(ishta devata) JAI SRIKRISHNA TO ALL

[Guest guest]

Dear Nitish,

 

 

> Your example about duality is incorrect because Actions as an

> indispensable right of the soul are of the nature of Brahman (see

> Gita, chapter 4:24), while their results are manifested and

therefore

> in realm of three gunas of Prakriti. Duality is in manifestations

of

> Prakriti not in soul. So, you would never be able to create

duality

> by your actions, only observe the duality as an effect of your

> actions and finally as an effect of the supreme cause Brahman. It

> shouldn't me much of a concern to you that your actions can make

you

> dualistic in any possible way .

 

This doesn't sound correct at all. Which translation of Gita do you

have in mind? Bhagavada Gita of order says:

(http://bhagavata.org/gita/chapter4.html) " The sacrifice itself,

that which is offered in the fire of sacrifice and he who is of

sacrifice are of the same spiritual nature; he will certainly attain

the spirit of the Absolute [brahman] who is completely absorbed in

working for the spiritual " . Srila Prabhupada's interpretation says:

(http://www.asitis.com/4/24.html) " A person who is fully absorbed in

Krsna consciousness is sure to attain the spiritual kingdom because

of his full contribution to spiritual activities, in which the

consummation is absolute and that which is offered is of the same

spiritual nature " . Yoganiketan's version says (I think this is the

one you use): " Offering is also Brahman - food is Brahman - the fire

in the heart - He is Brahman - lifting food to the mouth - that is

also Brahman - the purpose is to go to Brahman - the reason for the

completion of karma is Brahman " . I wish there were some Advaitic

interpretation on line too, I would love to see what that says.

 

From the above, I seriously doubt if you can interpret the above

as " actions are an indispensable right of the soul " . While I can see

how you have jumped to your somewhat simplistic interpretation, I

personally believe the above shlokas only insist that a person who

is fully situated in Brahman can see it everywhere and in all

actions. It doesnt really suggest, as you have assumed, that Brahman

is the underlying *motivator* of action. It is only the

*effectuator*. These are subtle differences - Electric current

causes a video game to come alive and have the main character go

around shooting the bad guys. Doesnt mean that the electric current

is motivating the good guy - that's really the software's job (read

Prakriti) - electric current is only the effectuator of the video

game, while being clueless about its operation and reasons for

operation (only the software knows that).

 

So actions and motivations for action are *very much* in the realm

of duality, IMHO. In fact it is impossible to have multiple states

in a non-dual existence. Any action is a change of state, by

definition, so actions have to be part of some duality or

multiplicity. The very fact that there is a doer of an action is

also duality, since it assumes a separation of the actor from what-

is-being-acted-upon.

 

Consequently, I think you are using the term duality in some other

sense, not as is conventionally used when being mentioned vis-a-vis

non-duality..

 

So, I'm still in the dark about the basis of your point of view..

 

Sundeep

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri NitishVedanta does not allow students of this subject to be called " deluded " , especially when Sri Sundeep and Sri Tijana are raising doubts and questions. None of the Gurus would stop questioning, but would answer in a manner that gives them a pramana of the Truth. In most cases, I have seen the questions dissolve as they are based on certain assumptions that aren't true. I request you not to resort to names such as " Deluded " for able and intelligent persons like Sri Sundeep and Sri Tijana.

Intellectual understanding of Vedanta can give rise to lot of arrogance. It is my request to everyone to be careful of the same, as it defeats the very purpose of Vedanta. I would also request you to use simple terms or borrow terms from Vedanta.

Thanks and RegardsBharatOn Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 9:02 AM, yeeahoo_99 <nitish.arya wrote:

 

 

 

 

|| OM TAT SAT ||

Dear Sundeep,

> There are no axioms to get correct here, simply an appreciation of

> the *level* at which the observation was made. If I have a white

> pixel and a black pixel, that's a duality, no? However, aggregate

> millions of them together and you can create anything you want -

> pictures of hundreds of people bathing in a river, for e.g. So,

> you've achieved a multiplicity using duality as a base.

 

If you wish to remain conveniently deluded with multiplicity, i

will close the discussion with the famous quote from Adi Shankara --

" Brahman Satya Jagat Mithya " .

 

regards,

Nitish

 

sohamsa ,

" vedicastrostudent " <vedicastrostudent wrote:

>

> Dear Nitish,

>

> > Your logic is flawed. First, get your axioms correct.

> > Duality implies, there cannot be multiplicity, always a

> duality.

>

> There are no axioms to get correct here, simply an appreciation of

> the *level* at which the observation was made. If I have a white

> pixel and a black pixel, that's a duality, no? However, aggregate

> millions of them together and you can create anything you want -

> pictures of hundreds of people bathing in a river, for e.g. So,

> you've achieved a multiplicity using duality as a base. The path

> from non-duality to duality is infinitely long, and the path from

> duality to multiplicity is a short one. In fact, that's what

> manifestation is all about - get some duality going first, and

> everything else follows. The finer your observations, the closer

you

> witness the true duality(ies). The coarser your observations, the

> more you witness multiplicities. They are not very different..

>

>

> > And the duality cannot be shared. If Su-Mo is a duality, Mo-Ra

> cannot

> > be yet another duality as Tijana tried to project.

> > Everything non-dualistic in Prakriti is Brahman.

> > Action doesn't have a dualistic association with it in --

> > BrahmaKarmaSamadhina (4:24).

>

> I look, but I dont see. Where does it define action at all? And

> nowhere do I see the *unambiguous* mention of action being non-

dual.

> Please give, in your own words, what is meant by a non-dual action.

> Do not simply give pointers to non-karma-accruing actions, but bite

> the bullet and define a non-dual action. Who is the doer of the

> action, what does the doer operate upon, and how exactly does the

> non-dual doer witness something other than itself? If it does, how

> does the non-duality of the doer remain intact?

>

> IMHO, your perception of non-duality is simply something for which

> an opposite doesnt exist. But that non-dual entity swims in a world

> of opposites (prakriti), right? To me, that is not non-duality. Non-

> duality is *transcending* the opposites. No opposites *exist*

> in " its " world! That is why I said " electric current effectuates

the

> video game, not motivates it " . Electric current is a non-

participant

> in the video game even though it is it's effectuator. It has no

> motive in the video game, much like Brahman doesnt in this " world "

>

>

> Sundeep

>