Guest guest Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 Hari OM! Dear Rajji, Is Brahman and our own nature different things???? With Love & OM! Krishna Prasad On 1/11/06, rajkumarknair <rajkumarknair wrote: > > advaitin, Krishna Prasad <rkrishp99@g...> wrote: > > > > Hari OM! > > > > Dear Ramji, > > > > By your explanation, it seems to me that Language and Logic cannot > explain > > Brahman but we have to realize Brahman. But with out Language and > Logic we > > cannot do that. so this becomes the Egg and Hen story which came > first, and > > which one have more priority, still, we are not realised we cannot > say that > > Language and Logic is Barrier the only medium is Logic and Language to > > indicate Brahman! this is my humble understanding correct me if not. > <snip> > > Namaste, > Why do we have to realize Brahman ? Maybe striving to realize our > own nature will be more useful rather than chasing a conceptual entity > called "Brahman". > > Regards, > Raj. > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of > Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: > http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/<http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin\ /> > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > > > > Religion and spirituality</gads?t=ms&k=Religion+and+spirituality&w1=Re\ ligion+and+spirituality&w2=Advaita&w3=Bhagavad+gita&c=3&s=63&.sig=0IbDMqJ8nA8f05\ eAJzstKg> > Advaita</gads?t=ms&k=Advaita&w1=Religion+and+spirituality\ &w2=Advaita&w3=Bhagavad+gita&c=3&s=63&.sig=vzQW0CDYxFxpaHYJAwJiDA> Bhagavad > gita</gads?t=ms&k=Bhagavad+gita&w1=Religion+and+spiritual\ ity&w2=Advaita&w3=Bhagavad+gita&c=3&s=63&.sig=n0FspvlXQlhcYfiiSGvN9Q> > ------------------------------ > > > > - Visit your group "advaitin<advaitin>" > on the web. > > - > advaitin<advaitin?subjec\ t=Un> > > - Terms of > Service <>. > > > ------------------------------ > -- Krishna Prasad .. Yad yad aacarati sreshtah, tad tad eva itaro janah. As the Gita puts it, consistency of purpose and a spirit of dedication and, if necessary, sacrifice, should characterize the new spirit. We Must THE CULTURED GIVES HAPPINESS WHEREVER THEY GO, THE UN-CULTURED WHENEVER THEY GO! - Swami Chinmayanada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 Ref post 29792 Namaste R.s.: Where did you obtain this translation from ? Dharma is interpreted differently by different commentatots. Some say it is performance of duties. Then 'surrender' takes on a different meaning - the sense of non-doership.(karma yoga) Some commentators say it means other faiths -faith is interpreted as other paths. In which case, Dharma means - hindu dharma . Dharma here refers to religion. Krishna is the only refuge as the ISKCON devotees would argue. Some other say it is different yogas - leave all other yogas( Jnana, Karma, Raja Etc) and follow the path of Bhakti and surrender to Krishna . In this is also included the 'sharangati' tattwa or 'praptti' of Kulasekhara azhwar. Personally, I found K.Sadanada's explanation of 'Sharanagati' tattwa as the foundation of this verse, very appealing. Rsm, Krishna is 'knowledge' personified. He is also the 'goal' of all Prema sadhana. Raso Vai Sah( Taittiya upanishad) ps advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote: > > Namaste, all > Sri Ram Chandranji said > ,,Chapter 18, Verse 66: > <Sarvadharmaan parityajya maamekam sharanam vraja; > Aham twaa sarvapaapebhyo mokshayishyaami maa shuchah.> > <Abandoning all duties, take refuge in Me alone; I will liberate thee > from all sins; grieve not.> > Here, I had come across an interpretation that what we are to do is to abandon the notion that performing or stickig to dharma will help me to be what I want to be, and and to take refuge in Knowledge (Me Krishna) alone. > Hari Om > Mani > > > R. S. Mani > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 Namaste Sri Arvind: Thanks for your kind remarks. There are many variations of the Symbolism of Bhagavad Gita dialog are available in various sources. Here are few URLs with similar descriptions of Bhagavad Gita: http://www.atmajyoti.org/hi_gita_commentary_1.asp http://www.key23.net/occulture/post/193 http://www.mandalayoga.net/index.php?rub=what_en&p=bhagavad_gita What I have stated was for very specific purpose to bring some further insights on a question raised. I am happy to note that it motivated you to bring some additional insightful observations. Please continue with your thoughts and hopefully other learned members will join and expand it further. Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "adithya_comming" <adithya_comming> wrote: > > > > Dear Sri Ram Chandran: > > This is the first time I have heard > Gita described this way [as a dialogue > between the Unlimited Consciousness and > confined intellect] and its sounds > Great! Very beautiful indeed! > > > May I request you to kindly elaborate > it further and describe it in more > detail? I think this 'analogy' has > Great Transformative Power! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 --- Ram Chandran <ramvchandran wrote: > advaitin, Krishna Prasad > <rkrishp99@g...> > wrote: > Namaste dear Krishnaji: > > It is my understanding that the answer to the > question is very > subtle. Instead of focusing on the logic and the > language to explain > the Brahman, turn the focus to Brahman! Ramana > Maharishi suggests > contemplate on "who is explaining Brahman through > logic and > language?" Swami Chinmayanandaji gives the analogy Dear Advaitins, Namaste, Following is the quote from Swami Vivekananda which can be read in this context. To get any reason out of the mass incongruity we call human life, we have to transcend our reason, but we must do it scientifically, slowly, by regular practice, and we must cast off all superstition. We must take up the study of the superconscious state just as any other science. On reason we must have to lay our foundation, we must follow reason as far as it leads, and when reason fails, reason itself will show us the way to the highest plane. HARI OM TAT SAT, Yours in the Lord, Br. Vinayaka. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 advaitin, Krishna Prasad <rkrishp99@g...> wrote: > > Hari OM! > > Dear Rajji, > > Is Brahman and our own nature different things???? > Krishna Prasadji, To be frank, I don't know. For me, Brahman is a conceptual entity just like Yeti or Lochness Monster. Nobody has seen it, but there are different theories about it. You ask this question to a Advaitin, a Vishishtadvaitin and a Dvaitin; and you will get three different answers. The reason is that each one of them has his own concept about what Brahman is. Now, if you ask three Advaitins about the nature of Brahman and its relation to the world, most probably , you will get three different answers. The reason being that they have built their own concepts about how Brahman is related to the world. On the other hand, your own subjective nature is quite evident in every perception, thought and feeling. You don't have to conceptualize about your own nature since it is straightforward. Even when you mis-identify and think of yourself as the body,mind or something else, your real nature is Witness to that thought. This is quite self-evident. My point is that one needs to focus more on the subjective aspect rather than objects or concepts if he is serious about gaining self-knowledge. Regards, Raj. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 --- rajkumarknair <rajkumarknair wrote: > You ask this question to a Advaitin, a Vishishtadvaitin and a > Dvaitin; and you will get three different answers. The reason is that > each one of them has his own concept about what Brahman is. > Now, if you ask three Advaitins about the nature of Brahman and its > relation to the world, most probably , you will get three different > answers. The reason being that they have built their own concepts > about how Brahman is related to the world. Nair-ji, Have you ever wondered why they talk about Brahman and Atman in Gita and upanishads. Is it all a figment of imagination ? Do you think so ? If not, then perhaps we should try to understand the infinite - call it whatever you like but if the scriptures and Gita say there is an all pervading infinite consciousness, there must be some substance to it. It is difficult to see why somebody would concoct this Brahman and Atman and leave the rest of the generations muddled in it. regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 advaitin, Brahmarpanam Brahmhavir <mahadevadvaita> wrote: > > --- rajkumarknair <rajkumarknair> wrote: > > > The reason being that they have built their own concepts > > about how Brahman is related to the world. > > Nair-ji, Have you ever wondered why they talk about Brahman and Atman in Gita > and upanishads. Namaste, An extra-ordinarily inspiring dialogue between Yajnavalkya and Janaka is recorded