A perspective -1

[Guest guest]

1. What is success?

 

Normally success is measured in terms of one’s achievement. It is said that

success comes before work only in the dictionary. Hence every success involves

hard work. One wants to acquire good education that secures good job and that

gives more opportunities to become more successful in future. The one who is

most successful is the one who has the most of everything that all others desire

– a good education, a secure high paying job, with all the personal relations

with all other beings, exactly the way one wants. Like in fairy tales, he lives

happily ever after. Unfortunately, every set-up changes continuously and that is

the law of nature. All set-ups are not necessarily conducive for ones likes and

dislikes. The changing set-up can always up-set the metal frame of a person,

even though he is successful in terms of his accomplishments.

 

Listen to any parent – the success of his child is seen in every

accomplishment, in gaining that is worthy to gain. His success is connected to

the success of his child. He first feels that the child is successful if he gets

first rank. Then the next success depends on his securing an admission in very

good university, then his completion of his studies with high rank, then getting

a job in prestigious company. That is not settling yet. Then, he feels his son

is completely settled once he is married. Indian parents proudly declare that

all their children are ‘settled now’. What it means, as any parent can

explain, is all the daughters are married and now ‘settled’, - and all the

boys are ‘settled’ with secure jobs and married, etc. All his children are

settled but he is not settled yet. Now all he wants is to have grand children;

with the cycle that starts again; their school admission, their education, their

marriages, etc. Hence, none

feels at any time, he is completely settled with what he has. None is happy

with what he has; but always wants something more to settle – complete

settlement is where there is no more longing for the mind to have anything else

in order to settle. Wanting mind will never settles down with having what it

wanted, since the wanting mind keeps moving forward at a faster pace with some

more wanting than settling down with having fulfilled what it wanted before.

 

‘Having’ is living in the present, while ‘wanting’ is to achieve

something in future. ‘Owning’ is identifying with what one is having as

one’s own. In the same way, renouncing is also some kind of notion of owning,

since one has to own in order to renounce. Thus it involves renouncing the

ownership of things, which one never really owns, to begin with. The true

renunciation is not renunciation of things, but renunciation of the notion of

ownership. The wanting keeps shifting to the future all the time without

settling down with the present. One wants to want, than just settled with what

one has. Thus wanting mind never settles with just having. On the same token any

statement that renunciation of external things is needed for one to realize one

own self implies inherently ownership of things that one never owns.

 

Nobody is happy with what he has or what he has achieved. He is happy, of

course, when others envy what he has or others long for what he has. He can

measure his success in counting what he has in relation to others who do not

have and would want to have what he has. Yet, that is not where the mind can

settle down and say I have no more wants since I am happy with what I have. I

am happy with what I have, but I will be happier if I have this, this, and this,

which I do not have. Wanting mind is the desiring mind and scripture says

feeding the mind by what it wants is like pouring ghee to put out the fire. The

wanting mind includes those that one wants to have and also those that one wants

to get rid off. These in the language of Vedanta are called as Vaasanas or likes

and dislikes.

 

The wanting mind can never settled down with what it has, unless it has, of

course, everything in the universe and there is nothing left to want. That means

having infinite that is Brahman, the limitless. However, finite being can never

achieve or acquire infinite by adding finite things. That is mathematically

illogical. Thus the problem can never be solved since wanting mind remains all

the time wanting. It is a useless advice to ask the mind not to want more, since

that feeling of inadequacy and wanting to be adequate is natural and instinctive

too.

 

The reason is simple. The wanting is the very nature of the ego. Ego arises by

identification with what I have, with automatic exclusion of what I do not have

that I want to have, to feel that I am an adequate being. This forms the

fundamental human struggle; nay the struggle of every being in the universe;

from the first born (hiranya garbha) to the blade of grass, says Shree Sureswara

in his introduction to Naiskarmya siddhi.

 

Hence, what one has represents the present state. Future is where one is heading

with his - wants to have this and that. Wanting mind is the one which longs to

have this and that in the future, and gains a measure of success in achieving

what it wants. Achieving puts the man with the present as having what one

wanted. However, the mind never settles down in the present with what one has;

hence it wants all that it still does not have; the struggle continues till

death. Nay, it continues ever after death. Even if one goes to heaven the

problem continues. In Tai. Up., it says, in its amicable style, that there are

three different colonies even in heaven, just like here, the slums, the middle

class and the hierarchically elate class. Shankara says, the slum class

residents are those who reached there by noble deeds prescribed by smRiti texts,

the next higher class is those who reached there by following the righteous

actions prescribed by Shrutis, and of

course the elate class are the natives who hold very important positions like

MP and ministers etc – they are supposed to be 33 of them. They do not have

any ministers without portfolio. They deal with the God on the first name basis.

Each one is 100 times happier than the fellow down the next level. Happiest

person is, of course, the first born, hiranya garbha, whose happy scale is 10 to

the power of 23 times that of ideal happy human youth who is owner of entire

earth with all the yellow and black gold resources at his disposal. But no one

is happy, they are happier than the fellow who is below their rank or below what

they have achieved. Every one falling in this happy scale has egotistical

happiness, since happiness depends on what one has in relation to what others do

not have and like to have. Actually everyone is only happier but no one is

happy, since everyone is still left with a wanting mind that wants to want.

 

It is interesting to note that those who do not have and those who have, both

are not happy. Some people do not have anything not by choice, while some do

not have by choice – shotriyasya akaamaya tasya. Some want to gain happiness

by acquiring what they do not have. Others want to gain the happiness by

renouncing what they have. They quote scriptures that say that one has to

renounce every thing to realize one is infinite or the interpretations of the

scriptures that says so – tyagenaike amRitatvamaanasuH. The fundamental

problem remains. Happy state is state of limitlessness where there is no more

wanting mind. A finite mind cannot but WANT in order to be happy or to reach

that infiniteness or limitlessness. Finite can never reach infinite either by

adding or subtracting finite things. On the other hand, the pursuit to reach

the infinite does not stop and cannot stop until the wanting mind ceases to

want.

 

Thus there is a fundamental problem in all these – not happy with what it is

– and having wanting mind that wants to want – be it absolute happy state by

renunciation or wanting to reach that absolute happiness by trying to acquire

everything in the universe. These are two sides of the same coin. The longing

mind remains in both. Both are not happy with what it is. Present is always

perceived as the stepping stone for the coming future. It is a transitory state

or a passage for the future happy and absolute state. Unfortunately future never

comes. There is no bridge from the present to the future, since future is just a

segment of mental projection.

 

Thus, we have fundamentally two overriding factors: longing to achieve absolute

happiness and not relative happiness, or being fully adequate all the time,

which is very intrinsic nature of all beings. Not to have that wanting mind is

not the solution since it is the intrinsic nature of the limited mind. Hence

neither renunciation of what it is (the present state), or what one has, is the

solution to the problem. In either case, the wanting mind remains wanting and

not happy with what it is, since there is a desire to become something other

than what it is. This is also what JK calls it as conditioned mind. A mind

conditioned to look for or to want for things that make one to be absolutely

happy. Unconditioning is not a process since any process reconditions in some

form. Solution to this desperate problem is to recognize the problem correctly.

This is what Krishna calls the solution as sanyaasa yoga – what Gurudev Swami

Chinmayanandaji translates it

as detachment-attachment technique. It is an oxymoron to solve a problem, which

cannot be solved by any process. This does not include either sanyaasa or yoga,

but sanyaasa-yoga that involves seeing what it is. What it is – is present and

not what one wants it to be. It is neither by not wanting what it is, since both

are wants to want something other than what it is. True sanyaasa is not

renunciation of things that one owns, but it is the renunciation of the very

notion of ownership. It involves the recognition that I never own anything.

This is true sharaNaagati or a complete surrendering of the wanting mind to the

infinite wisdom. In the process, the wanting mind ceases to be wanting, since it

rests with that infinite mind that pervades everything as His vibhuuti. In the

sanyaasa of giving up the wanting mind to the infinite, one gains the yoga (of

or with) the infinite - the essence of sanyaasa-yoga. The complete surrender

involves

identification with the totality where the individuality ceases to be separate

for it to want any thing separate from the infinite. It is the same as knowing

that I own everything or the whole universe of things and beings, and therefore

wanting mind that wants is no more wanting, since there is nothing more to want.

The notional wanting mind ceases to be in the unity of the totality that

underlies the plurality.

 

I am - is the present, not an entity in the future, with something that I want

my self to be, either by gaining or by achieving or by getting rid of or

sanyaasa of what I have. Sanyaasa in the sanyaasa-yoga involves renunciation of

not what I have but renunciation of the very notion of separate ownership and

the associated renunciation of the wanting mind which always wants to want,

through yoga or by shifting my attention to that the enlivening presence because

of which the inert mind dances to its wants. It is ‘as though’ yoking the

mind to the very existence-consciousness because of which I am conscious of the

wanting mind that wants to want things that I do not possess, or that wants to

renounce things that I possess. By being conscious of the very wanting mind that

wants to want or wants to renounce what one has, one is beyond the wanting mind

or beyond the longing for something in the future that never comes. That is the

same as being the

witnessing consciousness or saakshii by renouncing all mental misconceptions of

ownerships those results, in both wanting things and in renouncing things. Here

sanyaasa is not renunciation of things but renunciation of notional ownership to

the things that one never owned. It is true, that external renunciation can

help in this internal renunciation of the notional ownership. However, to say

that it is essential, I am giving notional ownership more reality that what it

is. The true sanyaasa is mental detachment to the notion of ownerships, and

attaching or abiding oneself as the very existence-conscious entity that I am.

That is the essence of SharaNaagati. In that very understanding, the wanting

mind itself gets resolved, since it can exists only as long as the conscious

entity which enlivens it by identifying with it and with its limitations. It

survives as long as there is an identification with the wanting mind as - I am

the mind - continues

irrespective of whether external changes I do at the physical level. One cannot

renounce notional ownership by a process. It can be done only by clear

understanding that there is no reality for notional ownership of things and

beings.

 

It can be only achieved by recognition that I am – is complete by itself –

without any need of the wanting mind that wants things that one does not have,

or renouncing things that one has. It is recognition that I am full and complete

by myself with recognition that I do not own anything even to renounce or I own

everything since I am that everything. ‘aham annam, aham annam, aham annam -

aham annado aham annado aham annado is the screaming song of a realized master

– I am all that which is consumed or desired and I all that who is consuming

or desiring – I am that which is supported, and I am all that which supports

everything – in essence there is nothing that is separate from me – I am the

desirer and the desired– I am all that, yet beyond all that –I am

immaculately pure with neither desire nor desired – I am that I am without a

second - the very living present which transcends time, since there is no time

in the present, as it is

the meeting ground where past meets the future. What is there in the present is

not the time-gap but that which transcends the time itself – where there is

only the very presence of the existence-consciousness that I am. Now - alone is

that which counts, and is that where one truly lives, or in that only all

experiences takes place, but that which is beyond any experience itself – that

beyond any sanyaasa or yoga. Wanting mind dissolves into the very presence in

that present, since there is no more wanting in it which relates to future. What

is there is only MY PRSENCE – AS I AM with simultaneous recognition that I AM

is the essence of the world too, the things and beings that I wanted, since I AM

is the infinite presence that pervades both the mind that wants and the wants

that mind wants.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadanandaji,

 

Namaskar.

 

You have written a magnificent article. Indeed you have answered the very

questions that are occupying my mind lately. However, sometimes I find in

all such discussions, the role of Maya and her tremendous bewitching power

is generally avoided. An example of Totapuri, the teacher of Advaita sadhana

to Sri Ramakrishna also could not get rid of maya in spite of his

phenomenal achievement ( I know this is a wrong word, as you would say there

is nothing to achieve) of the Advaita experience, comes to my mind.

 

In fact , despite, a lot of wonderful and convincing explanations, pure

Advaita, to me, remains a distant dream , as life has to be lived here and

now. In this here and now, the attack of maya can be ferocious. Some say,

surrender to Mayashakti. I have never understood what it means. Wiill you

please, kindly advise the role of Maya ? Tahnks again for the great article.

 

Warmly,

Dilip

 

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:03 AM, kuntimaddi sadananda <

kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

>

>

>

> 1. What is success?

>

> Normally success is measured in terms of one’s achievement. It is said that

> success comes before work only in the dictionary. Hence every success

> involves hard work. One wants to acquire good education that secures good

> job and that gives more opportunities to become more successful in future.

> The one who is most successful is the one who has the most of everything

> that all others desire – a good education, a secure high paying job, with

> all the personal relations with all other beings, exactly the way one wants.

