Guest guest Posted November 1, 1999 Report Share Posted November 1, 1999 >>Sri Ramakrishnaye Namah >Vivekananda Centre London >http://www.btinternet.com/~vivekananda/ >------ > >There are 14 messages in this issue. > >Topics in today's digest: > > 1. 5th verse of dakshiNA-mUrti stotraM -further elaborated > " V. Krishnamurthy " <profvk > 2. RE: 5th verse of dakshiNA-mUrti stotraM -further elabo >rated > " Madhava K. Turumella " <madhava > 3. Re: 5th verse of dakshiNA-mUrti stotraM -further elaborated > " Vivekananda Centre " <vivekananda > 4. Avadhuta - Chapter 1 verse 19 > FREESUE > 5. Re: Digest 230 > Dr C S Shah <drcssha > 6. re:wisdom > " Dynes " <dynes > 7. Re: Rituals > Anurag Goel <anurag > 8. daily sutra > <omtatsat > 9. Re: Nadi - meanings ....... > Anurag Goel <anurag > 10. daily sutra > <omtatsat > 11. fortune telling > <omtatsat > 12. RE: Nadi - meanings ....... > " Madhava K. Turumella " <madhava > 13. From R Dinakarn Dynes > " Vivekananda Centre " <vivekananda > 14. dakshiNA-mUrti-stotraM - 5th verse, further elaborated > " V. Krishnamurthy " <profvk > > >_____________________________ >_____________________________ > >Message: 1 > Sat, 16 Oct 1999 21:48:05 -0700 (PDT) > " V. Krishnamurthy " <profvk >5th verse of dakshiNA-mUrti stotraM -further elaborated > >5th verse of dakshiNA-mUrti-stotraM - further elaborated > >dehaM prANam-api-indriyANy-api calAM buddhiM ca SunyaM viduH >strI-bAla-andha-jaDo-pamAH tvaham-iti bhrAntA bhRSaM vAdinaH / >mAyA-Sakti-vilAsa-kalpita-mahA-vyAmoha-saMhAriNe >tasmai-SrI-guru-mUrtaye nama idaM SrI-dakshiNA-mUrtaye // > >viduH - (Those who) understand, know, >dehaM - the body >prANam-api - and/or the vital breath >indriyANy-api - and/or the senses >calAM buddhiM ca - and/or the momentary cognition, (technically called >kshaNika-vijnAna) >Sunyam - (and/or) emptiness, void >aham-iti - as the 'I " >(stri - women; bAla - children; andha - the blind; jaDa - the foolish; >upamAH - comparable) >strI-bAla-andha-jaDo-pamAH - (have attitudes) comparable to feminine >(fickleness), childish (immaturity), (unseeing like) the blind, and >(obstinate like) the foolish >bhRSaM vAdinaH - they only talk too much >bhrAntAH - confounded (are they) >(mAyA-Sakti - the Power of mAyA; vilAsa - expansion, expression, play; >kalpita - created; mahA-vyAmoha - grand delusion; saMhAriNe - to the >destroyer) >mAyA-Sakti-vilAsa-kalpita-mahA-vyAmoha-saMhAriNe - >to the One who destroys (by His teaching) the grand delusion created by >the play of the Power of mAyA >tasmai - to that >SrI guru-mUrtaye - the blessed personality of the guru >nama idaM - this prostration (be) >SrI dakshiNA-mUrtaye - the blessed form of dakshiNA-mUrti. > >I am only supplementing the commentary already posted. In my experience, >two serious doubts arise in the minds of the learners of this verse. One >is the legitimate doubt about Sunya, which has been raised now. The other >is the reference to 'women' in what appears to be an uncomplimentary >reference. Throughout the religious literature of Hinduism whenever the >reference to 'women' appears in a similar strain it must be clearly >understood that the reference is not to women as such but to the natural >quality of an irrational fickleness that society ascribes to women, which >quality unfortunately may be present in anybody, man or woman, and it is >that quality that is talked about here and elsewhere. It is in the same >strain as the reference to the blind. It is not 'the blind' that is >referred to but the quality of their 'not being able to see' is what is >referred. > >Now let us come to 'Sunya'. The question is: Why is the void not the Self? > The 'void' comes in the discussion because of a gradation of logical >alternatives. The body, the prANa, the senses, the mind - none of these >is the Self. Remember that those who contend that these are the Self have >started from the premise that there is no Self within, except one or more >of these. So when by logical argument you prove to them that the Self >which seems to be the motivating power within cannot be the body, cannot >be the senses cannot be the mind, - the next subtle contender for being >the Self is the concept of changing consciousness (kshaNika-vijnAna). That >is, the series of momentary cognitions. This could be the Self. But the >very fact that each instant it changes its awareness of things, denies it >the status of the Self. What is ceaselessly changing cannot be the Self. >And so now comes the proponent of Sunya who says: There is no Self at all. >In deep sleep there is nothing, there is only void -- neither the subject >of experience nor any object of experience. Therefore says the >Sunya-vAdin: The Self is 'nothing'. Sankara calls this also, a >misapprehension. To see the strength of his logic regarding Sunya let me > quote from various masters and experts. Each one contributes, in a >uniquely different way, to a better understanding. >1. TMP Mahadevan in his commentary on the sixth verse: >Advaita examines experience as a whole in its triple form - waking, >dreaming and sleep. The evidence of sleep is of special importance for it >is not obtainable otherwise. Sleep is not a state of emptiness. While in >waking and dreaming consciousness is related to a world of images and >objects, in sleep it shines as Existence unrelated to anything else. >Consciousness is not to be regarded as a characteristic of the mind, >because in sleep there is no mind, and yet there is consciousness. That >there is consciousness in sleep is clear because on waking up we say: I >slept happily, I did not know anything. Just as consciousness is required >for knowing the presence of anything even so it must be there for knowing >the absence of all things. >2.From 'Advaita-bodha- deepika' published by Ramanashram: (p.75) >Disciple: When according to your instructions I enquire into the five >sheaths and reject them as being non-self, I do not find anything left but >simple void. Where then is the Self? >Master: To say that there is nothing left behind the five sheaths, is like >saying 'I have no tongue to speak' >D. How so? >M. Unless one has a tongue one cannot say that one has no tongue to speak >with. Similarly unless there is the seer of the void one cannot say there >was nothing left. Otherwise one must not say anything. On the contrary >since the speaker says that nothing is seen, it is obvious that