shankaracharya

[Rati]

Audurya: I think that was the same link took a peek at. It is possible that the method has just been ignored by the medical community here in America, which would not be the first time they have not paid attention to something that they should be paying attention to. At any rate, it is apparently not widely known around these parts. That may not be the case in Australia, however. There is also the female biological clock. What is currently one of the big headlines here is that a large percentage of women have been under the false impression that it was going to be possible to wait until after the age of thirty five to start having children and now they are getting a rude awakening.

 

[theist]

Originally posted by Citta Hari:

Shvu wrote:

 

"We are the deluded souls who perceive duality. The reality is, there is only Brahman and nothing else, implying all souls are Brahman. The difference in the case of the Jivanmukta is, there is no more individual there to perceive duality [there is no I] and since there is no I, there is nothing else either. Liberation according to Shankara, is the realization of the nature of one' self as nothing but Brahman."

 

 

I have some questions about the idea that the jiva, although identical with Brahman, becomes deluded and thus perceives duality.

 

How does Brahman become deluded into thinking itself to be a separate jiva in the first place? What is the support (asraya) of the deluding influence? It can't be the jiva, since the jiva is the product of ajnana. The only thing left is Brahman, but if Brahman is the support, then its essential nature as jnana (jnanasvarupa) is compromised. How can this be?

 

 

Just didn't want this to get lost as we wait for Svhuji's response.

 

[jijaji]

From Kriya forum..

Other groups having the same types of discussions..'Oh My'

 

"In SRF we have an over simplification of so many subjects -- the meditation posture, how to deal with our own mind, sexual life, marriage, how to get along with others, concentration, and yes, balance too. There is a tendency in SRF to oversimplify subjects so much that it becomes eventually hilarious to read about those subjects in the teachings. Balance is not a simple matter at all. So, I hope that with patience we will all contribute little by little to create a better understanding of the issue -- for all of us.

 

Let me just say a few things for now:

 

1) Balance is unique for each one. What may be balance for one individual may be a complete imbalance for another.

2) What feels balance now may feel completely imbalance later -- we need to trust our energy. At some moment our energy may be very extroverted, later may become introverted. The first is good for karma Yoga, the second for meditation -- both are good of course.

3) There will be years that we will hardly be able to meditate and we will need to do a lot of service (action) and little meditation. Then years may come, that we will be able to go within. This is not a matter of FORCING HABITS -- that's ignorance!

4) Balance is an internal experience. But, obviously, it has also to do with attending our most fundamental needs in a balance way -- money, sexual needs, need for power, success (need for recognition), self-esteem, human love, universal love, creativity, transcendence and union with spirit. There is a correlation between these fundamental needs and the chakras.

 

When the monastic renounces to the lower chakras takes the vows of poverty, obedience, and chastity. These are the symbols of renouncing to the three and one half lower chakras (human love is in the heart chakra too -- this is an individual and universal chakra at the same time).

 

Monastics cut themselves at the waist! And, then they preach the householders to do the same! But, the householder needs to pay bills, lives in a world hungry for success and sex and so on. The householder does not have the shelter of the ashram, so is finally crushed by inner contradictions with the monastic paradigm. Painful conflicts arise in the mind sooner or later.

Furthermore, the monastic rarely succeeds at controlling his lower impulses, or experiences success only for a while only, and then......

 

I highly recommend the book "Chakras for Beginners" by "Pond" It gave me incredible insights into why the SRF paradigm does not work for the householder -- at least in the way is being communicated now; full of monasticistic thinking! In this book you will see a balanced, non judgemental, paradigm for the householder -- it is a small book. I have complained to the monastics about this and I have found receptivity among the new generation of monks! So, there is hope that one day our paradigm will be balanced and not contaminated by the monastic paradigm. In that book you will clearly see that the path of the monastic and that of the householder are from two different planets! The first is about renunciation, and the second is about integration."

 

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-15-2002).]

[shvu]

 

I will try to give you the long answer tonight.

I had the idea of posting something in Shankara's own words, but it turns out all his commentaries related to this topic are very long, running into pages each.

 

For those who have access, refer his BSB 1.1.12 and the next few verses.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

[Rati]

Jijaji: That is actually a question for the Babajis themselves. I am actually just an ordinary householder. When I interviewed various sadhus that are in various lines of the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya, I did not ask about that topic, as I was more interested in the doctrines and practices of the Gaudiyas themselves. My guess would be that mixing in doctrines from other schools would be considered rasa-abhasa, so to speak. Whether they openly attack any outsiders is another question. I had not personally witnessed any of that going on.

