Why a commentary?

March 27, 2004

Namaste Shri Balaji,

-

"Balaji Ramasubramanian" <balajiramasubramanian

> Advaita on similar lines urges the seeker to attain mukti and not to

> waste his time in philosophy or other talks. Therefore, Shankara did

> not hesitate to write bhashyas, and summaries to various works. If

> the Shruthi were an absolute authority to Advaita, Shankara would

> never attempt commenting or summing up on the works, for then they

> would be unnecessary. (If something is absolute authority, it is not

> necessary for me to comment on it or sum it up) Therefore even in

> Advaita, the knowledge of the Self is the ultimate authority.

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

Introduction to Gita BhAshyam:

The scripture called the Gita, which is such, is the collection of the

quintessence of all the Veda-s, and its meaning is difficult to understand.

Finding that although its words, meaning of words, meaning of sentences and

arguments have been expounded by many for the sake of discovering its import,

still because of the multiplicity and extreme contradictoriness of the

expositions it is not comprehended by people, I shall explain it briefly with a

view to determining its meaning distinctly.

[.....]

This scripture, viz. the Gita, while particularly revealing the two-fold dharma

having liberation as its goal and the Supreme Reality, Brahman, called VAsudeva,

as its subject-matter comes to have a special purpose (prayojana), relationship

(saMbandha), and subject-matter (vishaya). Since from a clear knowledge of its

purport all the human ends become fulfilled, therefore an effort is being made

by me to expound it.

---------

Shri Balaji, I will try to sum up why Shuthi is necessary for rise of Knowledge

in another post. I will be out of the country for a few days. If the vigour is

still there after the trip, I will surely post it.

Hari Om

WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Mail Internet Cafe

Awards

April 3, 2004

Namaste Shri Ranjeetji,

You worte:

>

> Introduction to Gita BhAshyam:

>

> The scripture called the Gita, which is such, is the collection of

the quintessence of all the Veda-s, and its meaning is difficult to

understand. Finding that although its words, meaning of words,

meaning of sentences and arguments have been expounded by many for

the sake of discovering its import, still because of the multiplicity

and extreme contradictoriness of the expositions it is not

comprehended by people, I shall explain it briefly with a view to

determining its meaning distinctly.

>

> [.....]

>

> This scripture, viz. the Gita, while particularly revealing the two-

fold dharma having liberation as its goal and the Supreme Reality,

Brahman, called VAsudeva, as its subject-matter comes to have a

special purpose (prayojana), relationship (saMbandha), and subject-

matter (vishaya). Since from a clear knowledge of its purport all the

human ends become fulfilled, therefore an effort is being made by me

to expound it.

> ---------

>

> Shri Balaji, I will try to sum up why Shuthi is necessary for rise

of Knowledge in another post. I will be out of the country for a few

days. If the vigour is still there after the trip, I will surely post

it.

>

I am still waiting for your summary on the necessity for Shruthi....

However, please note that while I donot refute them as evidence (They

are taken as evidence - pramana) but I question their authority

(which is mistaken to be absolute.) Please donot misunderstand me. I

do hold the view that the Shruthi can ignite the spark within us,

without which it is not possible to progress at all.

But that they are the only source of such inspiration or that they

can be taken as absolute authority (although they are good evidences)

is something that does not appear reasonable.

Even from the advaitic standpoint, I donot think they are absolute

for if that were the case, then just an adhyayan of the shruthi

should be enough to enlighten a person. But Sri BhagavatpAdAcarya

emphasised enough on the importance of the practice leading to

realization. In fact this was exactly the view of the mimamsa

scholars and Shri Shankara's had a world-famous debate with the then

mimamsaka shastri Sri Mandana Vishwarupa (I shall use this name to

avoid any controversy). We all know this debate very well and should

therefore understand that while the Shruthi are a good source of

inspiration and initiation, they cannot be taken as the absolute

authority.

Please don't misunderstand me.....

That said, I am waiting for your post, that would say as to

"Why is Shruthi important for the rise of knowledge?"

for this is a very important thing for everyone in this group. They

must know the importance of the shruthi. But all the same they must

realize that it has its own limitations - that it is only shruthi. It

may lead to vicara. But that will not be enough. What then leads to

mukti?

The word veda actually comes from vedana which used to mean the pure

unattached awareness of a sensation on the body or that of a thought

in the mind. Today it means pain. (Why it has happened is because the

grossest of all gross sensations on our body is pain. So in years to

come vedana has come to mean only pain)

It is the unattached 'watching' and pure awareness or pure

consciousness that can really lead to the cessation of all sorrow.

This is what Adi Shankara meant, when he said 'Sadhana is the same as

the Sadhya and Sadhaka', or the Seer is the Seen is the Seeing.

Again let me remind you to post that message I am still waiting for.

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

April 3, 2004

Beloved Bala-ji writes...

" The word veda actually comes from vedana which used to mean the

pure unattached awareness of a sensation on the body or that of a

thought in the mind. Today it means pain. (Why it has happened is

because the grossest of all gross sensations on our body is pain. So

in years to come vedana has come to mean only pain) "

My understanding is ( i may be wrong), the word *Veda* is derived

from the root word *vid* which means 'to know* and thus *veda* means

Knowledge and Vedanta Means *end of knowledge* and when does that

knowledge end ? When you realize the Knowledge of The SELF - atma

Jnana !

that is why anyone knowledgeble is Called *vidhwan* like someone who

is knowledgeble - Sangeeta Vidhwan- knowledgeble in Music.

well, Samskritam is a Unique language - a word can have multiple

meanings depending on the context.

Balaji- but i do like your interpretation of the WORD *VEDA* ... yes,

when one realizes the Self, THERE IS NO MORE SORROW ! only 'ananda*

Thank you!

love and blessings

April 3, 2004

Namaste all,

My great patti writes:

>

> " The word veda actually comes from vedana which used to mean the

> pure unattached awareness of a sensation on the body or that of a

> thought in the mind. Today it means pain. (Why it has happened is

> because the grossest of all gross sensations on our body is pain.

So

> in years to come vedana has come to mean only pain) "

>

> My understanding is ( i may be wrong), the word *Veda* is derived

> from the root word *vid* which means 'to know* and thus *veda*

means

> Knowledge and Vedanta Means *end of knowledge* and when does that

> knowledge end ? When you realize the Knowledge of The SELF - atma

> Jnana !

>

> that is why anyone knowledgeble is Called *vidhwan* like someone

who

> is knowledgeble - Sangeeta Vidhwan- knowledgeble in Music.

>

> well, Samskritam is a Unique language - a word can have multiple

> meanings depending on the context.

>

> Balaji- but i do like your interpretation of the WORD *VEDA* ...

yes,

> when one realizes the Self, THERE IS NO MORE SORROW ! only 'ananda*

Dadiji, you are right. The word veda and vid are related. Whether,

vid was first or veda was first is something that is immaterial,

since both have to arise from pure perception. (unattched

perception). So vedana which is the source of unattached perception

is the origin of vidya, vid and veda. And anything that does not

result from such pure perception is Avidya. That is why we have

avidya (ignorance). Because we don't have the vidya that arises from

vedana.

And btw Vedanta is not appropriately translated as 'end of knowledge'

but as 'explanation or appendix to the foresaid account of true

knowledge'. The appendix of a book is expected to have detailed

explanations, glossary etc. Again, the above clarifies that the veda

itself is not true knowledge, but just an account of it. True

knowledge will arise only throught Anubhuti - something I don't fail

to say again.

Please members, understand that while what I keep stressing on may

seem boring, it can never be overemphasized. It is so important.

Again I like your spirit of posting on bhakti dadiji. They are

refreshing. The true form of complete surrended to God which I

call 'surrender to egolessness' is depicted in the bhakti. May the

sun of egolessness (it is only this sun that is talked of in even the

Gayathri mantra, when it says Tat savitu) dawn upon all of us and do

away with the darkness of this ignorance.

Satyameva jayate Naanrtam

April 3, 2004

Namaste all,

There was a question on:

> The word veda actually comes from vedana which used to mean the

pure

> unattached awareness of a sensation on the body or that of a

thought

> in the mind. Today it means pain. (Why it has happened is because

the

> grossest of all gross sensations on our body is pain. So in years

to

> come vedana has come to mean only pain)

>

Let me explain the relevance of this. It just says that veda arises

from pure perception (vedana) of the modifications of the mind (that

manifests itself in the form of sensations and thoughts) When such

pure perception is developed through practice and perseverence, the

thought process is competely stopped and the identification of

oneself falsely to our imaginative understanding (incorrect

cognition) of the self to be the non-self (or ego) is completely

destroyed. This leads to vidya. Thus the above statement says that

veda and vidya arise from the 'watching' or awareness of vedana.

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

April 3, 2004

Dear Balaji,

Namaste.

Balaji:

> I am still waiting for your summary on the necessity for Shruthi....

> However, please note that while I donot refute them as evidence (They

> are taken as evidence - pramana) but I question their authority

> (which is mistaken to be absolute.) Please donot misunderstand me. I

> do hold the view that the Shruthi can ignite the spark within us,

> without which it is not possible to progress at all.

> But that they are the only source of such inspiration or that they

> can be taken as absolute authority (although they are good evidences)

> is something that does not appear reasonable.

pramANa is not 'evidence' and veda-s are definitely not just evidence. Why? If

it was so, then it would mean that it stands as an evidence to something known

from some other pramANa. The subject of the upanishad is the identity of Atman

and Brahman. This is not known through any other pramANa-s like pratyaksha

(perception) and anumAna (inference). So where does the role of veda-s as

evidence come?

The veda-s are not just a source of inspiration. It makes the metaphysical

Knowledge to rise in the qualified seeker. Just hearing the words 'tat tvam asi'

from the teacher is needed for the Knowledge to rise in the qualified seeker. If

sravaNa has done its job, there is no need for manana or nidhidhyAsana. But to a

person in which the Knowledge didnt rise from hearing the text, manana and the

nidhidhyAsana will help. Just because I failed to learn swimming, can I conclude

that human beings cannot swim?