> Like in fairy tales, he lives happily ever after. Unfortunately, every

> set-up changes continuously and that is the law of nature. All set-ups are

> not necessarily conducive for ones likes and dislikes. The changing set-up

> can always up-set the metal frame of a person, even though he is successful

> in terms of his accomplishments.

>

> Listen to any parent – the success of his child is seen in every

> accomplishment, in gaining that is worthy to gain. His success is connected

> to the success of his child. He first feels that the child is successful if

> he gets first rank. Then the next success depends on his securing an

> admission in very good university, then his completion of his studies with

> high rank, then getting a job in prestigious company. That is not settling

> yet. Then, he feels his son is completely settled once he is married. Indian

> parents proudly declare that all their children are ‘settled now’. What it

> means, as any parent can explain, is all the daughters are married and now

> ‘settled’, - and all the boys are ‘settled’ with secure jobs and married,

> etc. All his children are settled but he is not settled yet. Now all he

> wants is to have grand children; with the cycle that starts again; their

> school admission, their education, their marriages, etc. Hence, none

> feels at any time, he is completely settled with what he has. None is happy

> with what he has; but always wants something more to settle – complete

> settlement is where there is no more longing for the mind to have anything

> else in order to settle. Wanting mind will never settles down with having

> what it wanted, since the wanting mind keeps moving forward at a faster pace

> with some more wanting than settling down with having fulfilled what it

> wanted before.

>

> ‘Having’ is living in the present, while ‘wanting’ is to achieve something

> in future. ‘Owning’ is identifying with what one is having as one’s own. In

> the same way, renouncing is also some kind of notion of owning, since one

> has to own in order to renounce. Thus it involves renouncing the ownership

> of things, which one never really owns, to begin with. The true renunciation

> is not renunciation of things, but renunciation of the notion of ownership.

> The wanting keeps shifting to the future all the time without settling down

> with the present. One wants to want, than just settled with what one has.

> Thus wanting mind never settles with just having. On the same token any

> statement that renunciation of external things is needed for one to realize

> one own self implies inherently ownership of things that one never owns.

>

> Nobody is happy with what he has or what he has achieved. He is happy, of

> course, when others envy what he has or others long for what he has. He can

> measure his success in counting what he has in relation to others who do not

> have and would want to have what he has. Yet, that is not where the mind can

> settle down and say I have no more wants since I am happy with what I have.

> I am happy with what I have, but I will be happier if I have this, this, and

> this, which I do not have. Wanting mind is the desiring mind and scripture

> says feeding the mind by what it wants is like pouring ghee to put out the

> fire. The wanting mind includes those that one wants to have and also those

> that one wants to get rid off. These in the language of Vedanta are called

> as Vaasanas or likes and dislikes.

>

> The wanting mind can never settled down with what it has, unless it has, of

> course, everything in the universe and there is nothing left to want. That

> means having infinite that is Brahman, the limitless. However, finite being

> can never achieve or acquire infinite by adding finite things. That is

> mathematically illogical. Thus the problem can never be solved since wanting

> mind remains all the time wanting. It is a useless advice to ask the mind

> not to want more, since that feeling of inadequacy and wanting to be

> adequate is natural and instinctive too.

>

> The reason is simple. The wanting is the very nature of the ego. Ego arises

> by identification with what I have, with automatic exclusion of what I do

> not have that I want to have, to feel that I am an adequate being. This

> forms the fundamental human struggle; nay the struggle of every being in the

> universe; from the first born (hiranya garbha) to the blade of grass, says

> Shree Sureswara in his introduction to Naiskarmya siddhi.

>

> Hence, what one has represents the present state. Future is where one is

> heading with his - wants to have this and that. Wanting mind is the one

> which longs to have this and that in the future, and gains a measure of

> success in achieving what it wants. Achieving puts the man with the present

> as having what one wanted. However, the mind never settles down in the

> present with what one has; hence it wants all that it still does not have;

> the struggle continues till death. Nay, it continues ever after death. Even

> if one goes to heaven the problem continues. In Tai. Up., it says, in its

> amicable style, that there are three different colonies even in heaven, just

> like here, the slums, the middle class and the hierarchically elate class.

> Shankara says, the slum class residents are those who reached there by noble

> deeds prescribed by smRiti texts, the next higher class is those who reached

> there by following the righteous actions prescribed by Shrutis, and of

> course the elate class are the natives who hold very important positions

> like MP and ministers etc – they are supposed to be 33 of them. They do not

> have any ministers without portfolio. They deal with the God on the first

> name basis. Each one is 100 times happier than the fellow down the next

> level. Happiest person is, of course, the first born, hiranya garbha, whose

> happy scale is 10 to the power of 23 times that of ideal happy human youth

> who is owner of entire earth with all the yellow and black gold resources at

> his disposal. But no one is happy, they are happier than the fellow who is

> below their rank or below what they have achieved. Every one falling in this

> happy scale has egotistical happiness, since happiness depends on what one

> has in relation to what others do not have and like to have. Actually

> everyone is only happier but no one is happy, since everyone is still left

> with a wanting mind that wants to want.

>

> It is interesting to note that those who do not have and those who have,

> both are not happy. Some people do not have anything not by choice, while

> some do not have by choice – shotriyasya akaamaya tasya. Some want to gain

> happiness by acquiring what they do not have. Others want to gain the

> happiness by renouncing what they have. They quote scriptures that say that

> one has to renounce every thing to realize one is infinite or the

> interpretations of the scriptures that says so – tyagenaike

> amRitatvamaanasuH. The fundamental problem remains. Happy state is state of

> limitlessness where there is no more wanting mind. A finite mind cannot but

> WANT in order to be happy or to reach that infiniteness or limitlessness.

> Finite can never reach infinite either by adding or subtracting finite

> things. On the other hand, the pursuit to reach the infinite does not stop

> and cannot stop until the wanting mind ceases to want.

>

> Thus there is a fundamental problem in all these – not happy with what it

> is – and having wanting mind that wants to want – be it absolute happy state

> by renunciation or wanting to reach that absolute happiness by trying to

> acquire everything in the universe. These are two sides of the same coin.

> The longing mind remains in both. Both are not happy with what it is.

> Present is always perceived as the stepping stone for the coming future. It

> is a transitory state or a passage for the future happy and absolute state.

> Unfortunately future never comes. There is no bridge from the present to the

> future, since future is just a segment of mental projection.

>

> Thus, we have fundamentally two overriding factors: longing to achieve

> absolute happiness and not relative happiness, or being fully adequate all

> the time, which is very intrinsic nature of all beings. Not to have that

> wanting mind is not the solution since it is the intrinsic nature of the

> limited mind. Hence neither renunciation of what it is (the present state),

> or what one has, is the solution to the problem. In either case, the wanting

> mind remains wanting and not happy with what it is, since there is a desire

> to become something other than what it is. This is also what JK calls it as

> conditioned mind. A mind conditioned to look for or to want for things that

> make one to be absolutely happy. Unconditioning is not a process since any

> process reconditions in some form. Solution to this desperate problem is to

> recognize the problem correctly. This is what Krishna calls the solution as

> sanyaasa yoga – what Gurudev Swami Chinmayanandaji translates it

> as detachment-attachment technique. It is an oxymoron to solve a problem,

> which cannot be solved by any process. This does not include either sanyaasa

> or yoga, but sanyaasa-yoga that involves seeing what it is. What it is – is

> present and not what one wants it to be. It is neither by not wanting what

> it is, since both are wants to want something other than what it is. True

> sanyaasa is not renunciation of things that one owns, but it is the

> renunciation of the very notion of ownership. It involves the recognition

> that I never own anything. This is true sharaNaagati or a complete

> surrendering of the wanting mind to the infinite wisdom. In the process, the

> wanting mind ceases to be wanting, since it rests with that infinite mind

> that pervades everything as His vibhuuti. In the sanyaasa of giving up the

> wanting mind to the infinite, one gains the yoga (of or with) the infinite -

> the essence of sanyaasa-yoga. The complete surrender involves

> identification with the totality where the individuality ceases to be

> separate for it to want any thing separate from the infinite. It is the same

> as knowing that I own everything or the whole universe of things and beings,

> and therefore wanting mind that wants is no more wanting, since there is

> nothing more to want. The notional wanting mind ceases to be in the unity of

> the totality that underlies the plurality.

>

> I am - is the present, not an entity in the future, with something that I

> want my self to be, either by gaining or by achieving or by getting rid of

> or sanyaasa of what I have. Sanyaasa in the sanyaasa-yoga involves

> renunciation of not what I have but renunciation of the very notion of

> separate ownership and the associated renunciation of the wanting mind which

> always wants to want, through yoga or by shifting my attention to that the

> enlivening presence because of which the inert mind dances to its wants. It

> is ‘as though’ yoking the mind to the very existence-consciousness because

> of which I am conscious of the wanting mind that wants to want things that I

> do not possess, or that wants to renounce things that I possess. By being

> conscious of the very wanting mind that wants to want or wants to renounce

> what one has, one is beyond the wanting mind or beyond the longing for

> something in the future that never comes. That is the same as being the

> witnessing consciousness or saakshii by renouncing all mental

> misconceptions of ownerships those results, in both wanting things and in

> renouncing things. Here sanyaasa is not renunciation of things but

> renunciation of notional ownership to the things that one never owned. It is

> true, that external renunciation can help in this internal renunciation of

> the notional ownership. However, to say that it is essential, I am giving

> notional ownership more reality that what it is. The true sanyaasa is mental

> detachment to the notion of ownerships, and attaching or abiding oneself as

> the very existence-conscious entity that I am. That is the essence of

> SharaNaagati. In that very understanding, the wanting mind itself gets

> resolved, since it can exists only as long as the conscious entity which

> enlivens it by identifying with it and with its limitations. It survives as

> long as there is an identification with the wanting mind as - I am the mind

> - continues

> irrespective of whether external changes I do at the physical level. One

> cannot renounce notional ownership by a process. It can be done only by

> clear understanding that there is no reality for notional ownership of

> things and beings.

>

> It can be only achieved by recognition that I am – is complete by itself –

> without any need of the wanting mind that wants things that one does not

> have, or renouncing things that one has. It is recognition that I am full

> and complete by myself with recognition that I do not own anything even to

> renounce or I own everything since I am that everything. ‘aham annam, aham

> annam, aham annam - aham annado aham annado aham annado is the screaming

> song of a realized master – I am all that which is consumed or desired and I

> all that who is consuming or desiring – I am that which is supported, and I

> am all that which supports everything – in essence there is nothing that is

> separate from me – I am the desirer and the desired– I am all that, yet

> beyond all that –I am immaculately pure with neither desire nor desired – I

> am that I am without a second - the very living present which transcends

> time, since there is no time in the present, as it is

> the meeting ground where past meets the future. What is there in the

> present is not the time-gap but that which transcends the time itself –

> where there is only the very presence of the existence-consciousness that I

> am. Now - alone is that which counts, and is that where one truly lives, or

> in that only all experiences takes place, but that which is beyond any

> experience itself – that beyond any sanyaasa or yoga. Wanting mind dissolves

> into the very presence in that present, since there is no more wanting in it

> which relates to future. What is there is only MY PRSENCE – AS I AM with

> simultaneous recognition that I AM is the essence of the world too, the

> things and beings that I wanted, since I AM is the infinite presence that

> pervades both the mind that wants and the wants that mind wants.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Julie - PraNAms

 

Thanks for your kind words.

 

You have asked very practical questions.

 

Let us say I stand in front of big hotel that I am staying there for few days

and say - I own this hotel. Looking at me, some may think that I am a gone case

or some people may even believe and may complain or complement in terms of the

hotel facilities.

 

Now what makes me an owner and what makes me not an owner. A peace of paper

with stamp of approval by the local govt. that say I own the place. If the paper

is worthless, I may think I own the hotel but no body cares and everybody will

disposes of me as a nuisance. This happened to many who ran leaving their houses

they thought they owned when Idi Amin of Uganda President ruthless kicked

everybody out of the country.

 

But when I am residing in the hotel, as a paying guest, I can utilize the space

and say this is my room (even though temporary) and the other room is not mine,

etc., knowing very well after my time is over I have to leave the hotel

unceremoniously not taking the room that was mine with me.

 

The ownership of the room is for transactional purposes as long as I have clear

understanding I am a paying guest with doos and don't that I have to follow and

leave the house as decent as I got it in the first place.

 

We are here for the short time of 100 years, a minute faction in the

astronomical time scale. We can say this is my house these are my children and

these are my things - my towels my soap etc - as long as I am living in this

ten-star hotel. The accommodation is provided based on my credit balance - hotel

in a slim area or a luxury hotel - depending on my merit/demerit balance. Now do

I really own anything from the bricks to the matter to the space that is being

occupied? Yet for the purpose of transactions, I am allowed to say that I own it

for the purpose of transactions.

