To Rafal - Discussion on Maya and Avidya

May 28, 2006

Namaste Sri RafalOm sham no mitrah sham varunah sham no bhavatvaryamaa

Sham na indro brihaspatih sham no vishnururukramah

Namo brahmane namaste vaayo twameva pratyaksham

Brahmaasi twaameva pratyaksham brahma vadishyaami

Tanmaamavatu tadvaktaaramavatu

Avatu maam avatu vaktaaram.Aum shantih! shantih! shantih!

(1) Why the avidya and maya exists ?For whom is the Avidya? Let us say there is an individual XYZ. For him there is avidya. Avidya means ignorance. Ignorance is of what? Avidya of one's True Self. If XYZ knew the True Self, would there be any avidya? There cannot be. So Avidya is for the one who is not knowing his true self. Now, what is Maya? When under the influence of Avidya, one begins to project Reality to things and beings that are perceived different from oneself and act as a separate individual responding to likes and dislikes, etc... it is Maya. Let us take an example - XYZ is ignorant of his true self. So he assumes that his reality is the Body and the Mind. Through his senses he gets to know of all the objects and beings. Since, his body and mind is limited, he feels unfulfilled within and strives to complete himself. This process of wanting to complete himself gives rise to a Desire. The background and goal of every desire is to complete oneself. However, accumulation of limited goals and limited objects only leads to a limited satisfaction. But one keeps striving on and on, and this is called Maya. Now is Maya a Reality? - It cannot be as it is only misrepresentation or misappropraition of a Fact. If it were Real, it would be Brahman. A small example - if you cannot recognize a rope and think it is a snake. Does the snake exist? No. It is only a figment of imagination based on the very qualities of its substratum - the rope. Similarly in Maya, time and space appear endless. These qualities are based on the substratum Brahman which is endless. Therefore due to an error, something does not become Real. So neither the soul nor the world as XYZ sees it real. Since they are not real, they cannot be called dual or non-dual. They are only asat, unreal. Either to call them as two or as one, you have to accept them first as real, and then alone proceed to compare and think. No, the question arises - If all is Brahman, how is there Avidya and Maya? Again is there Maya and Avidya for Brahman? - No. Is there Maya for one who does not see himself as Brahman? - Yes. So individual not recognizing his true self is the cause of Maya. With Avidya rises Maya. Since notions do not have a truth, similarly they are not true and called asat. To call something as existing, you confer the quality of Truth to it. Only Truth exists. To say Maya exists is giving reality to it, when there is none. So the very statement is born out of Maya. This is how the mind confuses us and only through proper viveka we see through the deceptions of the mind. Similarly, for the individual we talk of Gunas, not for Brahman. In Maya, one has notions of the 3 gunas and panchkoshas. Upanishads and Srimad Bhagavad Gita talk of how the 3 gunas and the panchkoshas have no reality but appear as a notion and how one thinking it is real gets influenced by them. I am only replying to one question of yours as these require a lot of discussion in the spirit of learning. I do not really agree to Sri Sanjay Rathji's statement that Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa " proved " the validity of dwaita. Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa explained very clearly that anything that you see is nothing but Ma. He questioned the very notion to call a rock a rock and not Ma Kali. Thus, he broke the notion and therefore, talked of the Truth.

Perhaps all can understand better by not getting involved in Dwaita/Advaita talk and thinking there are two Truths. Harih Om! Sri Gurubhyoh Namah! Harih Om!Bharat

On 5/26/06, Rafal Gendarz <starsuponme wrote:

Dear Narasimha & Jyotisha's

Im not so familiar with details of Advaita/Vishishtadvaita paradigm. I saw that the concept of Sunya (like Sanjay Ji lecture of diseases / Sunya Samhita of Sri Achyuta, my Guruji attitude (last conversation) ) or Advaita concept prevail (i mean it is main trend) in SJC. There is also view that Sri Caitanya followers could accept that theory which is against the branch of Gaudiya (at least what Bhaktisiddhanta/Bh.Thakkura/Six Gosvamis(Sri Rupa & Sri Sanatana) preached). Sometimes I wish there could be some Jyotish explanation also for Dvaitans like me - like for example some note in " Creation " article about other also popular view of creation, or explanation that Jagganth has no feet/eyes (nirguna). I accept that other people can have various views but I think it would be nice & proper to give one small note about other concept.

For proper understanding I would like to ask some questions:

(1) Why the avidya and maya exists ?

I heard one answer that Brahmana has lila, but to be fact this must have some saguna attributes.

(2) If Jiva realizes Tattwa and get liberation and become One Atma=Brahman this cycle of getting into maya is cycle (Gita says one who is liberated dont come to material world again)

(3) If Jiva realizes the true nature being a Brahmana how the other Jivas can be still under realization (not realized). I know its from view of Vyavaharica but still the practice is under the Vyavaharica nature - like Worship / Getting Up / Washing Body etc.

(4) If Brahman is one why I must follow some process to go back to origin state? I dont have power to do this immediately so I dont have enough Sakti (power). If there is Brahman with Sakti and without there is Dwaita which is unacceptable. Ok...I can only dream that I have no power, or my state of non-power is imaginery, but I am still into this condition..and I dont want to suffer but I cannot do anything immediately to stop it.

I know there can be mistake in my questions pertaining to mixing the two levels : vyavaharica and reality but please anyone interested to comment on this.

Regards

Rafal Gendarz

-

Narasimha P.V.R. Rao

sohamsa

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 6:00 AM

Re: samba sada shiva & advaita

Namaste friends,

One very quick remark.

According to Vasishtha, the so-called maya is Brahman too. If Brahman is an ocean, the maya is like a surface tension causing ripples in the ocean that start thinking of themselves as ripples and not as ocean. However, the surface tension and the surface ripples are ocean too. Maya and the objects etched out by maya are Brahman too.

True Adwaita is not about dismissing a lot of things as " mithya " or " illusion " , but to see Brahman in those too.

BTW, sannyasa is not samyak + nyasa. Instead it is sat+nyasa. Sat means good. Good giving up.

