pUrNamadah pUrNamidam... revisited (April 04 topic)

April 10, 2004

Namaste Neelakantanji,

advaitin, "Neelakantan" <pneelaka@s...> wrote:

> Is not Brahman inclusive of everything there is? Just like

> every shade of color is actually present in sunlight, but

> sunlight itself is colorless, can we say that every attribute

> is included in Brahman, but Brahman itself is attributeless?

> The analogy may be imperfect, but I hope the idea I am trying

> to articulate is clear.

Thank you for saying that, Neelakantanji. It is the way I understand

Advaita. What you are talking of here is the vexed subject of samanya

and vishesha. All visheshas are subsumed in the samanya.

Regards,

Chittaranjan

April 10, 2004

respected Neelakantanji and Chitranjanji,

I am going to agree with both of you on this although i am neither a

brahma-jnani or an atma-jnani.

Neelakantanji, that was beautiful -your analogy ! Only one who

is 'dyed' in the color of God's love (krishna prema) can come up with

such a description ! Bravo!

"For Shankara, therefore, Brahman is a principle of utter simplicity.

There is no duality in Brahman, for no qualities are found in his

concept of Brahman. It is also simple in the sense that it is not

subject to inner contradictions, which would make it change-able and

transitory. Though Shankara uses logic and arguments to understand

the nature of Brahman and to speak of Brahman, still for him in its

reality Brahman is not a metaphysical postulate that can be proved

logically, but must be experienced in silence. Thus, Brahman is one:

It is not a `He', a personal being; nor is it an `It', an impersonal

concept. It is that state which comes about when all subject-object

distinctions are obliterated. Ultimately, Brahman is a name for the

experience of the timeless plenitude of Being."

AS OuR BALAJI SAYS ULTIMATELY IT IS ONE'S OWN EXPERIENCE !

anubhuthi!

shri Ramana's experience is his experience! swami dayananda's

experience is his! shri Ramakrishna's experience is his ! and till i

have my own experience of Brahman, all is heresay!

Folks ! read this ....

"There is the soul of man with wisdom and unwisdom, power and

powerlessness; there is nature, Prakriti, which is creation for the

sake of the soul; and there is God, infinite, omnipresent, who

watches the work of creation. When a man knows the three, he knows

Brahman."

Svetasvatara Upanishad

love to one and all

www.crvp.org/book/Series03/IIIB-1/chapter_ii.htm

Shankara's Commentary on the Brahma Sutras

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Namaste Neelakantanji,

>

> advaitin, "Neelakantan" <pneelaka@s...>

wrote:

>

> > Is not Brahman inclusive of everything there is? Just like

> > every shade of color is actually present in sunlight, but

> > sunlight itself is colorless, can we say that every attribute

> > is included in Brahman, but Brahman itself is attributeless?

> > The analogy may be imperfect, but I hope the idea I am trying

> > to articulate is clear.

>

> Thank you for saying that, Neelakantanji. It is the way I

understand

> Advaita. What you are talking of here is the vexed subject of

samanya

> and vishesha. All visheshas are subsumed in the samanya.

>

> Regards,

> Chittaranjan

April 10, 2004

Namaste Adiji,

What a wonderfully serendipitous slip of the finger, "heresay."

Or, knowing your writing skills, perhaps that was no accident?

Bob Freedman

adi_shakthi16 wrote:

>

> shri Ramana's experience is his experience! swami dayananda's

> experience is his! shri Ramakrishna's experience is his ! and till i

> have my own experience of Brahman, all is heresay!

>

April 10, 2004

dear heart!

yes, a 'freudian' slip in more ways than one! LOL!!! smiles!!!

Heresay- what is being said in this group (here) by all advaitins !!!

smiles!!

Hearsay- what we have heard from advaitins Here Quoting, interpreting

from all bhasyas and books on Adwaita!

will i be excused if i say i am a one-finger typist?

love and blessings

advaitin, Bob Freedman <rlfreed@p...> wrote:

> Namaste Adiji,

>

> What a wonderfully serendipitous slip of the finger, "heresay."

> Or, knowing your writing skills, perhaps that was no accident?

>

> Bob Freedman

>

> adi_shakthi16 wrote:

> >

> > shri Ramana's experience is his experience! swami dayananda's

> > experience is his! shri Ramakrishna's experience is his ! and

till i

> > have my own experience of Brahman, all is heresay!

> >

April 10, 2004

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16>

wrote:

> respected Neelakantanji and Chitranjanji,

>

> I am going to agree with both of you on this although i am neither

a

> brahma-jnani or an atma-jnani.

>

> Neelakantanji, that was beautiful -your analogy ! Only one who

> is 'dyed' in the color of God's love (krishna prema) can come up

with

> such a description ! Bravo!

>

Namaste Adi Shaktiji,

Thank you for your kind words. I hope to deserve them some day. In

this context, I was also thinking of the verse from Govindashtakam

you had mentioned in an earlier post.

"maaya kalpita naanaakaaram anaakaaram bhuvanaakaaram"

(Govinda, though formless, appears as the manifold forms and the

universe itself through the power of Maaya)

Harih Om!

Neelakantan

April 10, 2004

Namaste Bhaskarji.

Further to my post 22012 about the apparent contradictions between

various scriptural statements that baffle you.

I just happened to see an outstanding post by our Stigji (Ref: #

15610). I hope Stigji's lucid explanations therein will help you

clear your doubts. Incidentally, he has also touched upon your

AdhyArOpa apavAda there.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

April 11, 2004

Namaste (and vaNakkam) to all,

I am sorry for my absence for some while. I had some other work to

attend to.

In her email to me, Smt. Adiji wrote this message to me. I am sure

many would have got this message too:

QUOTE:

in his introductory post, nairji has said the 'purnamadah' verse is

from isvasya upanishad

and professorji has said in his post that this verse is from

Brihadarnyaka upanishad

which is correct ?

pl clarify this in the group not in an individual email so all can

know which is correct

love

UNQUOTE:

I am no scholar, but would just comment that as far as I know, the

verse which is essentially a shanti mantra, is chanted before both

the BrhadAraNyaka upaniShad and the IshavasyopaniShad. Not only that,

it also happens to be a shanti mantra of the shukla yajurveda. The

Isa Upanishad is said to be contained in the shukla yajurveda.

There is no surprise that it should be in three works, since it

surely does talk of a very profound truth and has been commented so

heavily by so many people.

This is of course my opinion and is open for correction. I haven't

yet confirmed from my immediate guru, my gradpa who is away in Delhi,

about its right place - Isa or Brhat Upa.

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

Namate all,

About my doubts on Swami Dayananda's words, I must thank Sri Nair for

such a beautiful explanation, but I still think I will need to evolve

more to understand Swami Dayananda's words.

>From what I have gathered, and understood, as is clear from H H

Bhagawatpada Sankara's refuting of the idea that 'one can become a

realized saint if one just controls his mind and purifies it',

Nirvikalpa Samadhi may not refer to realization or enlightenment. I

mean I do not know if 'Nirvikalpa Samadhi' refers to realization

itself.

The fact that one should go beyond just samadhi and enter prajna is

something that almost everyone has talked about, including Shankara,

Buddha and Patanjali. Why indeed, H H Sringeri Sharada peetham enters

Sahaja Samadhi very often (I was reminded of the word by Adiji's

quote of Bh. Ramana Maharishi).

The Buddha was also known to have said 'Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu, aja tu

panna vaddhatu, na kevala samma samadhi' (That was very good, very

good, but all the same, may prajna grow (in you), (do) not just

(remain in) Samyak Samadhi) when a king told him of his eternal

samadhi state, but that sorrow and suffering had yet not left. (I

don't remember the names and where he said that and all...)

>From all this it appears, realization must be far from Samadhi, which

is an inevitable (probably!) tool for realization. Please do correct

if I am misled. I have only understood this from all the posts here.

If Samadhi is something that is not eternal then it must not be That

Truth, this is my deduction.

Finally, about Swami Dayananda's statements, I would not make any

further comments, and would surely not discuss his scholarship, for I

donot have the ability to do even whatever he did. However, I cannot

for obvious reasons (eg: I cannot shut someone's mouth, like the

moderators shut my mouth) ask anyone to stop voicing their opinions

in that matter. I would just not argue.

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

Namaste Maniji,

In one post, you have written that prajna should be undertaken

simultaneously along with Samadhi. I fully agree. In fact Samadhi may

be called work or karma, but the step of Prajna is not karma! It is

pure knowledge and leads to realization.

Of course a Guru is a must for all this, and hence my quest for an

enlightened Guru (who is not likely to drive me away just because I

cannot take sanyas) continues..... But that's besides the point.

Although, it may not be advisable for me, many Rishis have realized

the Absolute Truth without any physical Guru. They seem to have taken

their own bodhi as their Guru.

I however, still hold that Prajna although of paramount importance,

is impossible without Samadhi - atleast for the 'unenlightened

one' ) Thus Samadhi becomes an inevitable step.

Unfortunately, not many even try out Samadhi, and they are attempting

at Prajna!

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

Finally Benjaminji, Namaste,

I am so sorry for the late answer to your post. Really, I am not

qualified to advise such a senior person as you.

However, since you asked and since there was so much discussion about

this (and I hope the moderators would note that I am not advising -

and even if it be viewed as such, it is not uncalled for, here

atleast.) I shall tell you what I do. Perhaps it may help you to

know. Of course I must add that this is not my invention, it is part

of the technique used to do away with attackers like slumber.

If one allows himself to sleep while meditating, he can never

progress. But one must not forcibly meditate, at the time meant for

sleep. Both are important for the beginner. What Sri Ramakrishna's

disciples said was rather for a different thing.

Dhayana may make you feel sleepy, because it is so related to sleep.

In fact, if you perfect dhayna (possibly when you become perfect at

sahaja samadhi), you may never sleep because, there is no better rest

to the mind than perfect samadhi. How tired the mind is jumping like

a monkey from thought to thought! This reminds me of:

'Ya nisha sarva bhootanam tasyam jagarti samyami

yasyam jagrati bhootani sa nisha pashyato muneh' -Gita ch. II

When attacked by slumber, this is prescribed: Actively stop all

drowsy thoughts - why stop all thoughts. Then redirect you mind and

draw its attention to the imminent truth - You are feeling sleepy.