 

Hence the ownership is understood correctly that I do not really own anything in

this universe including the body that is being given for my use (not abuse),

then I can intelligently live without getting in my mind that I really own all

the things that I am occupying.

 

Shankara says - kate kaataa kaste putraH, samsaroya atiiva vichitraH - who is

wife and who are these children, Samsaraa is wonder - I am claiming they are

mine while no one really belongs to me. I take care of them as a trustee - but

when the time comes, I have to leave behind everything including wife and

children etc. Now who owns what? Live the game of life where loving everything

in the world as the cosmic drama of life. When the scene changes the characters

change and role change. That is the truth of life and truth of the so-called

ownership too.

 

When I am paying guest in a hotel and if somebody else comes and tries to occupy

my room, I do complain to the management and make sure that my rights are

protected. There is no real ownership in these.

 

If I can operate with the same understanding then I am detached but at the same

time very efficient in my transactions.

 

Only way to keep the head above the water is constant reflection of my purpose

of why I am staying in this hotel so that I do not get lost in thinking that

this is mine and that is yours, other than for temporal transactional

convenience. That is what mananam and nidhidhyaasanam involves.

 

Hope this helps

 

I have corrected Monica's email.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

>

> Comments and Questions:

>

> To clarify; if ego arises by identification with what I

> have, with automatic exclusion of what I do not have that I

> want to have, to feel that I am an adequate being, then –

> suggesting that I should not compare my “insides†with

> others “outsides†is necessary and to work on being

> content with Who I AM instead of what I have or don’t have

> is key correct? 

>

> I find it extremely difficult to drop the notion of

> ownership on a continual basis my “set-up†requires

> duties to be performed in work/household  and they are

> to be met by me and by me alone in some instances.  If

> I don’t recognize what the goal is and identify to some

> degree with it….how can I meet my obligation? 

>

> If you say I should renounce the notion of ownership, 

> do I not still own the obligation to fulfill a particularly

> duty

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

 

 

1. What is success?

 

Normally success is measured in terms of one’s achievement. It is said that

success comes before work only in the dictionary. Hence every success involves

hard work. One wants to acquire good education that secures good job and that

gives more opportunities to become more successful in future. The one who is

most successful is the one who has the most of everything that all others desire

†" a good education, a secure high paying job, with all the personal relations

with all other beings, exactly the way one wants. Like in fairy tales, he lives

happily ever after. Unfortunately, every set-up changes continuously and that is

the law of nature. All set-ups are not necessarily conducive for ones likes and

dislikes. The changing set-up can always up-set the metal frame of a person,

even though he is successful in terms of his accomplishments.

 

Listen to any parent †" the success of his child is seen in every

accomplishment, in gaining that is worthy to gain. His success is connected to

the success of his child. He first feels that the child is successful if he gets

first rank. Then the next success depends on his securing an admission in very

good university, then his completion of his studies with high rank, then getting

a job in prestigious company. That is not settling yet. Then, he feels his son

is completely settled once he is married. Indian parents proudly declare that

all their children are ‘settled now’. What it means, as any parent can

explain, is all the daughters are married and now ‘settled’, - and all the

boys are ‘settled’ with secure jobs and married, etc. All his children are

settled but he is not settled yet. Now all he wants is to have grand children;

with the cycle that starts again; their school admission, their education, their

marriages, etc. Hence, none

feels at any time, he is completely settled with what he has. None is happy

with what he has; but always wants something more to settle †" complete

settlement is where there is no more longing for the mind to have anything else

in order to settle. Wanting mind will never settles down with having what it

wanted, since the wanting mind keeps moving forward at a faster pace with some

more wanting than settling down with having fulfilled what it wanted before.

 

‘Having’ is living in the present, while ‘wanting’ is to achieve

something in future. ‘Owning’ is identifying with what one is having as

one’s own. In the same way, renouncing is also some kind of notion of owning,

since one has to own in order to renounce. Thus it involves renouncing the

ownership of things, which one never really owns, to begin with. The true

renunciation is not renunciation of things, but renunciation of the notion of

ownership. The wanting keeps shifting to the future all the time without

settling down with the present. One wants to want, than just settled with what

one has. Thus wanting mind never settles with just having. On the same token any

statement that renunciation of external things is needed for one to realize one

own self implies inherently ownership of things that one never owns.

 

Nobody is happy with what he has or what he has achieved. He is happy, of

course, when others envy what he has or others long for what he has. He can

measure his success in counting what he has in relation to others who do not

have and would want to have what he has. Yet, that is not where the mind can

settle down and say I have no more wants since I am happy with what I have. I

am happy with what I have, but I will be happier if I have this, this, and this,

which I do not have. Wanting mind is the desiring mind and scripture says

feeding the mind by what it wants is like pouring ghee to put out the fire. The

wanting mind includes those that one wants to have and also those that one wants

to get rid off. These in the language of Vedanta are called as Vaasanas or likes

and dislikes.

 

The wanting mind can never settled down with what it has, unless it has, of

course, everything in the universe and there is nothing left to want. That means

having infinite that is Brahman, the limitless. However, finite being can never

achieve or acquire infinite by adding finite things. That is mathematically

illogical. Thus the problem can never be solved since wanting mind remains all

the time wanting. It is a useless advice to ask the mind not to want more, since

that feeling of inadequacy and wanting to be adequate is natural and instinctive

too.

 

The reason is simple. The wanting is the very nature of the ego. Ego arises by

identification with what I have, with automatic exclusion of what I do not have

that I want to have, to feel that I am an adequate being. This forms the

fundamental human struggle; nay the struggle of every being in the universe;

from the first born (hiranya garbha) to the blade of grass, says Shree Sureswara

in his introduction to Naiskarmya siddhi.

 

Hence, what one has represents the present state. Future is where one is heading

with his - wants to have this and that. Wanting mind is the one which longs to

have this and that in the future, and gains a measure of success in achieving

what it wants. Achieving puts the man with the present as having what one

wanted. However, the mind never settles down in the present with what one has;

hence it wants all that it still does not have; the struggle continues till

death. Nay, it continues ever after death. Even if one goes to heaven the

problem continues. In Tai. Up., it says, in its amicable style, that there are

three different colonies even in heaven, just like here, the slums, the middle

class and the hierarchically elate class. Shankara says, the slum class

residents are those who reached there by noble deeds prescribed by smRiti texts,

the next higher class is those who reached there by following the righteous

actions prescribed by Shrutis, and of

course the elate class are the natives who hold very important positions like

MP and ministers etc †" they are supposed to be 33 of them. They do not have

any ministers without portfolio. They deal with the God on the first name basis.

Each one is 100 times happier than the fellow down the next level. Happiest

person is, of course, the first born, hiranya garbha, whose happy scale is 10 to

the power of 23 times that of ideal happy human youth who is owner of entire

earth with all the yellow and black gold resources at his disposal. But no one

is happy, they are happier than the fellow who is below their rank or below what

they have achieved. Every one falling in this happy scale has egotistical

happiness, since happiness depends on what one has in relation to what others do

not have and like to have. Actually everyone is only happier but no one is

happy, since everyone is still left with a wanting mind that wants to want.

 

It is interesting to note that those who do not have and those who have, both

are not happy. Some people do not have anything not by choice, while some do

not have by choice †" shotriyasya akaamaya tasya. Some want to gain happiness

by acquiring what they do not have. Others want to gain the happiness by

renouncing what they have. They quote scriptures that say that one has to

renounce every thing to realize one is infinite or the interpretations of the

scriptures that says so †" tyagenaike amRitatvamaanasuH. The fundamental

problem remains. Happy state is state of limitlessness where there is no more

wanting mind. A finite mind cannot but WANT in order to be happy or to reach

that infiniteness or limitlessness. Finite can never reach infinite either by

adding or subtracting finite things. On the other hand, the pursuit to reach

the infinite does not stop and cannot stop until the wanting mind ceases to

want.

 

Thus there is a fundamental problem in all these †" not happy with what it is

†" and having wanting mind that wants to want †" be it absolute happy state by

renunciation or wanting to reach that absolute happiness by trying to acquire

everything in the universe. These are two sides of the same coin. The longing

mind remains in both. Both are not happy with what it is. Present is always

perceived as the stepping stone for the coming future. It is a transitory state

or a passage for the future happy and absolute state. Unfortunately future never

comes. There is no bridge from the present to the future, since future is just a

segment of mental projection.

 

Thus, we have fundamentally two overriding factors: longing to achieve absolute

happiness and not relative happiness, or being fully adequate all the time,

which is very intrinsic nature of all beings. Not to have that wanting mind is

not the solution since it is the intrinsic nature of the limited mind. Hence

neither renunciation of what it is (the present state), or what one has, is the

solution to the problem. In either case, the wanting mind remains wanting and

not happy with what it is, since there is a desire to become something other

than what it is. This is also what JK calls it as conditioned mind. A mind

conditioned to look for or to want for things that make one to be absolutely

happy. Unconditioning is not a process since any process reconditions in some

form. Solution to this desperate problem is to recognize the problem correctly.

This is what Krishna calls the solution as sanyaasa yoga †" what Gurudev Swami

Chinmayanandaji translates it

as detachment-attachment technique. It is an oxymoron to solve a problem, which

cannot be solved by any process. This does not include either sanyaasa or yoga,

but sanyaasa-yoga that involves seeing what it is. What it is †" is present and

not what one wants it to be. It is neither by not wanting what it is, since both

are wants to want something other than what it is. True sanyaasa is not

renunciation of things that one owns, but it is the renunciation of the very

notion of ownership. It involves the recognition that I never own anything.

This is true sharaNaagati or a complete surrendering of the wanting mind to the

infinite wisdom. In the process, the wanting mind ceases to be wanting, since it

rests with that infinite mind that pervades everything as His vibhuuti. In the

sanyaasa of giving up the wanting mind to the infinite, one gains the yoga (of

or with) the infinite - the essence of sanyaasa-yoga. The complete surrender

involves

identification with the totality where the individuality ceases to be separate

for it to want any thing separate from the infinite. It is the same as knowing

that I own everything or the whole universe of things and beings, and therefore

wanting mind that wants is no more wanting, since there is nothing more to want.

The notional wanting mind ceases to be in the unity of the totality that

underlies the plurality.

 

I am - is the present, not an entity in the future, with something that I want

my self to be, either by gaining or by achieving or by getting rid of or

sanyaasa of what I have. Sanyaasa in the sanyaasa-yoga involves renunciation of

not what I have but renunciation of the very notion of separate ownership and

the associated renunciation of the wanting mind which always wants to want,

through yoga or by shifting my attention to that the enlivening presence because

of which the inert mind dances to its wants. It is ‘as though’ yoking the

mind to the very existence-consciousness because of which I am conscious of the

wanting mind that wants to want things that I do not possess, or that wants to

renounce things that I possess. By being conscious of the very wanting mind that

wants to want or wants to renounce what one has, one is beyond the wanting mind

or beyond the longing for something in the future that never comes. That is the

same as being the

witnessing consciousness or saakshii by renouncing all mental misconceptions of

ownerships those results, in both wanting things and in renouncing things. Here

sanyaasa is not renunciation of things but renunciation of notional ownership to

the things that one never owned. It is true, that external renunciation can

help in this internal renunciation of the notional ownership. However, to say

that it is essential, I am giving notional ownership more reality that what it

is. The true sanyaasa is mental detachment to the notion of ownerships, and

attaching or abiding oneself as the very existence-conscious entity that I am.

That is the essence of SharaNaagati. In that very understanding, the wanting

mind itself gets resolved, since it can exists only as long as the conscious

entity which enlivens it by identifying with it and with its limitations. It

survives as long as there is an identification with the wanting mind as - I am

the mind - continues

irrespective of whether external changes I do at the physical level. One cannot

renounce notional ownership by a process. It can be done only by clear

understanding that there is no reality for notional ownership of things and

beings.