the Self >remains there revealing nothing besides Itself. >3. From Swami Chinmayananda's explanation of Verse 51 in Atma-bodh: >When a lighted lamp is put on a table, no doubt its glowing illumination >plays upon the surfaces of the various objects in the room and in varying >degrees of intensity it illumines the objects. But as soon as the lighted >lamp is slowly and carefully lowered into a pot or a jar, the light of the >lamp must come to illumine only the inner space of the jar. Similarly, >Consciousness, while playing through the equipments, no doubt gets >reflected upon the objects and provides us with their knowledge; but when >we have withdrawn the Consciousness from the vehicles into Itself, it can >illumine only Itself. >4. Swami Prabhavananda and Isherwood in their explanation of Patanjali's >Yoga sutra I - 38 in 'How to know God " >In dreamless sleep the two outer coverings are removed and only the causal >sheath, the ego-sense, remains. It follows therefore, that we are nearer >to the Atman in dreamless sleep than in any other phase of our ordinary >unspiritual lives; nearer - yet so far, for what separates us is the >toughest covering of the three, the basic layer of our ignorance, the lie >of otherness. And this sheath can never be broken through by mere >sleeping. We cannot hope to wake up one morning and find ourselves united >with Reality. Nevertheless, some faint hint, some slight radiation of the >joyful peace of the Atman does come through to us in this state and >remains with us when we return to waking consciousness. >5. From Panca-daSi (by Vidyaranya Swami) I - 5: >supto-thitasya saushupta-tamo-bodho bhavet-smRtiH / >sA cA-vabuddha-vishayA avabuddhaM tat-tadA tamaH // >Meaning: The knowledge of ignorance caused by sound sleep, becomes a >memory (the technical name for this is pratyabijnA; this is taken up in >the 6th verse of dakshiNA-mUrti stotraM) when the individual wakes up. >That memory has as its substance only what has been experienced. >Therefore, when one sleeps, certainly there has been cognition of 'absence >of perception', also called 'ignorance'. >Explanation: When we go into a dark room without light, we know there is >darkness. In other words we 'see' darkness. In sound sleep we know we are >unaware of everything and it is this cognition of ignorance that becomes >the memory: 'I did not know a thing when I slept' . >6. From one of millions of Sri Ramana's observations: >Is dreamless sleep empty of all consciousness? That may be what you feel >after waking from sleep. You do not do so in sleep itself. That in you >which now feels that sleep is unconsciousness is your mind. But it was not >present in your sleep and it is natural for the mind to be ignorant of the >consciousness there is in sleep. Not having experienced sleep, it is >unable to remember what it was like and makes mistakes about it. The state >of deep sleep is beyond the mind. The waking mind cannot judge of sleep. >7. From Sloka No.12 of Sad-darSanam, translation of Ulladu-nArpadu, by Sri >Ramana.: >Neither sleep nor the cognition of objects is knowledge; >In the true state, which is different from both, there is no awareness of >objects. >But consciousness alone shines. Hence it is not void. >8. Adapted From the explanations by Swami Nikhilananda and Swami >Ghambirananda of Sloka No.IV-83 of MANDUkya-kArikA: >There are four alternatives. Either Atman exists independently as >different from us -- and in order to make it different from impermanent >objects as a jar, it is said to react diversely, sometimes happily and >sometimes sorrowfully. The changeability is the fault of this theory. Or >the Atman does not exist differently that is, it is inactive, because of >its constant nature. This theory makes the denial of existence a >constant feature and so, consciousness of our own self has to be denied >and this is the fault. Some assert the state of both existence and >non-existence; this has a double fault, namely both the faults of the >earlier two theories. Then there is the total non-existence of the Self on >account of everything ending in absolute negation or void; this is the >nihilist view. The fault of this is one has to deny the very existence of >oneself by this. So all these theories are delusions, says the sloka which >goes as follows: >asti nAsty-asti nAstIti nAsti nAstIti vA punaH / >cala-sthiro-bhayA-bhAvaiH AvRNotyeva bAliSaH // >Meaning: Childish (note the usage of this word here) persons verily >cover It (fail to know It) by predicating of It such attributes as >existence, non-existence, existence and non-existence and absolute >non-existence, through ideas of changeability, unchangeability, both >changeability and unchangeability, and non-existence. >9. viveka-cUDAmaNiH Sloka No.218: >asau sva-sAkshiko'bhAvo yataH svenA-nubhUyate / >ataH paraM svayaM sAkshAt pratyagAtmA na cetaraH // >Meaning: (This sloka comes after one has negated the five sheaths as >not-self). Whatever experiences the non-existence of everything else has >itself as the witness to this experience. Therefore the Inner Self is the >Absolute; nothing else is. >10. Extracted from Sankara's bhAshya on the gItA for Slokas X111 -1 and >XVIII -50: > On XIII-1: (kshetrajnaM cApi mAM viddhi …) That the changeless >actionless Self is the knower is only a figure of speech. Fire has the >property of heat. But just as we give it the agency of the action of >burning; so also the Self has been given the agency of knowing. This >agency is actually our superimposition on the actionless changeless Self. >So when we say the Self is conscious of being aware of nothing in sleep, >it should be understood in the same manner of speaking. It is in this >sense that the Lord says: 'Who thinks of This as the killer …' (ya enaM >vetti hantAraM …) (II-19) ;'He does not take anybody's sins …' (nAdatte >kasyacit pApaM … ) (V - 15). >On XVIII-50: ( … yathA brahma Apnoti … ) How does one know the Self?, is >the disputant's question. The contention is 'both Consciousness and the >Self are formless and changeless; how does knowledge take place?'