in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, IVth chapter, 1st and 2nd brahmana-s: http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brdup/brhad_IV-01.html CHAPTER IV First Brahmana INADEQUATE DEFINITIONS OF BRAHMAN Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 Hari OM! Dear Rajji, Thanks for the inputs, your explanation reminds me the story , the story goes like this. Some blind people was examining the Elephant and after examining, the Elephant, some body asked them, How is the Elephant, One of them said Elephant is like a long big rope, another one said it is like rock, another one said it is like a pillar, another one said not it is two hard horn like, another one said no it is like a thin rope. Actually each one was defining about different parts of Elephant but they are right in their own way, but if someone says, explanation is a barrier to know the Elephant, that is what very diffcult to understand! is it not surprising. With Love & OM! Krishna Prasad On 1/12/06, rajkumarknair <rajkumarknair wrote: > > advaitin, Krishna Prasad <rkrishp99@g...> wrote: > > > > Hari OM! > > > > Dear Rajji, > > > > Is Brahman and our own nature different things???? > > > > Krishna Prasadji, > To be frank, I don't know. For me, Brahman is a conceptual entity > just like Yeti or Lochness Monster. Nobody has seen it, but there are > different theories about it. > You ask this question to a Advaitin, a Vishishtadvaitin and a > Dvaitin; and you will get three different answers. The reason is that > each one of them has his own concept about what Brahman is. > Now, if you ask three Advaitins about the nature of Brahman and its > relation to the world, most probably , you will get three different > answers. The reason being that they have built their own concepts > about how Brahman is related to the world. > > On the other hand, your own subjective nature is quite evident in > every perception, thought and feeling. You don't have to conceptualize > about your own nature since it is straightforward. Even when you > mis-identify and think of yourself as the body,mind or something else, > your real nature is Witness to that thought. This is quite self-evident. > My point is that one needs to focus more on the subjective aspect > rather than objects or concepts if he is serious about gaining > self-knowledge. > > Regards, > Raj. Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of > Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: > http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/<http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin\ /> > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > > > > Religion and spirituality</gads?t=ms&k=Religion+and+spirituality&w1=Re\ ligion+and+spirituality&w2=Advaita&w3=Bhagavad+gita&c=3&s=63&.sig=0IbDMqJ8nA8f05\ eAJzstKg> > Advaita</gads?t=ms&k=Advaita&w1=Religion+and+spirituality\ &w2=Advaita&w3=Bhagavad+gita&c=3&s=63&.sig=vzQW0CDYxFxpaHYJAwJiDA> Bhagavad > gita</gads?t=ms&k=Bhagavad+gita&w1=Religion+and+spiritual\ ity&w2=Advaita&w3=Bhagavad+gita&c=3&s=63&.sig=n0FspvlXQlhcYfiiSGvN9Q> > ------------------------------ > > > > - Visit your group "advaitin<advaitin>" > on the web. > > - > advaitin<advaitin?subjec\ t=Un> > > - Terms of > Service <>. > > > ------------------------------ > -- Krishna Prasad .. Yad yad aacarati sreshtah, tad tad eva itaro janah. As the Gita puts it, consistency of purpose and a spirit of dedication and, if necessary, sacrifice, should characterize the new spirit. We Must THE CULTURED GIVES HAPPINESS WHEREVER THEY GO, THE UN-CULTURED WHENEVER THEY GO! - Swami Chinmayanada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 Dear All, Namaste, Sri Krishna Prasad wrote: <<*IF TIME AND SPACE IS TAKEN AWAY WHAT REMAINS IS BRAHMAN!>> * Where will we put "the fellow" who is trying to take the time and space away in order so that Brahman remains? With hari om R. S. Mani Photos – Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover Photo Books. You design it and we’ll bind it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 Dear Sri Purushji, Namaste all Dharma follows the attitude one has and if we are performing Dharma with the attitude of "becoming happy" what I understand, it is a notion. Happiness or as they call Bliss is our swaroopa. It isin this context the intepretation that I read. I shall try and quote from where I read it. Whether you get happiness or not, Dharma must be performed, no doubt. Taking