 

It can be only achieved by recognition that I am †" is complete by itself †"

without any need of the wanting mind that wants things that one does not have,

or renouncing things that one has. It is recognition that I am full and complete

by myself with recognition that I do not own anything even to renounce or I own

everything since I am that everything. ‘aham annam, aham annam, aham annam -

aham annado aham annado aham annado is the screaming song of a realized master

†" I am all that which is consumed or desired and I all that who is consuming

or desiring †" I am that which is supported, and I am all that which supports

everything †" in essence there is nothing that is separate from me †" I am the

desirer and the desired†" I am all that, yet beyond all that †" I am

immaculately pure with neither desire nor desired †" I am that I am without a

second - the very living present which transcends time, since there is no time

in the present, as it is

the meeting ground where past meets the future. What is there in the present is

not the time-gap but that which transcends the time itself †" where there is

only the very presence of the existence-consciousness that I am. Now - alone is

that which counts, and is that where one truly lives, or in that only all

experiences takes place, but that which is beyond any experience itself †" that

beyond any sanyaasa or yoga. Wanting mind dissolves into the very presence in

that present, since there is no more wanting in it which relates to future. What

is there is only MY PRSENCE †" AS I AM with simultaneous recognition that I AM

is the essence of the world too, the things and beings that I wanted, since I AM

is the infinite presence that pervades both the mind that wants and the wants

that mind wants.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

 

Julie - PraNAms

 

Thanks for your kind words.

 

You have asked very practical questions.

 

Let us say I stand in front of big hotel that I am staying there for few days

and say - I own this hotel. Looking at me, some may think that I am a gone case

or some people may even believe and may complain or complement in terms of the

hotel facilities.

 

Now what makes me an owner and what makes me not an owner. A peace of paper

with stamp of approval by the local govt. that say I own the place. If the paper

is worthless, I may think I own the hotel but no body cares and everybody will

disposes of me as a nuisance. This happened to many who ran leaving their houses

they thought they owned when Idi Amin of Uganda President ruthless kicked

everybody out of the country.

 

But when I am residing in the hotel, as a paying guest, I can utilize the space

and say this is my room (even though temporary) and the other room is not mine,

etc., knowing very well after my time is over I have to leave the hotel

unceremoniously not taking the room that was mine with me.

 

The ownership of the room is for transactional purposes as long as I have clear

understanding I am a paying guest with doos and don't that I have to follow and

leave the house as decent as I got it in the first place.

 

We are here for the short time of 100 years, a minute faction in the

astronomical time scale. We can say this is my house these are my children and

these are my things - my towels my soap etc - as long as I am living in this

ten-star hotel. The accommodation is provided based on my credit balance - hotel

in a slim area or a luxury hotel - depending on my merit/demerit balance. Now do

I really own anything from the bricks to the matter to the space that is being

occupied? Yet for the purpose of transactions, I am allowed to say that I own it

for the purpose of transactions.

 

Hence the ownership is understood correctly that I do not really own anything in

this universe including the body that is being given for my use (not abuse),

then I can intelligently live without getting in my mind that I really own all

the things that I am occupying.

 

Shankara says - kate kaataa kaste putraH, samsaroya atiiva vichitraH - who is

wife and who are these children, Samsaraa is wonder - I am claiming they are

mine while no one really belongs to me. I take care of them as a trustee - but

when the time comes, I have to leave behind everything including wife and

children etc. Now who owns what? Live the game of life where loving everything

in the world as the cosmic drama of life. When the scene changes the characters

change and role change. That is the truth of life and truth of the so-called

ownership too.

 

When I am paying guest in a hotel and if somebody else comes and tries to occupy

my room, I do complain to the management and make sure that my rights are

protected. There is no real ownership in these.

 

If I can operate with the same understanding then I am detached but at the same

time very efficient in my transactions.

 

Only way to keep the head above the water is constant reflection of my purpose

of why I am staying in this hotel so that I do not get lost in thinking that

this is mine and that is yours, other than for temporal transactional

convenience. That is what mananam and nidhidhyaasanam involves.

 

Hope this helps

 

I have corrected Monica's email.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

>

> Comments and Questions:

>

> To clarify; if ego arises by identification with what I

> have, with automatic exclusion of what I do not have that I

> want to have, to feel that I am an adequate being, then †"

> suggesting that I should not compare my “insides†with

> others “outsides†is necessary and to work on being

> content with Who I AM instead of what I have or don’t have

> is key correct? 

>

> I find it extremely difficult to drop the notion of

> ownership on a continual basis my “set-up†requires

> duties to be performed in work/household  and they are

> to be met by me and by me alone in some instances.  If

> I don’t recognize what the goal is and identify to some

> degree with it….how can I meet my obligation? 

>

> If you say I should renounce the notion of ownership, 

> do I not still own the obligation to fulfill a particularly

> duty

>

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

Pranams Acharya Sadaji,

Thank you for a very beautiful article. I emjoyed reading it and agree with a

lot of what you have said.

 

A few comments on where my perspective is different -

 

Renunciation is nothing but a mental and physical expression of a deeprooted

desire mumukshutvam - to be established in the happiness or purnatvam that is

one's intrinsic nature - atmecchA vyavasIyatAM - it is never a desire for an

experiential state of happiness. Hence mumukshutvam is unlike any other human

desire or pursuit. And only from mumukshutvam that is of the highest degree and

the greatest intensity can there be a desire to renounce - initially taking the

form of mental renunciation.

 

Mental renunciation, if it is true, and when it is ripe and mature, will lead to

a physical renunciation - if there is a snake in my hand, that is not " my " pet,

i will discard it without a moment's hesitation.

If I don't discard it, and find myself holding onto it, and saying " why should i

throw it? - is it mine to throw away? " then I need to ask why? - why am i

holding on to the snake, fully knowing how lethal is its bite, instead of

letting go? If, like the folks in Toyota, i ask the five whys, the answer

invariably is that I am still within Maya's bewitching guile - itaretara aviveka

and satyanrte mithunikrtya is still going on.

 

Renunciation of notional ownership is itself a notional renunication. That in

me, which tries to renounce the very idea of renunciation, is nothing but the

Ego - the master mischief-monger is up to its usual tricks, only now with more

refined sophistry - true renunciation is of only one kind - total - that alone

culminates in an engulfment in Self-abidance. Hence alone does His Holiness

Kanchi Mahaperiyava cautions us - " However much the mind and intellect might

have matured, until the Brahman Realisation happens, mAyA does not spare you.

Realisation is the apex of all sAdhanA. It cannot be achieved unless all karma

is extinguished. "

 

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

--- On Thu, 10/22/09, Dilip Dhopavkar <dilip.dhopavkar wrote:

 

> Dilip Dhopavkar <dilip.dhopavkar

> Re: A perspective -1

> advaitin

> Thursday, October 22, 2009, 2:07 AM

> Dear Sadanandaji,

>

> Namaskar.

>

> You have written a magnificent article. Indeed  you

> have answered  the very

> questions that are occupying my mind lately. However,

> sometimes I find in

> all  such  discussions, the role of Maya and her

> tremendous bewitching power

> is generally avoided. An example of Totapuri, the teacher

> of Advaita sadhana

> to Sri Ramakrishna also could not get rid of maya in spite

> of  his

> phenomenal achievement ( I know this is a wrong word, as

> you would say there

> is nothing to achieve)  of the Advaita experience,

> comes to my  mind.

>

> In fact , despite, a lot of wonderful  and 

> convincing  explanations, pure

> Advaita, to me, remains a distant dream , as life has to be

> lived here and

> now. In this here and now, the attack of maya can be

> ferocious.

[Guest guest]

> >

> > If you say I should renounce the notion of ownership, 

> > do I not still own the obligation to fulfill a particularly

> > duty

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>

All work is dual.Feeling of ownership and doer ship exists as long as one is

doing a job or work.All the world is existing in duality.

Non duality is state of mind where in there is only being.From which state

real intelligence sprouts.People usually experience emotional intelligence which

is the out come of accrued intellect which is the resultant activity of cause

and effect.These things can only operate within the time frame.

Verb is dual and produces dual activity.

Feeling is non dual since no two feelings can exist simultaneously.

Feeling is one but people name it according to the context so it appears to be

that at that moment.

In real deep feeling there is neither experienced nor form of experience

this state is called advaitha.

 

thank you

sekhar

[Guest guest]

Dear Sekhar,

 

<<<<Non duality is state of mind where in there is only being>>>

 

Is Non-duality a state of mind???

 

regs,

sriram

 

 

advaitin , " void " <rgoteti wrote:

>

>

> > >

> > > If you say I should renounce the notion of ownership, 

> > > do I not still own the obligation to fulfill a particularly

> > > duty

> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> >

> All work is dual.Feeling of ownership and doer ship exists as long as one is

doing a job or work.All the world is existing in duality.

> Non duality is state of mind where in there is only being.From which state

real intelligence sprouts.People usually experience emotional intelligence which

is the out come of accrued intellect which is the resultant activity of cause

and effect.These things can only operate within the time frame.

> Verb is dual and produces dual activity.

> Feeling is non dual since no two feelings can exist simultaneously.

> Feeling is one but people name it according to the context so it appears to be

that at that moment.

> In real deep feeling there is neither experienced nor form of experience

> this state is called advaitha.

>

> thank you

> sekhar

>

[Guest guest]

Shyamji - PraNAms

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

The difference in the interpretations are only in terms of external

renunciation as pre-requisite instead of as desirable for the mind to

emotionally renounce the notions - both are in the vyavahaara only since ajnaana

itself is in the vyavahaara. To me, your arguments come in the same venue as

jnaana karma samucchayam, where karma here is doing the renunciation, whereas

the true renunciation is to understand that I am never an owner at any time. Now

let us look at your propositions.

 

 

--- On Thu, 10/22/09, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

 

A few comments on where my perspective is different -

 

 

Mental renunciation, if it is true, and when it is ripe and mature, will lead to

a physical renunciation - if there is a snake in my hand, that is not " my " pet,

i will discard it without a moment's hesitation.

 

-------

KS:

Shaymji, there are two problems in the arguments above. The analogy is biased.

Instead of a snake, take an innocent baby in my hands. Mental renunciation does

not mean I drop the baby without a moments' hesitation, the way I drop a snake.

I will continue to take care of the baby with needed love and care but with

clear understanding the whole drama of life is mithyaa. When I play with my

grand child with marbles that he loves, my attitude in the play is different

from that of the child. Renunciation does not necessarily mean physically

discarding but understanding that all are naama ruupa and hence mithyaa. By

physically discarding is giving more reality to the naama and ruupa only. By

rejecting the snake while taking care of a baby, normal understanding is that

snake can physically hurt the host while the other is not. While seeing the

Brahman in the snake and in the baby while throwing the snake and taking care of

the baby is mithyaatva darshanam for

the naama and ruupa and satyatva darshanam for the underlying Brahman.

 

Therefore Mithyaatva darshanam of the prapanca does not mean rejection of the

prapanca as undesirable; it can be accepted as the vibhuti of the Lord and deal

as APPROPRIATELY - if it is a snake discard it before it bites, but with

reverence to life, a baby that needs attention take care of it with love and

reverence to life - either Brahmin, dog or dog eater - are the same from the

absolute reference and at relative reference deal with each as one deals at

vyavahaara reference. Nidhidhyaasanam that is involved - is understanding the

mithyaatva of the naama and ruupa and satyatva of the underlying sat swaruupam.

Renunciation is the renunciation of the reality that is assumed to anaatma and

recognizing anaatma as mithyaa. This is understanding that involves in jnaana

saadhana what a physical sanyaasin also has to do as nidhidhyaasanam. The rest

of the paraphernalia is helpful but one cannot say as requirement based on the

nature of the reality. All the

arguments presented by Shankara against jnaana-karma sumucchaya vaada will

apply even to the claims that renunciation of action is required for jnaana. The

rest of the arguments below can be changed completely if you replace snake with

an innocent baby in your hands, while true renunciation is to see all the naama

and ruupa is mithyaa only. In discarding each kosha as anaatma, Shankara

presents the five aspects in terms of the attitude towards the koshas –

anaatmatva nischayaH, kaarya ruupatva nischayaH, mithyaatva nischayaH and

pravilaapanam as one goes from naama ruupa to the underlying substantive

Brahman. as one MENTALLY rejects the annamaya, praanamaya, manomaya,

vijnaanamaya and anandamaya koshaas to arrive at aananda aatma, brahma puccham

pratishTaa. It is not physical renunciation of any koshaas but mental

renunciation via pravilaapanam. At each level both micro and macro cosmos are

involved – that is at vyashTi level and samashTi level. Now

look at the rest of your post replacing the snake with a innocent loving baby.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

-------------

shyam:

If I don't discard it, and find myself holding onto it, and saying " why should i

throw it? - is it mine to throw away? " then I need to ask why? - why am i

holding on to the snake, fully knowing how lethal is its bite, instead of

letting go? If, like the folks in Toyota, i ask the five whys, the answer

invariably is that I am still within Maya's bewitching guile - itaretara aviveka

and satyanrte mithunikrtya is still going on.