AchArya in his sUtrabhAshya clearly says that the identity of the Atman and

Brahman is the subject matter of the veda-s and it is not known through any

other texts. Well, you can also write a book today regarding the matter and

claim that AchArya was wrong. Or you can quote from books like 'who am I?' or 'I

am That' and prove that AchArya was wrong. But that is not the right spirit.

Also, the books like YogavashishTa stand as authority only if they are not in

contradiction with veda-s.

Balaji:

> Even from the advaitic standpoint, I donot think they are absolute

> for if that were the case, then just an adhyayan of the shruthi

> should be enough to enlighten a person. But Sri BhagavatpAdAcarya

> emphasised enough on the importance of the practice leading to

> realization. In fact this was exactly the view of the mimamsa

> scholars and Shri Shankara's had a world-famous debate with the then

> mimamsaka shastri Sri Mandana Vishwarupa (I shall use this name to

> avoid any controversy). We all know this debate very well and should

> therefore understand that while the Shruthi are a good source of

> inspiration and initiation, they cannot be taken as the absolute

> authority.

Dear Balaji, please throw that book which you are reading out of the window.

AchArya didnt say anything about 'practice' for the rise of Knowledge. He was

very clear in his position on 'injunction' for rise of Knowledge. The sAdhanA-s

such as control of the inner and outer organs etc, helps in the

antaHkaraNa-shuddhi, not in realization. Even the veda-s cannot describe the

Absolute. Then how does it lead to realization? The veda-s itself proclaim that

the Absolute can only be described as 'not this, not this'. The role of the

veda-s is to remove the false assumptions we have on the Absolute and by using

mutual qualifiers in words like 'tat tvam asi', it indicates the highest truth,

culminating in the rise of Knowledge in the seeker.

Balaji:

> Please don't misunderstand me.....

I hope my understanding on your stance is right. If not, you may sum up your

understanding as a seperate mail and we can start afresh.

Balaji:

> That said, I am waiting for your post, that would say as to

>

> "Why is Shruthi important for the rise of knowledge?"

>

> for this is a very important thing for everyone in this group. They

> must know the importance of the shruthi. But all the same they must

> realize that it has its own limitations - that it is only shruthi. It

> may lead to vicara. But that will not be enough. What then leads to

> mukti?

You are indeed brave to proclaim that shruti has limitations. :-)

Please understand that it is YOUR limitations which stand as an obstacle in

deriving the benefit from the shruti.

Balaji:

> The word veda actually comes from vedana which used to mean the pure

> unattached awareness of a sensation on the body or that of a thought

> in the mind. Today it means pain. (Why it has happened is because the

> grossest of all gross sensations on our body is pain. So in years to

> come vedana has come to mean only pain)

Dear Balaji, the word 'veda' is not derived from 'vedana'. I believe you

have studied Sanskrit. Then how come you concluded that the root of a word is

bigger than the word itself?? The root of the word veda' is 'vid'.

Balaji:

> It is the unattached 'watching' and pure awareness or pure

> consciousness that can really lead to the cessation of all sorrow.

> This is what Adi Shankara meant, when he said 'Sadhana is the same as

> the Sadhya and Sadhaka', or the Seer is the Seen is the Seeing.

It is the cessation of ignorance which leads to whatever you are aspiring

for. It is not by 'watching' something or speculating on these issues.

Balaji:

> Again let me remind you to post that message I am still waiting for.

An excellent discussion titled 'Are the Upanishads' is available in the

files section. Please go through the same. I too had many wrong notions on

advaita darshana when I joined this group 1 year back. Thanks to the

thousands of messages by the learned members, I was able wipe away my wrong

understanding on various issues.

> Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

Hari Om

WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Mail Internet Cafe

Awards

April 3, 2004

Dear Balaji,

Balaji Ramasubramanian <balajiramasubramanian wrote:

Dadiji, you are right. The word veda and vid are related. Whether, vid was first

or veda was first is something that is immaterial, since both have to arise from

pure perception. (unattched perception). So vedana which is the source of

unattached perception is the origin of vidya, vid and veda. And anything that

does not result from such pure perception is Avidya. That is why we have avidya

(ignorance). Because we don't have the vidya that arises from vedana.

----------

These are certainly not part of advaita darshana. I think you are determined to

start a new school of thought with your musings. ;-)

It is surprizing to see that the learned members of this group are keeping

silent when advaita is mis-interpreted left and right.

Hari Om

WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Mail Internet Cafe

Awards

April 3, 2004

Dear Balaji,

Balaji Ramasubramanian <balajiramasubramanian wrote:

Namaste all,

There was a question on:

> The word veda actually comes from vedana which used to mean the

pure

> unattached awareness of a sensation on the body or that of a

thought

> in the mind. Today it means pain. (Why it has happened is because

the

> grossest of all gross sensations on our body is pain. So in years

to

> come vedana has come to mean only pain)

>

Let me explain the relevance of this. It just says that veda arises

from pure perception (vedana) of the modifications of the mind (that

manifests itself in the form of sensations and thoughts) When such

pure perception is developed through practice and perseverence, the

thought process is competely stopped and the identification of

oneself falsely to our imaginative understanding (incorrect

cognition) of the self to be the non-self (or ego) is completely

destroyed. This leads to vidya. Thus the above statement says that

veda and vidya arise from the 'watching' or awareness of vedana.

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

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

Your attempt surely deserves a pat on your shoulder. Please go through AchArya's

objection against the theory that realization comes from 'stopping the thought

process'.

Hari Om

WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Mail Internet Cafe

Awards

April 3, 2004

Namaste Sri Ranjeet:

A learned member of this group, you have timely intervened and

pointed out the error! Every learned member of this group is

obligated to provide the corrections as you have done it and I

believe messages get filtered and purified through such exchanges.

There is nothing wrong in 'some musings' but members who engage in

musings should be say with humility that their statements are

subject to corrections!

warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin, Ranjeet Sankar

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

> Dear Balaji,

>

> These are certainly not part of advaita darshana. I think you are

determined to start a new school of thought with your musings. ;-)

>

> It is surprizing to see that the learned members of this group are

keeping silent when advaita is mis-interpreted left and right.

>

> Hari Om

April 3, 2004

Namaste Ranjeetji,

With my due respects to your arguement, I don't know if you

understand my statements. Before going any further, let me clarify

that I am not reading from any book right now, if I had I would have

cited its reference. But I normally refer to Sri Shankara's bhashyams

on the Upanishads and the Gita, when I retire to my residence. I

don't have any other text and the Yogavasishtha Samhita even at my

residence. Let me try to sum my statements again. I shall try using

analogies:

Can you read a book on swimming and become an expert swimmer? I can

say that at max the book may inspire you to learn swimming. It is

only through correct parctice that you can ever hope to become a

swimmer. Reading and re-reading any book or treatise on swimming

would never ever make you a swimmer. Please name one person you know

who has become a swimmer by reading a book on it.

Again let me give you another analogy. When I make the

statement 'Sugar is sweet.' and let's assume you don't know either

sugar or sweet. Then my statement can at best result in an

intellectual understanding of it. Only when you eat sugar can you

ever really know what sugar is and what sweet is. One cannot say that

you can never know sugar or sweet if you have never heard the

statement 'Sugar is sweet.' You know it when you eat it, you may give

it some other name like sharkara and swadishtha.

I hope to have clarified my point. If not, kindly do tell me. I donot

think that there can be any scope for further disagreement on this. I

hope you donot misunderstand my statements.

When I say veda is pramana as an evidence, I mean it. Yes they are an

evidence of the knowledge gained through correct cognition, and

therefore as you pointed out an evidence for something else only. I

do understand that here there is room for controversy: There is no

doubt that the veda-s were known to the ancients through revelation,

but we must understand the meaning of revelation here.

When the mind comes under complete control and becomes totally

tranquil, the supreme knowledge is revealed. The word revealed is

appropriate here, since there is no more quest left, and all that a

person needs to do is 'open his eyes' or have right cognition. Hence

it is a revelation. I am not against the view that they are revealed

by God. But what is God - pure consciousness!!!

When I said veda comes from vedana, I might have made a mistake in

saying that the etymological origin is from 'vedana' (Did I say that?

I'm sorry if I did.) I don't remember having said so however. I meant

to say that pure awareness leads to vidya (not in etymological

sense). That the Seer and the Seen and The Seeing are the same is

alright, but if one does not try to See because of such an assumption

and expects someone to enlighten him just like that, he shall have to

wait for ever. Hence one must develop the faculty of awareness, which

leads to awareness of the Truth or vidya.

If you have any problem with that view, kindly tell then me as to

what will lead to vidya? If you hold that just sravana is enough for

vidya, it is not advaitic, it is a mimamsic view.

You wrote:

It makes the metaphysical

Knowledge to rise in the qualified seeker. Just hearing the

words 'tat tvam asi'

from the teacher is needed for the Knowledge to rise in the qualified

seeker. If

sravaNa has done its job, there is no need for manana or

nidhidhyAsana. But to a

person in which the Knowledge didnt rise from hearing the text,

manana and the

nidhidhyAsana will help. Just because I failed to learn swimming, can

I conclude

that human beings cannot swim?

I am to know your opinion on this. Is it possible for one to gain

metaphysical knowledge if a saint just quotes the Shruthi? If that be

the case, all those in close contact with a saint reciting the veda-s

should be enlightened, by virtue of having heard from him 'tat

tvamasi'. So you must be enlightened. Is it true? If so, did you put

yourself to the following litmus test for enlightenment:

1. Am I still swayed by passions? Do I have desires?

2. Do I feel angry still?

3. Do I have an attachment for my caste, or learning, religion,

mantra, deity or anything?

Let's say you are on the path to enlightenment and you would be

enlightened in due course through enough sravana. Then how much

effect has sravana had on you or on anyone else. Has your anger

reduced considerably, have your passions and desires reduced their

vigour? Have you become unattached at least a little?