. Some >think that the body is the Self. Some think it is the senses. Some think >it is the mind. Some think it is still deeper, it is the avyakta, the >unmanifest factor. All these have the stamp of the Consciousness that is >the Self. That is why the confusion arises whether these are themselves >the Self. None of these is the Self. We have only to discard all this >non-self, which have name and form. We do not have to be conscious of >anything extra. It is the consciousness that is felt along with everything >that is non-self. It is because of this that there is also a contention >that there is nothing other than these feelings of cognition and so there >is no Self other than the feelings. They contend that these feelings are >self-validating, and so needs no other proof. In reality, therefore, >what we have to do is only to discard the non-Self; we do not have to take >any more effort to 'understand' or 'know' brahman. The tragedy here, is >that the differentiations are nothing but names and forms stipulated by >Ignorance and this has misled our discretion and intellect - the >consequence being what is most explicit in us looks implicit, what is >well-known to us appears unknowable, what is nearest seems distant, what >is our own self turns out to be something other than ourselves. > A meagre Summary of all the above: (The summary is mine; if the summary >is not appealing, pardon me, discard the summary and go back to the >original): >Even the absence of everything has to be 'cognized'. The cognizer is >consciousness. It first of all illumines its own presence without any >external help - just as we know;'I am'. If in sleep we do not feel this >illumination it is because of the presence of the ego in us. The 'memory' >of unawareness that was there in sleep is 'pratyabijnA', which is an >internal phenomenon, not of the mind, but of the ego - because of its >faint contact with the radiation of joyful peace which is natural to us >and with which we have an 'asymptotic' contact, as it were, during sleep. >It is this natural peace which we discover after we have discarded >everything else, thus ending, not with void, but with the Self. > > >Regards and praNAms to all advaitins and all Ramakrishna devotees. >Profvk. > >Dear Prof. V.Krishnamurthy, You may be interested to know that some years ago we held a Hindu-Buddhist Dialogue, at the Ganges (Michigan) Monastery. At the end of a long discussion over Sunya between Hindu profs. and Lama Geshe, one of the most respected Tibetan masters working in the West, the Lama said, " Sunya doesn't mean that it is empty of itself! " I consider it a very significant remark, especially in the light of all the passages you have cited above. Respectfully, Swami Yogeshananda > > > > > > >===== >Prof. V. Krishnamurthy >The URL of my website has been simplified as >http://www.geocities.com/profvk/ >You can access both my books from there. > >_____________________________ >_____________________________ > >Message: 2 > Sun, 17 Oct 1999 09:30:41 +0300 > " Madhava K. Turumella " <madhava >RE: 5th verse of dakshiNA-mUrti stotraM -further elabo >rated > >> " V. Krishnamurthy " <profvk >> >> It is this natural peace which we discover after we have discarded >> everything else, thus ending, not with void, but with the Self. >> . > [Madhava Replies:] > > It is simply wonderful... A real feast to the intellect. Thank >you. > > > > > > >> >> > > >_____________________________ >_____________________________ > >Message: 3 > Sun, 17 Oct 1999 09:45:43 +0100 > " Vivekananda Centre " <vivekananda >Re: 5th verse of dakshiNA-mUrti stotraM -further elaborated > >We are very grateful for the lengthy explanation given by Prof V K about the >role of >sunya. > >I thank him on behalf of all on the list. > >jay > > > > >V. Krishnamurthy <profvk >advaitin <advaitin > >Cc: Ramakrishna <Ramakrishna > >17 October 1999 09:37 >[ramakrishna] 5th verse of dakshiNA-mUrti stotraM -further >elaborated > > >> " V. Krishnamurthy " <profvk >> >>5th verse of dakshiNA-mUrti-stotraM - further elaborated >> >>dehaM prANam-api-indriyANy-api calAM buddhiM ca SunyaM viduH >>strI-bAla-andha-jaDo-pamAH tvaham-iti bhrAntA bhRSaM vAdinaH / >>mAyA-Sakti-vilAsa-kalpita-mahA-vyAmoha-saMhAriNe >>tasmai-SrI-guru-mUrtaye nama idaM SrI-dakshiNA-mUrtaye // >> >>viduH - (Those who) understand, know, >>dehaM - the body >>prANam-api - and/or the vital breath >>indriyANy-api - and/or the senses >>calAM buddhiM ca - and/or the momentary cognition, (technically called >>kshaNika-vijnAna) >>Sunyam - (and/or) emptiness, void >>aham-iti - as the 'I " > ><snip> > > > >_____________________________ >_____________________________ > >Message: 4 > Sun, 10 Oct 1999 12:40:15 EDT > FREESUE >Avadhuta - Chapter 1 verse 19 > >Truly, you are that unchanging Reality, which is motionless, one, and freedom >itself. You do not experience passion or dispassion. Why then do you >torment yourself by desiring objects of lust? > >(comments) > >Freedom itself - According to Vedanta, the knower of Brahman becomes Brahman >- and that is real freedom, or liberation. > > >_____________________________ >_____________________________ > >Message: 5 > Sun, 17 Oct 1999 09:13:44 +0530 > Dr C S Shah <drcssha >Re: Digest 230 > ><<< ...but philosophers who have taken seriously the possibility of >learning by mere thinking have often considered that this requires some >special explanation. >>> >That way, spirituality can never be explained. Spiritual science has its >own language and method which the materialistic scientists will have to >accept; otherwise it would be the same conflict from one age to the >next. >dr c s s > >==================================== >E-magazine on science and spirituality. Visit: > http://members.xoom.com/drcsshah/neovedanta/index.html >==================================== > > > >_____________________________ >_____________________________ > >Message: 6 > Sun, 17 Oct 1999 14:57:24 +0530 > " Dynes " <dynes >re:wisdom > >Life is a learning process, and we keep making mistakes _ small and big. >Wisdom is learning from these mistakes and avoid doing it again. > >Mental equanimity even in times of extreme stress and sorrow is also >wisdom. We must keep in mind He will never let us down totally. Wisdom is >considering such setbacks which lead to stress and sorrow (like someone >dear to you falling ill) as part of Maya, and doing your karma. > >Another defenition of wisdom may be doing your job without thinking of how >you are going to benefit from it. If your family or the organisation you >work benefits from your activities more than you do, and you are glad >about it, it is wisdom. > >R. Dinakaran > >JAIRAM SESHADRI asks: > >So what does wisdom entail? > >May i ask members for their >input...definitions of what wisdom is...? i suppose each one of us can >and will come up with their own version or versions, but i do believe >we can group these definitions/versions into more generalised headings >which can act as sign posts in our daily lives... > >i do not know if anybody is interested in this topic (which i >feel is critical, for after the whole goal of religion is >to acquire wisdom...which must necessarily be practical in our daily >lives...) > >so i shall wait for your response... i would nice to hear what your >feelings are on the matter > > >On Wisdom: > > " The quality or state of being wise; knoweledge and experience >together with ability " , according to the dictionary. > >The object of Religion, and indeed the >object of life itself, is to acquire enough wisdom, in >order to fulfill the purpose of life, which is, the >realization of God. > >The Master said [in His Wisdom]: " God cannot be realized through >scholarship. Who, indeed, can understand the things of the Spririt >through reason ? No, all should strive for devotion to the >Lotus Feet of God. " >[Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna p.183] > > " Bhakti is the essential thing ! " > >+om > > > > >_____________________________ >_____________________________ > >Message: 7 > Sun, 17 Oct 1999 15:41:13 +0530 (IST) > Anurag Goel <anurag >Re: Rituals > > >Just like that it came to mind that we it's best to meditate after >getting fresh n bath in morning. The reason i came up with was that after >the day's work much have >gone in to our psyche n sort of mental distrubance is caused in us. While >we sleep these the things present in psyche express themselves n leave >our mind more calmer than before. When we get up we r sort of relaxed n >mind is at peace. Then bath shakes the state of mind which we >acquired during sleep. So it seems best to meditate after bath in morning. > >Similarly with evening. After the days work we r tired both physically n >mentally. We need to expel out watever has gone in to our psyche. >Similarly the meditation done during evening time recharges us both >physically n mentally. > >When we r going for sleep we r in some state of mind. If we can make our >mind calm then the sleep can become more beneficial n our mind will not >wander as much as it wanders in dream. A prayer or sort of meditation >does help in expelling the hatred n troubling thoughts out of the mind. > >Someone told me that Jain munis used to pray before going to bed asking >for forgiveness for watever bad they have done n feeling sorry for that. >This was one of the main reasons in their success in sadhanas. > > >moreover i feel bath gives mental peace n alertness n freshness. >The water kid of leaves us cool. Can it be that it takes away the bad >energy (to some amt) that has covered us up. Alertness n fresness r >realted to the flowing of energy (Prana) in body. It seems that somehow >bath helps in balancing this prana energy. As bath gives some kind of >mental peace n when there is mental peace there is sudden rise in >kundalini energy. It can be that a kundalini awakened person does feel >a sort of kick to kundalini energy after bath. > > > >On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Guha wrote: > >> " Guha " <guha >> >> A flower, a fruit or a leaf are enough to please the Lord of the Universe, >> according to the Bhagavad Gita. >> >> There is a tendency among modern people to frown upon rituals followed by >> religious people. It must be understood however that not all of them are >> reproachable. >> Being normally in a `karma' mode, man is naturally a creature who believes >> in action. This action, by making an impression on the mind, helps achieve >> mental concentration, aiding faith, devotion - and meditation. It is similar >> to the effect of an audio-visual aid, which is more effective than a mere >> audio presentation. >> So, if you light incense, or place a flower before your favourite object of >> worship, you are not indulging in a savage ritual but doing your religious >> life a good turn. >> >> > Sri Ramakrishnaye Namah >> Vivekananda Centre London >> http://www.btinternet.com/~vivekananda/ >> > > > > >_____________________________ >_____________________________ > >Message: 8 > 17 Oct 1999 03:59:55 -0700 > <omtatsat >daily sutra > >~~~~~~ om shanthi om~~~~~~ > > >Excerpted from the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna p.113 > >Monday 18/10/99 > >The Master Said: > > " Unless the mind becomes steady there cannot be yoga. >It is the wind of wordliness that always disturbs the mind, >which may be likened to a candle flame. >If that flame doesn't move at all, >then one is said to have attained yoga. " > >om tat sat > > >~~~~~~ om shanthi om~~~~~~ > > > >____ >123India - India's Premier Search Engine >Get your Free Email Account at http://www.123india.com > > > > >_____________________________ >_____________________________ > >Message: 9 > Sun, 17 Oct 1999 16:24:14 +0530 (IST) > Anurag Goel <anurag >Re: Nadi - meanings ....... > > > > >On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, Vivekananda Centre wrote: > >> " Vivekananda Centre " <vivekananda >> >> From Barry Pittard >> bpittard >> >> Dear Scholarly Friends at Vivekananda Centre, >> >> Have you got anything on the etymology of 'nadi' - electronically or >> otherwise? There is, of course, a Tantric meaning. Who knows, there may >> be something cognate. >> >> Naturally, I'm after Sanscrit and Old Tamil origins, but it probably good to >> see what comes up in any of the Indic languages in general. > > >It can be more easier if the context in which u r looking for naa.di is >known. > > >> >> It was tempting to consider naaDi as meaning 'river.' The Sanskrit word >> nadii (ii = long i usually transcribed with a macron over i) means 'river.' >> But the words nadii (river) and naa.di (tube) are different things >> altogether. Naa.di looks as though it might be a Dravidian loan, but it >> isn't in Burrow and Emeneau's DEDR 1. I don't have access to DEDR 2. >> > > > >> I guess the naa.di (tube) becomes the subtle nerve of yoga physiology - as >> in susushumna nADi etc. Is this definitely correct? > >Yes naa.di is definitely described that way i don't know if it can mean >somethig else too. > > >> >> Monier-Williams gives the basic meaning