in Refuge is exactly not in Krishna as a Person, but Knowledge that is Krishna itself. I remeber when Swami Chinmayanandaji was passing through his ailment after heart attack, some devotee of his, said "Swamiji, we feel very sorry, as you will soon be leaving us". Swamiji, said, "do you love this bucket of filth, which I will kick off soon, or the Knowledge I am trying to unfold to you all"? Hari Om R. S. Mani Photos – Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover Photo Books. You design it and we’ll bind it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 Hari OM! Dear Maniji, That fellow himself is HE alone ie Brahman alone, without HIS blessings or if you are not HIM we cannot take time and space. Anirvachaneeyam! when you elaborate Brahman, becomes that which it is not. With Love & OM! Krishna Prasad On 1/12/06, R.S.MANI <r_s_mani wrote: > Dear All, Namaste, > Sri Krishna Prasad wrote: > <<*IF TIME AND SPACE IS TAKEN AWAY WHAT REMAINS IS BRAHMAN!>> * > > Where will we put "the fellow" who is trying to take the time and space away > in order so that Brahman remains? > With hari om Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2006 Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 Rajkumar-ji, pranAms. > To be frank, I don't know. For me, Brahman is a conceptual entity > just like Yeti or Lochness Monster. Nobody has seen it, but there > are different theories about it. The nAstika says "There is no Bramhan for I can't see it" The indifferent say: "I don't care whether Bramhan is there or not" The ignorant say "I don't know Bramhan" The jignAsu says "I don't know Bramhan and I want to know Bramhan" The jnAni says "I don't know Bramhan and I do not want to know Bramhan for it is unknowable" > > On the other hand, your own subjective nature is quite evident in > every perception, thought and feeling. No one has seen or can see the *TRUE* subject either, for that matter. And there are different theories about it too! > You don't have to conceptualize > about your own nature since it is straightforward. Even when you > mis-identify and think of yourself as the body,mind or something else, > your real nature is Witness to that thought. This is quite self-evident. > My point is that one needs to focus more on the subjective aspect > rather than objects or concepts if he is serious about gaining > self-knowledge. > The Self (as Atman) is Self Evident. The sruti is *NOT* required to establish the Self Evidence or even the Existence of the Self. The Self Evidence of the Self is evident in all of our daily experiences, as you correctly state. However, what is the Self Evident Self??, is not evident through the usual means of knowledge such as perception, inference etc. In fact, it is due to not realizing the sphere of operation of perception and inference, the ignorant end up employing perception, inference etc in evaluating the Self (that is not available for perception and inference) and hence positively mistaking the Self by superimposing such things as "I am tall", "I am darkI am mortal" etc etc. The knowledge of the Self is purely in the purview of the sphere of operation of the sruti and no other means of knowledge. This is where the scripture provides us with an introduction to our true Self. The sruti tells us that the Atman is the same as the "jagat kAranam bramhan". Only this peculiar knowledge liberates a person. This knowledge that the "Self Evident Self is indeed nothing else but Bramhan alone" can *ONLY* be obtained through the pramAna of the blemishless sruti and by no other means of knowledge. Much less, it is obtainable via any particular experience or any struggle in isolation or via a new discovery by an individual (eurekA!). How can one stumble upon the realization that the Atman is Bramhan? How can one stumble upon Bramhan (or if you prefer, the True Self) for that matter? For the one who is stumbling is also Bramhan and what is stumbled upon is also Bramhan. Much like the wave searching for water? Can the wave ever stumble upon water? The absurdity of the search has to be seen and then *ALONE* it ends. Ends where? In a simple recognition that the same Self Evident Self that was originally mistaken to be the body/mind is indeed none other than Bramhan. There is a good reason why the scriptures talk of Atman and Bramhan, and why there are two sides to the equation "tat tvam asi". regards, --Satyan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.