 

Renunciation of notional ownership is itself a notional renunication. That in

me, which tries to renounce the very idea of renunciation, is nothing but the

Ego - the master mischief-monger is up to its usual tricks, only now with more

refined sophistry - true renunciation is of only one kind - total - that alone

culminates in an engulfment in Self-abidance. Hence alone does His Holiness

Kanchi Mahaperiyava cautions us - " However much the mind and intellect might

have matured, until the Brahman Realisation happens, mAyA does not spare you.

Realisation is the apex of all sAdhanA. It cannot be achieved unless all karma

is extinguished. "

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

--- On Thu, 10/22/09, Dilip Dhopavkar <dilip.dhopavkar@ gmail.com> wrote:

 

> Dilip Dhopavkar <dilip.dhopavkar@ gmail.com>

> Re: A perspective -1

> advaitin@ s.com

> Thursday, October 22, 2009, 2:07 AM

> Dear Sadanandaji,

>

> Namaskar.

>

> You have written a magnificent article. Indeed  you

> have answered  the very

> questions that are occupying my mind lately. However,

> sometimes I find in

> all  such  discussions, the role of Maya and her

> tremendous bewitching power

> is generally avoided. An example of Totapuri, the teacher

> of Advaita sadhana

> to Sri Ramakrishna also could not get rid of maya in spite

> of  his

> phenomenal achievement ( I know this is a wrong word, as

> you would say there

> is nothing to achieve)  of the Advaita experience,

> comes to my  mind.

>

> In fact , despite, a lot of wonderful  and 

> convincing  explanations, pure

> Advaita, to me, remains a distant dream , as life has to be

> lived here and

> now. In this here and now, the attack of maya can be

> ferocious.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " babi " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

>

> Dear Sekhar,

>

> <<<<Non duality is state of mind where in there is only being>>>

>

> Is Non-duality a state of mind???

>

> regs,

> sriram

>

>

> advaitin , " void " <rgoteti@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > > >

> > > > If you say I should renounce the notion of ownership, 

> > > > do I not still own the obligation to fulfill a particularly

> > > > duty

> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> > >

> > All work is dual.Feeling of ownership and doer ship exists as long as one

is doing a job or work.All the world is existing in duality.

> > Non duality is state of mind where in there is only being.From which state

real intelligence sprouts.People usually experience emotional intelligence which

is the out come of accrued intellect which is the resultant activity of cause

and effect.These things can only operate within the time frame.

> > Verb is dual and produces dual activity.

> > Feeling is non dual since no two feelings can exist simultaneously.

> > Feeling is one but people name it according to the context so it appears to

be that at that moment.

> > In real deep feeling there is neither experienced nor form of experience

> > this state is called advaitha.

> >

> > thank you

> > sekhar

> >

>Adi Shankara consolidated the Advaita Vedanta, an interpretation of the Vedic

scriptures that was approved and accepted by Gaudapada and Govinda Bhagavatpada

siddh & #257;nta (system). Continuing the line of thought of some of the

Upanishadic teachers, and also that of his own teacher's teacher Gaudapada,

(Ajativada), Adi Shankara expounded the doctrine of Advaita — a nondualistic

reality.

[Guest guest]

> >

> > In fact , despite, a lot of wonderful  and 

> > convincing  explanations, pure

> > Advaita, to me, remains a distant dream , as life has to be

> > lived here and

> > now. In this here and now, the attack of maya can be

> > ferocious.

>

>>>>>>>>

 

M & #257;y & #257;

M & #257;y & #257; (/m & #593; & #720;j & #593; & #720;/) According to Adi Shankara,

M & #257;y & #257; is the complex illusionary power of Brahman which causes the

Brahman to be seen as the material world of separate forms. Sankara says that

Maya is nothing other than ignorance and this in inherent in the thoughts which

are dualities . Maya has two main functions — one is to " hide " Brahman from

ordinary human perception, and the other is to present the material world in its

(Brahmam) place. M & #257;y & #257; is also said to be indescribable, though it may

be said that all sense data entering ones awareness via the five senses are

M & #257;y & #257;, since the fundamental reality underlying sensory perception is

completely hidden. It is also said that M & #257;y & #257; is neither completely

real nor completely unreal, hence indescribable. Its shelter is Brahman, but

Brahman itself is untouched by the illusion of M & #257;y & #257;, just like a

magician is not tricked by his own magic. M & #257;y & #257; is temporary and is

transcended with " true knowledge, " or perception of the more fundamental reality

which straddles M & #257;y & #257;.

Since according to the Upanishads only Brahman is real, but we see the material

world to be real, Adi Shankara explained the anomaly by the concept of this

illusionary power M & #257;y & #257;

 

extracted

sekhar

[Guest guest]

Respected Sadananda Acharya,

 

Pranams.

 

As usual it is a wonderful post and you have struck the right cord espeically

the statement:

 

**************

Therefore Mithyaatva darshanam of the prapanca does not mean rejection of the

prapanca as undesirable; it can be accepted as the vibhuti of the Lord and deal

as APPROPRIATELY

*************

 

Now, my question is the issue of mental & physical renunciation is like an egg

and chick problem. Correct me if i am wrong.

 

Which one is first? Should we take to sadhana chatushtaya, sravana, manana,

nidhidhyasana and then take to physical sanyasa or should we take to physical

sanyasa and then start the journey as per the sruti vakya " sanyasya sravanam

kuryat " .

 

If the mental renunciation dawns, is there really a neccesity of physical

sanyasa. Because, if we look at the accounts of our ancient vedic seers, they

were all grihasthas and lead a happy married life. Their married life was not

an obstruction to their sadhana and infact they envisioned mantras and hence

became " vedic seers " . If you look at the biographical accounts of our ancient

vedic seers, nobody was a physical sanyasi having siromnundana, danda &

kamandala.

 

Yes, here & there, Dattatreya is being projected as a Sanyasi / Avadhuta in our

sastras.

 

regs,

sriram

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

> Shyamji - PraNAms

>

> Thanks for your comments.

>

> The difference in the interpretations are only in terms of external

renunciation as pre-requisite instead of as desirable for the mind to

emotionally renounce the notions - both are in the vyavahaara only since ajnaana

itself is in the vyavahaara. To me, your arguments come in the same venue as

jnaana karma samucchayam, where karma here is doing the renunciation, whereas

the true renunciation is to understand that I am never an owner at any time. Now

let us look at your propositions.

>

>

> --- On Thu, 10/22/09, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> A few comments on where my perspective is different -

>

>

> Mental renunciation, if it is true, and when it is ripe and mature, will lead

to a physical renunciation - if there is a snake in my hand, that is not " my "

pet, i will discard it without a moment's hesitation.

>

> -------

> KS:

> Shaymji, there are two problems in the arguments above. The analogy is biased.

Instead of a snake, take an innocent baby in my hands. Mental renunciation does

not mean I drop the baby without a moments' hesitation, the way I drop a snake.

I will continue to take care of the baby with needed love and care but with

clear understanding the whole drama of life is mithyaa. When I play with my

grand child with marbles that he loves, my attitude in the play is different

from that of the child. Renunciation does not necessarily mean physically

discarding but understanding that all are naama ruupa and hence mithyaa. By

physically discarding is giving more reality to the naama and ruupa only. By

rejecting the snake while taking care of a baby, normal understanding is that

snake can physically hurt the host while the other is not. While seeing the

Brahman in the snake and in the baby while throwing the snake and taking care of

the baby is mithyaatva darshanam for

> the naama and ruupa and satyatva darshanam for the underlying Brahman.

>

> Therefore Mithyaatva darshanam of the prapanca does not mean rejection of the

prapanca as undesirable; it can be accepted as the vibhuti of the Lord and deal

as APPROPRIATELY - if it is a snake discard it before it bites, but with

reverence to life, a baby that needs attention take care of it with love and

reverence to life - either Brahmin, dog or dog eater - are the same from the

absolute reference and at relative reference deal with each as one deals at

vyavahaara reference. Nidhidhyaasanam that is involved - is understanding the

mithyaatva of the naama and ruupa and satyatva of the underlying sat swaruupam.

Renunciation is the renunciation of the reality that is assumed to anaatma and

recognizing anaatma as mithyaa. This is understanding that involves in jnaana

saadhana what a physical sanyaasin also has to do as nidhidhyaasanam. The rest

of the paraphernalia is helpful but one cannot say as requirement based on the

nature of the reality. All the

> arguments presented by Shankara against jnaana-karma sumucchaya vaada will

apply even to the claims that renunciation of action is required for jnaana. The

rest of the arguments below can be changed completely if you replace snake with

an innocent baby in your hands, while true renunciation is to see all the naama

and ruupa is mithyaa only. In discarding each kosha as anaatma, Shankara

presents the five aspects in terms of the attitude towards the koshas †"

anaatmatva nischayaH, kaarya ruupatva nischayaH, mithyaatva nischayaH and

pravilaapanam as one goes from naama ruupa to the underlying substantive

Brahman. as one MENTALLY rejects the annamaya, praanamaya, manomaya,

vijnaanamaya and anandamaya koshaas to arrive at aananda aatma, brahma puccham

pratishTaa. It is not physical renunciation of any koshaas but mental

renunciation via pravilaapanam. At each level both micro and macro cosmos are

involved †" that is at vyashTi level and samashTi level. Now

> look at the rest of your post replacing the snake with a innocent loving

baby.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

>

> -------------

> shyam:

> If I don't discard it, and find myself holding onto it, and saying " why should

i throw it? - is it mine to throw away? " then I need to ask why? - why am i

holding on to the snake, fully knowing how lethal is its bite, instead of

letting go? If, like the folks in Toyota, i ask the five whys, the answer

invariably is that I am still within Maya's bewitching guile - itaretara aviveka

and satyanrte mithunikrtya is still going on.

>

> Renunciation of notional ownership is itself a notional renunication. That in

me, which tries to renounce the very idea of renunciation, is nothing but the

Ego - the master mischief-monger is up to its usual tricks, only now with more

refined sophistry - true renunciation is of only one kind - total - that alone

culminates in an engulfment in Self-abidance. Hence alone does His Holiness

Kanchi Mahaperiyava cautions us - " However much the mind and intellect might

have matured, until the Brahman Realisation happens, mAyA does not spare you.

Realisation is the apex of all sAdhanA. It cannot be achieved unless all karma

is extinguished. "

>

> Hari OM

> Shri Gurubhyoh namah

> Shyam

>

> --- On Thu, 10/22/09, Dilip Dhopavkar <dilip.dhopavkar@ gmail.com> wrote:

>

> > Dilip Dhopavkar <dilip.dhopavkar@ gmail.com>

> > Re: A perspective -1

> > advaitin@ s.com

> > Thursday, October 22, 2009, 2:07 AM

> > Dear Sadanandaji,

> >

> > Namaskar.

> >

> > You have written a magnificent article. Indeed  you

> > have answered  the very

> > questions that are occupying my mind lately. However,

> > sometimes I find in

> > all  such  discussions, the role of Maya and her

> > tremendous bewitching power

> > is generally avoided. An example of Totapuri, the teacher

> > of Advaita sadhana

> > to Sri Ramakrishna also could not get rid of maya in spite

> > of  his

> > phenomenal achievement ( I know this is a wrong word, as

> > you would say there

> > is nothing to achieve)  of the Advaita experience,

> > comes to my  mind.

> >

> > In fact , despite, a lot of wonderful  and 

> > convincing  explanations, pure

> > Advaita, to me, remains a distant dream , as life has to be

> > lived here and

> > now. In this here and now, the attack of maya can be

> > ferocious.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sekhar,

 

" Vedanta Sara " of Sadananda has already described the dual functions of Maya as

" Avarana Sakti " & " Vikshepa sakti " .

 

The rope does not appearing as rope is Avarana dosha and rope appearing as snake

is vikshepa dosha.

 

regs,

 

advaitin , " void " <rgoteti wrote:

>

>

> > >

> > > In fact , despite, a lot of wonderful  and 

> > > convincing  explanations, pure

> > > Advaita, to me, remains a distant dream , as life has to be

> > > lived here and

> > > now. In this here and now, the attack of maya can be

> > > ferocious.

> >

> >>>>>>>>

>

> M & #257;y & #257;

> M & #257;y & #257; (/m & #593; & #720;j & #593; & #720;/) According to Adi Shankara,

M & #257;y & #257; is the complex illusionary power of Brahman which causes the

Brahman to be seen as the material world of separate forms. Sankara says that

Maya is nothing other than ignorance and this in inherent in the thoughts which

are dualities . Maya has two main functions — one is to " hide " Brahman from

ordinary human perception, and the other is to present the material world in its

(Brahmam) place. M & #257;y & #257; is also said to be indescribable, though it may

be said that all sense data entering ones awareness via the five senses are

M & #257;y & #257;, since the fundamental reality underlying sensory perception is

completely hidden. It is also said that M & #257;y & #257; is neither completely

real nor completely unreal, hence indescribable. Its shelter is Brahman, but

Brahman itself is untouched by the illusion of M & #257;y & #257;, just like a

magician is not tricked by his own magic. M & #257;y & #257; is temporary and is

transcended with " true knowledge, " or perception of the more fundamental reality

which straddles M & #257;y & #257;.