May the light of Brahman shine within,

Narasimha

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

Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

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

> Om Gurave Namah> > Dear Ajit,> > Namaste. > > > > He found Mother both as Mayaa and Satyam. > > > > That which is mAyA cannot be satyam. `yA mA sA mAyA'. That which > is > > not [satyam] is mAyA. > > Lakshmi: Mother is descibed as " Vidya avidya swaroopini " in Lalitha > sahasranaamam. Sri Devyupanishat also says the same thing. If we > say that Maya is not Brahman, and yet Maya exists (for a temporary > period), are we not contradicting the statement that Brahman is All? > > Maya can not exist on its own. It is like a reflection (albeit a > distorted one:--)) of Truth. Like, this body is maya, and is > perishable, but the soul it contains is Eternal and certainly not > maya. Is the soul less Brahman because it is enveloped in maaya?> > There are some like Sri Ramakrishna, who can cut away and correct > the distortion and for them the Maya is a replica of Truth and their > essence is the same. > > > > why it needs to be taught very carefully from a > Ø guru > > Lakshmi: I agree. Guru is a very important influence in shaping > one's philosophy of life. Learning by reading from shastras is > another. But in such abstract subjects, significant insight can be > gained by focused introspection (tapasya). I am sure that's why > Guruji wanted this discussion to materialize.> > I have read many books & articles on Kanchi Mahaswami and have had > the good fortune of meeting him too. Infact, if you happen to visit > Hyderabad, please take some time off to visit a Sri Rama temple near > Hi tech city (Madapur). It's a beautiful temple complex and is built > by my cousin brother at the express wish of Kanchi Mahaswamy.> > One thing I still do not understand. You said that the > Shankaracharyas undertake rituals to guide people and they > themselves do not need it. Is advaita meant only for sannyasis? > Why do grihastas invariably have take to pravritti maarga? Why > should there be a difference between Shankaracharya and the lay > person, unless one is differentiating on the basis of maaya and > giving undue weightage to it? If the Brahman who dwells in the > sannyasi and the samsaari is the same, then why does one need > different approaches? > > Infact, the very saying " aham brahmaasmi " itself talks of two > entities (I and Brahman) and their oneness. It's like an assertion, > a declaration. When there's none other than Brahman, to whom is it > being declared / asserted?> > Regards,> Lakshmi > > > > > > > > > > In fact the term " sannyasa " can be decoded as samyak+nyaasa!!> > > > nyAsA has two meanings, since there are two sides to every coin. > It > > means `to place' etc, but simultaneously, it also means `to > abandon' > > also. I'll let you ponder over it. > >> > > > sohamsa , " Ajit Krishnan " <ajit.krishnan@> > wrote:> >> > Bharat> I personally as well the scriptural texts do not allow the > > usage of the words " Path " .> > > > Within the sampradaya, the terms `pravritti-marga' and `nivritti-> > marga' are used quite often to get the point across. > > > > Lakshmi> What could be the meaning of shad-loka paalas? > > > > Generally, 5 devatas do not seem to appear as the number of > devatas > > in any given avarana (of yantras etc). Usually, you have 6 (shat-> > kona), 6 (anga-puja), 8 (ashta-dala-padma), [[ other even numbered > > petals ]], 8 (dig-palakas), 8 (ayudhas). The numbers are generally > > even. When the pancha-loka-pala puja & the navagraha puja are done > > separately before the Satyanarayana puja proper, they have odd > > numbers (5 & 9 respectively). However, when they are placed in a > > single mandala, and understood to be the expansion of the same Sri-> > Satyanarayana, they themselves become avarana devatas of Sri > > Satyanarayana. The loka-palakas become 6 with the addition of > > Saraswati, and the Navagrahas become 8 since Rahu & Ketu (head & > > tail) are placed in the same dala. So, also, in similar styled > > pujas, you make come across durga-adi-ashtha-loka-palaka-s.> > > > > But if the religious rituals are > > > undertaken, they need to be performed with full faith and > > trikarana > > > shuddhi, and as prescribed in the shastras. > > > " Ineffectiveness " may not be used as a goad but as a reality. > > > > Of course, they need to be performed with faith and shuddhi while > > sticking to the texts as closely as possible. > But, " ineffectiveness " > > is most certainly a goad also. According to texts, sandhyavandanam > > is completely ineffective unless it is performed at the trikala > > sandhyas 1008 times per day. Yet, have you ever heard the > > mathadhipathis say " If you happen to wake up late, skip it for the > > day since it would be ineffective anyways? " . Never. But they tell > > you, you must wake up before sandhya-kala. There is a difference. > > Ineffectiveness has to be understood differently. > > > > Mantras are ineffective unless they are heard directly from a > guru. > > Mantras are ineffective unless they are prescribed from a guru > with > > mantra-shakti. Mantras are ineffective unless their purashcharana > is > > done. Yet, many here will have experiences where they got > wonderful > > results where this was not the case. Ineffectiveness has to be > > understood differently. > > > > If you think I am advocating improperly done pujas, you are > > mistaken. I am saying that " advaita-bhava " can (and should) be > > developed in puja also, while simultaneously sticking to all the > > details prescribed in the texts. As time goes on, and I understand > > the rules better, I perform them while trying to stick to them as > > best as I can. For example, even to the level of what mudras need > to > > be used while holding the upachara materials, and to which side & > > anga of the devata should dhupa / dipa / naivedya be offered. > > However, while time goes on, I perform the same puja (including > the > > loka pala pujas etc) with much better advaita-bhava. While > > performing the avarana puja, it has to be done with great shraddha > > etc, but once the avarana puja is done, and you are worshipping > sri-> > satyanarayana, it is him alone that should be in the mind. No > other > > thought should be there. Thus, the puja teaches us to > systematically > > move inward, and develop a one-pointed intellect. All samskaras > are, > > after all, a preparation for the serious path towards sannyasa > that > > we will undertake in some lifetime. > > > > > Do I dump the alphabet and the other basics I learnt whenever I > > graduate to the next level? > > > > Do you still use your fingers to determine the results of 2 + 3? > Do > > you spell out each word in your mind before you type it, or does > it > > just happen? You may not " dump it " , but the way you use it has > > certainly changed, hasn't it? Once a door is opened, you can walk > > through it at any time. > > > > > Shankaracharyas are liberated souls and follow the nivritti > > maarga, > > so do all these rituals matter to them? If not why did Adi > Shankara > > lay down such a process? Because whether it's householders or > > sannyasins certain discipline is necessary where spiritual matters > > are concenrned. > > > > The rituals don't matter to them. Those that do them, do them for > > the good of mankind _as a result of their purva-karmas_. Or > rather, > > they do nothing, but their bodies continue along the path, > impelled > > by previous karma unless the current body drops off. I undestand > > your logic, there is much more here, and would require many long > > discussions of its own. Do some reading into the life of > > Chandrashekara Bharati, or Sri Vidyasankara. All is not as it > > appears. > > > > > Adi shankara himself had to under go experiences related to > > duality > > > in order to learn. He had to do parakaaya pravesham into a dead > > body > > > to learn about certain facts of life and another episode was > when > > he > > > was accosted and interrogated by the Chandala. > > > > This story is not universally accepted, particularly in the higher > > echelons of the parampara. Many learned scholars completely reject > > this episode. > > > > > He found Mother both as Mayaa and Satyam. > > > > That which is mAyA cannot be satyam. `yA mA sA mAyA'. That which > is > > not [satyam] is mAyA. > > > > > Advaita needs practical application and needs to be ingrained > into > > our > > > responses to every day situations. > > > > And is precisely why it needs to be taught very carefully from a > > guru as it can be twisted all over the place if not properly > > understood.> > > > > In fact the term " sannyasa " can be decoded as samyak+nyaasa!!> > > > nyAsA has two meanings, since there are two sides to every coin. > It > > means `to place' etc, but simultaneously, it also means `to > abandon' > > also. I'll let you ponder over it. > > > > ajit

