Guest guest Posted July 15, 2000 Report Share Posted July 15, 2000 Per my understanding, what is described here is Brahman (the creative potential) and not the Self (Atman, being, the manifestation of Brahman). It is an oxymoron to use " I " or " My " for Brahman. That usage is more appropriate for Atman (Self). - Vivekananda Centre <vivekananda list <Ramakrishna >; Self Knowledge List <selfknow-l Thursday, July 06, 2000 7:12 AM [ramakrishna] Avadhuta Gita > Song of the ever-free > (Avadhuta gita) > > Chapter 4 verse 10 > > My Self is not the perceiver nor the object of perception. > It has no cause or effect. > How can I say that It is conceivable or inconceivable? > I am by nature blissful and free. > > > Commentary: > Sometimes we allude to the Self as the eternal witness. > This implies that the Self has the role of the perceiver. > This verse takes us away from that limitation too:- > Perceived and perceiver implies an indirect link of the Self > with the perceived world -- this is refuted. ------ > Who invented Gatorade -- and what part did it play in > winning the1967 Orange Bowl? Find out the true facts at > http://click./1/6212/4/_/411454/_/962882279/ > ------ > > Sri Ramakrishnaye Namah > Vivekananda Centre London > http://www.btinternet.com/~vivekananda/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2000 Report Share Posted July 15, 2000 Self-knowledge comes from direct experience, and not from reasoning or some mechanical procedure. Though reasoning and mechanical procedure may lead one ultimately to direct experience. - Vivekananda Centre <vivekananda list <Ramakrishna >; Self Knowledge List <selfknow-l Monday, July 10, 2000 7:04 AM [ramakrishna] Avadhuta Gita > Continuing with the Avadhuta Gita (Song of the ever-free) > > Chapter 4 Verse 14 > > I have subdued the senses and again, > I have not subdued them. > I have never cultivated self-restraint or religious austerities. > O friend, how can I speak of success and defeat? > I am by nature blissful and free. > > > Commentary: > (Few religions would dare make such a bold comment in its scriptures). > > How can any ritual or religious practice promise Self Knowledge? > Hence comments in this verse point out the limitations of all such > practices (controlling the senses and the like). > All these are mere outer form -- they cannot really encapsulate what > is invoked and referred to as Self-knowledge. > > > > > ------ > Free Worldwide Calling with Firetalk! > Click Here: > http://click./1/5481/4/_/411454/_/963227157/ > ------ > > Sri Ramakrishnaye Namah > Vivekananda Centre London > http://www.btinternet.com/~vivekananda/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2000 Report Share Posted July 15, 2000 What does blissful mean? Is that an emotion? That would be pinning down this " I " , won't it? - Vivekananda Centre <vivekananda Self Knowledge List <selfknow-l; list <Ramakrishna > Tuesday, July 11, 2000 4:48 AM [ramakrishna] Avadhuta Gita > Continuing with the Song of the Ever-free > (Avadhuta Gita) > > Chapter 4 Verse 15 > > I do not have a form nor am I formless. > I have no beginning, middle or end. > Friend, how can I say I am strong or weak? > I am by nature blissful and free. > > > Commentary: > All classifications of the divine; both with and without form; > As; Creator, Preserver or destroyer. > As all powerful or not. None of this classifications > have anything to do with my true nature. > Which is free from all classifications and hence blissful. > > > > ------ > Wish you had something rad to add to your email? > We do at www.supersig.com. > http://click./1/6819/4/_/411454/_/963306493/ > ------ > > Sri Ramakrishnaye Namah > Vivekananda Centre London > http://www.btinternet.com/~vivekananda/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2000 Report Share Posted July 24, 2000 ATMAN is Brahman holding the simple consideration " I AM. " BRAHMAN is beyond all considerations. The idea if God is simply a consideration. All attributes that you may come up for God are also nothing but considerations. This verse correctly assigns affection as a type of consideration as well. But it is a very basic consideration, indeed. - Vinaire - Vivekananda Centre <vivekananda Self Knowledge List <selfknow-l; list <Ramakrishna > Thursday, July 20, 2000 2:23 AM [ramakrishna] Avadhuta Gita > Continuing with the theme of Non-dual Self > > Song of the Ever Free (Avadhuta Gita) > > Chapter 4 Verse 21 > > I have no father, no mother, no family; > I belong to no race. > Never was I born and never shall I die. > How can I say that I have affection and such? > I am by nature blissful and free. > > Commentary: > In this verse the 'Seer' says: > Give up this idea that we are the body. > This thought ties us down with ideas of belonging to a family > or to a race. This body and mind ties us down with ideas > of birth and death. > > " How can I have affection? " (may sound very cold but) implies: > Give up this limited idea of 'affection towards the near and dear'. > As how can only 'a particular aspect of the whole' tie us down, > now that we have realised our oneness with 'all'. > > jay ------ > Missing old school friends? Find them here: > http://click./1/7079/4/_/411454/_/964074253/ > ------ > > Sri Ramakrishnaye Namah > Vivekananda