My statement is not that 'Shruthi is useless.' but that 'Shruthi is

good, but not all.' I do not think it is in disagreement with Sri

Shankara's view.

The above litmus test are the basis of any vedanta school of thought.

What is Vedanta about if it is not cessation of all sorrow? And can

such cessation come in the presence of desires and hatred? Hence the

test is fundamental and if something does not lead to cessation of

sorrow and suffering, it has a limitation - and that too a

fundamental one! I ask what is the use of such a thing that cannot

help me drive away raga and dvesha?

Again my only statement is that 'Sravana cannot drive away my raga

and dvesha. They can at best inspire me to take proper steps to drive

them away.' and not that 'Sravana is useless.' as it may be

misunderstood.

As far as stopping thought process is concerned, I did not say that

it is Brahman but that it leads to the realization of the Self. I am

sure that Sri Shankara would not hold the view that it is possible to

realize the true nature of the Self with an agitated mind. Hence when

I say 'stop the thought process', I mean 'tranquilize the mind'. If

it can be done without that, kindly enlighten me as to how the

knowledge of the Self can be acheived.

I hope you would not misunderstand me. My statements may sound

awkward, but they are sincere and not borne out of arrogance.

About the authority of Yogavasishtha, I agree that it shall be

accepted only until it is in agreement with the Shruthi. But I am

sure there is no room for such an enquiry for if that were the case,

a Sringeri sanyasin would not attempt a summary of the text (unless

of course all of them have now got a skewed understanding of Vedanta.

Do you mean to say that the entire world has a skewed understanding

and that you are the sole person left understanding Vedanta) Again

even Yoagavasishtha is not absolute.

About reading 'Are the Upanishads' from the files section, I shall do

that soon. Again try to understand that my questions are sincere and

not borne out of any arrogance.

Finally, your point on Shankara's sticking to injunction is not very

clear to me. Could you please elaborate?

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

April 3, 2004

Dear Balaji,

> Can you read a book on swimming and become an expert swimmer? I

can

> say that at max the book may inspire you to learn swimming. It

is

> only through correct parctice that you can ever hope to become

a

> swimmer. Reading and re-reading any book or treatise on

swimming

> would never ever make you a swimmer.

But this is not a valid analogy here. It is true that you can´t

learn swimming by just reading books on how to swim. This is

because reading or hearing about swimming does not give you

direct knowledge about swimming. But the upanishads actually

gives direct knowledge on Atman, and this is also clearly pointed

out by Adi Sankara.

I guess you are familiar with the story about the Swami and his

disciples crossing a river. When arriving on the other shore, the

Swami counted his disciples and it turned out that only nine

persons had succesfully crossed the river! He counted all his

disciples over and over again, concluding: "There is one missing.

We are only nine people, and it should be ten!" Then a stranger

walked by. He overheard the conversation, and said to the Swami:

"But there are actually ten persons. You have forgot to count

yourself. You are that tenth person!". From the uttering of these

words, the Swami at once realized that he was the tenth person.

Well, the words of the stranger gave the Swami direct knowledge

about himself as the tenth man. He didn´t have to put this

knowledge into practice or anything. The very understanding came

immediately by the words of the stranger. "Sravana" gave him

perfect knowledge, because he was the tenth man from the very

beginning. He did not become the tenth man.

This is also the case regarding the knowledge of Atman. You are

Atman, you are not becomming Atman. But due to avidya you are

wrongly identifying yourself with your body, your senses, your

feelings, your thoughts etc. Shruti gives you direct knowledge of

Atman, because it enlightens you on what you actually are, not

what you are about to become. Realizing your true nature

(atman/brahman) is not about creating anything. Jnana is just

dispelling your superimpositions and thereby your misconceptions.

You surely have to swim in order to learn swimming, and you have

to practice and not just reading books on the subject. But this

is because learning how to swim is about gaining something which

was not there from the beginning. You have to got outside

yourself, so to speak, in order to learn how to swim. Swimming is

not your true nature, and this is the reason why just reading

books doesn´t work when learning how to swim. Books on swimming

are not sufficient, because learning how to swim is not a matter

about dispelling the ignorance of something which was there from

the beginning.

Gaining knowledge about something is usually a matter of a

subject (you) learning about something external (swimming, or the

taste of sugar). But regarding knowledge of the absolute

(atman/brahman), the case is different: You are about to realize

your true nature, and hence there is no such thing as subject and

an external object. You are realizing yourself, you own true

nature.

> When I say veda is pramana as an evidence, I mean it. Yes they

are an

> evidence of the knowledge gained through correct cognition, and

> therefore as you pointed out an evidence for something else

only.

But how is this "something else" possible? If the Vedas are

descriptions and verifications of some kind of knowledge, then

where do that knowledge come from? Why don´t the Vedas tell us to

find that other source of knowledge?

> When the mind comes under complete control and becomes totally

> tranquil, the supreme knowledge is revealed. The word revealed

is

> appropriate here, since there is no more quest left, and all

that a

> person needs to do is 'open his eyes' or have right cognition.

Perfect knowledge rises when avidya is dispelled. It is not a

matter of getting control over your thoughts, feelings etc. You

can attain perfect control over your mind, but you will still be

ignorant of your true self, atman. Knowledge is not about getting

perfect control of the mind. The mind is actually within the

realm of avidya, and accordingly brahmavidya implies the

dispelling of mind! Hence, the expression "the mind is under

complete control" is valid only when you are still ignorant and

within the realm of avidya.

Adi Shankara says that samadhi is subject to the same conditions

as deep-sleep: You are ignorant before sleep/samadhi and when you

wake up (or coming out of samadhi) you will still be ignorant.

Samadhi do not dispell avidya. In his Adhyasa Bhashyam (preamble

to Brahma Sutra Bhashya), Shankara says that avidya = adhyasa =

mithyajnana. Hence, dispelling avidya is the same as dispelling

your superimpositions and wrong knowledge of the Self. According

to Shankara, this is the purpose of the upanishads. So, shruti is

the pramana -- not samadhi, thought control or the like.

>Is it possible for one to gain

> metaphysical knowledge if a saint just quotes the Shruthi?

Yes.

If that be

> the case, all those in close contact with a saint reciting the

veda-s

> should be enlightened, by virtue of having heard from him 'tat

> tvamasi'.

Perfect knowledge of the absolute is possible only under certain

conditions, like detachment etc. etc. It goes without saying that

enlightment through sravana only is extremely rare. This is

possible only for the most outstanding aspirants. You can study

for a lifetime and still not be capable of REALLY grasping the

meaning of the upanishads. Of course, this is the reason why most

students of Vedanta do not become jivanmuktas. Then one has to

wait for another birth and another chance.

>

> My statement is not that 'Shruthi is useless.' but that

'Shruthi is

> good, but not all.' I do not think it is in disagreement with

Sri

> Shankara's view.

Shankara says (Brahma Sutra Bhashya 1.1.2.) that when enquiring

into brahman, the sastras are not the only means of knowledge

because there is also intuition. However, one must keep in mind

that this intuition - according to Shankara - is the final result

of the study of the shastras. There is no question of any

intuition as a separate pramana. This intuition is the very

realization that comes at the very moment avidya is finally

dispelled through the study of the scriptures.

> What is Vedanta about if it is not cessation of all sorrow?

Vedanta is about attaining moksha. But moksha is not possible for

the one who is still detached, and when sorrow comes from

detachment, cessation of sorrow is a precondition to moksha. But

it is wrong to say that cessation of sorrow is what Vedanta is

about.

>

> Again my only statement is that 'Sravana cannot drive away my

raga

> and dvesha.

Perfect knowledge of Atman through sravana only is possible only

for those highly qualified aspirants who are not subject to

detachment, and hence not to raga or dvesha.

But even if you don´t attain moksha, don´t you think listening to

the shrutis can change your outlook on life, and thereby leading

you to conclusions that may drive away raga and dvesha?

> I am

> sure that Sri Shankara would not hold the view that it is

possible to

> realize the true nature of the Self with an agitated mind.

I agree with you here. But the tranquilizing of mind is only

something that gets you purified, so to speak. According to

Shankara, it is not possible to attain moksha just by

tranquilizing the mind.

To anyone interested in studying the concepts of sravana, manana

and nididhyasana, I would strongly recommend the book "The Vision

of Atman" by Sri Sri Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati (Published

by Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya, Holenarsipur, Karnataka state).

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren

April 3, 2004

Dear Stig,

Your arguements were very refreshing. They were the loveliest

arguements I have seen till now. Sounding so perfectly logical and

yet deceptive.

Well the upanishad does give us 'direct knowledge' in the sense that

that knowledge was directly percieved by the Upanishad rishi and then

told to us. The knowledge you gain is still indirect. That which was

perceived through the dispelling of THEIR ignorance is being said

here in WORDS. You have not dispelled your ignorance still. So it is

not direct, but indirect.

But it is direct in the sense that the Upanishad rishi has directly

perceived this knowledge.

Again the arguement that a book on swimming does not give you direct

knowledge is alright. But tell me one book that gives you direct

knowledge. Let me know the nature of the direct knowledge in the

Upanishads through an analogy. It would helpful to understand the

differences in our opinions on direct and indirect knowledge.

Also please elaborate, what is this direct knowledge? For whom will

it be direct? Is Upanishad direct knowledge to you? If yes, you must

be an enlightened person, for direct knowledge would lead to

realization. If it is not direct to you, then why do you consider it

to be direct?

> Well, the words of the stranger gave the Swami direct knowledge

> about himself as the tenth man. He didn´t have to put this

> knowledge into practice or anything. The very understanding came

> immediately by the words of the stranger. "Sravana" gave him

> perfect knowledge, because he was the tenth man from the very

> beginning. He did not become the tenth man.

