creation. However, mature logical ideology may be still it is partial

and different from the real. Negation of all psychological impressions is to be

wise.

PANINI (Creator of Sanskrit grammar) warned to check phonetics to understand the

cause of difference in time. Sound is traveling in the human body in the shape

of symbol. Totality of A to Z is self and its practices.

JIDDU KRISHNA MURTHY said that word is not the real thing.

NAGARJUNA said that the experience and reason do not give us genuine knowledge.

RAMANUJA said that we could not prove the existence of an object without

attributing, even in case of self-consciousness and in the object of intuition.

WITTGENSTIEN Main source of our failure to understand is that we do not command

a clear view of the use of our words.

VIDYARANYA (panchadasi) Because of verbal sounds we get pictures of existing

objects and a doubt. This happens even when there is no object.

What we are destroying is the house of cards and clearing the ground on which

they stand. Philosophy does not result in propositions, but rather in clarifying

them. The end of language is the end of human world.

 

Thank you

sekhar