Centre London > http://www.btinternet.com/~vivekananda/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 26, 2000 Report Share Posted July 26, 2000 Brahman is the source of all considerations. All knowledge is the result of considerations. Brahman cannot be described by the considerations it generates. - Vivekananda Centre <vivekananda list <Ramakrishna >; Self Knowledge List <selfknow-l Monday, July 24, 2000 3:52 AM [ramakrishna] Avadhuta Gita > Song of the Ever-free (Avaduhtua Gita) > > Chapter 5 Verse 1 > > The all-pervading Brahman has been > expressed by the syllable Om. > But its essence cannot be ascertained > by either higher or lower knowledge. > Both nomenon and phenomenon have > been repudiated in the context of Brahman. > Hence how can the syllable OM express it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2000 Report Share Posted July 27, 2000 A clearer explanation would be as follows: Brahman is not a consideration. Brahman is the source of all considerations. None of your considerations about Brahman is Brahman. Brahman is that who is making all these considerations. You are Brahman who is holding the consideration " I AM. " This state is Atman (self). Hence the dictum: " Thou art that " and " I am Brahman. " Any and all attributes are the result of the considerations being held by self. The mind is a system of considerations created by self to handle further considerations. A basic aberration is to identify oneself with the mind (... mind weeping!). The other basic aberration is to identify oneself with the body. Vinaire - Vivekananda Centre <vivekananda Self Knowledge List <selfknow-l; list <Ramakrishna > Tuesday, July 25, 2000 7:54 AM [ramakrishna] Avadhuta Gita > Song of the Ever Free (Avadhuta Gita) > > Chapter 5 verse 2 > > The Upanishads - through their great dictums such as > " Thou art that " and " I am Brahman " - have declared > that your inmost Atman is the Reality. > You are the all-embracing Sameness, devoid of all attributes. > Being the selfsame Brahman, O, mind, why do you weep? > > Commentary:- > " O, Mind why do you weep " is superb phrasing being used here. > It is not the 'Self' that ever weeps or gets caught up in all this. > It is the mind alone that perceives the Self as being limited, > and hence weeps! > Sri Ramakrishnaye Namah > Vivekananda Centre London > http://www.btinternet.com/~vivekananda/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2000 Report Share Posted August 9, 2000 Anything that you can think of is your consideration only. Brahman is not a consideration, or the outcome of any consideration. Brahman is the source of all considerations. Guess who the source of your considerations is? You can never view yourself. You can only view your considerations of yourself. Vinaire - Vivekananda Centre <vivekananda Self Knowledge List <selfknow-l; list <Ramakrishna > Tuesday, August 08, 2000 6:43 AM [ramakrishna] Avadhuta Gita > Song of the Ever free (Avadhuta Gita) > Chapter 5 verse 5 > > Brahman is not the union of consciousness and unconsciousness. > It is not the meeting point of inner space and outer space. > It is not the merging point of time and timelessness. > Being that self same Brahman, O mind, why do you weep? > > > Commentary:- > The negation process continues. > This Brahman is not some kind of combination or > meeting or merging point of concepts like space and time. > (it is not a by-product or a link between any other categories). > > The verse ends with the poetic:- > 'O mind, why do you weep?' > You (the Self) cannot be weeping! > It is the 'distorted self' viewed via the mind > that seems to go through suffering and weep. > What a relief !! > Here lies the nectar of Upanishadic teachings. > Do not be small minded - you are ever free. Sri Ramakrishnaye Namah > Vivekananda Centre London > http://www.btinternet.com/~vivekananda/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2000 Report Share Posted December 7, 2000 thank you Jay for your explanation on Time. I also enjoy the commentary on the verses in the Avadhuta Gita very much. thank you again >Song of the Ever free >Avadhuta Gita > >Chapter 7 Verse 4 > >In this state of realization, how can the Avadhuta >consider whether he has a body or not, >or whether he has attachment or not? >He himself is the immaculate, immovable, innate Reality >-infinite as space. > >Commentary: >Attempt is made to describe the condition of the Self realized. >Use of words like immaculate, immovable, innate Reality >are used..... example of infinite space is used.... > >All such allusions are severely limited -- >they can only point - but even that cannot be right....... >These allusions point?? - point where??? >Many pundits operate with a vast array of such words >and think they have grasped 'Advaita'. >Advaita (thankfully) is not a by-product of >such intellectual gymnastics : ) > > > > > > > >Sri Ramakrishnaye Namah >Vivekananda Centre London >http://www.vivekananda.co.uk > ______________________________\ _____ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2001 Report Share Posted April 15, 2001 Thanks for the words from the Avadhuta...one of my all-time favorites! Whose translation are you using??? Om Tat Sat, Mkewbird 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.