*tat savitur varenyam*

May 28, 2006

Dear Bharat

But if there is misinterpratation of fact then there must be some cause. And if You say that thinking about this cause is maya and maya doesnt exist then also You cant say about process which liberate You from Avidya because the proccess include the state of being in cluthes of Maya. You wrote that individual which doesnt recognize himself is cause of Maya, but it mean that first state is under maya or not? If originally I am in the same state like liberation-state so why I was put there. I know the problem of mixing vyavaharica with real state of existance but this doesnt talk to me. Dvaita Philosophy says that we are fallen from spiritual existence (duality in quantity, oneneess in quality) due to own will which give first dosha and put us under the three guna's. So I am looking for similar description in Advaita.

Regards

Rafal Gendarz

-

Bharat Hindu Astrology

sohamsa

Sunday, May 28, 2006 5:57 PM

To Rafal - Discussion on Maya and Avidya

Namaste Sri Rafal

Om sham no mitrah sham varunah sham no bhavatvaryamaaSham na indro brihaspatih sham no vishnururukramah

Namo brahmane namaste vaayo twameva pratyakshamBrahmaasi twaameva pratyaksham brahma vadishyaami

Tanmaamavatu tadvaktaaramavatuAvatu maam avatu vaktaaram.

Aum shantih! shantih! shantih!(1) Why the avidya and maya exists ?For whom is the Avidya? Let us say there is an individual XYZ. For him there is avidya. Avidya means ignorance. Ignorance is of what? Avidya of one's True Self. If XYZ knew the True Self, would there be any avidya? There cannot be. So Avidya is for the one who is not knowing his true self. Now, what is Maya? When under the influence of Avidya, one begins to project Reality to things and beings that are perceived different from oneself and act as a separate individual responding to likes and dislikes, etc... it is Maya. Let us take an example - XYZ is ignorant of his true self. So he assumes that his reality is the Body and the Mind. Through his senses he gets to know of all the objects and beings. Since, his body and mind is limited, he feels unfulfilled within and strives to complete himself. This process of wanting to complete himself gives rise to a Desire. The background and goal of every desire is to complete oneself. However, accumulation of limited goals and limited objects only leads to a limited satisfaction. But one keeps striving on and on, and this is called Maya. Now is Maya a Reality? - It cannot be as it is only misrepresentation or misappropraition of a Fact. If it were Real, it would be Brahman. A small example - if you cannot recognize a rope and think it is a snake. Does the snake exist? No. It is only a figment of imagination based on the very qualities of its substratum - the rope. Similarly in Maya, time and space appear endless. These qualities are based on the substratum Brahman which is endless. Therefore due to an error, something does not become Real. So neither the soul nor the world as XYZ sees it real. Since they are not real, they cannot be called dual or non-dual. They are only asat, unreal. Either to call them as two or as one, you have to accept them first as real, and then alone proceed to compare and think. No, the question arises - If all is Brahman, how is there Avidya and Maya? Again is there Maya and Avidya for Brahman? - No. Is there Maya for one who does not see himself as Brahman? - Yes. So individual not recognizing his true self is the cause of Maya. With Avidya rises Maya. Since notions do not have a truth, similarly they are not true and called asat. To call something as existing, you confer the quality of Truth to it. Only Truth exists. To say Maya exists is giving reality to it, when there is none. So the very statement is born out of Maya. This is how the mind confuses us and only through proper viveka we see through the deceptions of the mind. Similarly, for the individual we talk of Gunas, not for Brahman. In Maya, one has notions of the 3 gunas and panchkoshas. Upanishads and Srimad Bhagavad Gita talk of how the 3 gunas and the panchkoshas have no reality but appear as a notion and how one thinking it is real gets influenced by them. I am only replying to one question of yours as these require a lot of discussion in the spirit of learning. I do not really agree to Sri Sanjay Rathji's statement that Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa "proved" the validity of dwaita. Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa explained very clearly that anything that you see is nothing but Ma. He questioned the very notion to call a rock a rock and not Ma Kali. Thus, he broke the notion and therefore, talked of the Truth. Perhaps all can understand better by not getting involved in Dwaita/Advaita talk and thinking there are two Truths. Harih Om! Sri Gurubhyoh Namah! Harih Om!Bharat