The process of Prajna has started, since you have started noticing

imminent truths. While this is done, care has to be taken to maintain

samatha (equanimity) - otherwise it is not Prajna at all. Be aware of

the fact that you are feeling sleepy, and know the nature of this

sleepy feeling. If the capacity to remain aware of the truth has

really ripened, you can know the nature of sleep itself! How do you

think the ancient rishis came to know of the nature of sleep and the

nature of the woken mind? It is this way.

So now that you know the true nature of sleep to be that of dullness

and the giver of new wants and desires (sorrow) you would not feel

sleepy next time. But there is no guarentee that in just one go this

would happen. You see, the Prajna process is very sensitive. Out of

the whole duration of about 20 minutes, the beginner may possibly be

in prajna only for a total of about 1 minute dispersed in small

fractions of a second. Therefore the effect of the bodhi that the

true nature of sleep is so and so will take time.

In my case, this sleepiness has reduced to a large extent, but I

still do feel sleepy at times, if I have been worried about something

at work or the like during the night. However, I now know the method

to tackle it, and do feel very confident in using the techique. In

about 2 minutes, I can drive slumber away!

So have patience (also part of drDa nishcaya) and firm determination

(drDa nishcaya) and try again. Best of luck!

Again, this is not my advice to all. If people do not want it, they

may use their discretion to not use it or not to read it. But I

beleive that everyone must be given a fair chance to atleast consider

it. If they donot like it, they may most willingly ignore it. (Note,

moderators)

So please do not argue with me over this.

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

Namaste all,

About my words 'drDa nishcaya', there was some small discussion. The

interpretations given by all are very satisfactory. However, may I

add a small point?

1. drDa nishcaya has to come from within. No one should force you.

2. drDa nishcaya must not be thought to be forcing oneself. That

would lead to even more problems since the path of dharma itself will

appear sorrowful - which actually is so peaceful.

3. drDa nishcaya is something a person makes at the start - like a

sankalpa. If one is not capable of fulfilling it, one must not be

frustrated, make another determination, with the same spirit and this

time try you best to acheive it.

And here again the Guru helps. If you have too much trouble ask the

guru.

This post must be taken along with what is said by others on this

group. I hope it was enough description.

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

May all beings live in peace!

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

==================================================

Note from List Moderators:

The subject title has benn changed by the List moderators to confirm with the

topic under discussion. Keeping the thread title same will be more helpful to

members to locate the messages under the thread easily. The moderators want to

convey their appreciation to Sri Balaji for his willingness to revise the

message as suggested. The list is blessed to have Sri Balaji and we look forward

to his active participation with thoughtful insights.

===================================================

April 11, 2004

advaitin, "Balaji Ramasubramanian"

<balajiramasubramanian> wrote:

> I am no scholar, but would just comment that as far as I know, the

> verse which is essentially a shanti mantra, is chanted before both

> the BrhadAraNyaka upaniShad and the IshavasyopaniShad. Not only

that,

> it also happens to be a shanti mantra of the shukla yajurveda. The

> Isa Upanishad is said to be contained in the shukla yajurveda.

>

> There is no surprise that it should be in three works, since it

> surely does talk of a very profound truth and has been commented

so

> heavily by so many people.

>

> This is of course my opinion and is open for correction. I haven't

> yet confirmed from my immediate guru, my gradpa who is away in

Delhi,

> about its right place - Isa or Brhat Upa.

Namaste, Balaji, Adi-ji and all,

Yes, The mantra "pUrNamidaM ..." is used as a shanti mantra as

mentioned above. But it also appears as part of the text of Brihad-

Aranyakopanishad at V-1-i. I have given the website below where you

can see it for yourself. Of course the whole text is there. The

following gives the exact location of this mantra:

http://lavanya.aros.net/sanskrit/all_pdf/brinew-proofed.pdf

This pdf file is of 117 pages (That is the Brihad-Aranyakopanishad!

It is a very large text). The above mantra is on p.88.

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

April 11, 2004

moderators note ...

"The list is blessed to have Sri Balaji and we look forward

to his active participation with thoughtful insights."

Yes! indeed!Welcome back. I did miss you ! (smiles)

Thanks for all the answers. Yes, the 'purnamadam... " shanti mantra

occurs at the beginning of both upanishads , Isavasya and

Brihadarayaka .(Thank you professorji and sunderji and other

moderators who confirmed this)

and Balaji, You have also confirmed 'drida niscaya'(as in Gita)

means 'firm resolve' so that settles that issue.

and as usual , always a pleasure to read akll your detailed answeers

to ll questions supported by appropriate sanskrit verses.

love

D(adi)ji

April 12, 2004

,--- "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote:

Namaste Professor,

Earlier in this thread you referred us, following our

mystery of purna missing generally from the

upanishads, to the word bhuma. I followed this word

for awhile and its use also in The Brahma Sutras.

eg.

'The bhUman( is brahman); for (it is mentioned after

saMprasAda) (ie. That state of sleep in which prANa

keeps awake.) BS.1.3.8

'bhUmAdhikaranaM | bhUmA saMprasAdAdhypadeshAt |

Trans. V.H.Date

So thank you for that clue. For anyone interested in

this word you will find it at the following in the

Brahma Sutras. If used by Shankara in his commentary

then a Q is added to the reference:

bhUman: BS. 1.1.12 Q, 1.1.19. Q. 1.3.8-9, 2.1.14 Q,

3.3.57

bhUmavidyA: 4.4.11

Indeed. Shruti is the breath of brahman.

Re. the Gospel of Thomas thread on this discussion.

These verses have been popular since the 1970's with

those Christians seeking a non-dualistic path in their

Christianity. They speak quite plainly but their

authenticity are often challenged. Be that as it may,

they are valuable in the search for a monistic

understanding in Christianity.

The words of Christ during the crucifixion could be

open to an advaitin interpretation.

This is purely a personal interpretation but I wonder

if the 'last words' indicate a falling away from the

saguna brahman path to full nirguna realisation (that

is the best I can make of our clumsy language). The

very last of the seven sayings from the cross are:

'Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani? which is being

interpreted, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken

me?' Mark 15,43

As always with Jesus, he is linking his hearers to a

tradition and this is to be found in Psalm 8.

(If anyone wants to follow these refs. you can get all

the translations you want at 'www.biblegateway.com')

That psalm is the voice of the dualistic path to a

personal god, echoing some of the verses in Vedas.

Valid as long as one 'sees another' this path has to

disappear in a pUrNa, bhUva realisation. It is not a

lament ' Oh God, I have prayed to you all this time,

why are you not coming along and crushing my enemies'

( a common lament in the Jewish dualistic

tradition)but a sincere questioning of the dualistic

path and dharma.

Back to the cross then. Those gathered at the event,

hear the cry to 'My God' and wait to see if there is

any response from the spiritual realm. But such eyes

are veiled by ignorance, avidya and adhyasa.

Then Jesus cries with a 'loud voice'. No words. Just

sound. The Greek verse states: ' ho de Iesous apheis

phOnen megalen exepneusen.'

apheis is very much pUrNa, it means letting go fully,

no holding back or on to anything. It is kaivalya in

the advaitin tradition.

It is through sound that the creation appears to come

into being, it is though our personal sound that we

attach ourselves to our perceptions and it is through

sound that such delusion is destroyed, it is a loud

sound that does the destroying...phOnen megalen (

think megaphone in English).

With that sound, the final curtain ( veil) in the

temple is torn apart. The holy of holies, the Self is

revealed. The cry might have been ayam atma brahma,

but that's another story.

By the way. The Greek for the word translated as

'veil' in this account of the events after the death

of Jesus' body is katapetasma. The prefix kata means

away from, downwards. The 'peta; allied to ...meta..'

is very interesting, it has many uses in Greek. I am

not a scholar of Greek or scholar of any kind as I am

too happy just to read the shruti and wonder, but from

the Greek may I speculate that the veil, the

katapetasma, represents 'a movement 'down' into space

and time.' Sounds like Maya....but we better not

start down that one again had we!!!

Ken Knight

Om sri ram jai jai ram

> advaitin, "Balaji

> Ramasubramanian"

> <balajiramasubramanian> wrote:

> > I am no scholar, but would just comment that as

> far as I know, the

> > verse which is essentially a shanti mantra, is

> chanted before both

> > the BrhadAraNyaka upaniShad and the

> IshavasyopaniShad. Not only

> that,

> > it also happens to be a shanti mantra of the

> shukla yajurveda. The

> > Isa Upanishad is said to be contained in the

> shukla yajurveda.

> >

> > There is no surprise that it should be in three

> works, since it

> > surely does talk of a very profound truth and has

> been commented

> so

> > heavily by so many people.

> >

> > This is of course my opinion and is open for

> correction. I haven't

> > yet confirmed from my immediate guru, my gradpa

> who is away in

> Delhi,

> > about its right place - Isa or Brhat Upa.

>

> Namaste, Balaji, Adi-ji and all,

>

> Yes, The mantra "pUrNamidaM ..." is used as a shanti

> mantra as

> mentioned above. But it also appears as part of the

> text of Brihad-

> Aranyakopanishad at V-1-i. I have given the website

> below where you

> can see it for yourself. Of course the whole text is

> there. The

> following gives the exact location of this mantra:

>

http://lavanya.aros.net/sanskrit/all_pdf/brinew-proofed.pdf

>

> This pdf file is of 117 pages (That is the

> Brihad-Aranyakopanishad!

> It is a very large text). The above mantra is on

> p.88.

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins

> profvk

>

Tax Center - File online by April 15th

http://taxes./filing.html

April 12, 2004

advaitin, ken knight <anirvacaniya> wrote:

> ,--- "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

> Namaste Professor,

> Earlier in this thread you referred us, following our

> mystery of purna missing generally from the

> upanishads, to the word bhuma.

Namaste,

Kanchi Paramacharya's commentary on mathematician

Bhaskaracharya's invocation verse:

http://www.kamakoti.org/acall/ac-concept.html

" Concept of Maya

In the Mangala Sloka(invocation) to this Beeja Ganita(algebra),

Bhaskaracharya says that supreme which is Infinite, does not

suffer diminution when creating the world out of Himself, or

gain addition when the created word attains Laya(merger) in Him.

For, if the addition of even a fraction can make a difference to

the infinite, then it could not have been infinite before such

addition. Similarly infinite cannot become less than the infinite

when any thing is taken away from it. The Infinite is poorna,

full and limitless Supreme. The Prapancha (Universe) which is

infinitely varied, is also limitless Supreme, the limitless

Supreme will remain intact. Therefore, if this Poornam ( the

infinitely varied form of the objective Prapancha) is taken away

from that Poornam (the subject which is Infinite), that Poornam,

the subject Infinite, alone will remain.