of naa.dii as 'a hollow stalk ... >> any tubular organ (as a vein or artery of the body).' I wonder: could >> this have evolved into 'pulse,' which is certainly a meaning for nadi in >> Tamil. > >I guess the pulse is kind of physical manisfestation of the activities in >these naa.di's > > >> >> M-W traces the etymology to the Rigvedic word naa.da = naala, which >> likewise means 'hollow stalk'. He also mentions a feminine form (though >> ending in long a, rather than i), which is the 'name of a particular verse' >> according to the Vaitanasutra. A clue? > >i don't know anything abt it. > > >> >> I wonder if, somehow, the meaning relates to the nadi leaf AND the nadi >> reader being a sort of conduit. One down which is piped - or flows - >> the voice of the Rishi or god or goddess in whom a nadi is named. Too >> fanciful? If we take the meaning that relates to a vein or artery in the >> body, all the messages from rishi, god, goddess could be view - is it >> likely? - as a series of flows, extending across time, one " river " of >> information flowing to one querant, another flowing to another, and so on. >> How would we ever know? >> > >Wat i can get frm above lines u have written is that can the flows in >different naa.di's mean the message frm different gods n goddesses. >Then i guess it is right in some sense. But remember these naa.di's r not >something physical. Even if u dissect the whole body u can't find them. >I don't remember the name of a doctor who tried finding the kundalini >by dissecting the human body he has book realting to his work on it too. >But he was unable to find these naa.di's. > > >Try to get in touch with someone who is high on the path of kundalini >awakening or a full kundalini awakened person i guess he/she can help u >know more abt Naa.di's if these naa.di's mean the energy carrying >channels. > > >I guess the only way u can know them n understand them is through >experience. > >> M-W traces the etymology to the Rigvedic word naa.da = naala, which >> likewise means 'hollow stalk'. He also mentions a feminine form (though >> ending in long a, rather than i), which is the 'name of a particular verse' >> according to the Vaitanasutra. Might this be a clue worth following up? >> >> Barry >> > > >I remember u were looking for naa.di in the context of astrology. R u >looking for naa.di as a energy channel or something that relates to >astrology. > > > > >_____________________________ >_____________________________ > >Message: 10 > 17 Oct 1999 04:19:20 -0700 > <omtatsat >daily sutra > >~~~~~~ om shanthi om~~~~~~ > > >Excerpted from the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna p.113 > >Monday 18/10/99 > >The Master Said: > > " Unless the mind becomes steady there cannot be yoga. >It is the wind of wordliness that always disturbs the mind, >which may be likened to a candle flame. >If that flame doesn't move at all, >then one is said to have attained yoga. " > >om tat sat > > >~~~~~~ om shanthi om~~~~~~ > > > >____ >123India - India's Premier Search Engine >Get your Free Email Account at http://www.123india.com > > > > >_____________________________ >_____________________________ > >Message: 11 > 17 Oct 1999 04:56:38 -0700 > <omtatsat >fortune telling > > > Message: 1 > Sat, 16 Oct 1999 00:36:42 +0100 > " Vivekananda Centre " <vivekananda > Nadi - meanings ....... > > From Barry Pittard > bpittard > > Dear Scholarly Friends at Vivekananda Centre, > > Have you got anything on the etymology of 'nadi' - >electronically or > otherwise? There is, of course, a Tantric meaning. Who >knows, there > may > be something cognate. > > Naturally, I'm after Sanscrit and Old Tamil origins, but it >probably good > to > see what comes up in any of the Indic languages in general. > > It was tempting to consider naaDi as meaning 'river.' The >Sanskrit word > nadii (ii = long i usually transcribed with a macron over i) >means 'river.' > But the words nadii (river) and naa.di (tube) are different >things > altogether. Naa.di looks as though it might be a Dravidian >loan, but > it > isn't in Burrow and Emeneau's DEDR 1. I don't have access to >DEDR 2. > > I guess the naa.di (tube) becomes the subtle nerve of yoga >physiology > - as > in susushumna nADi etc. Is this definitely correct? > > Monier-Williams gives the basic meaning of naa.dii as 'a >hollow stalk ... > any tubular organ (as a vein or artery of the body).' I >wonder: could > this have evolved into 'pulse,' which is certainly a meaning >for nadi > in > Tamil. > > M-W traces the etymology to the Rigvedic word naa.da = >naala, which > likewise means 'hollow stalk'. He also mentions a feminine >form (though > ending in long a, rather than i), which is the 'name of a >particular verse' > according to the Vaitanasutra. A clue? > > I wonder if, somehow, the meaning relates to the nadi leaf >AND the nadi > reader being a sort of conduit. One down which is piped - >or flows > - > the voice of the Rishi or god or goddess in whom a nadi is >named. Too > fanciful? If we take the meaning that relates to a vein or >artery in > the > body, all the messages from rishi, god, goddess could be view >- is it > likely? - as a series of flows, extending across time, one > " river " of > information flowing to one querant, another flowing to >another, and so > on. > How would we ever know? > > M-W traces the etymology to the Rigvedic word naa.da = >naala, which > likewise means 'hollow stalk'. He also mentions a feminine >form (though > ending in long a, rather than i), which is the 'name of a >particular verse' > according to the Vaitanasutra. Might this be a clue worth >following up? > > Barry > >__________ > >Dear Barry, > >I am not scholarly, however I have read quite a bit of >Sri Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda & related writings. > >Over the past months, I have read with interest, your >postings on Palm-leaf writings, which are intended to >forcast the individual's future, by means of thumbprint >and other means. > >Here is an appropriate quote from Swami Vivekananda >concerning the subject of 'fortune telling' : > > " There are endless series of manifestations, >like " merry-go-rounds, " in which the souls ride, >so to speak. The series are eternal; individual >souls get out, but the events repeat themselves >eternally AND THAT IS HOW ONE'S PAST AND FUTURE >CAN BE READ, because all is really present. > >When