Good point. But where did he get the first assumption from, that they

were ten, that led to him to say 'We are missing one.'? Who told him

they were ten in the first place? Wasn't that also Sravana?

You are right, ignorance prevented him from knowing he was the tenth

person. But then if this ignorance was with him when counting, how

did this ignorance suddenly vanish this time? Why didn't it vanish

when someone else told him in the beginning that they were ten? Why

do you need a second Sravana?

This leads us to know that just Sravana must not be the cause for the

dispelling of ignorance, but his correct cognition that he is indeed

a person that can be counted. If he never regarded himself as a

person, no matter how many passersby tell him that he is the tenth

man, he would not conclude the same. It is this incorrect cognition

of the self, that is the culprit. But your arguement was good. Just

some refinement required.

You have to got outside

> yourself, so to speak, in order to learn how to swim. Swimming is

> not your true nature, and this is the reason why just reading

> books doesn´t work when learning how to swim.

If I could never float I can never swim. Just the fact that I can

float enables me to swim. Now even if I read a book, and if I have

heard from others that it is possible for me to float, can I swim? I

conclude by seeing others floating that my body can float. But does

that mean I can swim without any practice? What is still stopping me?

The answer is still ignorance. You see I have comcluded from analysis

and by seeing so many people swim, that I can also swim. But this

ignorance is deep.

Books on swimming

> are not sufficient, because learning how to swim is not a matter

> about dispelling the ignorance of something which was there from

> the beginning.

No. There is an ignorance. This ignorance is deep rooted in our mind,

and it is a misconception that 'My body cannot float' that causes a

fear of water which inhibits learning to swim. Once this ignorance is

done away with through right practice, I can swim. If you know

swimming, you would know that the root cause of not being able to

swim is the misconceived notion, borne out of ignorance in our

minds 'My body cannot float in water.' So the analogy is still

relevant.

Still, I would say, it was a good arguement, although not correct.

If the Vedas are

> descriptions and verifications of some kind of knowledge, then

> where do that knowledge come from?

Through correct cognition. YOU will have to have that correct

cognition, not that rishi.

Why don´t the Vedas tell us to

> find that other source of knowledge?

They urge you time and again to get that right knowledge.

Asato ma Sadgamaya, Tamaso ma jyotirgamaya, mrtyormaamrtangamaya.

Here, the Upanishad tells you to move towards that truth, that light,

and that deathless.

> > When the mind comes under complete control and becomes totally

> > tranquil, the supreme knowledge is revealed. The word revealed

> is

> > appropriate here, since there is no more quest left, and all

> that a

> > person needs to do is 'open his eyes' or have right cognition.

>

> Perfect knowledge rises when avidya is dispelled.

You are right. Just keeping the mind tranquil will not lead to

enlightenment. Rise of wisdom is necessary and called Prajna. But did

you note that I have also said that "all that a person needs to do

is 'open his eyes' or have right cognition." This is what is

necessary for enlightenment. When I say open his eyes, he must do

away with ignorance. (Easy said than done!) Can a clear lake's bottom

be seen if one closes his eyes? But all the same the lake should be

clear and unagitated for him to see.

When did I say that just tranquillizing the mind would do? I have

time and again said that pure awareness is necessary to dispell

avidya. And this faculty of awareness has to be developed through

practice of Ashtanga yoga.

> Perfect knowledge of the absolute is possible only under certain

> conditions, like detachment etc. etc.

When he is already detached, he is already free from emotions and

hence free from suffering. What would he need perfect knowledge for?

If he needs mukti, isn't he already mukta, by virtue of the fact that

he is detached from anything, and therefore detached from this body

and all samskaras? Also, where did he get this detachment from?

Through practice of ashtanga yoga. Or did that also happen through

Sravana? Please do not misunderstand me. I am not trying to be

sarcastic.

Of course, this is the reason why most

> students of Vedanta do not become jivanmuktas. Then one has to

> wait for another birth and another chance.

If that is the case, they will keep waiting. What is the harm in

taking the first step now? Why not try to tranquillize the mind now?

Why wait for a second chance? I donot think any Vedanta school

preaches that one should wait for the next birth.

> > What is Vedanta about if it is not cessation of all sorrow?

>

> Vedanta is about attaining moksha. But moksha is not possible for

> the one who is still detached, and when sorrow comes from

> detachment, cessation of sorrow is a precondition to moksha. But

> it is wrong to say that cessation of sorrow is what Vedanta is

> about.

>

What are you looking to get mukti from if it is not sorrow? What is

it that inspires you to read Vedanta? Is moksha something other than

cessation of sorrow? What is the nature of moksha?

> Perfect knowledge of Atman through sravana only is possible only

> for those highly qualified aspirants who are not subject to

> detachment, and hence not to raga or dvesha.

Again, when they have no raga and dvesha, what are they seeking

perfect knowledge for? Please remember, that perfect knowledge is not

about satisfying your curiosity. Please donot misunderstand me. I

really apreciate your love for Vedanta and the Shruthi. But the

desire for mukti is not for fulfilment of desries or satisfaction of

our curiosity. It is for equanimity and cessation of all sorrow.

>

> But even if you don´t attain moksha, don´t you think listening to

> the shrutis can change your outlook on life, and thereby leading

> you to conclusions that may drive away raga and dvesha?

>

I agree and therefore also draw your attention to the fact that you

have also agreed that shruthis can change only your outlook on life.

Whether the conclusions that you arrive at are strong enough to do

away with raga and dvesha is yet to be seen. But let's say I stop

taking anything sweet to do away with raga, will it lead to moksha? I

will on the contrary become crazy in the desire for the thing I

rejected and hence remain full of sorrow. Driving raga and dvesha has

to be done from the depths of the mind. It is easy said than done.

>

> To anyone interested in studying the concepts of sravana, manana

> and nididhyasana, I would strongly recommend the book "The Vision

> of Atman" by Sri Sri Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati (Published

> by Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya, Holenarsipur, Karnataka state).

Thanks for the recommendation.

Please donot misunderstand me. I have much respect and love for those

who read the Shruthi. But it is not all. It is not the end. For

liberation, you will have to take steps. Start with making your mind

tranquil, for example. While I recognize your love for Shruthi, I

still urge you to move towards liberation.

Satymeva Jayate Naanrtam

April 3, 2004

Dear Shri Stig-ji,

It makes me happy to read your explanations. They are so logical and

consistent and accord with the Acharya's words.

Regards,

Chittaranjan

advaitin, "Stig Lundgren" <slu@b...> wrote:

> Dear Balaji,

>

> But this is not a valid analogy here. It is true that you can´t

> learn swimming by just reading books on how to swim. This is

> because reading or hearing about swimming does not give you

> direct knowledge about swimming. But the upanishads actually

> gives direct knowledge on Atman, and this is also clearly pointed

> out by Adi Sankara.

>

April 3, 2004

Namaste Stig-ji,

I am very happy to see your mail.

It was very clear and to the point.

Hari Om

-

"Stig Lundgren" <slu

> But this is not a valid analogy here. It is true that you can´t

> learn swimming by just reading books on how to swim. This is

> because reading or hearing about swimming does not give you

> direct knowledge about swimming. But the upanishads actually

> gives direct knowledge on Atman, and this is also clearly pointed

> out by Adi Sankara.

>

April 4, 2004

Dear Balaji,

Namaste.

Balaji:

> With my due respects to your arguement, I don't know if you

> understand my statements. Before going any further, let me clarify

> that I am not reading from any book right now, if I had I would have

> cited its reference. But I normally refer to Sri Shankara's bhashyams

> on the Upanishads and the Gita, when I retire to my residence. I

> don't have any other text and the Yogavasishtha Samhita even at my

> residence. Let me try to sum my statements again. I shall try using

> analogies:

Your arguments however draw an altogether different portrait. It shows that

you are not familiar with any of SankarAchArya's works.

Balaji:

> Can you read a book on swimming and become an expert swimmer? I can

> say that at max the book may inspire you to learn swimming. It is

> only through correct parctice that you can ever hope to become a

> swimmer. Reading and re-reading any book or treatise on swimming

> would never ever make you a swimmer. Please name one person you know

> who has become a swimmer by reading a book on it.

Stigji has clearly pointed out the flaws in your point. This was very much

in line with SankarAchArya's darshana. Unfortunately you

have not paid much attention to it and carried on with your speculations

streching it to 'floating' and so on, which is shuShka-tarka having no

relevance in vedAnta.

Balaji:

> Again let me give you another analogy. When I make the

> statement 'Sugar is sweet.' and let's assume you don't know either

> sugar or sweet. Then my statement can at best result in an

> intellectual understanding of it. Only when you eat sugar can you

> ever really know what sugar is and what sweet is. One cannot say that

> you can never know sugar or sweet if you have never heard the

> statement 'Sugar is sweet.' You know it when you eat it, you may give

> it some other name like sharkara and swadishtha.

This analogy is also not right in the context. The sugar is something which

is other than the Self. It is parOksha. However, in the case of Atma-jnAna,

we are dealing with one's own true nature. It is aparOksha. So the anology

doesnt fit. In AtmAnubhava, there is no experience as in the case of

sweetness of the sugar. Please note that even the sense of being an

individual capable of action and experience is due to ignorance. So if you

are experiencing moksha like the sweetness of sugar, you are nowhere near

moksha.

Balaji:

> I hope to have clarified my point. If not, kindly do tell me. I donot

> think that there can be any scope for further disagreement on this. I

> hope you donot misunderstand my statements.

I fully understand your position.

Balaji:

> When I say veda is pramana as an evidence, I mean it. Yes they are an

> evidence of the knowledge gained through correct cognition, and

> therefore as you pointed out an evidence for something else only. I

> do understand that here there is room for controversy: There is no

> doubt that the veda-s were known to the ancients through revelation,

> but we must understand the meaning of revelation here.

What you mean would be this. When one practices ashTAnga yoga, he

experiences 'something'. When he look into the veda-s, he find that it is

the same experience which the rishi-s had. Is this what you mean as

'evidence'? You should note that the veda-s doesnt say 'tat rishi asi' !!!