On 5/26/06, Rafal Gendarz <starsuponme wrote:

Dear Narasimha & Jyotisha's

Im not so familiar with details of Advaita/Vishishtadvaita paradigm. I saw that the concept of Sunya (like Sanjay Ji lecture of diseases / Sunya Samhita of Sri Achyuta, my Guruji attitude (last conversation) ) or Advaita concept prevail (i mean it is main trend) in SJC. There is also view that Sri Caitanya followers could accept that theory which is against the branch of Gaudiya (at least what Bhaktisiddhanta/Bh.Thakkura/Six Gosvamis(Sri Rupa & Sri Sanatana) preached). Sometimes I wish there could be some Jyotish explanation also for Dvaitans like me - like for example some note in "Creation" article about other also popular view of creation, or explanation that Jagganth has no feet/eyes (nirguna). I accept that other people can have various views but I think it would be nice & proper to give one small note about other concept.

For proper understanding I would like to ask some questions:

(1) Why the avidya and maya exists ?

I heard one answer that Brahmana has lila, but to be fact this must have some saguna attributes.

(2) If Jiva realizes Tattwa and get liberation and become One Atma=Brahman this cycle of getting into maya is cycle (Gita says one who is liberated dont come to material world again)

(3) If Jiva realizes the true nature being a Brahmana how the other Jivas can be still under realization (not realized). I know its from view of Vyavaharica but still the practice is under the Vyavaharica nature - like Worship / Getting Up / Washing Body etc.

(4) If Brahman is one why I must follow some process to go back to origin state? I dont have power to do this immediately so I dont have enough Sakti (power). If there is Brahman with Sakti and without there is Dwaita which is unacceptable. Ok...I can only dream that I have no power, or my state of non-power is imaginery, but I am still into this condition..and I dont want to suffer but I cannot do anything immediately to stop it.

I know there can be mistake in my questions pertaining to mixing the two levels : vyavaharica and reality but please anyone interested to comment on this.

Regards

Rafal Gendarz

-

Narasimha P.V.R. Rao

sohamsa

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 6:00 AM

Re: samba sada shiva & advaita

Namaste friends,

One very quick remark.

According to Vasishtha, the so-called maya is Brahman too. If Brahman is an ocean, the maya is like a surface tension causing ripples in the ocean that start thinking of themselves as ripples and not as ocean. However, the surface tension and the surface ripples are ocean too. Maya and the objects etched out by maya are Brahman too.

True Adwaita is not about dismissing a lot of things as "mithya" or "illusion", but to see Brahman in those too.

BTW, sannyasa is not samyak + nyasa. Instead it is sat+nyasa. Sat means good. Good giving up.