the soul is in a certain chain, it has to go >through the experiences of that chain. From one series >souls go to other series; from some series they escape for >ever by realising that they are Brahman. > >BY GETTING HOLD OF ONE PROMINENT EVENT IN A CHAIN AND >HOLDING ON TO IT, THE WHOLE CHAIN CAN BE DRAGGED IN AND READ. > >This power is easily acquired, but it is of no real value >and to practice it takes just so much away from our >spiritual forces. > >GO NOT AFTER THESE THINGS, WORSHIP GOD. " > >Vivekananda > >[inspired talks, August 1st, 1895] > > >____ >123India - India's Premier Search Engine >Get your Free Email Account at http://www.123india.com > > > > >_____________________________ >_____________________________ > >Message: 12 > Sun, 17 Oct 1999 18:00:13 +0300 > " Madhava K. Turumella " <madhava >RE: Nadi - meanings ....... > >> > M-W traces the etymology to the Rigvedic word naa.da = naala, which >> > likewise means 'hollow stalk'. He also mentions a feminine form >> (though >> > ending in long a, rather than i), which is the 'name of a particular >> verse' >> > according to the Vaitanasutra. Might this be a clue worth following up? >> > >> > Barry > [Madhava Replies:] > > Dear Barry: > > It is nice to hear from you again. I hope your research is going on >well. > > There are letters in Sanskrit which are identified, by etymologists, >as " abhEdaaksharas " ( letters of no difference). > > " Ra " , " la " -- sutra: " ralayOrabEdhaH " . There is no difference >between " <Ra> and <la> " . > For example: " babhluSAya vivyAdhinE annAnAM patayE namaH " - >(yajurvEda). Means, " I bow to the master who rides a bull, who is the >giver of food " . Here, " babhlu " should be read as " babhRu " , since there is > " abhEdha " between the letters " Ra " and " La " , one should take the meaning > " babhRu " (BULL). This interpretation works only at rare occasions. We >can't take them for granted. > > There is this --- " Sha " , " kha " . In north india, veda pundits belong >to " mAdhyaMdina " sAmpradAya (tradition) pronounce the word " purusha " as > " purukha " . There is this " abhEda " applied... > > Same way, there is abhEdha between the words " Da " and " La " . That is >why they interpret the word " nAda " as " nALa " also. That which has no >beginning is " nAda " . Vedas say that " at first there was sound!. Since the >origin of the sound is not known, they said " na+aada " No beginning. That >is why they also called the vedic sound " OUM " as " nAda brahma " . Certainly! >you could proceed in thinking " nAda " as " nALa " . > > But, I am not sure that you can relate the words " nADi " with either > " nAda " or " nALa " . Of course, there is nothing wrong in giving it a try. >Please let me know if you find any relation. Mean while, let me explain >you what I know about " nADi " . It means " that which is flowing " . Life is a >stream of consciousness. Consciousness flows through a stream called > " prArabdha " (destiny). This stream can be pulsed by evoking certain >kundalini powers. " NADi " readers can definitely tell you about your past, >but the results are vague when they are questioned about the future. >Because, future changes as per the purusardha (freewill). > > That is all I can contribute. All the best. > > Comments and corrections are most welcome! > > Regards, > Madhava > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_____________________________ >_____________________________ > >Message: 13 > Sun, 17 Oct 1999 18:09:53 +0100 > " Vivekananda Centre " <vivekananda >From R Dinakarn Dynes > >This was sent by : >R. Dinakaran Dynes dynes > > >AVOID THE PIKE SYNDROME > >The Pike Syndrome experiment illustrates the danger of >allowing us to feel victimized by the environment, and the >importance of continually testing our perceived >constraints. > >A northern pike was placed in one half of a glass-divided >aquarium. In the other side were placed numerous minnows >swimming freely and visibly. As the pike became hungrier, >it made numerous attempts to reach the minnows but only >succeeded in battering its snout against the divider. > >Eventually, the pike " learned " that reaching the minnows >was an impossible task, and even when the divider was >removed, surprisingly, the pike did not attack the minnows. >The pike assumed complete knowledge, and was unable to take >into account situational changes that occurred. > >How many times have we assumed we have all the information about our >circumstances, and are reluctant to push the edges of our perceived >abilities? How many times has our glass divider been removed, but we >continue to believe that the obstacles facing us are insurmountable? > > >--------thanks for your contritubiton...........jay---------------- > > > > > > > > >_____________________________ >_____________________________ > >Message: 14 > Sun, 17 Oct 1999 11:44:49 -0700 (PDT) > " V. Krishnamurthy " <profvk >dakshiNA-mUrti-stotraM - 5th verse, further elaborated > >I am sending this to you once again, since I don't find it in your digest >of 17th, though I have sent a copy (of the same) of what I sent to >advaitin. I presume that the copy I sent to you must have miscarried. >Kindly see that this does not get duplicated in tomorrow's digest. Sorry >for the mess-up. > >5th verse of dakshiNA-mUrti-stotraM - further >elaborated > >dehaM prANam-api-indriyANy-api calAM buddhiM ca >SunyaM viduH >strI-bAla-andha-jaDo-pamAH tvaham-iti bhrAntA >bhRSaM vAdinaH / >mAyA-Sakti-vilAsa-kalpita-mahA-vyAmoha-saMhAriNe >tasmai-SrI-guru-mUrtaye nama idaM >SrI-dakshiNA-mUrtaye // > >viduH - (Those who) understand, know, >dehaM - the body >prANam-api - and/or the vital breath >indriyANy-api - and/or the senses >calAM buddhiM ca - and/or the momentary >cognition, (technically called >kshaNika-vijnAna) >Sunyam - (and/or) emptiness, void >aham-iti - as the 'I " >(stri - women; bAla - children; andha - the >blind; jaDa - the foolish; >upamAH - comparable) >strI-bAla-andha-jaDo-pamAH - (have attitudes) >comparable to feminine >(fickleness), childish (immaturity), (unseeing >like) the blind, and >(obstinate like) the foolish >bhRSaM vAdinaH - they only talk too much >bhrAntAH - confounded (are they) >(mAyA-Sakti - the Power of mAyA; vilAsa - >expansion, expression, play; >kalpita - created; mahA-vyAmoha - grand >delusion; saMhAriNe - to the >destroyer) >mAyA-Sakti-vilAsa-kalpita-mahA-vyAmoha-saMhAriNe >- >to the One who destroys (by His teaching) the >grand delusion created by >the play of the Power of mAyA >tasmai - to that >SrI guru-mUrtaye - the blessed personality of the >guru >nama idaM - this prostration (be) >SrI dakshiNA-mUrtaye - the blessed form of >dakshiNA-mUrti. > >I am only supplementing the commentary already >posted. In my experience, >two serious doubts arise in the minds of the >learners of this verse. One >is the legitimate doubt about Sunya, which has >been raised now. The other >is the reference to 'women' in what appears to be >an uncomplimentary >reference. Throughout the religious literature of >Hinduism whenever the >reference to 'women' appears in a similar strain >it must be clearly >understood that the reference is not to women as >such but to the natural >quality of an irrational fickleness that society >ascribes to women, which >quality unfortunately may be present in anybody, >man or woman, and it is >that quality that is talked about here and >elsewhere. It is in the same >strain as the reference to the blind. It is not >'the blind' that is >referred to but the quality of their 'not being >able to see' is what is >referred. > >Now let us come to 'Sunya'. The question is: Why >is the void not the Self? > The 'void' comes in the discussion because of a >gradation of logical >alternatives. The body, the prANa, the senses, >the mind - none of these >is the Self. Remember that those who contend >that these are the Self have >started from the premise that there is no Self >within, except one or more >of these. So when by logical argument you prove >to them that the Self >which seems to be the motivating power within >cannot be the body, cannot >be the senses cannot be the mind, - the next >subtle contender for being >the Self is the concept of changing consciousness >(kshaNika-vijnAna). That >is, the series of momentary cognitions. This >could be the Self. But the >very fact that each instant it changes its >awareness of things, denies it >the status of the Self. What is ceaselessly >changing cannot be the Self. >And so now comes the proponent of Sunya who says: >There is no Self at all. >In deep sleep there is nothing, there is only >void -- neither the subject >of experience nor any object of experience. >Therefore says the >Sunya-vAdin: The Self is 'nothing'. Sankara >calls this also, a >misapprehension. To see the strength of his >logic regarding Sunya let me > quote from various masters and experts. Each one >contributes, in a >uniquely different way, to a better >understanding. >1. TMP Mahadevan in his commentary on the sixth >verse: >Advaita examines experience as a whole in its >triple form - waking, >dreaming and sleep. The evidence of sleep is of >special importance for it >is not obtainable otherwise. Sleep is not a state >of emptiness. While in >waking and dreaming consciousness is related to a >world of images and >objects, in sleep it shines as Existence >unrelated to anything else. >Consciousness is not to be regarded as a >characteristic of the mind, >because in sleep there is no mind, and yet there >is consciousness. That >there is consciousness in sleep is clear because >on waking up we say: I >slept happily, I did not know anything. Just as >consciousness is required >for knowing the presence of anything even so it >must be there for knowing >the absence of all things. >2.From 'Advaita-bodha- deepika' published by >Ramanashram: (p.75) >Disciple: When according to your instructions I >enquire into the five >sheaths and reject them as being non-self, I do >not find anything left but >simple void. Where then is the Self? >Master: To say that there is nothing left behind >the five sheaths, is like >saying 'I have no tongue to speak' >D. How so? >M. Unless one has a tongue one cannot say that >one has no tongue to speak >with. Similarly unless there is the seer of the >void one cannot say there >was nothing left. Otherwise one must not say >anything. On the contrary >since the speaker says that nothing is seen, it >is obvious that the Self >remains there revealing nothing besides Itself. >3. From Swami Chinmayananda's explanation of >Verse 51 in Atma-bodh: >When a lighted lamp is put on a table, no doubt >its glowing illumination >plays upon the surfaces of the various objects in >the room and in varying >degrees of intensity it illumines the objects. >But as soon as the lighted >lamp is slowly and carefully lowered into a pot >or a jar, the light of the >lamp must come to illumine only the inner space >of the jar. Similarly, >Consciousness, while playing through the >equipments, no doubt gets >reflected upon the objects and provides us with >their knowledge; but when >we have withdrawn the Consciousness from the >vehicles into Itself, it can >illumine only Itself. >4. Swami Prabhavananda and Isherwood in their >explanation of Patanjali's >Yoga sutra I - 38 in 'How to know God " >In dreamless sleep the two outer coverings are >removed and only the causal >sheath, the ego-sense, remains. It follows >therefore, that we are nearer >to the Atman in dreamless sleep than in any other >phase of our ordinary >unspiritual lives; nearer - yet so far, for what >separates us is the >toughest covering of the three, the basic layer >of our ignorance, the lie >of otherness. And this sheath can never be broken >through by mere >sleeping. We cannot hope to wake up one morning >and find ourselves united >with Reality. Nevertheless, some faint hint, some >slight radiation of the >joyful peace of the Atman does come through to us >in this state and >remains with us when we return to waking >consciousness. >5. From Panca-daSi (by Vidyaranya Swami) I - 5: >supto-thitasya saushupta-tamo-bodho bhavet-smRtiH >/ >sA cA-vabuddha-vishayA avabuddhaM tat-tadA tamaH >// >Meaning: The knowledge of ignorance caused by >sound sleep, becomes a >memory (the technical name for this is >pratyabijnA; this is taken up in >the 6th verse of dakshiNA-mUrti stotraM) when the >individual wakes up. >That memory has as its substance only what has >been experienced. >Therefore, when one sleeps, certainly there has >been cognition of 'absence >of perception', also called 'ignorance'. >Explanation: When we go into a dark room without >light, we know there is >darkness. In other words we 'see' darkness. In >sound sleep we know we are >unaware of everything and it is this