It says 'tat tvam asi'. When you hear about your true nature and you fully

understand it, what is the need for any other action?

Moreover action wont destroy ignorance. Only Knowledge can destroy

ignorance. If liberation dawns as a result of any action such as

ashTAnga yoga, then it would mean to say that moksha has a beginning.

Anything which has a beginning has an end, making moksha impermanent !

Balaji:

> When I said veda comes from vedana, I might have made a mistake in

> saying that the etymological origin is from 'vedana' (Did I say that?

> I'm sorry if I did.) I don't remember having said so however. I meant

> to say that pure awareness leads to vidya (not in etymological

> sense). That the Seer and the Seen and The Seeing are the same is

> alright, but if one does not try to See because of such an assumption

> and expects someone to enlighten him just like that, he shall have to

> wait for ever. Hence one must develop the faculty of awareness, which

> leads to awareness of the Truth or vidya.

As I had mentioned in my earlier mail, inner and outer control helps in

antaHkaraNa-shuddhi. It doesnt give rise to Knowledge of the Self. If that

was so, then all the Yoga centers around the world would have been moksha

centers !! In advaita, the awareness of the Truth is itself the state of

moksha. It is being established in ones own true nature (AtmAnubhava). It is

not that awareness of Truth is the means and moksha is the end. It doesnt

follow a cause and effect relation. And no amount of action would result in

AtmAnubhava. It comes only with cessation of ignorance, with the help of the

knowledge in the veda-s. It is just like the piece of knowledge of fire when

you are near it. There is no more action required to know fire.

Please dont think that sravaNa means the Guru is bestowing 'something' on

you.

Balaji:

> If you have any problem with that view, kindly tell then me as to

> what will lead to vidya? If you hold that just sravana is enough for

> vidya, it is not advaitic, it is a mimamsic view.

Oh please Balaji. Dont tread into unknown territory!!

If I quote from AchArya's works, I wonder what you would say. :-))

Balaji:

> I am to know your opinion on this. Is it possible for one to gain

> metaphysical knowledge if a saint just quotes the Shruthi? If that be

> the case, all those in close contact with a saint reciting the veda-s

> should be enlightened, by virtue of having heard from him 'tat

> tvamasi'.

Yes, it is possible to gain metaphysical Knowledge just by hearing the

texts. But it is only for a qualified student. Why is this so difficult for

you to understand this?

Balaji:

> So you must be enlightened. Is it true? If so, did you put

> yourself to the following litmus test for enlightenment:

>

> 1. Am I still swayed by passions? Do I have desires?

> 2. Do I feel angry still?

> 3. Do I have an attachment for my caste, or learning, religion,

> mantra, deity or anything?

>

> Let's say you are on the path to enlightenment and you would be

> enlightened in due course through enough sravana. Then how much

> effect has sravana had on you or on anyone else. Has your anger

> reduced considerably, have your passions and desires reduced their

> vigour? Have you become unattached at least a little?

Dear tester, I admit that I am not a fully qualified student and that I am

not a realized soul. But you dont admit it and you go on to conclude that it

is not possible for anyone. That is the reason for this verbiage.

Balaji:

> My statement is not that 'Shruthi is useless.' but that 'Shruthi is

> good, but not all.' I do not think it is in disagreement with Sri

> Shankara's view.

Please dont drag AchArya into this. You are not talking

anything related to advaita.

Shruthi stands as authority in that it removes the ignorance, the false

superimpositions on the Self by the method of 'Not this, Not this'. No

amount of Yoga will help in understanding jIva-brahma-aikyam.

Balaji:

> The above litmus test are the basis of any vedanta school of thought.

> What is Vedanta about if it is not cessation of all sorrow? And can

> such cessation come in the presence of desires and hatred? Hence the

> test is fundamental and if something does not lead to cessation of

> sorrow and suffering, it has a limitation - and that too a

> fundamental one! I ask what is the use of such a thing that cannot

> help me drive away raga and dvesha?

Do you mean to say that vedAnta is for driving away rAga and dvesha? As

Stigji rightly said, vedAnta is for moksha. If you ask me, I am not into

Vedanta to drive away any sort of rAga or dvesha. So according to you, a

patient in coma state is liberated ??

Balaji:

> Again my only statement is that 'Sravana cannot drive away my raga

> and dvesha. They can at best inspire me to take proper steps to drive

> them away.' and not that 'Sravana is useless.' as it may be

> misunderstood.

So according to you, sravaNa is for inspiration! What should the seeker do

next? Abstain from sex for 11 days, practice prANAyAma, Asana-s etc ??

Then the Knowledge will rise by itself ??

Balaji:

> As far as stopping thought process is concerned, I did not say that

> it is Brahman but that it leads to the realization of the Self. I am

> sure that Sri Shankara would not hold the view that it is possible to

> realize the true nature of the Self with an agitated mind. Hence when

> I say 'stop the thought process', I mean 'tranquilize the mind'. If

> it can be done without that, kindly enlighten me as to how the

> knowledge of the Self can be acheived.

Advaita doesnt say that one can realize the Self with an agitated mind.

But it also says that Self cannot be realized just by calming the mind.

Balaji:

> I hope you would not misunderstand me. My statements may sound

> awkward, but they are sincere and not borne out of arrogance.

No Balaji. I dont think that these are borne out of arrogance.

Ignorance would be the right word.

Balaji:

> About the authority of Yogavasishtha, I agree that it shall be

> accepted only until it is in agreement with the Shruthi. But I am

> sure there is no room for such an enquiry for if that were the case,

> a Sringeri sanyasin would not attempt a summary of the text (unless

> of course all of them have now got a skewed understanding of Vedanta.

> Do you mean to say that the entire world has a skewed understanding

> and that you are the sole person left understanding Vedanta) Again

> even Yoagavasishtha is not absolute.

I believe I understand adavita darshana as propounded by Adi SankarAchArya.

I dont know about the others. Anyone is welcome to correct my understanding.

But I will surely object even a Sringeri sanyAsi if he preaches 'something

else' in the name of advaita.

Balaji:

> About reading 'Are the Upanishads' from the files section, I shall do

> that soon. Again try to understand that my questions are sincere and

> not borne out of any arrogance.

I hope that will help.

Balaji:

> Finally, your point on Shankara's sticking to injunction is not very

> clear to me. Could you please elaborate?

It seems you misunderstood me. I was saying that SankarAchArya objected to

the view that there is any injunction to rise in Knowledge. He never held

the view that Knowledge will rise by practicing yoga or by doing any action.

Please understand that the Knowledge will not rise in 'everyone' by just

sravaNa. It will happen only for a qualified student. For others like me,

manana and nidhidhyAsana will help.

Balaji:

> Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

What an irony !!

Hari Om

April 4, 2004

Namaste again Balaji,

>Well the upanishad does give us 'direct knowledge' in

>the sense that that knowledge was directly perceived

>by the Upanishad rishi and then told to us

Does anybody doubt this? I have not been able to follow all threads

lately, but it seems to me that there was some discussion about the

divine stature of the Vedas. I think I have some idea what that

discussion was about...

Let me say that I think it is incorrect to take the Vedas as 'divine

orders' from God. In other words, it is not the usual case of, 'Here

is your holy book. Just shut up and believe it, don't ask why, and

don't dare to contradict any of it. Your role as a worthless human

is to just believe, believe, believe, and then beg for mercy from

God. Etc. Etc.'

Rather, the Vedas are the record of the direct perception of truth by

the rishis, just as you say. They achieved higher states of

consciousness and relay their wisdom to us, just like scientists.

Buddha did the same, in his own words. These are the only kind of

scriptures I could believe in, and this is HOW I would go about

believing them, i.e. with no trace of mindless subservience.

What this also means is that advanced beings on other planets could

also perceive the truth and write their equally valid scriptures.

What is upsetting to orthodox religious people is that any impostor

can then come along and claim to be a rishi or prophet. Because of

the foolishness of human beings, it may seem a necessary expedient to

have pressures in society which say that THIS and only this scripture

is valid, so shut up and believe it. Perhaps even God would favor

this approach with such people, as the best that is possible for them

at this stage of their spiritual development.

My basic feeling is that we are attracted to those scriptures that we

deserve and are ready for. So let all scriptures be written. If we

are truly seeking the truth, the truth will find us.

Hari Om!

Benjamin

April 4, 2004

Namaste,

>I think I have some idea what that discussion was about...

Whoops, I should have read Stig's message. I agree with several

others that he got it basically right. That was a good message.

It is not a question of mindless subservience to any scripture.

Rather, the Vedas are knowledge we can then test for ourselves, just

like Buddhism. And yes, it is dispelling the clouds of illusion to

discover our true self. No truth is more convincing than clear

insight into our true nature. Balaji was basically saying this too,

I believe.

But as long as those clouds remain, we require some degree of faith,

but it is not the faith of blind subservience but rather the kind of

faith we might have in an older brother or sister.

As I said in my previous message, we are attracted to those

scriptures we are ready for. It is like Gurus. If we are deceived

by a bad guru, the fault is partly our own. If our intention is pure

and sincere, the right guru or scripture appears. I believe this, or

life is utterly meaningless.

Hari Om!

Benjamin

April 4, 2004

Namaste Benjaminji,

> Rather, the Vedas are knowledge we can then test for ourselves,

just

> like Buddhism.

Yes. I have been pointing out again and again, just that it is this

step of testing for ourselves that is important. And it comes through

removal of ignorace, which can happen only if we know the nature of

ignorance, which can happen only if we have the faculty of awareness,

which can come only through the development of this faculty (which

itself comes from practice of awareness). I am only urging everyone

to take atleast that first step.

No truth is more convincing than clear

> insight into our true nature. Balaji was basically saying this

too,

> I believe.

And this insight should not be just speculative. We should live that

insight. That is more important than anything else.