This may be illustrated mathematically as follows : if 2 is divided

by 2, the quotient is 1. With 2 as the dividend, if the divisor is

progressively reduced as 1, 1/2, or 1/4 etc., the quotient will

respectively be 2, or 4, or 8,etc., Thus the divisor becomes less

and less, the quotient will become more and more. When the divisor

is the least, that is infinitesimal, approximating to Zero, the

quotient will be infinity. This is known as the Khaharam - Kha

standing

for Aakas, signifying poojyam (zero), haaram, meaning taking away or

dividing.

How do we verify the correctness of an arithmetical question in

division?

We multiply the quotient with the divisor and check whether the

resulting

is equivalent to the dividend given in the question. In this

Khaharam, or

division. In this Khaharam, or division of any number by zero, the

number

that is divided stands for the Prapancha 9the pluralistic universe of

infinite variety), the divisor, zero or Poojyam, which in

mathematical

language is an indefinable factor, approximating to nothingness,

stands

for Maya, and the quotient is the Infinite, that is Brahman. For the

purpose

of creating the Prapancha, which is dividend, Brahman , which is the

quotient ,

multiplies itself by Maya, which is divisor. Even as I divided by

Zero,

or 2 divided by Zero, or 3 divided by Zero, will give the same

quotient,

when the Infinite is multiplied by Zer, it is undeterminate, and

therefore,

it can take the values 1,2,3 etc., which are Bheda sankhyas, or

numbers

connoting differences, standing for the plurality of the world. The

Upanishad

says that the One Absolute determined to become many, and for that

purpose.

It associated itself with Maya, and become Many. When this Absolute

Infinite

multiplied Itself in association with Maya, which is tantamount to

zero, it

appears as 1,2,3,4 etc., the several objects of this Prapancha. But

when any

number is multiplied by Maya. The dividend, which is the plurality of

the

prapancha is the Infinite variety. The quotient, which is Brahman, is

Real

Akhanda and Ananta. In the Saanti Mantra, Poornam adah is the

quotient ,

Absolute Infinity, and Poornam idam is the dividend, pluralistic

Infinity.

Advaita anantam multiplied by Poojyam is Dvaita anantam. if the

latter is

divested of is Maya -- by a process of Khaharam-dividing by Poojyam

which

is Maya -- we get the Advaita anantam. Maya multiplies the formless

Infinite

which is One only without a second , into an infinity of finite

forms.

Th One alone , that is real, has value; the Many, which are products

of Maya,

are like Maya, without ultimate value. So Brahman is not affected

either by

diminution from It (creation or Srsti) or by the addition to It

(merger or Laya)

of Prapancha, which has no ultimate value.

The Divine Mother is the Creative Principle of the universe, the Maya

Sakti

aspect of Brahman, which makes the Infinite One appear as the

Infinite Many.

She presents the formless Supreme in finite forms. It is only by her

grace

that one can transcend the Maya and obtain the advaitic realisation

of the

One without a second.

December 26 1956."

Regards,

Sunder

April 12, 2004

thank you ken and nairji for an explanation on the verse from the

Gospel of Thomas ...

i specially liked this one ...

The very last of the seven sayings from the cross are:

'Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani? which is being

interpreted, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken

me?' Mark 15,43

(snip)

It is not a > lament ' Oh God, I have prayed to you all this time,

why are you not coming along and crushing my enemies'

( a common lament in the Jewish dualistic tradition)but a sincere

questioning of the dualistic > path and dharma.

just what i wanted to hear! thank you, ken for 'rising' to the

occasion! nairji, you amaze me as always!

love to all

April 12, 2004

Namaste Balaji,

It is nice to see your wonderful postings agaion.

In your recent post you wrote:

<<<<<<In one post, you have written that prajna should be undertaken

simultaneously along with Samadhi. I fully agree. In fact Samadhi may be called

work or karma, but the step of Prajna is not karma! It is pure knowledge and

leads to realization.

Of course a Guru is a must for all this, and hence my quest for an enlightened

Guru (who is not likely to drive me away just because I cannot take sanyas)

continues..... But that's besides the point.

Although, it may not be advisable for me, many Rishis have realized the Absolute

Truth without any physical Guru. They seem to have taken their own bodhi as

their Guru. I however, still hold that Prajna although of paramount importance,

is impossible without Samadhi - atleast for the 'unenlightened one' ) Thus

Samadhi Becomes an inevitable step. Unfortunately, not many even try out

Samadhi, and they are attempting at Prajna! >>>

I do not recollect my mentioning about “that prajna should be undertaken

simultaneously along with Samadhi”

Even now, somehow, personally I have not understood what exactly this Samadhi

is, and therefore, I could not have mentioned about it.

For my own understanding, could you please let me know what exactly is this

Samadhi, what is the purpose for which one should “go” into Samadhi? You say

“Thus Samadhi becomes an inevitable step. Unfortunately, not many even try out

Samadhi, and they are attempting at Prajna!”

Is it for release from all sorrows? Sri Sureshwaracharya in his commentary on

Pancheekaranam (By Bhagavan Adi Shankaracharya) says

”aadimadhya avasaneshu dukham sarvam idam yataha,

Tasmad sarvam parityajya tatwa nishtaha bhaved sadaa”

--This empirical world, as a whole, is of the nature of sorrow, in the

beginning, in the middle and in the end. Therefore, after renouncing everything

an aspirant should steadfastly be established in Truth----

Here “renouncing everything” means renouncing the notions about the empirical

world, i.e. the world can make me sorrow or world can make me happy, etc., and

also about the “one who has sorrow”.

What is “Truth” referred to above? This, one has to find out through enquiry,

with the guidance of a Teacher, and the Shruties, i.e. “who exactly has sorrow”

i.e. the locus of the sorrow, and what is the cause of the sorrow; if it is the

world confronting one, what exactly is the real (unchanging) nature of the

world, that appears to cause sorrow.

Advaita says both the entities i.e. the one who has sorrow and who/what causes

sorrow are “Mithya” i.e. both are not absolutely true or real.

Therefore, for getting release from “sorrow” what is required is “Knowledge of

self, and non-self; or Aham, Idam, and Eswara”. The Pramanam for this knowledge

of self is Sabda i.e. Shruty vakyas, Upanishads, because the means of knowledge

available to one are not capable of producing knowledge of self, self being

their essence. (The usual example; the torch bulb cannot light up its own

batteries).

Secondly, you say “Unfortunately, not many even try out Samadhi, and they are

attempting at Prajna!” To be very frank, I do not know how to “attempt at

Prajna” and for what purpose.

Regarding Prajna, in Mandukya Upanishad, Praajna is described as the “state” of

consciousness associated with deep sleep. So, if I were to understand, with my

background of knowledge of Praajna, when Parajna is there, it must be deep sleep

state of the entity who was “awake”. So, it cannot be Samadhi.

If in reality (i.e. absolute), the world is full of sorrow, and also the entity

who has sorrow, nothing can be done about it. If the reality of the world of

sorrow, including the one who has sorrow, is just like the reality of the horns

of a hare, again nothing need to be done. The whole problem is because of

absence of knowledge about the nature of the reality of the world and I i.e.

self. Not knowing that, we have made our own conclusions about them i.e.

erroneous conclusions, due to ignorance, and only “knowledge” can correct the

erroneous conclusions. Samadhi is not a means of knowledge.

<<< because I cannot take sanyas>>>

This is something I cannot understand. My understanding is, Sanyasa takes place,

and one cannot take sanyasa, or give sanyasa. It is a change of one’s attitude

towards his own self, the world and Eswara, and he will continue to live and

transact in the world, but the world will not be in him.

Yes, “Vividisha sanyasa” is given or taken, and it is solely for the purpose of

study i.e. for Self Knowledge. In the case of “Vidwat Sanyasa”, it takes place,

and that is real sanyasa.

There is “Apadsanyasa” i.e. sanyasa given to a person just before his death, in

the hope that the particular person will not be reborn. It is also like, people

going to Kashi for dying in the hope that they will get moksha there, or for

Gangasnana for washing away their sins.

Gangasnana as I understand, is getting immersed in “that” knowledge which is

flowing, as Ganga, from the head (seat of knowledge) of Lord Shiva, none other

than Lord Dakshinamurthy.

I hope my language is not too ambiguous and I have managed to communicate what I

wanted to, because, I admit, I lack the skill of communicating.

Hari Om and warm regards

Balaji Ramasubramanian <balajiramasubramanian wrote:Namaste (and

vaNakkam) to all,

I am sorry for my absence for some while. I had some other work to

attend to.

Namaste Maniji,

In one post, you have written that prajna should be undertaken

simultaneously along with Samadhi. I fully agree. In fact Samadhi may

be called work or karma, but the step of Prajna is not karma! It is

pure knowledge and leads to realization.

Of course a Guru is a must for all this, and hence my quest for an

enlightened Guru (who is not likely to drive me away just because I

cannot take sanyas) continues..... But that's besides the point.

Although, it may not be advisable for me, many Rishis have realized

the Absolute Truth without any physical Guru. They seem to have taken

their own bodhi as their Guru.

I however, still hold that Prajna although of paramount importance,

is impossible without Samadhi - atleast for the 'unenlightened

one' ) Thus Samadhi becomes an inevitable step.

Unfortunately, not many even try out Samadhi, and they are attempting

at Prajna!

Tax Center - File online by April 15th

April 12, 2004

Many Namastes to all Advaitins

Appreciating, Practising, Internalising and living the concepts could

be a logical progression . If I were to attempt appreciation/Practise

of pUrNamadah pUrNamidam, with some attempts at modifying the inner

attitude in work a day life ,will it go like this?

This universe as I see it is perfect with all its multi million

Galaxies.

The entire spectrum of organisms from worm to man are all perfect.

All the insentient objects, the minerals, the mud, the metals are all

perfect.

All the people, from the saints to the king to the common man are all

perfect.

I, with my limited capabilities and achievements am still perfect.

He, who till yesterday used to annoy me with his talks of self glory

and vain attitude is still perfect.

The hero is perfect, so is the coward.

The oceans and rivers are perfect- so is the gutter water perfect.