cognition >of ignorance that becomes >the memory: 'I did not know a thing when I slept' >. >6. From one of millions of Sri Ramana's >observations: >Is dreamless sleep empty of all consciousness? >That may be what you feel >after waking from sleep. You do not do so in >sleep itself. That in you >which now feels that sleep is unconsciousness is >your mind. But it was not >present in your sleep and it is natural for the >mind to be ignorant of the >consciousness there is in sleep. Not having >experienced sleep, it is >unable to remember what it was like and makes >mistakes about it. The state >of deep sleep is beyond the mind. The waking >mind cannot judge of sleep. >7. From Sloka No.12 of Sad-darSanam, translation >of Ulladu-nArpadu, by Sri >Ramana.: >Neither sleep nor the cognition of objects is >knowledge; >In the true state, which is different from both, >there is no awareness of >objects. >But consciousness alone shines. Hence it is not >void. >8. Adapted From the explanations by Swami >Nikhilananda and Swami >Ghambirananda of Sloka No.IV-83 of >MANDUkya-kArikA: >There are four alternatives. Either Atman exists >independently as >different from us -- and in order to make it >different from impermanent >objects as a jar, it is said to react diversely, >sometimes happily and >sometimes sorrowfully. The changeability is the >fault of this theory. Or >the Atman does not exist differently that is, it >is inactive, because of >its constant nature. This theory makes the >denial of existence a >constant feature and so, consciousness of our own >self has to be denied >and this is the fault. Some assert the state of >both existence and >non-existence; this has a double fault, namely >both the faults of the >earlier two theories. Then there is the total >non-existence of the Self on >account of everything ending in absolute negation >or void; this is the >nihilist view. The fault of this is one has to >deny the very existence of >oneself by this. So all these theories are >delusions, says the sloka which >goes as follows: >asti nAsty-asti nAstIti nAsti nAstIti vA punaH / >cala-sthiro-bhayA-bhAvaiH AvRNotyeva bAliSaH // >Meaning: Childish (note the usage of this word >here) persons verily >cover It (fail to know It) by predicating of It >such attributes as >existence, non-existence, existence and >non-existence and absolute >non-existence, through ideas of changeability, >unchangeability, both >changeability and unchangeability, and >non-existence. >9. viveka-cUDAmaNiH Sloka No.218: >asau sva-sAkshiko'bhAvo yataH svenA-nubhUyate / >ataH paraM svayaM sAkshAt pratyagAtmA na cetaraH >// >Meaning: (This sloka comes after one has >negated the five sheaths as >not-self). Whatever experiences the >non-existence of everything else has >itself as the witness to this experience. >Therefore the Inner Self is the >Absolute; nothing else is. >10. Extracted from Sankara's bhAshya on the gItA >for Slokas X111 -1 and >XVIII -50: > On XIII-1: (kshetrajnaM cApi mAM viddhi …) That >the changeless >actionless Self is the knower is only a figure of >speech. Fire has the >property of heat. But just as we give it the >agency of the action of >burning; so also the Self has been given the >agency of knowing. This >agency is actually our superimposition on the >actionless changeless Self. >So when we say the Self is conscious of being >aware of nothing in sleep, >it should be understood in the same manner of >speaking. It is in this >sense that the Lord says: 'Who thinks of This as >the killer …' (ya enaM >vetti hantAraM …) (II-19) ;'He does not take >anybody's sins …' (nAdatte >kasyacit pApaM … ) (V - 15). >On XVIII-50: ( … yathA brahma Apnoti … ) How >does one know the Self?, is >the disputant's question. The contention is 'both >Consciousness and the >Self are formless and changeless; how does >knowledge take place?'. Some >think that the body is the Self. Some think it is >the senses. Some think >it is the mind. Some think it is still deeper, it >is the avyakta, the >unmanifest factor. All these have the stamp of >the Consciousness that is >the Self. That is why the confusion arises >whether these are themselves >the Self. None of these is the Self. We have only >to discard all this >non-self, which have name and form. We do not >have to be conscious of >anything extra. It is the consciousness that is >felt along with everything >that is non-self. It is because of this that >there is also a contention >that there is nothing other than these feelings >of cognition and so there >is no Self other than the feelings. They contend >that these feelings are >self-validating, and so needs no other proof. >In reality, therefore, >what we have to do is only to discard the >non-Self; we do not have to take >any more effort to 'understand' or 'know' >brahman. The tragedy here, is >that the differentiations are nothing but names >and forms stipulated by >Ignorance and this has misled our discretion and >intellect - the >consequence being what is most explicit in us >looks implicit, what is >well-known to us appears unknowable, what is >nearest seems distant, what >is our own self turns out to be something other >than ourselves. > A meagre Summary of all the above: (The summary >is mine; if the summary >is not appealing, pardon me, discard the summary >and go back to the >original): >Even the absence of everything has to be >'cognized'. The cognizer is >consciousness. It first of all illumines its own >presence without any >external help - just as we know;'I am'. If in >sleep we do not feel this >illumination it is because of the presence of the >ego in us. The 'memory' >of unawareness that was there in sleep is >'pratyabijnA', which is an >internal phenomenon, not of the mind, but of the >ego - because of its >faint contact with the radiation of joyful peace >which is natural to us >and with which we have an 'asymptotic' contact, >as it were, during sleep. >It is this natural peace which we discover after >we have discarded >everything else, thus ending, not with void, but >with the Self. > > >Regards and praNAms to all advaitins and all >Ramakrishna devotees. >Profvk. > > > > > > > >===== >Prof. V. Krishnamurthy >The URL of my website has been simplified as >http://www.geocities.com/profvk/ >You can access both my books from there. > >_____________________________ >_____________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.