> Since according to the Upanishads only Brahman is real, but we see the

material world to be real, Adi Shankara explained the anomaly by the concept of

this illusionary power M & #257;y & #257;

>

> extracted

> sekhar

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir,

 

Devi Mahatmya, the core text of Saktas, presents the divine sports of Mahamaya.

They have 2 characters: One is the King Suratha and other the Merchant Samadhi.

 

The Kin Suratha, defeated by the enemies and is kicked out of his country by his

minister. Wandering, dejected and shattered he meets this merchant Samadhi, who

was similarly betrayed by his household.

Inspite of their betrayal by their respective household, still the *sweet

memories with their household* haunt them.

 

Entering a forest, they find in a hermitage a Jagatguru and Sage by name Medhas

and ask about their fate. The Sage asks them to calm down and slowly and

systematically tries to answer their doubts,

in the form of a story. That story becomes a teaching tool. This story is none

other than the " Devi Mahatmya " of Markandeya Purana.

 

During their course of diaglogue, they ask the Sage Medhas, what is the nature

of Maya and why does the *sweet memories of our household still haunt us* though

we are kicked out of the country by them.

 

The Sage Medhas replies:

 

// GYAninAmapi chetAMsi devI bhagawatI hi sA | balAdAkRRiShya mohAya mahAmAyA

prayachChati //

 

The meaning goes like this:

 

// That Illustrious Goddess, MahAmAyA, forcibly seizes the minds of even those

who are Jnanis and leads them to delusion //

 

 

So, never think of *getting rid* of Maya as it holds even Ishwara also. It

haunts even the great jnanis also.

 

There is a step-by-step evolution process that has been handed down by sruti,

smriti & puranas.

 

The first step is Saguna Brahman Upasana in the form of Idol Worship. Try to

develop the *Ahamgrahopasana* as you & the idol that you worship are Identical.

Then take up the *Dahara Vidya* (as mentioned in Chand. Upan) and place that

form of meditation (idol) in the cavity of your heart. And do manasika puja.

 

The further evolution is the Ashta Murti Upasana as mentioned in the

Dakshinamurthy Stotra where the 5 gross elements are identified in your body

with respective principles, Surya & Chandra to be Prana & Apana and the 8th form

ie., Jiva to IDENTICAL with Supreme Consciousness.

 

This is Ahamgrahopasana as hinted in Dakshi. Stotra. And the result is the

phalasruti of this stotra ie. " sarvAtmatvam iti .. " (sarvAtmanAbhAva).

 

 

Just my 2 cents..

 

sriram

 

 

advaitin , Dilip Dhopavkar <dilip.dhopavkar wrote:

>

> Dear Sadanandaji,

>

> Namaskar.

>

> You have written a magnificent article. Indeed you have answered the very

> questions that are occupying my mind lately. However, sometimes I find in

> all such discussions, the role of Maya and her tremendous bewitching power

> is generally avoided. An example of Totapuri, the teacher of Advaita sadhana

> to Sri Ramakrishna also could not get rid of maya in spite of his

> phenomenal achievement ( I know this is a wrong word, as you would say there

> is nothing to achieve) of the Advaita experience, comes to my mind.

>

> In fact , despite, a lot of wonderful and convincing explanations, pure

> Advaita, to me, remains a distant dream , as life has to be lived here and

> now. In this here and now, the attack of maya can be ferocious. Some say,

> surrender to Mayashakti. I have never understood what it means. Wiill you

> please, kindly advise the role of Maya ? Tahnks again for the great article.

>

> Warmly,

> Dilip

>

> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:03 AM, kuntimaddi sadananda <

> kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> >

> >

> >

> > 1. What is success?

> >

> > Normally success is measured in terms of one's achievement. It is said that

> > success comes before work only in the dictionary. Hence every success

> > involves hard work. One wants to acquire good education that secures good

> > job and that gives more opportunities to become more successful in future.

> > The one who is most successful is the one who has the most of everything

> > that all others desire – a good education, a secure high paying job, with

> > all the personal relations with all other beings, exactly the way one wants.

> > Like in fairy tales, he lives happily ever after. Unfortunately, every

> > set-up changes continuously and that is the law of nature. All set-ups are

> > not necessarily conducive for ones likes and dislikes. The changing set-up

> > can always up-set the metal frame of a person, even though he is successful

> > in terms of his accomplishments.

> >

> > Listen to any parent – the success of his child is seen in every

> > accomplishment, in gaining that is worthy to gain. His success is connected

> > to the success of his child. He first feels that the child is successful if

> > he gets first rank. Then the next success depends on his securing an

> > admission in very good university, then his completion of his studies with

> > high rank, then getting a job in prestigious company. That is not settling

> > yet. Then, he feels his son is completely settled once he is married. Indian

> > parents proudly declare that all their children are `settled now'. What it

> > means, as any parent can explain, is all the daughters are married and now

> > `settled', - and all the boys are `settled' with secure jobs and married,

> > etc. All his children are settled but he is not settled yet. Now all he

> > wants is to have grand children; with the cycle that starts again; their

> > school admission, their education, their marriages, etc. Hence, none

> > feels at any time, he is completely settled with what he has. None is happy

> > with what he has; but always wants something more to settle – complete

> > settlement is where there is no more longing for the mind to have anything

> > else in order to settle. Wanting mind will never settles down with having

> > what it wanted, since the wanting mind keeps moving forward at a faster pace

> > with some more wanting than settling down with having fulfilled what it

> > wanted before.

> >

> > `Having' is living in the present, while `wanting' is to achieve something

> > in future. `Owning' is identifying with what one is having as one's own. In

> > the same way, renouncing is also some kind of notion of owning, since one

> > has to own in order to renounce. Thus it involves renouncing the ownership

> > of things, which one never really owns, to begin with. The true renunciation

> > is not renunciation of things, but renunciation of the notion of ownership.

> > The wanting keeps shifting to the future all the time without settling down

> > with the present. One wants to want, than just settled with what one has.

> > Thus wanting mind never settles with just having. On the same token any

> > statement that renunciation of external things is needed for one to realize

> > one own self implies inherently ownership of things that one never owns.

> >

> > Nobody is happy with what he has or what he has achieved. He is happy, of

> > course, when others envy what he has or others long for what he has. He can

> > measure his success in counting what he has in relation to others who do not

> > have and would want to have what he has. Yet, that is not where the mind can

> > settle down and say I have no more wants since I am happy with what I have.

> > I am happy with what I have, but I will be happier if I have this, this, and

> > this, which I do not have. Wanting mind is the desiring mind and scripture

> > says feeding the mind by what it wants is like pouring ghee to put out the

> > fire. The wanting mind includes those that one wants to have and also those

> > that one wants to get rid off. These in the language of Vedanta are called

> > as Vaasanas or likes and dislikes.

> >

> > The wanting mind can never settled down with what it has, unless it has, of

> > course, everything in the universe and there is nothing left to want. That

> > means having infinite that is Brahman, the limitless. However, finite being

> > can never achieve or acquire infinite by adding finite things. That is

> > mathematically illogical. Thus the problem can never be solved since wanting

> > mind remains all the time wanting. It is a useless advice to ask the mind

> > not to want more, since that feeling of inadequacy and wanting to be

> > adequate is natural and instinctive too.

> >

> > The reason is simple. The wanting is the very nature of the ego. Ego arises

> > by identification with what I have, with automatic exclusion of what I do

> > not have that I want to have, to feel that I am an adequate being. This

> > forms the fundamental human struggle; nay the struggle of every being in the

> > universe; from the first born (hiranya garbha) to the blade of grass, says

> > Shree Sureswara in his introduction to Naiskarmya siddhi.

> >

> > Hence, what one has represents the present state. Future is where one is

> > heading with his - wants to have this and that. Wanting mind is the one

> > which longs to have this and that in the future, and gains a measure of

> > success in achieving what it wants. Achieving puts the man with the present

> > as having what one wanted. However, the mind never settles down in the

> > present with what one has; hence it wants all that it still does not have;

> > the struggle continues till death. Nay, it continues ever after death. Even

> > if one goes to heaven the problem continues. In Tai. Up., it says, in its

> > amicable style, that there are three different colonies even in heaven, just

> > like here, the slums, the middle class and the hierarchically elate class.

> > Shankara says, the slum class residents are those who reached there by noble

> > deeds prescribed by smRiti texts, the next higher class is those who reached

> > there by following the righteous actions prescribed by Shrutis, and of

> > course the elate class are the natives who hold very important positions

> > like MP and ministers etc – they are supposed to be 33 of them. They do not

> > have any ministers without portfolio. They deal with the God on the first

> > name basis. Each one is 100 times happier than the fellow down the next

> > level. Happiest person is, of course, the first born, hiranya garbha, whose

> > happy scale is 10 to the power of 23 times that of ideal happy human youth

> > who is owner of entire earth with all the yellow and black gold resources at

> > his disposal. But no one is happy, they are happier than the fellow who is

> > below their rank or below what they have achieved. Every one falling in this

> > happy scale has egotistical happiness, since happiness depends on what one

> > has in relation to what others do not have and like to have. Actually

> > everyone is only happier but no one is happy, since everyone is still left

> > with a wanting mind that wants to want.

> >

> > It is interesting to note that those who do not have and those who have,

> > both are not happy. Some people do not have anything not by choice, while

> > some do not have by choice – shotriyasya akaamaya tasya. Some want to gain

> > happiness by acquiring what they do not have. Others want to gain the

> > happiness by renouncing what they have. They quote scriptures that say that

> > one has to renounce every thing to realize one is infinite or the

> > interpretations of the scriptures that says so – tyagenaike

> > amRitatvamaanasuH. The fundamental problem remains. Happy state is state of

> > limitlessness where there is no more wanting mind. A finite mind cannot but

> > WANT in order to be happy or to reach that infiniteness or limitlessness.

> > Finite can never reach infinite either by adding or subtracting finite

> > things. On the other hand, the pursuit to reach the infinite does not stop

> > and cannot stop until the wanting mind ceases to want.

> >

> > Thus there is a fundamental problem in all these – not happy with what it

> > is – and having wanting mind that wants to want – be it absolute happy state

> > by renunciation or wanting to reach that absolute happiness by trying to

> > acquire everything in the universe. These are two sides of the same coin.

> > The longing mind remains in both. Both are not happy with what it is.

> > Present is always perceived as the stepping stone for the coming future. It

> > is a transitory state or a passage for the future happy and absolute state.

> > Unfortunately future never comes. There is no bridge from the present to the

> > future, since future is just a segment of mental projection.

> >

> > Thus, we have fundamentally two overriding factors: longing to achieve

> > absolute happiness and not relative happiness, or being fully adequate all

> > the time, which is very intrinsic nature of all beings. Not to have that

> > wanting mind is not the solution since it is the intrinsic nature of the

> > limited mind. Hence neither renunciation of what it is (the present state),

> > or what one has, is the solution to the problem. In either case, the wanting

> > mind remains wanting and not happy with what it is, since there is a desire

> > to become something other than what it is. This is also what JK calls it as

> > conditioned mind. A mind conditioned to look for or to want for things that

> > make one to be absolutely happy. Unconditioning is not a process since any

> > process reconditions in some form. Solution to this desperate problem is to

> > recognize the problem correctly. This is what Krishna calls the solution as

> > sanyaasa yoga – what Gurudev Swami Chinmayanandaji translates it

> > as detachment-attachment technique. It is an oxymoron to solve a problem,

> > which cannot be solved by any process. This does not include either sanyaasa

> > or yoga, but sanyaasa-yoga that involves seeing what it is. What it is – is

> > present and not what one wants it to be. It is neither by not wanting what

> > it is, since both are wants to want something other than what it is. True

> > sanyaasa is not renunciation of things that one owns, but it is the

> > renunciation of the very notion of ownership. It involves the recognition

> > that I never own anything. This is true sharaNaagati or a complete

> > surrendering of the wanting mind to the infinite wisdom. In the process, the

> > wanting mind ceases to be wanting, since it rests with that infinite mind

> > that pervades everything as His vibhuuti. In the sanyaasa of giving up the

> > wanting mind to the infinite, one gains the yoga (of or with) the infinite -

> > the essence of sanyaasa-yoga. The complete surrender involves

> > identification with the totality where the individuality ceases to be

> > separate for it to want any thing separate from the infinite. It is the same

> > as knowing that I own everything or the whole universe of things and beings,

> > and therefore wanting mind that wants is no more wanting, since there is

> > nothing more to want. The notional wanting mind ceases to be in the unity of

> > the totality that underlies the plurality.