 

I would have to defer to Jagat and Premananda, as they have considerable more experience than myself when it comes to the Babajis.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 04-16-2002).]

[theist]

Originally posted by shvu:

I had the idea of posting something in Shankara's own words, but it turns out all his commentaries related to this topic are very long, running into pages each.

 

For those who have access, refer his BSB 1.1.12 and the next few verses.

 

Cheers

 

 

shvu,

 

I was hoping for just a simplied answer in your own words.Perhaps just a synopsis.

 

It strikes me as a very important question.

 

theist

 

[jijaji]

Originally posted by Rati:

Jijaji: That is actually a question for the Babajis themselves. I am actually just an ordinary householder. When I interviewed various sadhus that are in various lines of the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya, I did not ask about that topic, as I was more interested in the doctrines and practices of the Gaudiyas themselves. My guess would be that mixing in doctrines from other schools would be considered rasa-abhasa, so to speak. Whether they openly attack any outsiders is another question. I had not personally witnessed any of that going on.

 

I would have to defer to Jagat and Premananda, as they have considerable more experience than myself when it comes to the Babajis.

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 04-16-2002).]

I see but in your posting I noticed YOU implying it being ok when "calling a spade a spade" regarding mayavadis, buddhists.

Could you please explain what exactly you mean by this 'calling a spade a spade'

It certainly doesn't sound sympathetic.

 

 

 

[Rati]

As far as the expression 'calling a spade a spade', it depends on the context of the discussion whether or not that has a derogatory connotation, wouldn't you agree? I guess my point is more that of differentiating the Gaudiya teachings from other schools as opposed to some political rhetoric just for the sake of elitism and victory in debate. From what we can glean from the various biographical accounts of Sri Caitanya is that He only made the points about mayavada to instill the mood of bhakti in others, and that He viewed advaitin doctrine as an obstacle to attaining prema. See my comments about aisvarya v.s. madhurya on the other thread. Because some Vaishnavas seek the goal of Vaikuntha hardly makes them the bad guys. It is just that different paths lead to different destinations. The advaitin seeks to merge into the brahmajyoti, whereas the raganuga bhakta is not at all interested in that destination. Calling a spade a spade in this context is merely pointing out the different approaches and the different results. It does not necessarily follow that followers of one path are going to deride the followers of another, but sometimes that stuff happens. Should we really get all that concerned about it, or should we focus on our own sadhana instead? To each his own, I say. If someone has an affinity for the sahajiya side, then why should they affiliate themselves with the orthodox Gaudiyas, when they can just go over to that group to study? Are the Babajis (who are clearly orthodox) going to get upset? Doubtful. If one of their own goes over to that side and then starts putting forth that school as the orthodox school, then it is actual hypocrisy. It is interesting to note, however, that both the orthodox and the Sahajiya followers of Sri Caitanya claim to have the correct interpretation of His teachings, and each group has their own sets of books to back up their claims.

 

At any rate, I thought I made it quite clear that I was not on board with the idea of the holier than thou approach of deriding all outsiders as inferior.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 04-16-2002).]

[karthik_v]

Sri Aurobindo on birth control:

 

Scientists and medical men have devised methods by which birth control may be made effective without any injury. The objects are twofold: first, the prevention of too many children; secondly, keeping the woman in good health, so that the few children she gives birth to may be healthy.

 

Of course inner control is better. But can that be expected of the man?...

 

[A disciple]: Gandhi has quoted all the doctors who oppose this method.

 

[sri Aurobindo]: But he has not quoted those who support it.

 

[A disciple]: One objection is that it will increase licence.

 

[sri Aurobindo]: That again is the moralist idea. There are the two extremes: one extreme is inner control, the other is free indulgence; mid-between comes the system of birth control.

[jijaji]

Rati: (from another thread, but I couldn't resist bringing it to question here)

 

"Neither do I have any objection to calling a spade a spade when it comes to traditions that take their own path apart from that of Suddha Bhakti, like Buddhists and Mayavadis and Bauls."

 

jijaji:

Now that I got your attention Rati....

Could you please explain your schools (Babji line) stance on this. Do you take a similar hard line objection towards Advaitavada and Buddhists as do Gaudiya Math and Iskcon?

It seems so from the above post, just curious, not gettin on your case baba..