He, the epitome of nobility is perfect and so is he the very

embodiment of evil and cruelty.

My spiritual practise has many shortcomings, it is still perfect.

Everything is perfect now and just as it should be. Everything will

be perfect tomorrow just as it should be.

Does this make sense.

Many thousand namaskarams to all advaitins

Sridhar

> when the Infinite is multiplied by Zer, it is undeterminate, and

> therefore,

> it can take the values 1,2,3 etc., which are Bheda sankhyas, or

> numbers

> connoting differences, standing for the plurality of the world. The

> Upanishad

> says that the One Absolute determined to become many, and for that

> purpose.

> It associated itself with Maya, and become Many. When this Absolute

> Infinite

> multiplied Itself in association with Maya, which is tantamount to

> zero, it

> appears as 1,2,3,4 etc., the several objects of this Prapancha. But

> when any

> number is multiplied by Maya. The dividend, which is the plurality

of

> the

> prapancha is the Infinite variety. The quotient, which is Brahman,

is

> Real

> Akhanda and Ananta. In the Saanti Mantra, Poornam adah is the

> quotient ,

> Absolute Infinity, and Poornam idam is the dividend, pluralistic

> Infinity.

> Advaita anantam multiplied by Poojyam is Dvaita anantam. if the

> latter is

> divested of is Maya -- by a process of Khaharam-dividing by Poojyam

> which

> is Maya -- we get the Advaita anantam. Maya multiplies the formless

> Infinite

> which is One only without a second , into an infinity of finite

> forms.

> Th One alone , that is real, has value; the Many, which are

products

> of Maya,

> are like Maya, without ultimate value. So Brahman is not affected

> either by

> diminution from It (creation or Srsti) or by the addition to It

> (merger or Laya)

> of Prapancha, which has no ultimate value.

>

April 12, 2004

Namaste Sunderji.

Interesting to see you back from holidays with bIja gaNita.

There is a hitch in the quoted commentary, Sunderji. This guy here

at http://www.galactic-guide.com/articles/8R69.html in his rule # 4

says Infinity multiplied by zero is zero. Have I misunderstood the

commentary? So, Brahman courting MAyAji will tend to nothingness!

Personally, it is unbearable for me to see Smt. MAyAji equated to

zero even for the sake of an explanation because She is our Mother!

She is Infinite.

By the way, I had always believed (or so I have been taught) that

bIja gaNita originated in the Middle-East as the name Algebra (Al-

Jaber) suggests. Bhaskaracharya, I am sure, preceded Al-Jaber and,

as such, Algebra is nascent to India. Am I right?

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

____________________

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

quoted:

>For the

> purpose

> of creating the Prapancha, which is dividend, Brahman , which is

the

> quotient ,

> multiplies itself by Maya, which is divisor. Even as I divided by

> Zero,

> or 2 divided by Zero, or 3 divided by Zero, will give the same

> quotient,

> when the Infinite is multiplied by Zer, it is undeterminate, and

> therefore,

> it can take the values 1,2,3 etc., which are Bheda sankhyas, or

> numbers

> connoting differences, standing for the plurality of the world.

The

> Upanishad

> says that the One Absolute determined to become many, and for that

> purpose.

> It associated itself with Maya, and become Many. When this

Absolute

> Infinite

> multiplied Itself in association with Maya, which is tantamount to

> zero, it

> appears as 1,2,3,4 etc., the several objects of this Prapancha.

April 12, 2004

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Sunderji.

>

> Interesting to see you back from holidays with bIja gaNita.

>

> >

> By the way, I had always believed (or so I have been taught) that

> bIja gaNita originated in the Middle-East as the name Algebra (Al-

> Jaber) suggests. Bhaskaracharya, I am sure, preceded Al-Jaber

and,

> as such, Algebra is nascent to India. Am I right?

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ____________________

>

Namaste, Nairji

Yes, Algebra is nascent to India. Only the name Algebra comes from

the middle east. For your information, if you do need it, I extract

some paragraphs from a long talk (It was actually a key-note

address) by me on "Indian Contribution to Mathematics" in a

national symposium a few years ago:

Section 7. Classical contribution to Indeterminate Equations and

Algebra

The apex of Mathematical achievement of ancient India occurred

during the so-called classical period of Indian Mathematics. The

great names are: Aryabhata I (b.476 A.D.) ; Brahmagupta (b.598

A.D.); Bhaskara I (circa 620 A.D.) ; Mahavira (circa 850 A.D.);

Sridhara (circa 900 A.D.) ; Bhaskara II (b.1114 A.D.); Nilakantha

Somayaji (1445 - 1545 A.D.).

Aryabhata wrote the famous Aryabhatiyam which is an exhaustive

exposition of Astronomy. In addition he gave a unique method of

representing large numbers by word forms . .......

Bhaskara I takes a large share of the credit of explaining the too

brief and aphoristic statements of Aryabhata. On the important

topic of indeterminate equations the Kuttaka method was introduced

by Aryabhata and elucidated by Bhaskara I.

Brahmagupta is generally known as the Indian mathematician par

excellence. His monumental work Brahma SiddhAnta has 24 chapters of

which the latter 14 contain original results on arithmetic algebra

and on astronomical instruments. The 12th chapter is on

mensuration. The 18th chapter is on Kuttaka. Among his famous

results are those on rational right-angled triangles, and cyclic

quadrilaterals. He is the earliest one, in the history of world

mathematics, to have discussed cyclic quadrilaterals. There is

every reason for us to name cyclic quadrilaterals as Brahmagupta

Quadrilaterals. It was partly through a translation of Brahma-

siddhAnta that the Arabs became aware of Indian astronomy and

mathematics.

Bhaskara II's famous work SiddhAnta Siromani has four parts of which

the first two are Mathematics and the latter two are astronomy. The

first part, LilAvati is an extremely popular text dealing with

arithmetic, algebra, geometry and mensuration. The second part,

BIjaganitam is a treatise on Advanced Algebra. It contains problems

on determining unknown quantities, evaluating surds and solving

simple and quadratic equations.

The sheer ingenuity and versatility of Brahmagupta's approach to

indeterminate equations of the second degree is the climax of Indian

work in this area. Bhaskara II's cakravAla method to solve such

equations is world-famous. By using this powerful method he solved,

as one example, the above equation with N = 61 and gave the least

integral solution as

x = 226153980 and y = 1766319049.

The famous French mathematician, Fermat, in 1657 A.D. proposed this

equation with N = 61 for solution as a challenge to his

contemporaries. None of them succeeded in solving the equation in

integers. It was not until 1767 A.D. that the western world through

Euler, by Lagrange's method of continued fractions, had a complete

solution to such types of equations, wrongly called Pell's equation

by Euler. But the very same equation, though coincidentally, was

completely solved by Bhaskara II five hundred years earlier.

The problem of determining integer solutions of such equations is

called Diophantine Analysis after the Greek Mathematician Diophantus

(3rd cen. A.D.). As soon as one finds a non-trivial solution (that

is, other than the obvious solution x = 0, y = 1) an infinite

number of new solutions can be found by repeated application of the

Principle of Compositions, known as Brahmagupta's Bhavana

Principle. It is Bhaskara's cakravAla method that makes the

decisive step in determining a non-trivial solution. Under these

circumstances it is appropriate to designate these equations as the

Brahmagupta-Bhaskara equations. ......

Bhaskara II introduces also the notion of instantaneous motion of

planets. He clearly distinguishes between sthUla gati (average

velocity) and sUkshma gati (accurate velocity) in terms of

differentials. He also gave formulae for the surface area of a

sphere and its volume, and volume of the frustum of a pyramid.

Suffice it to say that his work on fundamental operations, his rules

of three, five, seven, nine and eleven, his work on permutations and

combinations and his handling of zero all speak of a maturity, a

culmination of five hundred years of mathematical progress. .....

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

Sorry, folks, that I am talking shop here. Those who would like to

read my full article may write to to me and I shall send them the

text of my address (about 9 pages) by a mail attachment. I

wrote this mail just motivated by Nairji's question.

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

April 12, 2004

Namaste ProfVK:

Thanks for the excellent article on the History of Indian

Mathematics and since Vedanta can't be understood without

mathematical foundation, some dosage of mathematics will do lots of

good to all of us. Since my basic background is also mathematics, I

probably enjoyed more than others. Also I noticed, that you didn't

mention the name of Panini who is more known as Sanskrit Grammarian

but he is also a great mathematician. The structure of Sanskrit

Grammar developed by Panini demonstrates his high mathematical

skills. The following article that I saw in the Internet illustrates

this fact. According to this author, "Panini's grammar has been

evaluated from various points of view. After all these different

evaluations, I think that the grammar merits asserting ... that it

is one of the greatest monuments of human intelligence." This is

fitting tribute to this great mathematician grammarian who is mostly

responsible for us to get the glimpse of 'wisdom' present in the

Upanishads and all major scriptures.

Warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

==============================

Panini, an Article by: J J O'Connor and E F Robertson

=====================================================

Panini was born in Shalatula, a town near to Attock on the Indus

river in present day Pakistan. The dates given for Panini are pure

guesses. Experts give dates in the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th century BC

and there is also no agreement among historians about the extent of

the work which he undertook. What is in little doubt is that, given

the period in which he worked, he is one of the most innovative

people in the whole development of knowledge. We will say a little

more below about how historians have gone about trying to pinpoint

the date when Panini lived.

Panini was a Sanskrit grammarian who gave a comprehensive and

scientific theory of phonetics, phonology, and morphology. Sanskrit

was the classical literary language of the Indian Hindus and Panini

is considered the founder of the language and literature. It is

interesting to note that the word "Sanskrit" means "complete"

or "perfect" and it was thought of as the divine language, or

language of the gods.

A treatise called Astadhyayi (or Astaka ) is Panini's major work. It

consists of eight chapters, each subdivided into quarter chapters.

In this work Panini distinguishes between the language of sacred

texts and the usual language of communication. Panini gives formal

production rules and definitions to describe Sanskrit grammar.

Starting with about 1700 basic elements like nouns, verbs, vowels,

consonants he put them into classes. The construction of sentences,

compound nouns etc. is explained as ordered rules operating on

underlying structures in a manner similar to modern theory. In many

ways Panini's constructions are similar to the way that a

mathematical function is defined today. Joseph writes in [2]:-

[sanskrit's] potential for scientific use was greatly enhanced as a

result of the thorough systemisation of its grammar by Panini. ...