May the light of Brahman shine within,

Narasimha

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

Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

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

> Om Gurave Namah> > Dear Ajit,> > Namaste. > > > > He found Mother both as Mayaa and Satyam. > > > > That which is mAyA cannot be satyam. `yA mA sA mAyA'. That which > is > > not [satyam] is mAyA. > > Lakshmi: Mother is descibed as "Vidya avidya swaroopini" in Lalitha > sahasranaamam. Sri Devyupanishat also says the same thing. If we > say that Maya is not Brahman, and yet Maya exists (for a temporary > period), are we not contradicting the statement that Brahman is All? > > Maya can not exist on its own. It is like a reflection (albeit a > distorted one:--)) of Truth. Like, this body is maya, and is > perishable, but the soul it contains is Eternal and certainly not > maya. Is the soul less Brahman because it is enveloped in maaya?> > There are some like Sri Ramakrishna, who can cut away and correct > the distortion and for them the Maya is a replica of Truth and their > essence is the same. > > > > why it needs to be taught very carefully from a > Ø guru > > Lakshmi: I agree. Guru is a very important influence in shaping > one's philosophy of life. Learning by reading from shastras is > another. But in such abstract subjects, significant insight can be > gained by focused introspection (tapasya). I am sure that's why > Guruji wanted this discussion to materialize.> > I have read many books & articles on Kanchi Mahaswami and have had > the good fortune of meeting him too. Infact, if you happen to visit > Hyderabad, please take some time off to visit a Sri Rama temple near > Hi tech city (Madapur). It's a beautiful temple complex and is built > by my cousin brother at the express wish of Kanchi Mahaswamy.> > One thing I still do not understand. You said that the > Shankaracharyas undertake rituals to guide people and they > themselves do not need it. Is advaita meant only for sannyasis? > Why do grihastas invariably have take to pravritti maarga? Why > should there be a difference between Shankaracharya and the lay > person, unless one is differentiating on the basis of maaya and > giving undue weightage to it? If the Brahman who dwells in the > sannyasi and the samsaari is the same, then why does one need > different approaches? > > Infact, the very saying "aham brahmaasmi" itself talks of two > entities (I and Brahman) and their oneness. It's like an assertion, > a declaration. When there's none other than Brahman, to whom is it > being declared / asserted?> > Regards,> Lakshmi > > > > > > > > > > In fact the term "sannyasa " can be decoded as samyak+nyaasa!!> > > > nyAsA has two meanings, since there are two sides to every coin. > It > > means `to place' etc, but simultaneously, it also means `to > abandon' > > also. I'll let you ponder over it. > >> > > > sohamsa , "Ajit Krishnan" <ajit.krishnan@> > wrote:> >> > Bharat> I personally as well the scriptural texts do not allow the > > usage of the words "Path".> > > > Within the sampradaya, the terms `pravritti-marga' and `nivritti-> > marga' are used quite often to get the point across. > > > > Lakshmi> What could be the meaning of shad-loka paalas? > > > > Generally, 5 devatas do not seem to appear as the number of > devatas > > in any given avarana (of yantras etc). Usually, you have 6 (shat-> > kona), 6 (anga-puja), 8 (ashta-dala-padma), [[ other even numbered > > petals ]], 8 (dig-palakas), 8 (ayudhas). The numbers are generally > > even. When the pancha-loka-pala puja & the navagraha puja are done > > separately before the Satyanarayana puja proper, they have odd > > numbers (5 & 9 respectively). However, when they are placed in a > > single mandala, and understood to be the expansion of the same Sri-> > Satyanarayana, they themselves become avarana devatas of Sri > > Satyanarayana. The loka-palakas become 6 with the addition of > > Saraswati, and the Navagrahas become 8 since Rahu & Ketu (head & > > tail) are placed in the same dala. So, also, in similar styled > > pujas, you make come across durga-adi-ashtha-loka-palaka-s.> > > > > But if the religious rituals are > > > undertaken, they need to be performed with full faith and > > trikarana > > > shuddhi, and as prescribed in the shastras. > > > "Ineffectiveness" may not be used as a goad but as a reality. > > > > Of course, they need to be performed with faith and shuddhi while > > sticking to the texts as closely as possible. > But, "ineffectiveness" > > is most certainly a goad also. According to texts, sandhyavandanam > > is completely ineffective unless it is performed at the trikala > > sandhyas 1008 times per day. Yet, have you ever heard the > > mathadhipathis say "If you happen to wake up late, skip it for the > > day since it would be ineffective anyways?". Never. But they tell > > you, you must wake up before sandhya-kala. There is a difference. > > Ineffectiveness has to be understood differently. > > > > Mantras are ineffective unless they are heard directly from a > guru. > > Mantras are ineffective unless they are prescribed from a guru > with > > mantra-shakti. Mantras are ineffective unless their purashcharana > is > > done. Yet, many here will have experiences where they got > wonderful > > results where this was not the case. Ineffectiveness has to be > > understood differently. > > > > If you think I am advocating improperly done pujas, you are > > mistaken. I am saying that "advaita-bhava" can (and should) be > > developed in puja also, while simultaneously sticking to all the > > details prescribed in the texts. As time goes on, and I understand > > the rules better, I perform them while trying to stick to them as > > best as I can. For example, even to the level of what mudras need > to > > be used while holding the upachara materials, and to which side & > > anga of the devata should dhupa / dipa / naivedya be offered. > > However, while time goes on, I perform the same puja (including > the > > loka pala pujas etc) with much better advaita-bhava. While > > performing the avarana puja, it has to be done with great shraddha > > etc, but once the avarana puja is done, and you are worshipping > sri-> > satyanarayana, it is him alone that should be in the mind. No > other > > thought should be there. Thus, the puja teaches us to > systematically > > move inward, and develop a one-pointed intellect. All samskaras > are, > > after all, a preparation for the serious path towards sannyasa > that > > we will undertake in some lifetime. > > > > > Do I dump the alphabet and the other basics I learnt whenever I > > graduate to the next level? > > > > Do you still use your fingers to determine the results of 2 + 3? > Do > > you spell out each word in your mind before you type it, or does > it > > just happen? You may not "dump it", but the way you use it has > > certainly changed, hasn't it? Once a door is opened, you can walk > > through it at any time. > > > > > Shankaracharyas are liberated souls and follow the nivritti > > maarga, > > so do all these rituals matter to them? If not why did Adi > Shankara > > lay down such a process? Because whether it's householders or > > sannyasins certain discipline is necessary where spiritual matters > > are concenrned. > > > > The rituals don't matter to them. Those that do them, do them for > > the good of mankind _as a result of their purva-karmas_. Or > rather, > > they do nothing, but their bodies continue along the path, > impelled > > by previous karma unless the current body drops off. I undestand > > your logic, there is much more here, and would require many long > > discussions of its own. Do some reading into the life of > > Chandrashekara Bharati, or Sri Vidyasankara. All is not as it > > appears. > > > > > Adi shankara himself had to under go experiences related to > > duality > > > in order to learn. He had to do parakaaya pravesham into a dead > > body > > > to learn about certain facts of life and another episode was > when > > he > > > was accosted and interrogated by the Chandala. > > > > This story is not universally accepted, particularly in the higher > > echelons of the parampara. Many learned scholars completely reject > > this episode. > > > > > He found Mother both as Mayaa and Satyam. > > > > That which is mAyA cannot be satyam. `yA mA sA mAyA'. That which > is > > not [satyam] is mAyA. > > > > > Advaita needs practical application and needs to be ingrained > into > > our > > > responses to every day situations. > > > > And is precisely why it needs to be taught very carefully from a > > guru as it can be twisted all over the place if not properly > > understood.> > > > > In fact the term "sannyasa " can be decoded as samyak+nyaasa!!> > > > nyAsA has two meanings, since there are two sides to every coin. > It > > means `to place' etc, but simultaneously, it also means `to > abandon' > > also. I'll let you ponder over it. > > > > ajit*tat savitur varenyam*

May 29, 2006

Namaste Sri RafalThere isn't a cause for Avidya. As if Avidya has a cause then only thing " before it " is Brahman. How can Brahman which is all knowing be the cause of Avidya. To satisfy the mind of an inquirer the scriptures say that Brahman being all powerful has the power of delusion in it too. This is only to satisfy the quest because your query is actually relating to the creation of the samsara itself. The realized masters explain beautifully - " You see a ghost where there is none " - You have chosen not to see the Truth by your own power. Misrepresentation, which is Maya, does have a cause. The cause is Avidya. Once you are not aware of something, you imagine it to be something else as Mind cannot stay in a state of inequilibrium. Now your confusion or question arises because of the fact that you consider some part as of a realized person and some part of an individual samasaric person. " And if You say that thinking about this cause is maya and maya doesnt exist then also You cant say about process which liberate You from Avidya because the proccess include the state of being in cluthes of Maya. " Existence means the Truth. That something " is " . So in order for mind to distinguish the Satya from the Asat, it is important to know that Maya is a notion. The notion has a cause of ignorance. The ignorance is uncaused but for explanation purposes said to be born out of your own power. Think again, let me say if Maya exists. Then it becomes Sat. Therefore, everyone is realizing Maya. Therefore, everyone is rooted in Truth. Now can we say Maya is truth? So what do we say? - Maya is asat. For the individual it is important to know it. Now in the samsara, in any object you see Satyam Jnanam Anantam and Nama and Rupa. The Vedas tell us Nama and Rupa are Maya. They are perceived so because of our senses. But Satyam Jnanam Anantam is the Truth. So on Truth imagination of Nama and Rupa is Maya. It is very important that we define the Truth too - That which is Sat and remains so is Truth. In other words, that which never becomes asat. Name and form are subject to change and hence Asat. You have also raised a very beautiful query about liberation. This shows a thinking mind and I appreciate your query. If Maya is asat, then what process do we employ the remove it? Here, there are some important things to consider:

To discover one's real self is a matter of Realization and not of becoming. You are Brahman right now. You need not become it. Only you do not realize it. What stops you from realizing? - If you analyze this question- it is the unprepared mind. It is the doubting mind. It does not feel like Brahman. Moreover it may want to experience Brahman as if it is an outside object to be experienced. Plus there is a question of survival, of taking care of the body. Taking care of the family. Living in the world amongst all its problems. So the mind needs preparedness. It is should be available when you need it. For which action in the spirit of Yoga is specified by Srimad Bhagavad Gita. Yoga specifies a particular attitude and a value. Karma Yoga, therefore, is action with the attitude of performance of one's obligatory duty without any respect to one's likes and dislikes. Now, you say since Maya is asat, no process can be defined. It is not true. If one believes one is cat, there can be a process to make one see that one is not a cat. However, here there is no becoming but removing the becoming. Here the " process " is Being. So the whole teaching is of stopping pretensions. Secondly, Vedas itself lie in Maya, then why listen to their words? The Vedanta says clearly that its words are like the " Lion in the Dream " such that one wakes up. Here " waking up " refers to Realizing oneself. Dvaita Philosophy says that we are fallen from spiritual existence (duality in quantity, oneneess in quality) due to own will which give first dosha and put us under the three guna's. So I am looking for similar description in Advaita.This is coming back to the first statement. Let me explain with the example related to Mandukya Upanishad:In your dream, there is a dream Rafal and there is a world that the dream Rafal experiences. The Real Rafal is asleep. Within the dream, dream Rafal studies astrology and questions everyone on why did this dream happen? Can any answer to this question satisfy you? What process is employed for Dream Rafal to realize, that Dream Rafal and I who is talking to him are in truth Real Rafal. There is no two. So someone comes and beats up Dream Rafal in the Dream. Does the Real Rafal get hurt? When the Real Rafal wakes up, for him no experience of beaten up happened. The entire dream was contained in Real Rafal. In his power of Avarna and Vikshepa. To give qualities of Brahman to transform into an individual would be like saying Brahman is mutable. Anything mutable is limited and that Brahman can't be. So the statement of a tranformed state is not advised.

Finally, you look for similar description in Advaita. Why? Is it because you want to pursue this knowledge? If yes, then, you must find a Guru.

Harih Om! Sri Gurubhyoh Namah! Harih Om! BharatOn 5/29/06, Rafal Gendarz <starsuponme wrote:

Dear Bharat

But if there is misinterpratation of fact then there must be some cause. And if You say that thinking about this cause is maya and maya doesnt exist then also You cant say about process which liberate You from Avidya because the proccess include the state of being in cluthes of Maya. You wrote that individual which doesnt recognize himself is cause of Maya, but it mean that first state is under maya or not? If originally I am in the same state like liberation-state so why I was put there. I know the problem of mixing vyavaharica with real state of existance but this doesnt talk to me. Dvaita Philosophy says that we are fallen from spiritual existence (duality in quantity, oneneess in quality) due to own will which give first dosha and put us under the three guna's. So I am looking for similar description in Advaita.

Regards

Rafal Gendarz

-

Bharat Hindu Astrology

sohamsa

Sunday, May 28, 2006 5:57 PM

To Rafal - Discussion on Maya and Avidya

Namaste Sri Rafal

Om sham no mitrah sham varunah sham no bhavatvaryamaaSham na indro brihaspatih sham no vishnururukramah

Namo brahmane namaste vaayo twameva pratyakshamBrahmaasi twaameva pratyaksham brahma vadishyaami

Tanmaamavatu tadvaktaaramavatuAvatu maam avatu vaktaaram.

Aum shantih! shantih! shantih!(1) Why the avidya and maya exists ?For whom is the Avidya? Let us say there is an individual XYZ. For him there is avidya. Avidya means ignorance. Ignorance is of what? Avidya of one's True Self. If XYZ knew the True Self, would there be any avidya? There cannot be. So Avidya is for the one who is not knowing his true self. Now, what is Maya? When under the influence of Avidya, one begins to project Reality to things and beings that are perceived different from oneself and act as a separate individual responding to likes and dislikes, etc... it is Maya. Let us take an example - XYZ is ignorant of his true self. So he assumes that his reality is the Body and the Mind. Through his senses he gets to know of all the objects and beings. Since, his body and mind is limited, he feels unfulfilled within and strives to complete himself. This process of wanting to complete himself gives rise to a Desire. The background and goal of every desire is to complete oneself. However, accumulation of limited goals and limited objects only leads to a limited satisfaction. But one keeps striving on and on, and this is called Maya. Now is Maya a Reality? - It cannot be as it is only misrepresentation or misappropraition of a Fact. If it were Real, it would be Brahman. A small example - if you cannot recognize a rope and think it is a snake. Does the snake exist? No. It is only a figment of imagination based on the very qualities of its substratum - the rope. Similarly in Maya, time and space appear endless. These qualities are based on the substratum Brahman which is endless. Therefore due to an error, something does not become Real. So neither the soul nor the world as XYZ sees it real. Since they are not real, they cannot be called dual or non-dual. They are only asat, unreal. Either to call them as two or as one, you have to accept them first as real, and then alone proceed to compare and think. No, the question arises - If all is Brahman, how is there Avidya and Maya? Again is there Maya and Avidya for Brahman? - No. Is there Maya for one who does not see himself as Brahman? - Yes. So individual not recognizing his true self is the cause of Maya. With Avidya rises Maya. Since notions do not have a truth, similarly they are not true and called asat. To call something as existing, you confer the quality of Truth to it. Only Truth exists. To say Maya exists is giving reality to it, when there is none. So the very statement is born out of Maya. This is how the mind confuses us and only through proper viveka we see through the deceptions of the mind. Similarly, for the individual we talk of Gunas, not for Brahman. In Maya, one has notions of the 3 gunas and panchkoshas. Upanishads and Srimad Bhagavad Gita talk of how the 3 gunas and the panchkoshas have no reality but appear as a notion and how one thinking it is real gets influenced by them. I am only replying to one question of yours as these require a lot of discussion in the spirit of learning. I do not really agree to Sri Sanjay Rathji's statement that Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa " proved " the validity of dwaita. Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa explained very clearly that anything that you see is nothing but Ma. He questioned the very notion to call a rock a rock and not Ma Kali. Thus, he broke the notion and therefore, talked of the Truth. Perhaps all can understand better by not getting involved in Dwaita/Advaita talk and thinking there are two Truths. Harih Om! Sri Gurubhyoh Namah! Harih Om!Bharat