 

[makhanmisri]

In Jiva Gosvami's Gopala-campu (1.8.4), Yasoda sings to Bala-Krsna:

"Here you are--O ornament of the noble family of Gokula's king! All the residents of Vrajadhama must have performed pious acts to receive the happiness you've brought them. You are the delightful cynosure of all

their eyes. Your birthday celebration brought great bliss and delighted the cowherd community. With the killing of Putana, you've thus engaged Gokula's king in a host of auspicious deeds. Becoming impatient with the demon Sakata--you fixed his wagon. Knocking the wind out of Trnavarta, the Supreme Lord brought you back to us. You have lotus eyes, you're supremely pious, and you sweetly crawl about in the courtyard. You show us your expertise in various sports and various musical dances. O beautifully charming boy, you catch the tails of the calves and play among them. You always cleverly tell lies, out of greed, whenever bantering amidst the elder gopis. I'm your mother; may you always bring me more and more happiness. You're always so eager to play in various ways. May you grow up big and strong. [My vision of] the three worlds within your

mouth was undoubtedly just some display of Visnu-maya. By worshipping Lord Visnu, beyond old age and death, may you always give us much happiness!"

 

[Rati]

Splendid quote. It should go on its own topic, so that it is more prominently advertised here. Otherwise, many will not be aware of it.

[abhi_the_great]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Sri Aurobindo on birth control:

 

[sri Aurobindo]: That again is the moralist idea. There are the two extremes: one extreme is inner control, the other is free indulgence; mid-between comes the system of birth control.

I don't see how birth control is a mid-between. It aids free-indulgence. Its just a catalyst for free indulgence.

 

Having sex ones a month is helpful for controling the free indulgence. I feel its a safe midway.

 

But again, all this is bordering hypocrisy from the point I stand. I cannot preach to anybody to not have sex or have controlled sex, while my own mind itself is boiling abound with sex desires.

 

This, for me, is something desirable but unattainable, at this point of my spiritual evolution.

 

But nonetheless, we continue chanting in faith, "rupa raghunatha pade rahu mora aasha..."

 

your fallen, lusty servant!!!

[jijaji]

cool link to photo tour of Ramanashram and Arunachala..(photos of parts of India as well)

 

http://www.heartspace.org/sshow/tamilnadu/page116.html

 

[Rati]

The monkey on the hill with the temple in the valley below is a really cool shot.

[jijaji]

Originally posted by Rati:

The monkey on the hill with the temple in the valley below is a really cool shot.

yeah..some good shots of the temple from top of the hill..! I wanna go and meditate!

 

ayam atma brahma

 

 

 

[shvu]

Just didn't want this to get lost as we wait for Svhuji's response.

Theist,

 

Sorry for sitting on the long answer. I don't see myself having the time/inclination to pull out pages of quotes from Shankara. To summarize, the Jiva is never *created* at some point of time (btw, this is the position of all schoolso of Vedaanta) which implies ignorance or avidya is beginningless.

 

Cheers

 

 

[theist]

Originally posted by Citta Hari:

Shvu wrote:

 

"We are the deluded souls who perceive duality. The reality is, there is only Brahman and nothing else, implying all souls are Brahman. The difference in the case of the Jivanmukta is, there is no more individual there to perceive duality [there is no I] and since there is no I, there is nothing else either. Liberation according to Shankara, is the realization of the nature of one' self as nothing but Brahman."

 

 

I have some questions about the idea that the jiva, although identical with Brahman, becomes deluded and thus perceives duality.

 

How does Brahman become deluded into thinking itself to be a separate jiva in the first place? What is the support (asraya) of the deluding influence? It can't be the jiva, since the jiva is the product of ajnana. The only thing left is Brahman, but if Brahman is the support, then its essential nature as jnana (jnanasvarupa) is compromised. How can this be?

 

 

Hi shvu,

I am reposting this once again s the questions remain fresh and in view for all.I'll add something to your last response shortly.

 

 

[theist]

Originally posted by shvu:

Theist,

 

Sorry for sitting on the long answer. I don't see myself having the time/inclination to pull out pages of quotes from Shankara. To summarize, the Jiva is never *created* at some point of time (btw, this is the position of all schoolso of Vedaanta) which implies ignorance or avidya is beginningless.

 

Cheers

 

 

shvu,

 

Long quotes were never desired.

 

Since everyone agrees that the jiva's were never 'created'what is the distinction between the adaita and dvaita schools?

 

Would the Advaitan position be that factually the jiva never really exists in the first place?

 

Please address Citta Hari's question's regarding how Brahman becomes deluded and what supports that deluding energy.