>

> But as long as those clouds remain, we require some degree of

faith,

> but it is not the faith of blind subservience but rather the kind

of

> faith we might have in an older brother or sister.

>

There is nothing that dispells the faith in the Shruthi. There cannot

exist any such thing by virtue of the fact that it is an evidence of

the truth. We can do nothing about it. No matter how much someone may

disagree with it, the truth will always remain the same and it is

reflected in the Shruthi.

But we must not remain with just that, and content ourselves with

just reading it. If that were the case, then why does Varuna in the

Upanishad urge his son as such:

'Tapasa Brahma Vijijnasasva'

It is this that I have been referring to as practice. Therefore, just

reading the Shruthi cannot be useful. The truth in it has to be

lived. And that is possible only through 'Tapas'.

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

April 4, 2004

Namaste Stig-ji

It was a really a wonderful reply.

But i would like to point out one thing.

you said ...

>Perfect knowledge rises when avidya is dispelled. It is not a

>matter of getting control over your thoughts, feelings etc. You

>can attain perfect control over your mind, but you will still be

>ignorant of your true self, atman. Knowledge is not about getting

>perfect control of the mind. The mind is actually within the

>realm of avidya, and accordingly brahmavidya implies the

>dispelling of mind! Hence, the expression "the mind is under

>complete control" is valid only when you are still ignorant and

>within the realm of avidya.

I think both the knowledge and control of mind are required for final

liberation.

(In rare cases where only sravana is enough, it means that person has done

enough manana and nididhyasana in his previous births.)

Also after the dawn of knowledge we have to consciouly destroy our vasanas by

practice(vasankshaya).

This is very importnant especially at the time of death of physical body our

vasanas should be completely removed. Then only videhamukti (cessation of the

cycle of birth and death) is possible which is the ultimate aim of human life.

Hope i have made myself amply clear.

I stand to be corrected.

Om tat-sat

Vishal

Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

April 5, 2004

In addition to the previous post..

The vasanakshaya at the time of death is so important that great saints prefer

to voluntarily dis-own the physical body (quite earlier than their natural

death) when there vasanas are completely destroyed and when they think they are

relived of their worldly responsibilities.

They dont want to remain alive unnecessarily and take risk of accumalating

vasanas if they think their responsibilities and duties are over. They want to

leave the body with no vasanas (vasanas that cause re-birth)

eg - AchArya got videhamukti at haridwar (though some controversy form

historians)

Saint DyAneshwar at Alandi

Vishal D <vishaldeshpande4 wrote:

Namaste Stig-ji

It was a really a wonderful reply.

But i would like to point out one thing.

you said ...

>Perfect knowledge rises when avidya is dispelled. It is not a

>matter of getting control over your thoughts, feelings etc. You

>can attain perfect control over your mind, but you will still be

>ignorant of your true self, atman. Knowledge is not about getting

>perfect control of the mind. The mind is actually within the

>realm of avidya, and accordingly brahmavidya implies the

>dispelling of mind! Hence, the expression "the mind is under

>complete control" is valid only when you are still ignorant and

>within the realm of avidya.

I think both the knowledge and control of mind are required for final

liberation.

(In rare cases where only sravana is enough, it means that person has done

enough manana and nididhyasana in his previous births.)

Also after the dawn of knowledge we have to consciouly destroy our vasanas by

practice(vasankshaya).

This is very importnant especially at the time of death of physical body our

vasanas should be completely removed. Then only videhamukti (cessation of the

cycle of birth and death) is possible which is the ultimate aim of human life.

Hope i have made myself amply clear.

I stand to be corrected.

Om tat-sat

Vishal

Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

advaitin/

advaitin

Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

April 5, 2004

Namaste Vishalji,

Can we say Vasanashaya has taken place if even a trace of fear is left behind?

pranams,

Venkat - M

Vishal D <vishaldeshpande4 wrote:

They dont want to remain alive unnecessarily and take risk of accumalating

vasanas if they think their responsibilities and duties are over. They want to

leave the body with no vasanas (vasanas that cause re-birth)

WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Mail Internet Cafe

Awards

April 5, 2004

Dear Balaji,

Thank you for your kind words about my

arguments, although not agreeing with them :-)

I noted some typos in my last mail: In a few places I happened to

write "detachment" in stead of "attachment". I am sorry for this.

However, I will make some further attempts to show that shruti is

the pramana, and also that shruti gives direct knowledge. This

time I have also provided some citations from the acharyas of the

classical Advaita tradition.

Balaji wrote:

**********************

Well the upanishad does give us 'direct knowledge' in the sense

that

that knowledge was directly percieved by the Upanishad rishi and

then

told to us. The knowledge you gain is still indirect. That which

was

perceived through the dispelling of THEIR ignorance is being said

here in WORDS. You have not dispelled your ignorance still. So it

is

not direct, but indirect.

*********************************************

My answer: As I mentioned in my last response, the spiritual

aspirant needs to have the necessary preconditons in order to

gain knowledge of the absolute. Shruti is the source of this

knowledge, but whether one is capable of grasping this knowledge

depends on whether the necessary preconditions are there or not.

You are right, I have not dispelled my ignorance, but I do not

blame the shrutis. The shrutis gives direct knowledge, but

whether I am capable of grasping that knowledge is a matter of MY

preconditions. The fact that shruti gives direct knowledge does

not mean that there exists an infallible causal relationship

between sravana and attaining moksha. The ability to grasp must

be there. In his Bhagavad Gita Bhashya, Adi Shankara shows that

we have to get spiritually purified throught karma yoga. Prior to

that, we are not able to grasp the absolute knowledge because of

our disturbing attachments to our possessions, our families, our

ambitions etc.

Balaji wrote:

*************************************

But it is direct in the sense that the Upanishad rishi has

directly

perceived this knowledge.

****************************************

My answer: No, it is direct in the sense that REALLY grasping

it´s true mening immediately gives rise to moksha.

Balaji wrote:

******************************************

Again the arguement that a book on swimming does not give you

direct

knowledge is alright. But tell me one book that gives you direct

knowledge. Let me know the nature of the direct knowledge in the

Upanishads through an analogy. It would helpful to understand the

differences in our opinions on direct and indirect knowledge.

*******************************************

My answer: The knowledge given in the upanishads are direct

because it is the knowledge about the true Self, (atman/brahman).

You are that Self. You can´t realize this knowledge of the Self

by searching in the streets, in the woods, in your body, in your

feelings or even in your mind. You can get this knowledge ONLY by

dispelling avidya. And avidya is dispelled by absolute knowledge

of your true Self. Please note that dispelling avidya through

knowledge means the negation of avidya. Nothing new is created in

you by this process. And since the "object" of

the absolute knowledge is actually your true nature, you can not

go anywhere outside your true self in order to find it. You are

yourself

the "object" of your own spiritual aspirations, so to speak.

Knowledge of the

Self does not mean knowledge about something external that has to

be verified before realizing its truth. When someone tell you

"you are the tenth man" you grasp it immediately (or not, if the

preconditions to grasp what the stranger says are lacking).

The example of the "tenth man-story" is just a simple

illustration of the problem we are discussing here. It goes

without saying that finding a perfect and 100%-proof analogy is

impossible: The knowledge of the Self is unique in its

kind, and hence can not be fully and perfectly illustrated by

anything else.

And this is the important thing to keep in mind here: Direct

knowledge from a book is possible only if the book talks

about your true nature, your absolute Self.

It is a common misconception that the Upanishads can give only

intellectual conviction but no actual experience of the Self.

Hence, people often believe that after studying the Upanishads,

then we have to put its teachings into practice in order to gain

enlightenment. But if your true Self is clouded by ignorance,

then

what really is the solution to our problem? The answer is:

Knowledge. Ignorance can only be viped away by knowledge.

Knowledge -- not mind-control, yogic asanas, detachment from

possessions etc. etc. -- is the antithesis and erradication of

avidya. And this knowledge is experienced at the very moment your

avidya is dispelled. And since the avidya is yours, and the

Upanishads are talking about your true Self, then what the

Upanishads says can actually make you experience your true Self.

The Upanishads are dealing with what you actually are. Hence,

shruti can give rise to direct knowledge of your Self.

Balaji wrote:

*************************************************

Also please elaborate, what is this direct knowledge? For whom

will

it be direct? Is Upanishad direct knowledge to you? If yes, you

must

be an enlightened person, for direct knowledge would lead to

realization. If it is not direct to you, then why do you consider

it

to be direct?

***********************************************'

My answer: I think I have tried to explain this already. The

standpoint of the advaitins was summoned up in the follwing way

by Vimuktatman a couple of hundred years after Shankara:

"Even verbal knowledge can be direct knowledge, because it can

concern that which is immediately and directly known, as in the

case of a human sentence proclaiming the self-luminosity of the

Self." (Sri VimuktAtman, "Ishta Siddhi")

I am hereby going to provide some further quotations on the

fundamental role of scriptures and direct knowledge. Hopefully

this will throw light on the traditional standpoint regarding the

means for moksha. Here are some quotations from Adi Shankara, and

some from his foremost disciple, Sureshvara:

"Here you might object that no concrete experience like the

concrete satisfaction that follows eating arises from the mere

hearing of a sentence. And to analyze a sentence in the hope of

getting a concrete experience is like trying to make milk-pudding

out of cow-dung. To this we reply that it is true that all

sentences about the not-self yield abstract knowledge only. But

it is not so with sentences about the inmost Self, for there are

exceptions, as in the case of the one who realized he was the

tenth. One should accept that the Self is its own means of

knowledge, which means it is directly knowable to itself. On our

view, when the ego is dissolved, experience of one´s own Self is

realized." (Shankara, Upadesha Sahasri 201-203)

"It is as when Brahma removed the nescience of Rama by his mere

words ('O Rama! Thou art Vishnu, not the son of Dasharatha'). He

did not mention any other task Rama had to perform in order to

become awake to his nature as Vishnu apart from mere listening to

the words. It is in this way (i.e. without any further work being

required) that the word 'I' reveals the Light, the inmost Self.