On 5/26/06, Rafal Gendarz <starsuponme wrote:

Dear Narasimha & Jyotisha's

Im not so familiar with details of Advaita/Vishishtadvaita paradigm. I saw that the concept of Sunya (like Sanjay Ji lecture of diseases / Sunya Samhita of Sri Achyuta, my Guruji attitude (last conversation) ) or Advaita concept prevail (i mean it is main trend) in SJC. There is also view that Sri Caitanya followers could accept that theory which is against the branch of Gaudiya (at least what Bhaktisiddhanta/Bh.Thakkura/Six Gosvamis(Sri Rupa & Sri Sanatana) preached). Sometimes I wish there could be some Jyotish explanation also for Dvaitans like me - like for example some note in " Creation " article about other also popular view of creation, or explanation that Jagganth has no feet/eyes (nirguna). I accept that other people can have various views but I think it would be nice & proper to give one small note about other concept.

For proper understanding I would like to ask some questions:

(1) Why the avidya and maya exists ?

I heard one answer that Brahmana has lila, but to be fact this must have some saguna attributes.

(2) If Jiva realizes Tattwa and get liberation and become One Atma=Brahman this cycle of getting into maya is cycle (Gita says one who is liberated dont come to material world again)

(3) If Jiva realizes the true nature being a Brahmana how the other Jivas can be still under realization (not realized). I know its from view of Vyavaharica but still the practice is under the Vyavaharica nature - like Worship / Getting Up / Washing Body etc.

(4) If Brahman is one why I must follow some process to go back to origin state? I dont have power to do this immediately so I dont have enough Sakti (power). If there is Brahman with Sakti and without there is Dwaita which is unacceptable. Ok...I can only dream that I have no power, or my state of non-power is imaginery, but I am still into this condition..and I dont want to suffer but I cannot do anything immediately to stop it.

I know there can be mistake in my questions pertaining to mixing the two levels : vyavaharica and reality but please anyone interested to comment on this.

Regards

Rafal Gendarz

-

Narasimha P.V.R. Rao

sohamsa

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 6:00 AM

Re: samba sada shiva & advaita

Namaste friends,

One very quick remark.

According to Vasishtha, the so-called maya is Brahman too. If Brahman is an ocean, the maya is like a surface tension causing ripples in the ocean that start thinking of themselves as ripples and not as ocean. However, the surface tension and the surface ripples are ocean too. Maya and the objects etched out by maya are Brahman too.

True Adwaita is not about dismissing a lot of things as " mithya " or " illusion " , but to see Brahman in those too.

BTW, sannyasa is not samyak + nyasa. Instead it is sat+nyasa. Sat means good. Good giving up.