 

I sense this goes to the heart of the difference between the two schools and I hope to understand this point more clearly.

 

Thanks

theist

 

 

[shvu]

 

Since everyone agrees that the jiva's were never 'created'what is the distinction between the adaita and dvaita schools?

According to Advaita, the Atman (soul) is not different from Brahman. The duality is only apparent and vanishes when the truth is realized. Dvaita maintains that the Atman is eternally different from Paramatman, i.e this difference exists even after Mukti. IN fact, they have a concept of 5 eternal differences. A good point to know this would be http://www.dvaita.org

 

Would the Advaitan position be that factually the jiva never really exists in the first place?

Jiva = Brahman veiled in ignorance.

 

Please address Citta Hari's question's regarding how Brahman becomes deluded and what supports that deluding energy.

There is no specific point at which Brahman becomes deluded because Jivas are not created at some point in time. The deluding energy is Maya, which Shankara describes as inexplicable. Krishna talks about this at some point in the Gita, but I cannot recollect the exact location now (VIIth chapter?).

 

Cheers

 

 

[theist]

Thanks for the link shvu.I read the five points.I still find Lord Caitanya's simultaneous acceptance of oneness along with the duality more attractive.

 

Sankara's calling maya just 'inexplicable' is very unsatisfying.To be frank it sounds like a dodge.

 

Anyway I've appreciated the chat.Sorry if I hounded you a bit.I'm part pit bull but will relax it now.

 

Hare Krishna bro.

[shvu]

 

Thanks for the link shvu.I read the five points.I still find Lord Caitanya's simultaneous acceptance of oneness along with the duality more attractive.

Sure...To each, his own.

 

Sankara's calling maya just 'inexplicable' is very unsatisfying.To be frank it sounds like a dodge.

Au contraire, it means nothing more can be said about it, that will be true to it's meaning. Krishna calls Maya his mysterious power, thereby *dodging* it himself. Imagine a strange and unknown place you experience in a dream. Where is this place when you wake up? Was it a real place at any point of time? What was it resting on? The same logic applies quite well in this case.

 

Cheers

 

 

[theist]

Au contraire, it means nothing more can be said about it, that will be true to it's meaning. Krishna calls Maya his mysterious power, thereby *dodging* it himself.

Yes it is mysterious to us but not to Krishna.

 

Imagine a strange and unknown place you experience in a dream. Where is this place when you wake up? Was it a real place at any point of time? What was it resting on? The same logic applies quite well in this case.

The place still exists when the jiva awakens.The total dream energy rests on MahaVishnu.The individual dream of the particular jiva ends but others are still left dreaming within the context of His dream.Dreams within His dream.

 

It's a real dream.Temporary but real.

 

theist

 

 

 

[theist]

Jiva = Brahman veiled in ignorance.

So how Brahman becomes veiled is yet to be explained by the Advaitans.

 

All of Brahman becomes veiled?Or parts?

 

If all then the liberated state no longer exists as long as some consciousness of maya is experienced anywhere by anyone.

 

If parts then the indivisble Brahman has become divided.

 

If divided into parts then that would be the creation of the jiva's.We have already agreed that the jiva's are never created.

 

Why not one and difference simultaneously shvu?

 

 

 

[shvu]

 

So how Brahman becomes veiled is yet to be explained by the Advaitans.

No. According to Sruti and the Gita, the Jiva was always existent which means it was *never* created. And since, it was never created, the question of *how* does not arise at all. Just like you cannot expect a Gaudiya Guru to answer a question like how you were created. Hope I was clear this time.

 

All of Brahman becomes veiled?Or parts?

Since there is no how, there is no *becoming* either.

 

If all then the liberated state no longer exists as long as some consciousness of maya is experienced anywhere by anyone.

 

If parts then the indivisble Brahman has become divided.

 

A "Liberated" state, Maya, anyone etc are all to the deluded Jiva which sees duality. All of Brahman, part of Brahman, etc again are all apparent and ultimately hold no meaning.

 

If divided into parts then that would be the creation of the jiva's.We have already agreed that the jiva's are never created.

The Jiva was not created does not mean the Jiva cannot perceive unreal concepts like a *divided* Brahman.

 

Why not one and difference simultaneously shvu?

For the simple reason that it is not Vedic. When Shankara talked about oneness, he drew support from the Veda, Sutras and the Gita to justify his position and so did Madhva when he talked about eternal duality. However no such attempt to draw support from an infallible source was made in this case, which goes against itself, making it an ad hoc hypothesis.

 

No offense