> >

> > I am - is the present, not an entity in the future, with something that I

> > want my self to be, either by gaining or by achieving or by getting rid of

> > or sanyaasa of what I have. Sanyaasa in the sanyaasa-yoga involves

> > renunciation of not what I have but renunciation of the very notion of

> > separate ownership and the associated renunciation of the wanting mind which

> > always wants to want, through yoga or by shifting my attention to that the

> > enlivening presence because of which the inert mind dances to its wants. It

> > is `as though' yoking the mind to the very existence-consciousness because

> > of which I am conscious of the wanting mind that wants to want things that I

> > do not possess, or that wants to renounce things that I possess. By being

> > conscious of the very wanting mind that wants to want or wants to renounce

> > what one has, one is beyond the wanting mind or beyond the longing for

> > something in the future that never comes. That is the same as being the

> > witnessing consciousness or saakshii by renouncing all mental

> > misconceptions of ownerships those results, in both wanting things and in

> > renouncing things. Here sanyaasa is not renunciation of things but

> > renunciation of notional ownership to the things that one never owned. It is

> > true, that external renunciation can help in this internal renunciation of

> > the notional ownership. However, to say that it is essential, I am giving

> > notional ownership more reality that what it is. The true sanyaasa is mental

> > detachment to the notion of ownerships, and attaching or abiding oneself as

> > the very existence-conscious entity that I am. That is the essence of

> > SharaNaagati. In that very understanding, the wanting mind itself gets

> > resolved, since it can exists only as long as the conscious entity which

> > enlivens it by identifying with it and with its limitations. It survives as

> > long as there is an identification with the wanting mind as - I am the mind

> > - continues

> > irrespective of whether external changes I do at the physical level. One

> > cannot renounce notional ownership by a process. It can be done only by

> > clear understanding that there is no reality for notional ownership of

> > things and beings.

> >

> > It can be only achieved by recognition that I am – is complete by itself –

> > without any need of the wanting mind that wants things that one does not

> > have, or renouncing things that one has. It is recognition that I am full

> > and complete by myself with recognition that I do not own anything even to

> > renounce or I own everything since I am that everything. `aham annam, aham

> > annam, aham annam - aham annado aham annado aham annado is the screaming

> > song of a realized master – I am all that which is consumed or desired and I

> > all that who is consuming or desiring – I am that which is supported, and I

> > am all that which supports everything – in essence there is nothing that is

> > separate from me – I am the desirer and the desired– I am all that, yet

> > beyond all that –I am immaculately pure with neither desire nor desired – I

> > am that I am without a second - the very living present which transcends

> > time, since there is no time in the present, as it is

> > the meeting ground where past meets the future. What is there in the

> > present is not the time-gap but that which transcends the time itself –

> > where there is only the very presence of the existence-consciousness that I

> > am. Now - alone is that which counts, and is that where one truly lives, or

> > in that only all experiences takes place, but that which is beyond any

> > experience itself – that beyond any sanyaasa or yoga. Wanting mind dissolves

> > into the very presence in that present, since there is no more wanting in it

> > which relates to future. What is there is only MY PRSENCE – AS I AM with

> > simultaneous recognition that I AM is the essence of the world too, the

> > things and beings that I wanted, since I AM is the infinite presence that

> > pervades both the mind that wants and the wants that mind wants.

> >

> > Hari Om!

> > Sadananda

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Therefore Mithyaatva darshanam of the prapanca does not mean rejection of

the prapanca as undesirable; it can be accepted as the vibhuti of the Lord

and deal as APPROPRIATELY - if it is a snake discard it before it bites,

but with reverence to life, a baby that needs attention take care of it

with love and reverence to life - either Brahmin, dog or dog eater - are

the same from the absolute reference and at relative reference deal with

each as one deals at vyavahaara reference.

 

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Above is the clear cut answer to the question on renunciation. However, I

would like to assess this scenario with a slightly different perspective.

Yes, in this world both venomous snake & loving baby are there & most of

us have to deal with these opposites in our day to day life. But some

people, who have realized the impermanency of these nAma & rUpa vishesha,

would opt to renounce all these opposites ( baby as well as snake in the

above example) goaway from the mundane material life (like gautama buddha,

ramaNa maharshi, etc. (geeta 18-49 says possessing a mind unattached to

everything, self-controlled, void of all desires, he attains the

accomplishment of perfect actionlessness through saNyAsa) !! But there

can be another set of people, who opt to 'continue' vyavahAra due to one

or the other reason would see the inaction in all their actions in day to

day life. We, the mortals, may see these people 'kissing the cute baby'

and avoiding the hissing snake, but for them they are always in nakarta,

nabhOgta bhAva. This is what geetAchArya explains in 5th chapter 8 & 9th

verse : The knower of truth would think that he is doing nothing while he

sees, hears, touches, smells, eats, moves about...etc. etc. but he would

always bear in mind that only the senses function on their objects in

realtiy. So, according to prArabhdha, jnAni-s like yAgnAvalkya retire to

forest to take vidvat saNyAsa or jnAni-s like janakAdi kings may continue

to do 'pUrva karma' without any attachment & ahaMkAra tyAga.Those who do

karma with perfect detachment are 'nitya saNyAsi-s' says krishna in 5-3 :

karmaNi vartamAnOpi sa nitya saMnyAsi iti jnAtavyaH. And as far as mental

status of these two jnAni-s ( i.e. renunciate jnAni & jnAni in the world

doing karma ) they are ONE and the SAME. astihi karmasaNyAsasya

phalAbhisaMdhityAgasya cha 'tyAgatva sAmAnyaM' says geeta 18-9.

You have raised a very good point with regard to pancha kOsha-s. Yes, as

we know that Ananda Atma is beyond the 5 sheaths and these pancha kosha-s

are avidyAtmaka & a hindrance in establishing ourselves in THAT...So, in

the spirit of renunciation why dont we commit suicide & say this is also a

type of renunciation (dEhAtmabhAva tyAga) to attain that Atma?? This

itself shows renunciation is NOT 'strictly' & invariably physically

running away from the bandha..It is more of a mental status with to the

extent shAstra vidhi.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

 

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Ram prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Now, my question is the issue of mental & physical renunciation is like an

egg and chick problem. Correct me if i am wrong. Which one is first?

Should we take to sadhana chatushtaya, sravana, manana, nidhidhyasana and

then take to physical sanyasa or should we take to physical sanyasa and

then start the journey as per the sruti vakya " sanyasya sravanam kuryat " .

 

> Strictly speaking a 'real' saNyAsi should give up even vedAdhyayana and

engage himself in praNavOpAsa...Anyway, a vividisha saNyAsi should

practise shrutyukta shama, damAdhi sAdhana through brahmacharya, satya,

ahimsa etc. And for doing brahma jignAsa sAdhana chatushtaya is

recommended ( refer athAtho ..very first sUtra) and for attaining brahma

jnAna shravaNAdi sAdhana-s are direct means which can be done by 'any'

eligible adhikAri.

If the mental renunciation dawns, is there really a neccesity of physical

sanyasa. Because, if we look at the accounts of our ancient vedic seers,

they were all grihasthas and lead a happy married life. Their married life

was not an obstruction to their sadhana and infact they envisioned mantras

and hence became " vedic seers " . If you look at the biographical accounts

of our ancient vedic seers, nobody was a physical sanyasi having

siromnundana, danda & kamandala.

> Both examples we have in our vedic lore..After dawn of jnAna, someone

might have opted for vidvat saNyAsa and someone else might have decided to

continue to do his/her previous karma..So, there is no hard & fast rule

with regard to jnAni's Ashrama after the dawn of jnAna.

 

Yes, here & there, Dattatreya is being projected as a Sanyasi / Avadhuta

in our sastras.

> Yes, ashtAvakra also for that matter...they were not strict & orthodox

saNyAsi-s but history says they were jnAni-s & taught brahma jnAna to the

able students..

> But after reading all this, you may hear a 'huge cry' from someone : No

No, these characters were from the bygone era & they were exception in one

of billion...For the current day, saNyAsa in the form of 'kesha mundana,

loin cloth, bhiksha & forest life' is MUST & there is NO OTHER WAY...So,

kindly be ready for that flood :-))

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

 

[Guest guest]

Pranams Acharya Sada-ji

Thank you for the opportunity and blessing to spend some time engaged in mananam

with you. My aim of course is neither to contradict nor convince anyone but

simply to express my perspective for my own mananam. My comments:

__________________________

You say:

The difference in the interpretations are only in terms of external renunciation

as pre-requisite instead of as desirable for the mind to emotionally renounce

the notions - both are in the vyavahaara only since ajnaana itself is in the

vyavahaara. To me, your arguments come in the same venue as jnaana karma

samucchayam, where karma here is doing the renunciation, whereas the true

renunciation is to understand that I am never an owner at any time.

 

My response:

When Shankara argues for sarvakarma sannyasa - as the means to jnananishta - the

position is the most extreme antithesis to jnana-karma samucchyam. Forget about

karma being an aid - karma itself is being dismissed as an impossibility. Taking

to sannyasa is not a special type of karma but a complete cessation of karma,

save the barest of minimal necessary for survival. I do not agree that

cultivating a mental attitude of renunciation is " truer " than one which is not

only mental but ALSO physical - i.e. total.

_________________________________

You say:

Shaymji, there are two problems in the arguments above. The analogy is biased.

Instead of a snake, take an innocent baby in my hands. Mental renunciation does

not mean I drop the baby without a moments' hesitation, the way I drop a snake.

I will continue to take care of the baby with needed love and care but with

clear understanding the whole drama of life is mithyaa. When I play with my

grand child with marbles that he loves, my attitude in the play is different

from that of the child. Renunciation does not necessarily mean physically

discarding but understanding that all are naama ruupa and hence mithyaa. By

physically discarding is giving more reality to the naama and ruupa only. By

rejecting the snake while taking care of a baby, normal understanding is that

snake can physically hurt the host while the other is not. While seeing the

Brahman in the snake and in the baby while throwing the snake and taking care of

the baby is mithyaatva darshanam for

the naama and ruupa and satyatva darshanam for the underlying Brahman.

________________________________

My response:

For a jivanmukta - who has transcended the realm of MAyA, the snake of samsara

may well be a jewel, that like the Lord Parameshwara he can wear around his

neck. For anyone but that rarest of mahatmas, one has to be weary about samsara.

Take the instance of King Bharata, from the Bhagawatam. Here was a King who

renounces his family and kingdome, takes to the life of mendincancy and after

years of tremedous penance and singlepointed worship reaches the rarefied

heights of self-realization - and one day while this perfected Sage is bathing

in a river, a tiger is giving chase to a pregnant doe who dies drowning in the

water as even as she gives birth to her baby doe. Looking at this poor doe, a

single thought came to Bharata's mind - 'Alas! by the Controller turning the

wheel of time, has this one deprived of its kin, and now finds me alone for its

shelter, only me as its father, mother, .. Surely having no one else it puts

great faith in me to rely on ..

fully dependent on me for its sustenance, love and protection; I shouldn't look

away but instead know what the fault is of neglecting someone who has taken

shelter and thus also act accordingly. Indeed is it surely of great importance

that the civilized, the saintly, even though complete in their renunciation, as

friends of the helpless are committed to the principles, even at the cost of

their own self-interest......Indeed is it surely of great importance that the

civilized, the saintly, even though complete in their renunciation, as friends

of the helpless are committed to the principles, even at the cost of their own

self-interest.'

 

Thus one sees that through the Bhagawatham Vyasa drives home a extremely

important lesson here. What Bharata felt was undoubtedly dharmic. After all it

was just a mere doe child. Why not take care of it? What is there to say that

such an action is lacking in propriety. Surely he was acting only appropriately

- just doing what needed to be done, and that too, thinking himself as a mere

instrument of the Lord who seems to have put this young hapless doe at his feet

to nurture. But as the Bhagawatam describes so vividly the nurture and caring

for this single doe-child, not even a human baby, much less his own child, step

by little step, day by day, has this Sage so bewitched, and engroseed, that it

leads to his spiritual downfall - so much so that at the time of death it is the

doe that is uppermost in the minds of that sage and he takes birth in the next

janma as a deer himself! By the Lords Grace he actually remembers his prior life

and what led to his

downfall and laments thus " 'Oh what a misery! I have fallen from the way of

life of the self-realized, although I had given up my sons and home, lived

solitary in a sacred forest as one perfect to the soul who takes shelter of the

Paramatma and although I was constantly listening to and thinking about Him, the

Supreme Lord Vâsudeva, with chanting, worshiping and remembering being

absorbed, filling all my hours; by time does a mind fixed in such a practice

turn into a mind fully established to the eternal, but again, fallen in

affection for a deer-young, I am a great fool far from that! "

 

The point is that even at the absolute pinnacles of spiritual ascent, one small

lack of caution can drag a seeker down as rapidly as a ball spiralling downhill.