That same revelation is given in the text 'thou art the real'.

The fruit here is liberation. If the holy knowledge did not ensue

on merely hearing the relevant texts, one would certainly have to

assume there was some act that had to be performed. But in fact

there is no such contingency. For it is accepted that one´s own

Self exists even before one has immediate intuition of it in it´s

totality through such texts as 'I am the Absolute'." (Shankara,

Upadesha Sahasri 100-102)

"Is it then impossible that the Absolute should be communicated

by the Veda, since the Absolute is not an object of Knowledge?

No. For the function of the Veda is to put an end to the

distinctions imagined through nescience." (Shankara, Bh. Su. Bh.

1.1.4.)

"And the empirical distinctions such as 'I am the agent and this

is the object of my act', which depend on this false notion, are

not contradicted until the truth declared in the text 'That thou

art' that only the Self exists has been directly apprehended."

(Shankara , Bh. Su. Bh. 1.2.6.)

"Meanwhile, those gifted persons who are not afflicted by any

ignorance, doubt or erroneous knowledge to obstruct the

comprehensions of the meaning of the words can have direct

knowledge of the meaning of the sentence when it is heard only

once. For them, repetition would quite evidently be superfluous.

For once the Self is known, this knowledge suppresses nescience.

[...] But in the case of the person in whom this immediate

experience does not arise at once, we admit that repetition is

necessary in order to aquire that immediate experience. But even

here, one should not become involved in any departure from the

true meaning of the text 'That thou art' through false ideas

about what is implied by 'repetition'. One does not marry off

one´s daughter with the idea of killing the bridegroom."

(Shankara, Bh. Su. Bh. 4.1.1-2.)

"Because this entity [the Absolute] has no attributes like

colour, it is not an object for perception. And because it has no

signs which can be used as a basis for inference (since these,

too, depend on perception) or any other features that could lead

to indirect forms of knowledge, it is not within the realm of

inference or other forms of indirect knowledge either. This

entity can only be known through the traditional texts".

(Shankara, Bh. Su. Bh. 2.1.6.)

"And while it is true that the Absolute is an already-existent

entity, it is not true that it is and object of perception and

the other means of empirical knowledge. For the Absolute cannot

be known as the Self without the help of Vedic texts like 'That

thou art'." (Shankara, Bh. Su. Bh. 1.1.4.)

"The Spirit proclaimed in the Upanishads, and only in the

Upanishads, is the Absolute." (Shankara, Bh. Su. Bh. 1.1.4.)

"The Absolute is identical with man´s immediately evident Self,

but is not known, and is concieved as 'other' [paroksa]:

similarly, man´s Self is the Absolute, but is conceived as having

a second reality over against it. But in the case of the ascetic

whose ignorance has been destroyed by the true knowledge conveyed

by the text (That thou art), all causes of distinction are

eradicated and only the conviction 'All is the Self alone'

remains." (Sureshvara, Brihad. Bh. Vartika 1.2.1391-2.)

"That which has ultimately to be known, which is initially

unknown and which transcends the individual knower and his

knowledge and its objects -- that can be known in this world from

the Veda and from no other source." (Sureshvara, Brihad. Bh.

Vartika 1.4.339.)

"Hence reasoning by agreement and difference, which operates in

the realm of cause and effect, cannot throw light on the reality

taught in the Upanishads. The final reality can be known only

through the upanishadic texts, the sole means for knowing it."

(Sureshvara, Brihad. Bh. Vartika 4.3.401.)

"The fact that the true Self is identical with the Absolute and

the Absolute identical with the true Self is the special topic of

the metaphysical texts in the Upanishads like 'That thou art';

and it cannot be known through any other means of knowledge".

(Sureshvara, Brihad. Bh. Vartika 4.3.1115.)

Balaji wrote:

******************************************

Good point. But where did he get the first assumption from, that

they

were ten, that led to him to say 'We are missing one.'? Who told

him

they were ten in the first place? Wasn't that also Sravana?

You are right, ignorance prevented him from knowing he was the

tenth

person. But then if this ignorance was with him when counting,

how

did this ignorance suddenly vanish this time? Why didn't it

vanish

when someone else told him in the beginning that they were ten?

*******************************************

My answer: Please note that the "Tenth man-story" is only an

attempt to illustrate how hearing the the truth about your true

Self actually gives direct (paroksha) knowledge of the Self. The

ignorance of the Swami was eradicated upon hearing about himself

as the tenth man, and that is why his ignorance vanished. This is

the only thing this story is attempting to explain. Don´t bother

about how, when or why the Swami got ignorant in the first place.

This story is not bringing into the picture how ignorance rises

in the first place.

Balaji wrote:

****************************************************

This leads us to know that just Sravana must not be the cause for

the

dispelling of ignorance, but his correct cognition that he is

indeed

a person that can be counted. If he never regarded himself as a

person, no matter how many passersby tell him that he is the

tenth

man, he would not conclude the same. It is this incorrect

cognition

of the self, that is the culprit.

*******************************************************

My answer: Please not that what I am trying to say is that

sravana gives rise to the absolute knowledge of the Self, that

is, for the aspirant who got the right qualifications. Less

qualified aspirants, on the other hand, has to make use of manana

and nididhyasana. In any case, one has to stick to the shastras.

The manana and nididhyasana have to be fully in line with the

shruti, and there is no question of free speculation or logical

gymnastics outside the meaning of the Upanishads. Whether one

gets liberated by manana, nididhyasana or sravana, it is

nevertheless a direct knowledge. And this direct knowledge comes

from the shruti, regardless of whether you have to ponder upon

the meaning of the shruti or not. It is still a matter of direct

and immediate knowledge from the shruti. Please note what Adi

Shankara says in the quote I presented above: "But in the case of

the person in whom this immediate experience does not arise at

once, we admit that repetition is necessary in order to aquire

that immediate experience."

Balaji wrote:

***********************************************

If I could never float I can never swim. Just the fact that I can

float enables me to swim. Now even if I read a book, and if I

have

heard from others that it is possible for me to float, can I

swim? I

conclude by seeing others floating that my body can float. But

does

that mean I can swim without any practice? What is still stopping

me?

The answer is still ignorance. You see I have comcluded from

analysis

and by seeing so many people swim, that I can also swim. But this

ignorance is deep.

**********************************************

My answer: I believe I have already tried to explain that books

on anything but your true Self (Atman) gives indirect knowledge

only, but that it is a different case when the book is actually

about your true Self. You don´t have to go outside yourself, so

to speak, in order to verify knowledge about your Self. How would

that even been possible, for that matter? You can´t find your

true Self anywhere but in your true Self. Anything else --

including your mind, feelings, senses etc. -- is your non-Self,

and hence your true Self can not be found of verifed there. But

texts such as "Tat tvam asi" is about that Self, and that is the

reason why such texts can get you immediate knowledge. Please

note what Shankara says in the quote given above: "Here you might

object that no concrete experience like the concrete satisfaction

that follows eating arises from the mere hearing of a sentence.

And to analyze a sentence in the hope of getting a concrete

experience is like trying to make milk-pudding out of cow-dung.

To this we reply that it is true that all sentences about the

not-self yield abstract knowledge only. But

it is not so with sentences about the inmost Self".

Balaji wrote:

***********************************************

Through correct cognition. YOU will have to have that correct

cognition, not that rishi.

************************************************

My answer: I don´t deny that I have to gain absolute knowledge

myself. I am only trying to say that the source of that knowledge

are the scriptures. And by judging from the numerous Shankara-

and Sureshvara-quotes above, I believe my arguments are not

groundless.

Balaji wrote:

*******************************************

They [the Vedas] urge you time and again to get that right

knowledge.

Asato ma Sadgamaya, Tamaso ma jyotirgamaya, mrtyormaamrtangamaya.

Here, the Upanishad tells you to move towards that truth, that

light,

and that deathless.

**************************************************

My answer: Hence you think Shankara and Sureshvara are far of

track when they claim that knowledge of the Absolute can be found

in the shastras only? Where they wrong in claiming that shruti is

the only means of knowledge of the Self? Again, I refer to the

quotes above.

Balaji wrote:

******************************************

You are right. Just keeping the mind tranquil will not lead to

enlightenment. Rise of wisdom is necessary and called Prajna. But

did

you note that I have also said that "all that a person needs to

do

is 'open his eyes' or have right cognition." This is what is

necessary for enlightenment. When I say open his eyes, he must do

away with ignorance. (Easy said than done!) Can a clear lake's

bottom

be seen if one closes his eyes? But all the same the lake should

be

clear and unagitated for him to see.

When did I say that just tranquillizing the mind would do? I have

time and again said that pure awareness is necessary to dispell

avidya. And this faculty of awareness has to be developed through

practice of Ashtanga yoga.

******************************************************'

My answer: I believe that Sri Ranjeet-ji has already succesfully

and sufficiently commented upon this kind of claims.

Balaji wrote:

*************************************************

When he is already detached, he is already free from emotions and

hence free from suffering. What would he need perfect knowledge

for?

**************************************************

My answer: The detachment necessary for gaining knowledge of the

Absolute is different from the detachment resulting from

brahmavidya. For the aspirant, it is necessary to not being a

slave under desire, not longing for property, sons or even a good

future rebirth. The desire of gaining moksha must not be

disturbed by other desires. That is what preconditionary

detachment is about. Of course, absolute knowledge doesn´t rise

only as a result from this kind of detachment. It is one thing to

gain that kind of discipline that keeps you away from falling

pray to the senses and temptations of different kinds. It is

another thing -- through absolute knowledge of the Self -- to

realize that there are really no such things as distinctions,

temptations, rebirth etc. at all.

Balaji wrote:

***********************************************

What is the harm in

taking the first step now? Why not try to tranquillize the mind

now?

Why wait for a second chance? I donot think any Vedanta school

preaches that one should wait for the next birth.