On the basis of just under 4000 sutras [rules expressed as

aphorisms], he built virtually the whole structure of the Sanskrit

language, whose general 'shape' hardly changed for the next two

thousand years. ... An indirect consequence of Panini's efforts to

increase the linguistic facility of Sanskrit soon became apparent in

the character of scientific and mathematical literature. This may be

brought out by comparing the grammar of Sanskrit with the geometry

of Euclid - a particularly apposite comparison since, whereas

mathematics grew out of philosophy in ancient Greece, it was ...

partly an outcome of linguistic developments in India.

Joseph goes on to make a convincing argument for the algebraic

nature of Indian mathematics arising as a consequence of the

structure of the Sanskrit language. In particular he suggests that

algebraic reasoning, the Indian way of representing numbers by

words, and ultimately the development of modern number systems in

India, are linked through the structure of language.

Panini should be thought of as the forerunner of the modern formal

language theory used to specify computer languages. The Backus

Normal Form was discovered independently by John Backus in 1959, but

Panini's notation is equivalent in its power to that of Backus and

has many similar properties. It is remarkable to think that concepts

which are fundamental to today's theoretical computer science should

have their origin with an Indian genius around 2500 years ago.

At the beginning of this article we mentioned that certain concepts

had been attributed to Panini by certain historians which others

dispute. One such theory was put forward by B Indraji in 1876. He

claimed that the Brahmi numerals developed out of using letters or

syllables as numerals. Then he put the finishing touches to the

theory by suggesting that Panini in the eighth century BC (earlier

than most historians place Panini) was the first to come up with the

idea of using letters of the alphabet to represent numbers.

There are a number of pieces of evidence to support Indraji's theory

that the Brahmi numerals developed from letters or syllables.

However it is not totally convincing since, to quote one example,

the symbols for 1, 2 and 3 clearly do not come from letters but from

one, two and three lines respectively. Even if one accepts the link

between the numerals and the letters, making Panini the originator

of this idea would seem to have no more behind it than knowing that

Panini was one of the most innovative geniuses that world has known

so it is not unreasonable to believe that he might have made this

step too.

There are other works which are closely associated with the

Astadhyayi which some historians attribute to Panini, others

attribute to authors before Panini, others attribute to authors

after Panini. This is an area where there are many theories but few,

if any, hard facts.

We also promised to return to a discussion of Panini's dates. There

has been no lack of work on this topic so the fact that there are

theories which span several hundreds of years is not the result of

lack of effort, rather an indication of the difficulty of the topic.

The usual way to date such texts would be to examine which authors

are referred to and which authors refer to the work. One can use

this technique and see who Panini mentions.

There are ten scholars mentioned by Panini and we must assume from

the context that these ten have all contributed to the study of

Sanskrit grammar. This in itself, of course, indicates that Panini

was not a solitary genius but, like Newton, had "stood on the

shoulders of giants". Panini must have lived later than these ten

but this is absolutely no help in providing dates since we have

absolutely no knowledge of when any of these ten lived.

What other internal evidence is there to use? Well of course Panini

uses many phrases to illustrate his grammar any these have been

examined meticulously to see if anything is contained there to

indicate a date. To give an example of what we mean: if we were to

pick up a text which contained as an example "I take the train to

work every day" we would know that it had to have been written after

railways became common. Let us illustrate with two actual examples

from the Astadhyayi which have been the subject of much study. The

first is an attempt to see whether there is evidence of Greek

influence. Would it be possible to find evidence which would mean

that the text had to have been written after the conquests of

Alexander the Great? There is a little evidence of Greek influence,

but there was Greek influence on this north east part of the Indian

subcontinent before the time of Alexander. Nothing conclusive has

been identified.

Another angle is to examine a reference Panini makes to nuns. Some

argue that these must be Buddhist nuns and therefore the work must

have been written after Buddha. A nice argument but there is a

counter argument which says that there were Jaina nuns before the

time of Buddha and Panini's reference could equally well be to them.

Again the evidence is inconclusive.

There are references by others to Panini. However it would appear

that the Panini to whom most refer is a poet and although some argue

that these are the same person, most historians agree that the

linguist and the poet are two different people. Again this is

inconclusive evidence.

Source of this article is given below:

Panini is listed as a mathematician cum Sanskrit Grammarian

according to the following source. First click the URL below and

lood under Panini to get the article.

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/

Also the History of mathematics for different countries are listed

under the URL below: Click the URL and look for the title,

Indian_mathematics.html in the provided list.

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

April 12, 2004

Namaste:

This quotation from Laplace (famous French mathematician specialized

in Probability theory and the author of Laplace theorem) provides an

overview of Indian mathematics: "The ingenious method of expressing

every possible number using a set of ten symbols (each symbol having

a place value and an absolute value) emerged in India. The idea

seems so simple nowadays that its significance and profound

importance is no longer appreciated. Its simplicity lies in the way

it facilitated calculation and placed arithmetic foremost amongst

useful inventions. the importance of this invention is more readily

appreciated when one considers that it was beyond the two greatest

men of Antiquity, Archimedes and Apollonius."

The most important of those symbols is the invention of 'zero.' As

many of you may aware that the rules for the 'algebra of

multiplication' and the 'algebra of summation' are dual and 'zero'

is invariant for the algebra of multiplication and 'infinity' is

invariant for the algebra of summation.

zero multiplied by any number = zero,

Also zero divided by any number = zero,

Interestingly, the term 'dual' in mathematics imply the 'oneness' in

the sense, the symbols mean the same if we ignore the notion of

algebra!

The reasn that I am stating all these is remind the link between

mathematics and the topic of this month's discussion. Also by these

statements, I and ProfVK avoid feeling guilty for introducing

mathematics in the middle of pUrNamadah pUrNamidam. But on

contemplation, we can recognize that 'pUrNamadah pUrNamidam' is

unaffected by all external intrusions!

Warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

It is no wonder that the sages of the Upanishads full of wisdom from

their mathematical foundation came up with the shanti mantra -

"pUrNamadah pUrNamidam ....."

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...>

wrote:

April 12, 2004

Namaste Maniji,

<<

> I do not recollect my mentioning about "that prajna should be

undertaken simultaneously along with Samadhi">>

In your message numbered 22051, in the fourth para, you say:

"In this context, the question of Anthakarana Shudhi is always

brought up for Prama, i.e. knowledge to take place through Sabda

Pramana i.e. knowledge of "Jeevabrahmaikyam" to take place. However,

what is this degree of Anthakarana shudhi? I feel although antharana

shudhi should be there to some extent, i.e. a mind free from

prejudice, and full of Sradha for the words of the Shruties and

the Guru, further anthakaranashudhi takes place side by side, slowly

but certainly, as one proceeds with the assimilation of self

knowledge. This assimilation requires not only one's own effort

(Manana), but also guidance from a Guru and, and such guidance can be

from the Bhashyas, and Bhashyakaras themselves are Gurus. The

assimilation of the knowledge in my opinion, is very very important,

without which though the knowledge is there, it will not help one to

reach the goal."

The 'Anthahkarana shuddhi', you have referred to here, takes place in

two steps, pratyAhAra and samAdhi. The pratyahara step is simple

abstention. It will not lead to complete antahkaraNa suddhi, in a new

sadhak. He will require samadhi, to learn to keep his mind at peace

whenever it drifts towards the object he abstains from. Also, at the

same time, he requires, Prajna for two things - 1. for moving towards

liberation, and knowing the true nature of oneself as perfectly

equanimous and a non-doer. 2. for realizing that he loses nothing in

abstention. These two have to go deep, penetrating to the roots of

the mind.

No matter how much manana we do, nothing much shall take place until

prajna actually sets in. For example, after reading so much of

advaita, all of us are ready to say: "This body is not me. I am the

soul. I am boundless, infinite." etc. etc. But the moment a mosquito

starts biting us, we kill it and say "Stupid mosquito, why doesn't it

bite someone else?" or "Why does it have to bite?" or "Why do

mosquitoes exist?" What happenned? You were just saying that the body

is not you.....

Manana can help only the upper levels of the mind called 'buddhi'.

This knowledge must go deep to the deepest levels of the bodha

consciousness and should become one with ourselves. For that, we need

Prajna. Samadhi is to facillitate the process of Prajna. (The

phrase, 'process of Prajna' must not be thought to be an action or

karma. It is complete non-action. But again it is not inaction. It is

best described as Infinite knowledge. Knowledge that penetrates the

deepest levels of the mind.... The process itself is Prajna. It is

referred to so, because to the beginning Sadhak, it appears like a

process to him.)

<<Even now, somehow, personally I have not understood what exactly

this Samadhi is, and therefore, I could not have mentioned about

it.>>>

I concede, you did not mention Samadhi as it is. Nor did you

mention 'Prajna', you mentioned 'antahkaraNa shuddhi'

and 'knowledge'. But I thought you were referring to Samadhi while

saying antahkaraNa shuddhi and Prajna while saying knowledge.

<<You say "Thus Samadhi becomes an inevitable step. Unfortunately,

not many even try out Samadhi, and they are attempting at Prajna!"

Is it for release from all sorrows? >>

Samadhi is not for release from all sorrows. This is something I held

even earlier. But I did not know about Nrvikalpa Samadhi. I thought

that it was more than just Samadhi, in fact I thought it is

realization. But from what appears from Swami Dayananda's words and

Bh. Ramana's words, Nirvikalpa Samadhi (NS) may not be Nirvana.

Nirvana or Moksha as I used to think earlier also, should be

acheivable only through Prajna (perfect knowledge, deeply

penentrating the mind and revealing the Self) I am still not sure

about NS. I have been told by many however, that it is the highest

state of something something..... whatever it is irrelevent. My

understanding of NS seems to be corrected. But I am still not worried

about these understandings which are just at the level of the

intellect 'buddhi'.

<<Sri Sureshwaracharya in his commentary on Pancheekaranam (By

Bhagavan Adi Shankaracharya) says

> "aadimadhya avasaneshu dukham sarvam idam yataha,

>

> Tasmad sarvam parityajya tatwa nishtaha bhaved sadaa"

> >>

I liked this verse a lot. I can relate to it because of what I have

been feeling for the last two three years now....