May the light of Brahman shine within,

Narasimha

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

Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

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

> Om Gurave Namah> > Dear Ajit,> > Namaste. > > > > He found Mother both as Mayaa and Satyam. > > > > That which is mAyA cannot be satyam. `yA mA sA mAyA'. That which > is > > not [satyam] is mAyA. > > Lakshmi: Mother is descibed as " Vidya avidya swaroopini " in Lalitha > sahasranaamam. Sri Devyupanishat also says the same thing. If we > say that Maya is not Brahman, and yet Maya exists (for a temporary > period), are we not contradicting the statement that Brahman is All? > > Maya can not exist on its own. It is like a reflection (albeit a > distorted one:--)) of Truth. Like, this body is maya, and is > perishable, but the soul it contains is Eternal and certainly not > maya. Is the soul less Brahman because it is enveloped in maaya?> > There are some like Sri Ramakrishna, who can cut away and correct > the distortion and for them the Maya is a replica of Truth and their > essence is the same. > > > > why it needs to be taught very carefully from a > ï¿½ guru > > Lakshmi: I agree. Guru is a very important influence in shaping > one's philosophy of life. Learning by reading from shastras is > another. But in such abstract subjects, significant insight can be > gained by focused introspection (tapasya). I am sure that's why > Guruji wanted this discussion to materialize.> > I have read many books & articles on Kanchi Mahaswami and have had > the good fortune of meeting him too. Infact, if you happen to visit > Hyderabad, please take some time off to visit a Sri Rama temple near > Hi tech city (Madapur). It's a beautiful temple complex and is built > by my cousin brother at the express wish of Kanchi Mahaswamy.> > One thing I still do not understand. You said that the > Shankaracharyas undertake rituals to guide people and they > themselves do not need it. Is advaita meant only for sannyasis? > Why do grihastas invariably have take to pravritti maarga? Why > should there be a difference between Shankaracharya and the lay > person, unless one is differentiating on the basis of maaya and > giving undue weightage to it? If the Brahman who dwells in the > sannyasi and the samsaari is the same, then why does one need > different approaches? > > Infact, the very saying " aham brahmaasmi " itself talks of two > entities (I and Brahman) and their oneness. It's like an assertion, > a declaration. When there's none other than Brahman, to whom is it > being declared / asserted?> > Regards,> Lakshmi > > > > > > > > > > In fact the term " sannyasa " can be decoded as samyak+nyaasa!!> > > > nyAsA has two meanings, since there are two sides to every coin. > It > > means `to place' etc, but simultaneously, it also means `to > abandon' > > also. I'll let you ponder over it. > >> > > > sohamsa , " Ajit Krishnan " <ajit.krishnan@> > wrote:> >> > Bharat> I personally as well the scriptural texts do not allow the > > usage of the words " Path " .> > > > Within the sampradaya, the terms `pravritti-marga' and `nivritti-> > marga' are used quite often to get the point across. > > > > Lakshmi> What could be the meaning of shad-loka paalas? > > > > Generally, 5 devatas do not seem to appear as the number of > devatas > > in any given avarana (of yantras etc). Usually, you have 6 (shat-> > kona), 6 (anga-puja), 8 (ashta-dala-padma), [[ other even numbered > > petals ]], 8 (dig-palakas), 8 (ayudhas). The numbers are generally > > even. When the pancha-loka-pala puja & the navagraha puja are done > > separately before the Satyanarayana puja proper, they have odd > > numbers (5 & 9 respectively). However, when they are placed in a > > single mandala, and understood to be the expansion of the same Sri-> > Satyanarayana, they themselves become avarana devatas of Sri > > Satyanarayana. The loka-palakas become 6 with the addition of > > Saraswati, and the Navagrahas become 8 since Rahu & Ketu (head & > > tail) are placed in the same dala. So, also, in similar styled > > pujas, you make come across durga-adi-ashtha-loka-palaka-s.> > > > > But if the religious rituals are > > > undertaken, they need to be performed with full faith and > > trikarana > > > shuddhi, and as prescribed in the shastras. > > > " Ineffectiveness " may not be used as a goad but as a reality. > > > > Of course, they need to be performed with faith and shuddhi while > > sticking to the texts as closely as possible. > But, " ineffectiveness " > > is most certainly a goad also. According to texts, sandhyavandanam > > is completely ineffective unless it is performed at the trikala > > sandhyas 1008 times per day. Yet, have you ever heard the > > mathadhipathis say " If you happen to wake up late, skip it for the > > day since it would be ineffective anyways? " . Never. But they tell > > you, you must wake up before sandhya-kala. There is a difference. > > Ineffectiveness has to be understood differently. > > > > Mantras are ineffective unless they are heard directly from a > guru. > > Mantras are ineffective unless they are prescribed from a guru > with > > mantra-shakti. Mantras are ineffective unless their purashcharana > is > > done. Yet, many here will have experiences where they got > wonderful > > results where this was not the case. Ineffectiveness has to be > > understood differently. > > > > If you think I am advocating improperly done pujas, you are > > mistaken. I am saying that " advaita-bhava " can (and should) be > > developed in puja also, while simultaneously sticking to all the > > details prescribed in the texts. As time goes on, and I understand > > the rules better, I perform them while trying to stick to them as > > best as I can. For example, even to the level of what mudras need > to > > be used while holding the upachara materials, and to which side & > > anga of the devata should dhupa / dipa / naivedya be offered. > > However, while time goes on, I perform the same puja (including > the > > loka pala pujas etc) with much better advaita-bhava. While > > performing the avarana puja, it has to be done with great shraddha > > etc, but once the avarana puja is done, and you are worshipping > sri-> > satyanarayana, it is him alone that should be in the mind. No > other > > thought should be there. Thus, the puja teaches us to > systematically > > move inward, and develop a one-pointed intellect. All samskaras > are, > > after all, a preparation for the serious path towards sannyasa > that > > we will undertake in some lifetime. > > > > > Do I dump the alphabet and the other basics I learnt whenever I > > graduate to the next level? > > > > Do you still use your fingers to determine the results of 2 + 3? > Do > > you spell out each word in your mind before you type it, or does > it > > just happen? You may not " dump it " , but the way you use it has > > certainly changed, hasn't it? Once a door is opened, you can walk > > through it at any time. > > > > > Shankaracharyas are liberated souls and follow the nivritti > > maarga, > > so do all these rituals matter to them? If not why did Adi > Shankara > > lay down such a process? Because whether it's householders or > > sannyasins certain discipline is necessary where spiritual matters > > are concenrned. > > > > The rituals don't matter to them. Those that do them, do them for > > the good of mankind _as a result of their purva-karmas_. Or > rather, > > they do nothing, but their bodies continue along the path, > impelled > > by previous karma unless the current body drops off. I undestand > > your logic, there is much more here, and would require many long > > discussions of its own. Do some reading into the life of > > Chandrashekara Bharati, or Sri Vidyasankara. All is not as it > > appears. > > > > > Adi shankara himself had to under go experiences related to > > duality > > > in order to learn. He had to do parakaaya pravesham into a dead > > body > > > to learn about certain facts of life and another episode was > when > > he > > > was accosted and interrogated by the Chandala. > > > > This story is not universally accepted, particularly in the higher > > echelons of the parampara. Many learned scholars completely reject > > this episode. > > > > > He found Mother both as Mayaa and Satyam. > > > > That which is mAyA cannot be satyam. `yA mA sA mAyA'. That which > is > > not [satyam] is mAyA. > > > > > Advaita needs practical application and needs to be ingrained > into > > our > > > responses to every day situations. > > > > And is precisely why it needs to be taught very carefully from a > > guru as it can be twisted all over the place if not properly > > understood.> > > > > In fact the term " sannyasa " can be decoded as samyak+nyaasa!!> > > > nyAsA has two meanings, since there are two sides to every coin. > It > > means `to place' etc, but simultaneously, it also means `to > abandon' > > also. I'll let you ponder over it. > > > > ajit*tat savitur varenyam*