********************************************

My answer: Please go ahead! Tranquillizing your mind is very

good. It is certainly useful, but it is not in itself a pramana

for moksha. Of course, no Vedantic school is preaching that one

should deliberately wait for the next birth. But if you don´t

gain knowledge of the Self, well then you have to make another

try in a future birth. It is not a matter of choice, I am

afraid... And you will have to undergo this procedure over and

over again, if you don´t gain knowledge through the study of the

shastras by the help of a qualified guru. Because perfect

knowledge is the only thing that takes you out of samsara, and

this perfect knowledge is to be found in the shastras only. Once

again, I refer to the quotations above.

Balaji wrote:

***********************************************

What are you looking to get mukti from if it is not sorrow? What

is

it that inspires you to read Vedanta? Is moksha something other

than

cessation of sorrow? What is the nature of moksha?

**************************************************

My answer: The hope of sometime gaining moksha is what makes me

study Vedanta. Moksha leads to the cessation of sorrow, but

cessation of sorrow doesn´t lead to moksha. Absolute knowledge is

what leads to moksha.

Balaji wrote:

*******************************************************

Again, when they have no raga and dvesha, what are they seeking

perfect knowledge for?

*********************************************************

My answer: Please see above. I think I have tried to answer this

kind of argument already.

Balaji wrote:

*********************************************************

Please remember, that perfect knowledge is

not

about satisfying your curiosity. Please donot misunderstand me. I

really apreciate your love for Vedanta and the Shruthi. But the

desire for mukti is not for fulfilment of desries or satisfaction

of

our curiosity.

****************************************************

My answer: My love for Vedanta and shruti stems from the fact

that the genuine masters of the Advaita sampradaya says that

shruti is the only means of knowledge of the Absolute. Hence my

interest and love for Vedanta and shruti are due to the desire

for moksha.

Balaji wrote:

*************************************************

I agree and therefore also draw your attention to the fact that

you

have also agreed that shruthis can change only your outlook on

life.

*************************************************

My answer: Whatever has led you to this conclusion? Yes, shruti

can change the outlook of life, but shruti can also (and most

importantly) give rise to immediate realization of the Absolute,

given the qualifications of the aspirant.

Very best wishes

Stig Lundgren

April 5, 2004

Namaste Stig-ji and all,

> My answer: As I mentioned in my last response, the spiritual

> aspirant needs to have the necessary preconditons in order to

> gain knowledge of the absolute. Shruti is the source of this

> knowledge, but whether one is capable of grasping this knowledge

> depends on whether the necessary preconditions are there or not.

> You are right, I have not dispelled my ignorance, but I do not

> blame the shrutis. The shrutis gives direct knowledge, but

> whether I am capable of grasping that knowledge is a matter of MY

> preconditions. The fact that shruti gives direct knowledge does

> not mean that there exists an infallible causal relationship

> between sravana and attaining moksha. The ability to grasp must

> be there. In his Bhagavad Gita Bhashya, Adi Shankara shows that

> we have to get spiritually purified throught karma yoga. Prior to

> that, we are not able to grasp the absolute knowledge because of

> our disturbing attachments to our possessions, our families, our

> ambitions etc.

>

Please correct me if my understanding of your statements is correct:

Shruthi gives direct knowledge in itself. To grasp such knowledge the

right preparation is needed.

My answer:

If this is what you are saying, then you are surely right. I surely

agree to this. And have not said anything otherwise, although I have

surely used different words and I meant to say things for the

audience that we are.

When I said that the Shruthi can do nothing much to us, I meant it

can do nothing much to the unprepared lot of us. (I don't know how

you think of it, but I don't think I or anyone in this group is

really prepared for the knowledge of the Shruthi - no offense please.

If we were, we would be enlightened in the first reading of the first

line of the Shruthi, and more important of all, we wouldn't be

members of this group!) That is why I said that Shruthi is not useful

to us.

Therefore, when you say Sravana leads to realization of the self in

the prepared person, I accept it fully. If you had said that it would

lead to realization of the self even in an unprepared person, I would

have contested it.

Anyway, sorry for the unnecessary digression and pointless discussion

we had when I got into the detachment resulting from enlightenment

and saying that 'one does not need Shruthi if he is already

detached'. I did not understand what you meant by detached. You see

the word 'preparedness' or 'control of body and mind' appear to me as

being closer to my understanding.

Why? If you say 'detached', then we run into an endless loop of 'I am

not detached (because of which I am ignorant), to become detached, I

need to be detached. And for that I need to be detached'. And so on.

Also it would lead to the confusion, 'if I am already detached then

why Sravana?'

So your point is well taken that you did not mean that detached. You

meant some other detached. But perhaps I would use the words 'faculty

of being aware'. Why? You see I beleive that this capability for your

so-called preparedness is already in us, but in very minute measure.

This minute measure is inadequate to pursue Shruthi. But it can be

developed. So it is not something that we do externally, so to say,

but develop something already in us. Of course its just my way of

thinking and does not mean that you have used a wrong word.

But, I was rather stressing more on another aspect, which I am afraid

you and many others have unfortunately entirely ignored. The fact

that we are not currently prepared for the Shruthis appears bad to me

(don't you think so? Don't you think you should do something about

it?), and in my opinion everyone should atleast try to develop

this 'preparedness' for the Shruthi.

Like you correctly pointed out control of the bodily cravings is

necessary. I just said that tranquility of the mind is necessary for

such control. I just pronounced the method to develop the capabilty

to understand the truth of the Shruthi, when I said, 'practice of

Ashtangayoga'. Please note that I never therefore pointed that we

get 'something' out of this, as some have misinterpreted me.

Thus, I have just said that one must try to develop this capabilty or

faculty of being aware of the truth (in your words, 'preparedness for

the truth of the Shruthi') which has to ultimately come from a

tranquil mind (in your words, control over bodily actions or

detachment). But I have also mentioned the method to be used to

develop the faculty of awareness which would be meaningful to a

person wanting to develop through Jnana yoga. Of course, for Karma

yoga and Bhakti yoga, there are different methods.

For the jnana yogi, development of the tranquilty of the mind through

the practice of yoga as mentioned in yogasutras is recommended, he

should attain Nirvikalpa Samadhi, through this practice. (Please

don't think of just asanas here. yoga is much more than that. My

suggestion would be to please read about yoga before saying that they

are just asanas. Of couse considering the suggestion useful is

entirely up to you.)

I hope we have both understood each other's stances till this point.

And I do hope that you see that I have not been saying anything

contrary to what you are saying, either.

However, I wanted to know what you think should one do after

tranquility of mind (or in your words, control or detachment) are

developed. Do you say that even now, only the Shruthi can help him

attain Mukti, or liberation? Does he have no hope if he does not have

access to the Shruthi?

I am sure it would be agreed if I say, that Shruthi is not an

absolute necessity. Although Shruthi would lead to such realization

very quickly, such knowledge may arise, by virtue of the fact that we

already have the capabilty of being aware of the truth - earlier we

didn't even have it. This does not mean that 'Poop, I have become

enlightened' and that's it. Nothing more to it. No. We constantly

have to remain aware of the truth. But then, we would not have to

make any special efforts for that since then it would be our very

nature. Oh yes, it is our nature even now. But so dormant in us.

Now since we have the capabilty of being aware of the truth, we can

realize the truth in very less time. Well I don't know - the

yogasutras say so somewhere in the Samadhi pada (most probably).

While I am just telling what it says, I myself know nothing about it.

So if you cross-question me on that. I am sorry I won't know

anything. I am still only a learner and am looking for spiritual

development, by trying to develop tranquility of the mind and then

seeking direct knowledge. Whether the enlightenment comes very

quickly after Samadhi or not is most probably not discussed by

Shankara Acharya (possibly because he rightly left it for the

practitioner to find out! Again I have not read all his works - only

a few.)

Finally on whether moksha comes first and cessation of sorrow comes

first or they are the same (as I am trying to say) or what the

situation is, we would best know only when we become enlightened. So

I don't think there is any point in discussing that. In my opinion,

they are the same, for otherwise there is no need for moksha. Of

course that is just my opinion right now. What it truly is, I would

best know only when I would realize it. (I really hope I do, someday)

Lastly, I would point out again, that while we have discussed

everything else (and also possibly pointlessly argued over nothing at

all) this message thread actually started as an invitation to Sri

Ranjeet to post something on the need for Sravana. It does not appear

he is so interested in that. Would you please do so. Please explain

to all members the importance of Sravana.

Also I invited posts from Chittaranjanji on many topics. I don't know

if anything has happened? I hope this group is more than just a place

where metaphysical speculations and discussions (as the one that just

ensued) take place.

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

April 5, 2004

Namaste all,

Oh I forgot one thing. While I did say that one without access to

Shruthi can also realize the truth, by virtue of the fact that he is

now capable of being aware of the truth. But I think I forgot to

mention that as you rightly point out, this can be acheived through

Sravana also. In fact if one's mind is tranquil (that is when he is

prepared for it) and he is initiated as such 'Tat tvam asi' he would

be enlightened.

It might not make sense. But, possibly one would understand when he

makes his mind tranquil.

Again, I would emphasize, atleast do this one step. The step of

enlightenment is not very far from it, although it is different from

it. But surely, I know not how much of all this is true. Enlightened

people say it. At best, we can try to reason with it and test it for

ourselves.

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

April 5, 2004

Namaste Balaji

After reading your long lecture, I realised that you have not understood the

purport of Stigji's and Ranjeetji's replies. Yoga is not the means to

Moksha. The most it can do is prepare you for Shravana, which is the means

to Moksha. Stigji has made that very clear by providing various quotes from

the Advaita Vedanta Sampradayavits.

I would recommend a wonderful book by Anantanand Rambachan entitled

'Accomplishing the Accomplished' which explains beautifully how the shruti

is the sole means of knowledge for gaining Atma Jnana. It may be out of

print but try searching for it here:

http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/BookSearchPL

best regards,

K Kathirasan