> <<Regarding Prajna, in Mandukya Upanishad, Praajna is described as

the "state" of consciousness associated with deep sleep. So, if I

were to understand, with my background of knowledge of Praajna, when

Parajna is there, it must be deep sleep state of the entity who

was "awake". So, it cannot be Samadhi. >>

Well, I think the word prajna over there is used in the context of

sushupti. But it is also used as cognition in the vaishvanara and the

taijasa states, in the same Upanishad. Just goes to show the

Upanaishadic saying the self is Prajna always. (Here prajna refers to

perfect knowledge)

The word prajna has many meanings and is used according to different

circumstances in the Upanishad. The literal meaning of the word

prajna is understood by breaking it up as pra and jna. pra -

pratyaksha, literally meaning, in front of our eyes, also meaning

perfect, evident, evidence, etc. jna - JnAna, meaning knowledge.

I am using the word prajna in the sense of "Perfect and evident

knowledge" and not in the context of sushupti. If that were the case

I would be branded as a person urging everyone to indulge in deep

sleep and lethargy to attain Nirvana :-) something of a caravaka guy!

And yes, it is not Samadhi.

>

> <<<If in reality (i.e. absolute), the world is full of sorrow, and

also the entity who has sorrow, nothing can be done about it. If the

reality of the world of sorrow, including the one who has sorrow, is

just like the reality of the horns of a hare, again nothing need to

be done. >>>

No. We can still do something about it.... We can know it

equanimously. The cessation of all sorrow comes from equanimity, our

true nature also called Brahman. It is different from a tranquil and

thoughtless mind.

Anyway, the heart of the problem is not that. If the truth is that

sorrow is inevitable and permanent, we shall not let it as it is. The

problem is that there is sorrow. But we are burning in that sorrow.

Why, I should not burn in it. If there is sorrow, so be it. It is my

fault entirely that I am burning in it.

If there is sorrow and it be permanent, I shall learn to face it

boldly using Prajna, know its permanent nature, and not burn in it.

If however, it is impermanent, we shall know even that. Again we face

sorrow and suffering boldly, again through Prajna and know its

impermanent nature and, therefore learn that there is no point in

burning in something that is impermanent.

But this knowledge of permanence or impermanence has to go to the

deepest levels of the mind. Is anyone ready to test the

statement 'Sorrow is impermanent.' Unfortunately, not many, for they

think it would mean impudence and lack of faith in the scriptures. It

is good to have placed one's faith in the words of great saints. But

accepting them blindly is not good scientific spirit. One must test

it ourselves. Why, the ancient gurus used to urge us to test it.

You might think of it as skepticism. But it is not so. When we

perform a laboratory experiment in electrical engineering, we have

faith in the principles alright, but we test it, abandoning all

beleifs for a while. When we test it, we donot lose faith in the

principles. We gain more faith, when the results confirm theory. And

if they do not, we are in the search for more knowledge to understand

the underlying principles. (I don't know how many engineers we have

here, but this happens very often when we are faced with Deep-sub-

micron technology in VLSI. I am sure it happens elsewhere too. But we

still have faith in these things.) I agree that in the case of

spiritual knowledge one cannot realize anything different from the

Truth, but an honest search for the truth can take place only if we

abandon all our apprehensions of the truth.

<<The whole problem is because of absence of knowledge about the

nature of the reality of the world and I i.e. self. >>

The problem is not to satisfy our curiosity of our true nature. But

to know the nature of sorrow. In the process, we automatically come

to know our nature as permanently blissful and devoid of sorrow. This

knowledge of the self is consequential. The knowledge of the nature

of ignorance and its impermanent, and therefore non-existent nature

is primary. Note, the knowledge of the nature of ignorance is not

Nirvana, but inevitable for the knowledge of our own self, which is

Nirvana or Mukti.

Your points on sanyas were very good. I am still however, thinking of

other problems here.

I think I must pray to the readers to understand my lack of good

communication skills, which may lead to ambiguous statements being

made. The sense in which I have used various terms here, should be

first understood. However, please correct my language if it is found

inappropriate. Please do furnish me with appropriate words or terms

for things I am referring to. (For example prajna may be

misunderstood, but the literal meaning of prajna is perfect

knowledge.)

I hope I haven't made any advise uncalled for. If they appear to you

to be so, please mentally remove those portions on your own. They

were not intended as advice. I am not qualified to advice people.

(This is my own knowledge, nobody can qualify or disqualify me, I

know that.)

Any portion of the text here, if it did not appeal to you or did not

satisfy you, you may:

1. Ask me to clarify

2. Dispose my words without giving it a second thought.

My role is just to share my thoughts on the matter. May not whatever

I say, be taken as advice.

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

Namaste dadiji,

You asked in your email to respond to your answer on Ramakrishna's

idea of Samadhi. It however appears from there as though Samadhi is

for giving up the body. So I decided to think more about it. If you

think you can clarify it, please do so.

Bh. Ramana's views on this and regarding Prarabdha are

understandable.

That message talks about 21 days and all that. Did the saints come

back from Samadhi, just because they did not like to die? Or was it

as Sri Ramakrishna says - to do good to the world.

But isn't it possible to do good to the world only after realization?

How come, nirvikalpa samadhi led to realization? Or is my

understanding incorrect about NS?

According to my understanding, Samadhi is not Moksha. But what is

Nirvikalpa Samadhi? Is it Moksha? Is it the same as Samadhi or is it

some special kind of samadhi, or is it realization itself?

This is confusing. That is why I have said till now that I am not

able to come to a satisfactory conclusion about it.

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

April 12, 2004

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Sunderji.

>

> Interesting to see you back from holidays with bIja gaNita.

>

> There is a hitch in the quoted commentary, Sunderji. This guy here

> at http://www.galactic-guide.com/articles/8R69.html in his rule # 4

> says Infinity multiplied by zero is zero. Have I misunderstood the

> commentary? So, Brahman courting MAyAji will tend to nothingness!

>

> Personally, it is unbearable for me to see Smt. MAyAji equated to

> zero even for the sake of an explanation because She is our

Mother!

> She is Infinite.

Namaste Madathilji,

I was hoping ProfVK-ji and Ramji to solve this riddle or

conundrum!

In the link you give, further down from Rule #4 is the

statement that if you treat Infinity as a number you are bound to run

into problems!

My understanding of pUrNasya....avashiShyate | is that for

all arithmetic operations other than subtraction, 2 entities are

required. As pUrNa cannot be duplicated for multiplication, division,

or addition, only subtraction can be applied! Such is the mathematics

of an ignoramus!

Regards,

Sunder

April 12, 2004

_____

Balaji Ramasubramanian [balajiramasubramanian]

Monday, April 12, 2004 2:28 PM

advaitin

Re: pUrNamadah pUrNamidam... revisited (April 04 topic)

Namaste Maniji,

No matter how much manana we do, nothing much shall take place until

prajna actually sets in. For example, after reading so much of

advaita, all of us are ready to say: "This body is not me. I am the

soul. I am boundless, infinite." etc. etc. But the moment a mosquito

starts biting us, we kill it and say "Stupid mosquito, why doesn't it

bite someone else?" or "Why does it have to bite?" or "Why do

mosquitoes exist?" What happenned? You were just saying that the body

is not you.....

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

The mind saying all these things (about the body) and reacting to the

mosquito also is not you.

Love to all

Harsha

April 12, 2004

Namaste Sunderji.

That is why I said in my lead post that the verse seems to laugh out

aloud at our mathematical naivety. Yet, we still keep going to

mathematics hoping to find simple equations for creation.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

___________________

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

>

.............> In the link you give, further down from Rule #4

is the

> statement that if you treat Infinity as a number you are bound to

run

> into problems!

>

> My understanding of pUrNasya....avashiShyate | is that for

> all arithmetic operations other than subtraction, 2 entities are

> required. As pUrNa cannot be duplicated for multiplication,

division,

> or addition, only subtraction can be applied! Such is the

mathematics

> of an ignoramus!

April 13, 2004

Namaste, dear Balaji,

You have gone through my posting very deeply, and thank you for the effort you

made in clarifying some points and also in raising some points for

clarification. Needless to say, such mutual clarifications alone help in getting

one’s understanding cleared.

Before taking up the points for clarifications/getting clarified, I thought I

would mention the following few lines reflecting my own personal experience.

I relate Vedanta, particularly Advaita, to my actual day today living, and by

doing so, at least to some extent, I am able to face the ups and downs, with

much more maturity. It is my understanding, whether others agree or not, that

Advaita leads, slowly but definitely, to Emotional Maturity, and liberation is

nothing but Emotional Maturity. We all have to live and interact with the world

every moment. Living one’s life very much depends on how he acts, and not how

he reacts.

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

<<<The 'Anthahkarana shuddhi', you have referred to here, takes place in two

steps, pratyAhAra and samAdhi. The pratyahara step is simple abstention. It will

not lead to complete antahkaraNa suddhi, in a new >>>

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

Before attempting to find ways and means to get Anthakaranashudhi, I should

first know what is anthakarana, whether Anthakarana-ashudhi is there, and then

find the cause for anthakarana-ashudhi. Once I know what in reality this

anthakarana is, there does not arise any need for getting anthakaranashudhi, as

on knowing what in reality this anthakarana is, I also know the reasons for its

ashudhi. The knowledge of anthakarana takes care of any anthakarana ashudhi if

at all required.

Chp.XIII of Srimad Bhagavad Gita deals with what is Knowledge (jnanam), and what

is to be Known (jneyam), for immortality, i.e. liberation. From “amanitwam

adambhitwam” onwards there is a list of knowledge, upto “tatwajnanarthadarsanam”

and the sloka continues “etat jnanam iti proktam, ajnanam yad atho anyatha”.

Once you know this is Knowledge, and once that Knowledge reflects in you, what

more is required to do to get anthakarana shudhi. In my understanding,

Anthakarana-ashudhi is the result of ignorance or better still “mithyajnanam”

(knowledge of mithya taken as knowledge of satyam), so for removing the ashudhi

in the anthakaranam, knowledge alone is required. Mithyatwam relates to the nama

and roopa, and a particular guna for the object. The same cotton, rather the

cotton filaments, known by different names when a form is superimposed on the

vastu, in this case the filaments, and a name is also superimposed and a

particular guna is superimposed, i.e. same filaments appear as

cotton, thread, fabric, shirt, etc. In all these difference appearances in and

through cotton filaments only, rather cotton filament is omnipresent in cotton,

thread, fabric, shirt, etc. Mithya serves a purpose, but only for another

mithya.