 

We can take the example of a alcoholic here. After years and years of going to

the bar with his friends, per chance one particular person, out of a hundred

hears about the dangers of alcohol, and a small desire creeps in him to quit. As

he keeps hearing more and more about the dangers of alcohol, his dispassion or

vairagya towards alcohol bbecomes stronger and this desire to quit and become

free from his habit or mumukshutvam becomes stronger and stronger. At some point

this alcoholic has built up enough discrimination or viveka to know that it is

only his conviction that there is pleasure in alcohol that causes him to drink,

and that as long as he drinks he will be tossed between the pair of opposites of

joy on tasting the alcohol and sorrow when its effect wears off. Thus he

realizes that unless he obtains freedom from alcohol, his death is both certain

and imminent, and this further strengthens his vairagya to alcohol. Everyday he

keeps brooding over

these thoughts and building up more dispassion. ONe fine day while in the same

bar with his same friends he finally makes a decision - enough is enough and i

need to quit for good - and quit now. Now of course once this firm and extremely

intense desire to quit has arisen, there is nothing preventing him from

remaining in the bar. After all these are his friends and he can continue to sit

with them and engage in lively banter, - if he is firm in his conviction that

alcohol is poison, he is surely not going to consume! Sadly that is next to

impossible. As long as even a whiff of alcohol is close to him, that alcoholic

in his state of dependency, cannot but help get dragged right back into the old

habit. Unless he makes a clean break from his fiends, from the bar, from any

sight and smell of alcohol, his rehabiliation, which nothing but an

establishment in sobriety, is impossible. Until the last vestiges of the alcohol

vasana has not been fully and

totally purged from his antahkaranam is he has his own interest at heart, this

recovering alcoholic will never step anywhere near a bar. Only after he is

established in his status as a sober individual, will he have the freedom to

reenter the bar - and even then early on will at least exercise a degree of

caution in making sure that come what may, no drop of alcohol ever touches his

lips - there may be zero chance that now after all those vasanas have been

erased that he will go back to that state but having known the miseries

associated with that state this sober person will be wary of taking a chance.

This was what was Bharata's mistake - in one fateful moment of indiscretion he

allowed what was seemingly a minor lapse in his sadhana - and the downfall was

both abrupt and brutal.

SImilarly too, for a seeker, until he is well-established in his realization,

and in his jnananishtA, he is best-served only by complete abandoment of karma -

of course this can happen only when he has developed enough maturity, and most

importantly enough intensity in his desire to really want to be free. But if

after that he continues to tempt fate as it were, and remain in the midst of the

very samsara his still feeble mind hopes to transcend he is severely depleting

his odds of freedom.

That is why the Vivekachudamani cautions-

309. Even though completely rooted out, this terrible egoism, if revolved in the

mind even for a moment, returns to life and creates

hundreds of mischiefs, like a cloud ushered in by the wind during the rainy

season.

310. Overpowering this enemy, egoism, not a moment’s respite should be given

to it by thinking on the sense-objects. That is verily

the cause of its coming back to life, like water to a citron tree that has

almost dried up.

324. As sedge, even if removed, does not stay away for a moment, but covers the

water again, so Maya or Nescience also covers

even a wise man, if he is averse to meditation on the Self.

325. If the mind ever so slightly strays from the Ideal and becomes outgoing,

then it goes down and down, just as a play-ball

inadvertently dropped on the staircase bounds down from one step to another.

 

Furthermore a question is posed and an answer also provided -

How is the exclusion of the objective world possible for one who lives

identified with the body, whose mind is attached to the

perception of external objects, and who performs various acts for that end ?

This exclusion should be carefully practised by sages

who have renounced ALL kinds of DUTIES and ACTIONS AND OBJECTS, who are

passionately devoted to the eternal Atman, and who wish

to possess an undying bliss.

 

My namaskarams to you

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Fri, 10/23/09, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

 

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

Re: A perspective -1

advaitin

Friday, October 23, 2009, 1:46 AM

Shyamji - PraNAms

Thanks for your comments.

Therefore Mithyaatva darshanam of the prapanca does not mean rejection of the

prapanca as undesirable; it can be accepted as the vibhuti of the Lord and deal

as APPROPRIATELY - if it is a snake discard it before it bites, but with

reverence to life, a baby that needs attention take care of it with love and

reverence to life

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Shree Sriram- PraNams

 

First due to limited access to the internet, my response to the comments will be

limited.

 

Renunciation is always mental since all attachments are at that level.

 

The best answer for the question posed is given by Bhagavan Ramana.

 

In essence what he says is - Physical renunciation is helpful but it is not a

must. Mental renunciation is needed and real renunciation even at mental occurs

only with the dawn of knowledge. Hence the prapanca becomes mithyaa with the

realization of the truth that there is nothing other than Brahman that is real

and I am that Brahman.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- On Fri, 10/23/09, babi <sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

 

 

babi <sriram_sapthasathi

Re: A perspective -1

advaitin

Friday, October 23, 2009, 2:15 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respected Sadananda Acharya,

 

Pranams.

 

As usual it is a wonderful post and you have struck the right cord espeically

the statement:

 

************ **

Therefore Mithyaatva darshanam of the prapanca does not mean rejection of the

prapanca as undesirable; it can be accepted as the vibhuti of the Lord and deal

as APPROPRIATELY

************ *

 

Now, my question is the issue of mental & physical renunciation is like an egg

and chick problem. Correct me if i am wrong.

 

Which one is first? Should we take to sadhana chatushtaya, sravana, manana,

nidhidhyasana and then take to physical sanyasa or should we take to physical

sanyasa and then start the journey as per the sruti vakya " sanyasya sravanam

kuryat " .

 

If the mental renunciation dawns, is there really a neccesity of physical

sanyasa. Because, if we look at the accounts of our ancient vedic seers, they

were all grihasthas and lead a happy married life. Their married life was not an

obstruction to their sadhana and infact they envisioned mantras and hence became

" vedic seers " . If you look at the biographical accounts of our ancient vedic

seers, nobody was a physical sanyasi having siromnundana, danda & kamandala.

 

Yes, here & there, Dattatreya is being projected as a Sanyasi / Avadhuta in our

sastras.

 

regs,

sriram

 

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

wrote:

>

> Shyamji - PraNAms

>

> Thanks for your comments.

>

> The difference in the interpretations are only in terms of external

renunciation as pre-requisite instead of as desirable for the mind to

emotionally renounce the notions - both are in the vyavahaara only since ajnaana

itself is in the vyavahaara. To me, your arguments come in the same venue as

jnaana karma samucchayam, where karma here is doing the renunciation, whereas

the true renunciation is to understand that I am never an owner at any time. Now

let us look at your propositions.

>

>

> --- On Thu, 10/22/09, Shyam <shyam_md@.. .> wrote:

>

> A few comments on where my perspective is different -

>

>

> Mental renunciation, if it is true, and when it is ripe and mature, will lead

to a physical renunciation - if there is a snake in my hand, that is not " my "

pet, i will discard it without a moment's hesitation.

>

> -------

> KS:

> Shaymji, there are two problems in the arguments above. The analogy is biased.

Instead of a snake, take an innocent baby in my hands. Mental renunciation does

not mean I drop the baby without a moments' hesitation, the way I drop a snake.

I will continue to take care of the baby with needed love and care but with

clear understanding the whole drama of life is mithyaa. When I play with my

grand child with marbles that he loves, my attitude in the play is different

from that of the child. Renunciation does not necessarily mean physically

discarding but understanding that all are naama ruupa and hence mithyaa. By

physically discarding is giving more reality to the naama and ruupa only. By

rejecting the snake while taking care of a baby, normal understanding is that

snake can physically hurt the host while the other is not. While seeing the

Brahman in the snake and in the baby while throwing the snake and taking care of

the baby is mithyaatva darshanam for

> the naama and ruupa and satyatva darshanam for the underlying Brahman.

>

> Therefore Mithyaatva darshanam of the prapanca does not mean rejection of the

prapanca as undesirable; it can be accepted as the vibhuti of the Lord and deal

as APPROPRIATELY - if it is a snake discard it before it bites, but with

reverence to life, a baby that needs attention take care of it with love and

reverence to life - either Brahmin, dog or dog eater - are the same from the

absolute reference and at relative reference deal with each as one deals at

vyavahaara reference. Nidhidhyaasanam that is involved - is understanding the

mithyaatva of the naama and ruupa and satyatva of the underlying sat swaruupam.

Renunciation is the renunciation of the reality that is assumed to anaatma and

recognizing anaatma as mithyaa. This is understanding that involves in jnaana

saadhana what a physical sanyaasin also has to do as nidhidhyaasanam. The rest

of the paraphernalia is helpful but one cannot say as requirement based on the

nature of the reality. All the

> arguments presented by Shankara against jnaana-karma sumucchaya vaada will

apply even to the claims that renunciation of action is required for jnaana. The

rest of the arguments below can be changed completely if you replace snake with

an innocent baby in your hands, while true renunciation is to see all the naama

and ruupa is mithyaa only. In discarding each kosha as anaatma, Shankara

presents the five aspects in terms of the attitude towards the koshas †"

anaatmatva nischayaH, kaarya ruupatva nischayaH, mithyaatva nischayaH and

pravilaapanam as one goes from naama ruupa to the underlying substantive

Brahman. as one MENTALLY rejects the annamaya, praanamaya, manomaya,

vijnaanamaya and anandamaya koshaas to arrive at aananda aatma, brahma puccham

pratishTaa. It is not physical renunciation of any koshaas but mental

renunciation via pravilaapanam. At each level both micro and macro cosmos are

involved †" that is at vyashTi level and samashTi

level. Now

> look at the rest of your post replacing the snake with a innocent loving baby.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

>

> ------------ -

> shyam:

> If I don't discard it, and find myself holding onto it, and saying " why should

i throw it? - is it mine to throw away? " then I need to ask why? - why am i

holding on to the snake, fully knowing how lethal is its bite, instead of

letting go? If, like the folks in Toyota, i ask the five whys, the answer

invariably is that I am still within Maya's bewitching guile - itaretara aviveka

and satyanrte mithunikrtya is still going on.

>

> Renunciation of notional ownership is itself a notional renunication. That in

me, which tries to renounce the very idea of renunciation, is nothing but the

Ego - the master mischief-monger is up to its usual tricks, only now with more

refined sophistry - true renunciation is of only one kind - total - that alone

culminates in an engulfment in Self-abidance. Hence alone does His Holiness

Kanchi Mahaperiyava cautions us - " However much the mind and intellect might

have matured, until the Brahman Realisation happens, mAyA does not spare you.

Realisation is the apex of all sAdhanA. It cannot be achieved unless all karma

is extinguished. "

>

> Hari OM

> Shri Gurubhyoh namah

> Shyam

>

> --- On Thu, 10/22/09, Dilip Dhopavkar <dilip.dhopavkar@ gmail.com> wrote:

>

> > Dilip Dhopavkar <dilip.dhopavkar@ gmail.com>

> > Re: A perspective -1

> > advaitin@ s.com

> > Thursday, October 22, 2009, 2:07 AM

> > Dear Sadanandaji,

> >

> > Namaskar.

> >

> > You have written a magnificent article. Indeed  you

> > have answered  the very

> > questions that are occupying my mind lately. However,

> > sometimes I find in

> > all  such  discussions, the role of Maya and her

> > tremendous bewitching power

> > is generally avoided. An example of Totapuri, the teacher

> > of Advaita sadhana

> > to Sri Ramakrishna also could not get rid of maya in spite

> > of  his

> > phenomenal achievement ( I know this is a wrong word, as

> > you would say there

> > is nothing to achieve)  of the Advaita experience,

> > comes to my  mind.

> >

> > In fact , despite, a lot of wonderful  and 

> > convincing  explanations, pure

> > Advaita, to me, remains a distant dream , as life has to be

> > lived here and

> > now. In this here and now, the attack of maya can be

> > ferocious.

>