It is said, performance of one’s duties, performance of ordained vedic rituals,

doing japa, samadhi, etc. will help in anthakaranashudhi. They may pave the

background for knowledge to take place once pramanam is available. If people

are able to get anthakaranashudhi by practicing all these, well and good.

To me “anthakaranashudhi” means “(as if) freeing” the mind from the hold of

“shad urmies" i.e. kama, krodha, lobha, moha, mada, matsarya. We react when

these have a hold on us, and once we are able to grow over them, we will start

acting. Why “as if” because this freeing of the mind takes place along with

jnanam taking place, and no special effort/action is required.

There is a very interesting analogy in this connection:

One Shepard took his fleet of sheep to the jungle for grazing, and by the time

he was to return, it became dark. He did not want to return to his village and

he found a hermitage nearby, where he thought he would spend the night. The

hermit allowed him and the Shepard wanted to tie all the sheep to some posts. He

got some strings from the hermit and he managed to tie all the animals,

excepting one as he was short of string. The hermit had no further string, but

he told the Shepard to take the left over animal to a post and show the gesture

of tying and that it would work. He followed the instructions and the animal

stood near the post quietly, as if it got tied to the post, like the other

animals. Next morning the Shepard untied all the animals and they started

following him, except the one which he tied last. It was not moving an inch. On

asking the reason, the hermit said, “just like you tied the animal with no rope,

you make a gesture of freeing it, or untying it and see what

happens”. He did the same and the animal immediately joined the other animals.

The tying was “as if” and the untying was also “as if”. Similar is the case of

anthakaranashudhi. When in reality, anthakarana itself is not there, where is

the question of it being ashudha and getting shudhi for it.

For me, Spirituality does not necessarily mean visiting temples, attending/doing

various rituals, going on pilgrimages, taking sanyasa etc., though they all may

have some purpose. I have to live the life till the death takes place, and I

have to “play” various roles in my “jagrat” avasta. When I play these various

roles, (with the knowledge that I am “playing” these roles), which change from

moment to moment, keeping in mind always not to disturb the total harmony, not

only my own, of the family, society, country, entire humanity but also the

entire creation, which I have not authored, I feel I am (as if) following

”dharma”.

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

<<<<<Anyway, the heart of the problem is not that. If the truth is that sorrow

is inevitable and permanent, we shall not let it as it is. The problem is that

there is sorrow. >>>>>.

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

The perfect, or absolute, and evident, i.e. self evident knowledge, is “I exist”

and all other knowledges require a means or instrument of knowledge, and they

are all relative. However, “I exist” is self-evident

But what is the nature or Swaroopa of this “I”? There is a mix up in this

context, inasmuch as I’s swaroopa is superimposed on non-I and non-I’s swaroopa

on I. This mutual mix up has resulted in erroneous conclusions. It is this

erroneous conclusion that is the root cause of

sorrow/pleasure/jealousy/desires/anger/confusion/meanness etc. etc. (the shad

urmies of kama, krodha, moha, lobha, mada, matsarya) which continuously create

agitations in the mind.

Yes, the word used in Mandukya Upanishad for sushupti-consciousness is Praajna

and not Prajna. Prajna is consciousness per-se, or knowledge per-se, i.e. as

used in “Prajnaanam Brahma”.

Prajna is different from Praajna, in as much as the former, Pra+jna, means

consciousness/knowledge per se, or one, who has the knowledge of that knowledge

per-se or consciousness per-se, whereas the latter means total ignorance, or

totally ignorant, i.e. Pra + ajna

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

<<<<<"Stupid mosquito, why doesn't it

bite someone else?" or "Why does it have to bite?Why do mosquitoes exist?"

>>>>

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

This is reaction. Not only “why does it have to bite, (“but it bites me only”)

and “why does it exist”, and this is the real problem. Yes, Samatwam does not

call for allowing the mosquito to continue to bite me. I can escape from it, if

necessary even by killing it. I am not killing it for pleasure nor for getting

happiness, but for guarding myself against its biting. Just like I play my

role/s, if I can allow the mosquito also to play its role, there is no problem.

Yes, I do suffer from its bite, so what, the suffering also is a part of the

play. Emotional maturity helps me to accept everything, without getting

agitated.

This is an attitude, a change in my outlook, and it comes slowly but definitely,

as I proceed with the self knowledge. Yes, I may slip now and then, but that is

because of earlier habits/vasanas based on notions, but now I am able to at

least correct whenever I slip, as I have the knowledge. I may appear to be

faking it, but that faking at last helps me to make it.

The conclusion that “there is sorrow is erroneous” as it is the result of

ignorance of the swaroopa of I and swaroopa of what is other than I. The fact

that you want to get rid of unhappiness/sorrow, itself shows that your swaroopa

or real nature is not unhappiness/sorrow, otherwise you would be at home with

unhappiness and sorrow. Not knowing this, one continues to chase happiness with

the hope of getting it, but one will never be successful in that. Even God will

not be able to give you happiness/nor will he able to take away unhappiness from

you, as you are already that, and how can you get or become something, which you

are already that. In fact, there is no becoming involved, or any realization

involved, or attaining involved, it is just acknowledging or recognizing a fact,

which is already there. Once swaropa jnaanam takes place, though the sorrow does

not disappear, the jnaani has the knowledge that “it will also pass”. Titeekhsa

follows side by side with the rising of

self-knowledge.

In other words, the sorrow does not become an emotional problem. The whole

problem is when “sorrow becomes an emotional problem”, and one actually suffers

not much from sorrow, as from “ I am sorrowful”, as I see others who are not

sorrowful like me. Instead of going into the cause for sorrow, one nurtures the

sorrow and builds up on that, and concludes that it is real and I am sorrowful.

It is this conclusion, which is erroneous. If in reality, I am sorrowful, I

should be always sorrowful and being sorrowful I should be happy.

*********************************************************<<<If there is sorrow

and it be permanent, I shall learn to face it boldly using Prajna, know its

permanent nature, and not burn in it. If however, it is impermanent, . . .. . .

>>>>

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

Yes, we are not to accept the words of anybody. However, on matters where we are

ignorant, once we know we are ignorant, we first accept them with faith (Sradha)

and then do our own analysis i.e. Manana, but this enquiry has to be absolutely

without any prejudice or bias. One should approach the Sruty with a total clean

mind, which means earlier notions /knowledge should not be brought in while

analyzing sruti vakyas, with the help of the teacher. It is very difficult to

teach a person or for a person to get taught, if he has already some knowledge.

A fresh approach to the Vedanta is very important if one really wants to know

the message of Vedanta. One should not mix up Vedanta with other schools of

philosophy, and that will only land him neither here nor there.

When you experiment, you apply the principles, but the principles should be

related to the particular experiment. You cannot use the principle or law of

diminishing utility, when you are experimenting with atoms. You cannot mix up

the various principles while doing testing. Similarly, when you study Vedanta,

particularly Advaita, you should not try to mix up with your earlier knowledge

on Budhisam, Christianity, Islam, etc. After you understand Advaita, you will

understand all other isms more clearly, more fully, by rejecting what need to be

rejected, and accepting what need to be accepted. It is here “Hamsa Budhi” is

required, i.e. discriminating between what is preferable (shreyas) and what is

pleasurable (preyas). Hamsa goes only for pearls, and rejects everything else,

and once you understand Vedanta, Advaita fully, you accept pearls wherever

available, and reject other things even if you find them in Sruties/Vedas/words

of Saints etc. Hope I have managed to make myself

understanding clear.

When you say “Truth”, it all depends on what one understands by “Truth”. I doubt

whether the understanding of Truth for an Advaitin is same as the understanding

of a person following even Dwaita, let alone other schools of thought. There is

no brain washing involved in Advaita, i.e. preaching, as ultimately, Advaita

teaches, “from the absolute reality where is the brain to wash.” Everything is

“as if” or “iva”

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

<<<<<The problem is not to satisfy our curiosity of our true nature. But to know

the nature of sorrow. In the process, we automatically come to know our nature

as permanently blissful and devoid of sorrow. This

knowledge of the self is consequential.. . . . . . >>>>>>

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

For me personally, neither curiosity, nor any desire for molksha/nirvana/mukti,

has much meaning. I want to live till the death takes over me, and I want to

live peacefully. What happens after death/ or what happened before I was born,

etc. are speculations for me, and I am least interested in knowing them. I am

concerned with my living, i.e. the roles I have to play, i.e. moment to moment

living. People talk of such visions, bliss, atmanubhava, etc. etc., and to me

they have no meaning, because unless I grow emotionally, having such visions,

bliss etc. does not help my goal, i.e. living the life/playing my roles to the

best of my ability and without disturbing the harmony of the entire creation.

If there are repetitions, they are for the sake of clarity, and this posting is

more for my own better understanding of the subject.

Thank you very much for your patience in going through this rather long mail.

Warm regards, Hari Om

"Atmana Vindate Veeryam"

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 14, 2004

Namaste Maniji,

Thankyou for reading my post carefully and for giving so much

attention to the import of the words. I shall, without advising

anyone, warn everyone (that includes me as well :-)) about certain

things:

Donot think that you are already enlightened, just because Advaita

says so. Advaita means to say 'You are already enlightened' only if

you are enlightened. Till then there is incorrect understanding. The

understanding that there is no antahkarana for us to really clean,

should be understood with care. It would therefore be best not to

introduce such concepts rightaway. That 'I am perfectly enlightened

always', or that 'there is no ignorance' or that 'antahkarana does

not exist' are much beyond the scope of understanding of a person

whose mind verily is unclean. It is like asking a kindergarten child

to learn calculus.

When we react to the mosquito biting, we say that samata does not

require us to let the mosquito bite. But then why should we escape

something in the first place? What are we escaping from when we kill

the mosquito? Temporarily it is the bite, but then we are still

clinging to the body. Why is there this clinging? When will we escape

from this clinging? It is clear that we have grossly misunderstood

the statements of advaita. One would not want to escape from the

mosquito bite even if it hurts, if one it truly liberated. It is

incorrect to say that the thought "why does the mosquito bite me"

comes later. If it was not there earlier, we would never have killed

it. Hence the reaction occurs first in the mind in a very subtle

way.

Anyway, I am not asking anyone to allow all mosquitoes to bite you,

lest anyone should suffer from dengue or malaria. I was trying to

make my point clear that there is uncleanliness in our mind, no

matter how much we read any philosophy. Such uncleanliness can be

done away with only when the pure knowledge of the bodha

consciousness is known, as you have correctly pointed out.

What I actually meant, by the mosquito biting phenomenon was that,

this need to kill that we have in our minds (wrongly perceived to be

for our own good) would not be there at all if we were truly

realized. When being equanimous, (samata) we would know of the

mosquito biting, but would not feel the need to kill it. Just like

Bh. Ramana did not even flinch when a surgery was being performed on

him in front of his own eyes, without any anasthesia. Such is true

equanimity. Such is power. Such is knowledge or wisdom.

Let us not lay bare the efforts taken by the great saints, like

Jagadguru Adi Shankara, Bh. Ramana Maharishi, Swami Vivekananda, Sri

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Gautama Buddha, Mahavira and the great

Jagadgurus of today or yesterday, all alike, to realize the ultimate

truth. It is a Himalayan task to realize this absolute truth. But

yes, the fact that so many have done it, just shows that we can do it

too. We have seen people climbing the Mt. Everest. Is it possible for

us? Yes, we can do it too. But not with this unfit body.... right?

Possibly we have not toned our bodies to the physical fitness

required to do it. Can a person attempt climbing the Everest without

physical fitness? What would happen if he did so?

Exactly the same way, we cannot get perfect knowledge, without a

clean mind, free from defilements. It takes great purushArtha to

acheive it. But it is possible. As the Upanishad says: 'Tapasa Brahma

vijijnasasva' (Through tapas (with equanimity), you shall realize

Brahman). A person who has acheived it, would truly be called Maha

veera (Mahavira).

It is good to read philosophy and to gain emotional maturity through

it. But it is more important to really realize it, not remain

satisfied thinking that we are already enlightened.

I am not wanting to advice anyone. I am not competent to do so.

However, I am just reiterating my affirmation. If any of this looks

like advice, kindly reject it. However, all that is said here, is

said with perfect love. Love for all beings. My love for you all, and

for the entire world, just makes me want to make sure, you are not

misled. Although I am not a good leader and am not enlightened

myself, I cannot help but feel pity and possibly say some words and

correct a wandering mind if it is possible.

While it might look a lot like advice, please let me tell you, that

if it does not appeal to you, then surely discard it and do whatever

you please. I am not here with any advice for you all, just my way of

showing love. Whatever I have said here, equally applies to me also.

I keep reminding myself of this Herculean task ahead of me, which is

the very purpose of my life - as Sri Mohan has pointed to me.

I hope you would not misunderstand me. I find that you are very well

read in philosophy and are surely very mature. However, such maturity

cannot be equated to liberation. If however, you still feel so, then

you are the best judge of your opinions and you are free to continue

your life as such, noble as it surely is.

This reminds me of a story from the Narada Bhakti Sutra book, that my

grandpa read out to me. There was a rishi performing severe tapas and

was meditating. Narada passed by. The rishi asked: "Oh sage of the

worlds, when would I be liberated?" Narada replied: "It will take you

three more births." at which the rishi was very depressed. When a

passerby met Narada, he asked him: "Oh sage of the worlds, when would

I be liberated?" and Narada pointed to a tree over there and

said: "As many lives as there are leaves in that tree, will pass

before you are liberated.". This said, Narada was rather surprised to

find the passerby extremely happy that he would be liberated

so 'soon'. He said: "Thankyou for pointing out that I would be

liberated so soon." At this Narada said: "There are no more lives for

you to live. You shall soon be liberated."

I am not very sure of the story, but this was somewhat the story my

grandpa read out to me. But there is a very great principle here:

Liberation will come only when we abandon all wants, even that of

being liberated soon. Disappointment in birth is itself a sign of

bondage. So without the want to acheive any liberation, be perfectly

equanimous. That rishi inspite of his severe penace had not built

equanimity. Where is any liberation without equanimity? So there need

be not much worry about in doing any tapasya. Just build equanimity.

Again this is not meant as advice although it is phrased as such.

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

April 14, 2004

Dear Sir,

NAMASTHE!

Firstly I introduce myself as Jayshree joined today..just went

through your message and felt like replying..

You are absolutely right.. Although we seem to be very much

interested and absorbed in the subject of advaita philosophy, to

practice at every step in our daily life is very important..Unless we

achieve certain level of "samata "atleast to understand the most

important aspect of advaita , we may ignore the moment we leave the

desk.

Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion.

I feel that in every action and thought of ours, we should ask

ourselves whether we are in right path towards the goal of "MOKSHA"

Thank you

regards

jayshree

advaitin, "Balaji Ramasubramanian"

<balajiramasubramanian> wrote:

> Namaste Maniji,

>

> Thankyou for reading my post carefully and for giving so much

> attention to the import of the words. I shall, without advising

> anyone, warn everyone (that includes me as well :-)) about certain

> things:

>

> Donot think that you are already enlightened, just because Advaita

> says so. Advaita means to say 'You are already enlightened' only if

> you are enlightened. Till then there is incorrect understanding.

The

> understanding that there is no antahkarana for us to really clean,

> should be understood with care. It would therefore be best not to

> introduce such concepts rightaway. That 'I am perfectly enlightened

> always', or that 'there is no ignorance' or that 'antahkarana does

> not exist' are much beyond the scope of understanding of a person

> whose mind verily is unclean. It is like asking a kindergarten

child

> to learn calculus.

>

> When we react to the mosquito biting, we say that samata does not

> require us to let the mosquito bite. But then why should we escape

> something in the first place? What are we escaping from when we

kill

> the mosquito? Temporarily it is the bite, but then we are still

> clinging to the body. Why is there this clinging? When will we

escape

> from this clinging? It is clear that we have grossly misunderstood

> the statements of advaita. One would not want to escape from the

> mosquito bite even if it hurts, if one it truly liberated. It is

> incorrect to say that the thought "why does the mosquito bite me"

> comes later. If it was not there earlier, we would never have

killed

> it. Hence the reaction occurs first in the mind in a very subtle

> way.

>

> Anyway, I am not asking anyone to allow all mosquitoes to bite you,

> lest anyone should suffer from dengue or malaria. I was trying to

> make my point clear that there is uncleanliness in our mind, no

> matter how much we read any philosophy. Such uncleanliness can be

> done away with only when the pure knowledge of the bodha

> consciousness is known, as you have correctly pointed out.

>

> What I actually meant, by the mosquito biting phenomenon was that,

> this need to kill that we have in our minds (wrongly perceived to

be

> for our own good) would not be there at all if we were truly

> realized. When being equanimous, (samata) we would know of the

> mosquito biting, but would not feel the need to kill it. Just like

> Bh. Ramana did not even flinch when a surgery was being performed

on

> him in front of his own eyes, without any anasthesia. Such is true

> equanimity. Such is power. Such is knowledge or wisdom.

>

> Let us not lay bare the efforts taken by the great saints, like

> Jagadguru Adi Shankara, Bh. Ramana Maharishi, Swami Vivekananda,

Sri

> Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Gautama Buddha, Mahavira and the great

> Jagadgurus of today or yesterday, all alike, to realize the

ultimate

> truth. It is a Himalayan task to realize this absolute truth. But

> yes, the fact that so many have done it, just shows that we can do

it

> too. We have seen people climbing the Mt. Everest. Is it possible

for

> us? Yes, we can do it too. But not with this unfit body.... right?

> Possibly we have not toned our bodies to the physical fitness

> required to do it. Can a person attempt climbing the Everest

without

> physical fitness? What would happen if he did so?

>

> Exactly the same way, we cannot get perfect knowledge, without a

> clean mind, free from defilements. It takes great purushArtha to

> acheive it. But it is possible. As the Upanishad says: 'Tapasa

Brahma

> vijijnasasva' (Through tapas (with equanimity), you shall realize

> Brahman). A person who has acheived it, would truly be called Maha

> veera (Mahavira).

>

> It is good to read philosophy and to gain emotional maturity

through

> it. But it is more important to really realize it, not remain

> satisfied thinking that we are already enlightened.

>

> I am not wanting to advice anyone. I am not competent to do so.

> However, I am just reiterating my affirmation. If any of this looks

> like advice, kindly reject it. However, all that is said here, is

> said with perfect love. Love for all beings. My love for you all,

and

> for the entire world, just makes me want to make sure, you are not

> misled. Although I am not a good leader and am not enlightened

> myself, I cannot help but feel pity and possibly say some words and

> correct a wandering mind if it is possible.

>

> While it might look a lot like advice, please let me tell you, that

> if it does not appeal to you, then surely discard it and do

whatever

> you please. I am not here with any advice for you all, just my way

of

> showing love. Whatever I have said here, equally applies to me

also.

> I keep reminding myself of this Herculean task ahead of me, which

is

> the very purpose of my life - as Sri Mohan has pointed to me.

>

> I hope you would not misunderstand me. I find that you are very

well

> read in philosophy and are surely very mature. However, such

maturity

> cannot be equated to liberation. If however, you still feel so,

then

> you are the best judge of your opinions and you are free to

continue

> your life as such, noble as it surely is.

>

> This reminds me of a story from the Narada Bhakti Sutra book, that

my

> grandpa read out to me. There was a rishi performing severe tapas

and

> was meditating. Narada passed by. The rishi asked: "Oh sage of the

> worlds, when would I be liberated?" Narada replied: "It will take

you

> three more births." at which the rishi was very depressed. When a

> passerby met Narada, he asked him: "Oh sage of the worlds, when

would

> I be liberated?" and Narada pointed to a tree over there and

> said: "As many lives as there are leaves in that tree, will pass

> before you are liberated.". This said, Narada was rather surprised

to

> find the passerby extremely happy that he would be liberated

> so 'soon'. He said: "Thankyou for pointing out that I would be

> liberated so soon." At this Narada said: "There are no more lives

for

> you to live. You shall soon be liberated."

>

> I am not very sure of the story, but this was somewhat the story my

> grandpa read out to me. But there is a very great principle here:

> Liberation will come only when we abandon all wants, even that of

> being liberated soon. Disappointment in birth is itself a sign of

> bondage. So without the want to acheive any liberation, be

perfectly

> equanimous. That rishi inspite of his severe penace had not built

> equanimity. Where is any liberation without equanimity? So there

need

> be not much worry about in doing any tapasya. Just build

equanimity.

>

> Again this is not meant as advice although it is phrased as such.

>

> Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

Sign In

pUrNamadah pUrNamidam... revisited (April 04 topic)

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest