Why Moksha ?

[Guest guest]

Ram Chandran <ramvchandran > wrote: Namaste Sri Toni:

Honestly speaking, that your statement, "Iswara is the illusory sum

total of all the jivas" seems to imply the English translation of

mAyA as illusion. From the advaitic point of view, Iswara represents

Brahman plus mAyA. As for as I can see, our problem is our inability

to define the unknowable using 'known words and phrases.' This is

unresovable puzzle and how do we resolve this puzzle is the big

question. The scriptures say that faith on Iswara is the only means

for getting rid of this puzzle. Our faith on Iswara can help us to

reach the Pure Brahman (Parabrahman without mAyA) and the only way is

to purify the mind which is the cause of all our problems.

From

Sankarraman

Dear Sir,

Does not the mahavakya, "Tatvam asi," imply the abandonment of the ideas of both the Iswara possessed of the attributes of omniscience, and the jiva floundering under the three states and the five kosas, as unreal, and realize the common substratum, the self ? The concept of Iswara in advaita vedanta seems to be only a working hypothesis to be given up finally lest it should give rise to a duality as Mr Tony has stated .

with respectful regards,

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Mail Beta.

[Guest guest]

> From

> Sankarraman

> Dear Sir,

>

Does not the mahavakya, "Tatvam asi," imply the abandonment of the

ideas of both the Iswara possessed of the attributes of

omniscience, and the jiva floundering under the three states and

the five kosas, as unreal, and realize the common substratum, the

self ? The concept of Iswara in advaita vedanta seems to be only a

working hypothesis to be given up finally lest it should give rise

to a duality as Mr Tony has stated .

>

> with respectful regards,

> Sankarraman

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

The concept of ishwara in advaita vedant is extremely difficlut to

understand. But i beleive it cannot be dismissed as a working

hypothesis. Infact the one of the greatest monist the world has ever

seen Sri Shankara Bhagavad pada himself accepts the concept of

incarnation of the ishwara for the liberation of the Jivas. We

cannot classify Sri Krishna as an exalted jiva isnt it?

 

Swami Vivekananda has raised certain doubts on the very same topic

which are as under.

 

 

1. Is the Mukti, which the Vedanta - sutras speaks of, one

and the same with the Nirvana of the Avadhuta - gita and other texts?

 

2. What is really meant by Nirvana if, according to the

aphorism, "Without the function of creating etc."* (ibid.,

IV.iv.7), none can attain to the fullest Godhead?

 

* "[(Sanskrit)]"--"Having regard to the context which

ascribes the threefold function relating to the universe only to

God, and because the fact of their conscious mental distinction

comes between that function and their liberated state, we have to

conclude that the state of final liberation or Mukti in the case of

men is devoid of the capacity to create, preserve, and dissolve the

universe." So if this capacity is reserved only for God, what is

meant, Swamiji asks, by saying that in Nirvana the human merges

completely into the Divine?

 

But in the later part of his life he himself clarifies this doubt by

the follwoing words.

 

 

Spirit is always free, omnipotent, omniscient. Of course,

under God. There cannot be many Gods. These liberated souls are

wonderfully powerful, almost omnipotent. [but] none can be as

powerful as God. If one [liberated soul] said, "I will make this

planet go this way", and another said, "I will make it go that way",

[there would be confusion].

 

Don't you make this mistake! When I say in English, "I am

God!" it is because I have no better word. In Sanskrit, God means

absolute existence, knowledge, and wisdom, infinite self - luminous

consciousness. No person. It is impersonal. . . .

 

I am never Rama [never one with Ishvara, the personal

aspect of God], but I am [one with Brahman, the impersonal, all -

pervading existence]. Here is a huge mass of

clay. Out of that clay I made a little [mouse] and you made a little

[elephant]. Both are clay. Melt both down. They are essentially

one. "I and my Father are one." [but the clay mouse can never be one

with the clay elephant.]

 

I stop somewhere; I have a little knowledge. You a little

more; you stop somewhere. There is one soul which is the greatest of

all. This is Ishvara, Lord of Yoga [God as Creator, with

attributes]. He is the individual. He is omnipotent. He resides in

every heart. There is no body. He does not need a body. All you get

by the practice of meditation etc., you can get by meditation upon

Ishvara, Lord of Yogis.

 

 

JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA

 

Yours in the lord,

 

Br. Vinayaka

[Guest guest]

Namaste Durga-ji

advaitin, "Durga" <durgaji108 wrote:

>

>

> When the recognition of 'I am Brahman' occurs,

> that is pretty much that, and this occurrence

> does happen in the mind, in the form of the

> akhanda akara vritti. So after that the jnani

> does not loose sight of the fact that 'I am

> Brahman.' That fact has been clearly recognized.

 

> Then what? There is something which is called

> pratibandakha jnanam, that is jnanam with 'obstructions.'

 

Just a quick clarification. I believe the scriptures indicate that

avidya is completely destroyed when there is a recognition of "I am

Brahman" and the recognition of sarvatma bhava (identity with

all). As in the Gita verse 6.29, wherein the Lord says

"see this Self existing in everything, and every-thing in his Self".

 

Acharya Sankara has said (I can't recollect the exact verse):

 

When prior to the realization of identity with all he sees

difference even so little as the tip of a hair in the form "I am not

this" THAT is the state of ignorance (avidya dasa).

 

Given this, it appears to me that pratibandakha jnanam is really

still in the realm of avidya and the person with pratibandakha

jnanam cannot be termed a truly realized person. This is my 2c -

experts can pitch in here.

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

[Guest guest]

Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns > wrote:

Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns > wrote:

Dear Sir,

The concept of ishwara in advaita vedant is extremely difficult to

understand. But i believe it cannot be dismissed as a working

hypothesis. Infact the one of the greatest monist the world has ever

seen Sri Shankara Bhagavad pada himself accepts the concept of

incarnation of the ishwara for the liberation of the Jivas. We

cannot classify Sri Krishna as an exalted jiva isnt it?

Dear Vinayka,

No doubt, the liberated soul does not have the powers of creation etc, which belong only to Iswara. But in the same breath the scriptures also talk of the unreality of the Iswara ultimately. The mahavakya also does not equate the mouse clay with the elephant clay, except that it states that both of them come under the category of name and form, and that the only existent reality is the atman. Perhaps, it is like this: The Iswara confounded to be an external being by the ignorant jiva, is ultimately realized to be none other than the inmost self. Till then the individual thinks that the Iswara is an enlarged anthropomorphic entity like him, having more powers etc. But the powers ingrained in Iswara are not to be understood in a human fashion. The world may be a continuous, uncaused appearance of a one entity which subjectively is termed as jiva, and objectively as Iswara. The denouement is only to realize the sole

reality of the underlying truth. That the jiva is a small entity bereft of the powers of creation etc is only by way of explaining the reality of creation, and not for the purposes of obtaining a liberating knowledge. I am not dogmatically saying that Krishna is an exalted jiva or otherwise, but am pointing out only what is understood by me intellectually, which may be totally wrong. By mere book-knowledge we may not be able to understand all these exalted truths. I am not denying the fact of the concept of Iswara being very profound vis-à-vis the position that Iswara belongs to the realm of Maya, but not being swayed by it as against the jiva identifying himself with the objective world as an individual. Swamy Vidyaranya has clarified this by introducing the concepts of jiva-srishti and Iswara-srishti, the former pushing the individual into bondage, and the latter releasing him from that. In this conncection, may I quote the following excerpts from the

work, “Advaitabodha deepika,” which contains some very profound thoughts on this subject.

.

D.:Master, not only I but all others directly experience

this world of sentient beings and insentient things and take it as

proven and real. How is it said to be unreal?

116. M.: The world with all its contents is only super-

imposed upon the Ether of Consciousness.

D.: By what is it superimposed?

M.: By Ignorance of the Self.

D.: How is it superimposed ?

M.: As a painting of sentient beings and insentient things

presents a scene upon a background.

117. D.: Whereas the scriptures declare that all this

universe was created by the will of Isvara, you say it is by one’s

own ignorance. How can these two statements be reconciled?

118. M.: There is no contradiction. What the scriptures

say that Isvara, by means of Maya, created the five elements

and mixed them up in diverse ways to make the diversities of

the universe, is all false.

D.: How can the scriptures say what is false?

M.: They are guides to the ignorant and do not mean

what appears on the surface.

D.: How is that?

M.: Man having forgotten his true nature of being the all

perfect Ether of Consciousness, is deluded by Ignorance into

identifying himself with a body, etc., and regarding himself as

an insignificant individual of mean capacity. If to him it is told

that he is the creator of the whole universe, he will flout the

idea and refuse to be guided. So coming down to his level the

scriptures posit an Isvara as the creator of the universe. But it is

not the truth. However the scriptures reveal the truth to the

competent seeker. You are now mistaking the nursery tale for

metaphysical truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail Beta.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote:

> Dear Sir,

>

> The concept of ishwara in advaita vedant is extremely difficlut to

> understand. But i beleive it cannot be dismissed as a working

> hypothesis. Infact the one of the greatest monist the world has

ever

> seen Sri Shankara Bhagavad pada himself accepts the concept of

> incarnation of the ishwara for the liberation of the Jivas. We

> cannot classify Sri Krishna as an exalted jiva isnt it?

 

Namaste Br.Vinayaka ji,

 

Just some thoughts on the above subject. There is this famous verse:

 

Ishvara-augrahAt eva pumsAm advaita vAsana..(only first half)

 

It is by the grace of Ishwara alone that a person gets the propensity

to take to Advaita sadhana and accomplish the goal. Right from the

beginning upto the end, at every step, it is the Bhagavad Bhakta that

can walk this path with success. It is with Ishwara's grace that the

sadhana chatushtaya sampatti is acquired.

 

In a metaphysical sense one could view the idea thus: Bandha as well

as Moksha is in the realm of ignorance. It is, in the words of Sri

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, the surrender to Vidya Maya that results in

the jiva's emancipation. He has to carefully free himself from the

clutches of avidya Maya by resorting to the loving care of Vidya

Maya. It is She that frees the surrendered soul from avidya and leads

him to Moksha. Thus, the role of Ishwara is most essentially present

from the beginning to the end.

 

It would be wrong to say that one abandons Ishwara at the ultimate

stage. What is true is that Ishwara remains in the background,

leaving the final stage of the metamorphosis to take place in the

solitide of the Atman. This example might be useful in seeing the

point:

 

A mother's role in a boy's upbringing is undeniable. It is immense.

She gives birth, takes care of him at the young days, sends him to

school, sees that he gets good company, takes care that he does not

fall into evil company, finances his higher education, etc. The boy

grows up and studies for the IAS exam, suppose. She helps him by

giving all possible support to see that his preparation is not

hampered for want of this or that. The boy clears the exam, goes to

the interview. He does well there. Nobody asks him about the mother

whose support has been immense, without which he could not have

reached this stage. Even the boy may not consciously remember this.

But the fact of the Mother's role in his reaching this exalted

position is undeniable. She, the epitome of compassion, does all

this and remains in the background.

 

The role of Ishwara in the jiva's Mukti is akin to this. The more we

contemplate on this, the more we will appreciate the role of

Ishwara. A proof of this is the attitude of True Jnanis towards

Saguna Brahman. In all their cases it has been seen that while

having reached the towering heights of Advaitic Realization, they

have remained unmatched in their Ishwara Bhakti. Bhagavan Ramana is

an example. His voice would quiver and stop vocal expression often

reading the bhakti literature of the Saiva Saints. At the sight of

the utsavamurti of Lord Arunachala, He would stop, join his palms in

devotion and with great fervour apply the prasada vibhuti given by

the archakas. A prasadam delivered by a bhakta from the Madurai

Meenakshi Ambal would send Bhagavan to raptures. Certainly this

cannot be termed a case of their abandoning Ishwara. Infact, their

Ishwara Bhakti will increase manifold after the Advaitic

Realization.

 

Pranams,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

List Moderator's Note: Welcome to the list Sri Nanda and we look forward to your active participation. New members (also existing members) please do not include the previous poster's entire message while sending your replies. Do as it is shown below.

 

Dear Subbu,

In your own example of Mother there is a contradiction. In the case

of the mother as yourself have explained the support and care comes

without the child asking for it. Also you have said that the child

may not even realize it. If Iswara is like that then why ask for him

and be bhakta to him. He should take care of the children just like

the mother takes care. Just like the mother cares even the bad child

who punishes her, Isware should lead and support you even when you

curse him, leave alone bhakthi to him.

 

Taranandanatha.

 

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

> advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns@> wrote:

> > Dear Sir,

> >

> > The concept of ishwara in advaita vedant is extremely difficlut

to

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sankarraman:

 

I am Jeeva, I am Iswara and I am the Brahman - I don't see any duality

as long we understand all the sayings from the sages of the Upanishads.

Please tell me something that is not concept in all that we discussed.

I have noticed that already several others have already answered your

doubts about Ishwara. I want you to refer to the following excellent

article written by Sadaji (message # 1287, 8th May 1999) with the

title - Jeeva, Jagat and Iswara. This will provide you a more detailed

and structured answer and will hopefully remove your doubts.

 

The list has lots of previous discussions on the subject of Iswara and

I strongly recommend you to read before joining Sri Tony and discarding

Iswara as we throw old garments. Fundamentally speaking, Iswara is

always in our hearts and He is a Permanant Citizen. For those who

recognize this, there is no duality, and for others there is duality.

 

Harih Om!

 

Om Tat Sat

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: I also recommend Swami Dayananda's Gita Home Study notes (over

1200 pages) where he extensively describe the role of Iswara.

 

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

>

>

> Dear Sir,

> Does

not the mahavakya, "Tatvam asi," imply the abandonment of the ideas

of both the Iswara possessed of the attributes of omniscience, and the

jiva floundering under the three states and the five kosas, as unreal,

and realize the common substratum, the self ? The concept of Iswara in

advaita vedanta seems to be only a working hypothesis to be given up

finally lest it should give rise to a duality as Mr Tony has stated .

>

> with respectful regards,

> Sankarraman

[Guest guest]

 

Nanda <nandakumarn (AT) hotmail (DOT) com>

 

 

Dear Subbu,

In your own example of Mother there is a contradiction. In the case

of the mother as yourself have explained the support and care comes

without the child asking for it.

Taranandanatha.

 

 

 

 

Sshree Taranandanathaji - praNAms.

 

 

I am sure Shree Subbuji will answer your question in his own style. I just want to mention that in philosophy (particularly in vishShTAdvaita) two types of mother-child relationship is considered - they are called markaTakanyAya and mArjAlanyAya - the monkey analogy and cat analogy.

In the monkey's case the mother does not do much. It is the child's responsibility to hold on to the mother as the mother jumps from branch to the other.

In the case of cat's case, the child does not do much. It is the mother's responsibility to take care of the kittens when there is a danger. The mother holds at the neck and carries the kitten to a safer place.

In the first case, it is the bhakta's responsibility to hold on to the Lord. Hence constant surrenderance is emphasized.

In the second case once the bhakta has surrendered it becomes Lord's responsibility as the mother to take care of the child.

One has to evolve from monkey to cat in the Bhakti.

By the by these two philosophical traditions are called tengalai and vaDahalia in vishShTAdvaita.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Nanda <nandakumarn (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

If Iswara is like that then why ask for him

and be bhakta to him. He should take care of the children just like

the mother takes care. Just like the mother cares even the bad child

who punishes her, Isware should lead and support you even when you

curse him, leave alone bhakthi to him.

From

Sankarraman

Dear Sir,

Yes, that is the surrender attitude inculcated by one of the Vaishnava schools, I think the Thenkalai of Ramanuga, who says that even effort is not necessary for the one who accepts the impeccble ordinance of Iswara. The Vadakalai school, on the other hand, affirms the need for personal effort. Whereas Ramanuga stresses the relevane of Grace, Swamy Desikan gives more accent to personal effort. There is much of writings in the Christian theology regarding effort and grace, ultimately Grace alone being considered to be true. Your reasoning that Iswar should support you when even you abandon him, is correct. But ordinary mortals cannot make such a statement without extinguishing the ego, which insinuates into our psyche whatever path we follow.

with respectful regards

Sankarraman

 

 

 

__,_wi._,___

 

 

Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadanandaji,

 

you said "One has to evolve from monkey to cat in the Bhakti.

By the by these two philosophical traditions are called tengalai and

vaDahalia in vishShTAdvaita" with the monkey and cat mothers example.

 

This is the biggest difficulty with examples. Examples have their

limitations. Even the great examples like ghatAkAsha and mahAkAsha,

rajju sarpa bhrama etc. suffers from their own limitations. In this

mother child example itself, why should it be first monkey

relationship and then cat relationship? Or why not like some other

animal child realationship where the mother leaves the child

immediately after child birth. Neither the child clings to mother

nor the mother cares for the child.

 

Why is the Iswara so insistent that he will look after you only if

you go after him seeking him? Even a cat does it and why not Iswara?

 

Taranandanatha

>

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

 

Nanda <nandakumarn (AT) hotmail (DOT) com>

 

 

 

This is the biggest difficulty with examples. Examples have their

limitations. Even the great examples like ghatAkAsha and mahAkAsha,

rajju sarpa bhrama etc. suffers from their own limitations. In this

mother child example itself, why should it be first monkey

relationship and then cat relationship? Or why not like some other

animal child realationship where the mother leaves the child

immediately after child birth. Neither the child clings to mother

nor the mother cares for the child.

 

Why is the Iswara so insistent that he will look after you only if

you go after him seeking him? Even a cat does it and why not Iswara?

 

Taranandanatha

 

 

 

 

Shree Taranandanathaji - PraNAms .

The examples are to illustrate the point. Iswara does not insist that one should surrender - The problem is due to ignorance of oneself. One does not know ones true nature - and therefore takes oneself something other than oneself as oneself. That is the source of ego. It is the notion about oneself as I am - this - this or this - as everyone's bio data exemplifies. I cannot be this - I being a conscious entity and this being an unconscious entity. These false notions have to be surrendered in order to understand my true nature. Surrenderance occurs only once in the awakening of knowledge that I am Brahman - the infinite mass of consciousness itself. I cannot have understanding that I am that infinite consciousness at the same time I am this and this. That is mutually contradiction. Hence complete surrenderance occurs only once in the awakening of the knowledge of who I am. Until then one is only threatening to surrender as one chants - 'tan man dhan subkuch

teraahai' - When that statement becomes real understanding that is true surrenderance - happens only when I know who I am.

Therefore examples have to be correctly understood. Monkey example illustrates the point that sAdhaka has to keep on surrendering under the true surrenderance really happens or until the ego falls down since it is false.

The cat example illustrates that the surrenderance is complete and full. Since there is nothing more the jiiva can do or there is no more notion of jiiva left even to surrender any more.

Anyway - the point is illustrated. Bhakti or devotion involves surrenderance of oneself at the alter of bhakti - whether it is God or any other object or person. I love this but I want to be separate from this occurs only in transactional love not in pure love. Pure love demands unity with the object of love.

Bhakti for Iswara has to culminate in complete identification with Iswara - for that ego has to surrender - that is the culmination of Bhakti and that is also the absolute knowledge since there cannot be any duality in Bhakti - that is what is called saayujyam.

There cannot be any more I separate from Iswara and that is the advaitic knowledge - sa aatma sa vijneyaH - that aatma the self that I am has to be inquired upon, says the scripture.

I remain hoping that others can provide you more satisfactory answers to your query.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran > wrote:

 

Ram Chandran <ramvchandran > wrote:

The list has lots of previous discussions on the subject of Iswara and

I strongly recommend you to read before joining Sri Tony and discarding

Iswara as we throw old garments. Fundamentally speaking, Iswara is

always in our hearts and He is a Permanant Citizen. For those who

recognize this, there is no duality, and for others there is duality.

Dear Ramachandran,

Thank you very much for your kindly advise to me to read the writings of Dayanandaji and Sadananda, which I shall do surely. I may state that I am expressing only my articulations, which may not find favour with the views of others. I am not being dogmatic in my views. The thrust of what I am trying to state is that Iswara is, according to advaitic teachings, only one's inmost consciousness. So one can find Iswara only in one's consciousness, and not out there. I don't mean to suggest that one should abandon Iswara and all that, except that one's understanding of Iswara should be only as one of Being and Consciousness, which is very beautifully pointed out by Bhaghavan Ramana in the benedictory verse to the work, "Ulladu Narpatu," which reads as follows: " If Reality did not exist, could there be any knowledge of existence? Free from all thoughts, Reality abides in the Heart, the Source of all

thoughts. It is, therefore, called the Heart. How then is one to contemplate it? To be as it is in the Heart, is Its contemplation." I don't have any quarrel with the idea of Iswara. Since Mr Tony made the statement that one should not make much investment in the idea of Iswara, I responded to his statement by referring to the idea contained in the Mahavakyas. One's giving much accent to the idea of Iswara or otherwise is dependent on one's mental dispositions, the same individual also at some point of time being influenced by different ideas. I accept that I am not competent to make dogmatic statements. When one has the unbroken feeling of, " I am," how could one say that there is no Iswara, except that one's approach may be different.

with respectful regards

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Small Business.

 

 

 

Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Mail Beta.

[Guest guest]

..

 

Nanda <nandakumarn (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote: Dear Sadanandaji,

you said "One has to evolve from monkey to cat in the Bhakti.

By the by these two philosophical traditions are called tengalai and

vaDahalia in vishShTAdvaita" with the monkey and cat mothers example.

This is the biggest difficulty with examples. Examples have their

limitations. Even the great examples like ghatAkAsha and mahAkAsha,

rajju sarpa bhrama etc. suffers from their own limitations. In this

mother child example itself, why should it be first monkey

relationship and then cat relationship? Or why not like some other

animal child realationship where the mother leaves the child

immediately after child birth. Neither the child clings to mother

nor the mother cares for the child.

Why is the Iswara so insistent that he will look after you only if

you go after him seeking him? Even a cat does it and why not Iswara?

From

Sankarraman

Dear Sir,

You say that there are so many contradictions in the examples quoted. You must be aware that words, semantics and examples>

>are limited in expressing the apparent inconsistencies of life, the diversities of joy and sorrow courted by the indivduals. We can explain away all these things through various theories like karma etc, the spiritual content of which we may not be knowing. As long as we are satisfied with theories, we cannot go deep into the heart of the matter. Further, our perception of life is only individualistc; we are hoping, anxiously waiting for our goals, little realizing that we are part of a whole. Unless we look at the suffering of the whole of the existence, we cannot sit in judgement of Iswara's actions. Since Iswara does not have all these botherations, what Bhaghavan says is found relevant: The one who finds Iswara to be partial should find out who is that who sees all these inequalities; let him first find himself first. This is not a presumptious advise to you, but is only a loud thinking. The following conversation of a devotee with Mahraj taken from the

book, " I am that," is very illuminating, steering clear of all our ideas of Iswara, world, jnanis, brahman and the witness, and the various ideas of duality and non-duality, all of which give place to a uniciy of the experience of the self in true understanding. ( 24. God is the All-doer, the Jnani a Non-doer )

A day must come when the show is wound up; a man must die, a universe come to an end.

M: Just as a sleeping man forgets all and wakes up for another day, or he dies and emerges into another life, so do the worlds of desire and fear dissolve and disappear. But the universal witness, the Supreme Self never sleeps and never dies. Eternally the Great Heart beats and at each beat a new universe comes into being.

Q: Is he conscious?

M: He is beyond all that the mind conceives. He is beyond being and not being. He is the Yes and No to everything, beyond and within, creating and destroying, unimaginably real.

Q: God and the Mahatma are they one or two?

M: They are one.

Q: There must be some difference.

M: God is the All-Doer, the jnani is a non-doer. God himself does not say: 'I am doing all.' To Him things happen by their own nature. To the jnani all is done by God. He sees no difference between God and nature. Both God and the jnani know themselves to be the immovable centre of the movable, the eternal witness of the transient. The centre is a point of void and the witness a point of pure awareness; they know themselves to be as nothing, therefore nothing can resist them.

Q: How does this look and feel in your personal experience?

M: Being nothing, I am all. Everything is me, everything is mine. Just as my body moves by my mere thinking of the movement, so do things happen as I think of them. Mind you, I do nothing. I just see them happen.

Q: Do things happen as you want them to happen, or do you want them to happen as they happen?

M: Both. I accept and am accepted. I am all and all is me. Being the world I am not afraid of the world. Being all, what am I to be afraid of? Water is not afraid of water, nor fire of fire. Also I am not afraid because I am nothing that can experience fear, or can be in danger. I have no shape, nor name. It is attachment to a name and shape that breeds fear. I am not attached. I am nothing, and nothing is afraid of no thing. On the contrary, everything is afraid of the Nothing, for when a thing touches Nothing, it becomes nothing. It is like a bottomless well, whatever falls into it, disappears.

Q: Isn't God a person?

M: As long as you think yourself to be a person, He too is a person. When you are all, you see Him as all.

Q: Can I change facts by changing attitude?

M: The attitude is the fact. Take anger. I may be furious, pacing the room up and down; at the same time I know what I am, a centre of wisdom and love, an atom of pure existence. All subsides and the mind merges into silence.

Q: Still, you are angry sometimes.

M: With whom am l to be angry and for what? Anger came and dissolved on my remembering myself. It is all a play of gunas (qualities of cosmic matter). When I identify myself with them, I am their slave. When I stand apart, I am their master.

Q: Can you influence the world by your attitude? By separating yourself from the world you lose all hope of helping it.

M: How can it be? All is myself -- can't I help myself? I do not identify myself with anybody in particular, for I am all -- both the particular and the universal.

Q: Can you then help me, the particular person?

M: But I do help you always -- from within. My self and your self are one. I know it, but you don't. That is all the difference -- and it cannot last.

Q: And how do you help the entire world?

M: Gandhi is dead, yet his mind pervades the earth. The thought of a jnani pervades humanity and works ceaselessly for good. Being anonymous, coming from within, it is the more powerful and compelling. That is how the world improves -- the inner aiding and blessing the outer. When a jnani dies, he is no more, in the same sense in which a river is no more when it merges in the sea, the name, the shape, are no more, but the water remains and becomes one with the ocean. When a jnani joins the universal mind, all his goodness and wisdom become the heritage of humanity and uplift every human being.

Q: We are attached to our personality. Our individuality, our being unlike others, we value very much. You seem to denounce both as useless. Your unmanifested, of what use is it to us?

M: Unmanifested, manifested, individuality, personality (nirguna, saguna, vyakta, vyakti); all these are mere words, points of view, mental attitudes. There is no reality in them. The real is experienced in silence. You cling to personality -- but you are conscious of being a person only when you are in trouble -- when you are not in trouble you do not think of yourself.

Q: You did not tell me the uses of the Unmanifested.

M: Surely, you must sleep in order to wake up. You must die in order to live, you must melt down to shape anew. You must destroy to build, annihilate before creation. The Supreme is the universal solvent, it corrodes every container, it burns through every obstacle. Without the absolute denial of everything the tyranny of things would be absolute. The Supreme is the great harmoniser, the guarantee of the ultimate and perfect balance -- of life in freedom. It dissolves you and thus re-asserts your true being.

Q: It is all well on its own level. But how does it work in daily life?

M: The daily life is a life of action. Whether you like it or not, you must function. Whatever you do for your own sake accumulates and becomes explosive; one day it goes off and plays havoc with you and your world. When you deceive yourself that you work for the good of all, it makes matters worse, for you should not be guided by your own ideas of what is good for others. A man who claims to know what is good for others, is dangerous.

Q: How is one to work then?

M: Neither for yourself nor for others, but for the work's own sake. A thing worth doing is its own purpose and meaning, Make nothing a means to something else. Bind not. God does not create one thing to serve another. Each is made for its own sake. Because it is made for itself, it does not interfere. You are using things and people for purposes alien to them and you play havoc with the world and yourself.

Q: Our real being is all the time with us, you say. How is it that we do not notice it?

M: Yes, you are always the Supreme. But your attention is fixed on things, physical or mental. When your attention is off a thing and not yet fixed on another, in the interval you are pure being. When through the practice of discrimination and detachment (viveka-vairagya), you lose sight of sensory and mental states, pure being emerges as the natural state.

Q: How does one bring to an end this sense of separateness?

M: By focussing the mind on 'I am', on the sense of being, 'I am so-and-so' dissolves; "I am a witness only" remains and that too submerges in 'I am all'. Then the all becomes the One and the One -- yourself, not to be separate from me. Abandon the idea of a separate 'I' and the question of 'whose experience?' will not arise.

Q: You speak from your own experience. How can I make it mine?

M: You speak of my experience as different from your experience, because you believe we are separate. But we are not. On a deeper level my experience is your experience. Dive deep within yourself and you will find it easily and simply. Go in the direction of 'I am'.

with warm regards

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

[Guest guest]

> Why is the Iswara so insistent that he will look after you only if

> you go after him seeking him? Even a cat does it and why not Iswara?

>

> Taranandanatha

 

Pranams

Ishwara is looking after you even now.

Surrender to Him simpley means recognizing this and allowing Him the

opportunity to take care of you fully, and asking your ego-sense to

sit tight.

 

Hari Om

Shyam

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Nanda" <nandakumarn wrote:

 

> Dear Subbu,

> In your own example of Mother there is a contradiction. In the case

> of the mother as yourself have explained the support and care comes

> without the child asking for it. Also you have said that the child

> may not even realize it. If Iswara is like that then why ask for him

> and be bhakta to him. He should take care of the children just like

> the mother takes care. Just like the mother cares even the bad child

> who punishes her, Isware should lead and support you even when you

> curse him, leave alone bhakthi to him.

>

> Taranandanatha.

>

 

Srigurubhyo namaH

Namaste,

 

Thanks for the response. As you have later observed rightly,

examples are to highlight certain particular similarities with what

they are compared with. Beyond that it is not proper to stretch them.

 

In the above example, you would notice that the boy deserved all the

care he received. He made use of the environment and put in hard

work and came up. I only pointed out that he might not consciously

recognize the help from the Mother at the time of the interview.

 

Coming to the opposite case, in the case of Ishwara, the Greatest

Care that He has bestowed on humankind is His Teaching in the Form of

the Veda and the Smritis. There cannot be a greater help than this.

This He has made available, like the favourable wind, to all mankind

through appropriate means. As Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa put it,

one has to only unfurl the sails so that the wind takes the ship

along. If one does not do even this much, Ishwara is not responsible

for that. In the Bhagavadgita we have a verse (IX.29):

 

The Acharya introduces the verse thus: Then the Lord has attachment

and aversion since He graces devotees but not others. The answer is

in the negative and is contained in the following verse:

 

samo'ham sarva-bhUteShu na mey dveShyo'sti na priyaH

yey bhajanti tu maam bhaktyaa mayi tey teShu chaapyaham

 

I am the same to all beings. There is none who is hateful or dear to

Me. But those who worship Me with devotion, they are in Me, and I

too am in them.

 

The Acharya comments:

I am analogous to fire. Just as fire does not ward off cold from

those who are distant from it and wards off cold from those who go

near it, I bestow My grace on devotees and not on others. Those who

worship Me, the Lord, with devotion are in Me by nature and not owing

to any attachment on My part. Further, I am in them, by natural

disposition, and not in others. This does not imply that I dislike

the latter.

 

Anandagiri in his gloss clarifies: 'They are in Me' means that 'their

minds are fit for My manifestation' and that 'I am in them' implies

that 'I am intent on gracing them'.

 

You will appreciate that in the Mother example, the mother is ready

to provide all help even to the errant child, but the child, as he

grows up, should be promising. Only then he can get more and more

help even as he utilizes them for his upliftment. And even with an

errant one, the Lord is tolerant to a great extent. Shishupaala was

destined to die in the Lord's hands soon upon his birth. The mother

pleaded with Lord Krishna to spare him. The Lord said: 'I will

tolerate his hundred abuses but not beyond that'. The Lord kept His

word and Shishupaala exceeded the limits of tolerance in the Rajasuya

yaga and the Lord used the chakraayudha and beheaded Shishupaala.

 

The next two verses of the Gita are also worth seeing.

 

Pranams,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "shyam_md" <shyam_md wrote:

> Pranams

> Ishwara is looking after you even now.

> Surrender to Him simpley means recognizing this and allowing Him

the

> opportunity to take care of you fully, and asking your ego-sense to

> sit tight.

>

> Hari Om

> Shyam

>

 

Shyam,

I know what you mean. I was only trying to point at the verbal

jugglery that we are into. First we say that Iswara is like mother-

monkey who will support only when you cling on to him. And then we

say that "Ishwara is looking after you even now". Why are we

contradicting ourselves. Let me say again it is because we are

trying to intellectually articulate upon something which is beyond

intellect.

I fully understand you Shyam.

 

Regards - Taranandanatha.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

> Srigurubhyo namaH

> Namaste,

>

> Thanks for the response. As you have later observed rightly,

> examples are to highlight certain particular similarities with

what they are compared with. Beyond that it is not proper to

stretch them. Shishupaala was destined to die in the Lord's hands

soon upon his birth. The mother pleaded with Lord Krishna to spare

him. The Lord said: 'I will tolerate his hundred abuses but not

beyond that'. The Lord kept His word and Shishupaala exceeded the

limits of tolerance in the Rajasuya yaga and the Lord used the

chakraayudha and beheaded Shishupaala. The next two verses of the

Gita are also worth seeing.

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

Well said Subbu, you have again quoted many more examples like the

fire purifying only those go near it, Shishupaala etc. My point is

very simple. If like the lord describes in the Viswaroopa in

bhagavad geetha everything in this universe is him, (in worldly

terms many bad things also he has alluded to him like 'DyootOham')

why should he worship himself. Or why does He not realise that He

should worship Him. If you are able to tell this to me and if I am

able to tell this to you it is because we belong to a group and we

are ready to listen to others. Why is it that some don't even listen

to us although they are also brahman? Why don't they realise they

need to worship themselves.

 

In your story of Shishupala, why did the lord pardon only when the

mother requested? or why could she pardon only 100 mistakes and not

more than that? It is all because we are limited by ourselves. We

don't realize that we are brahman. We don't resort to mechanisms

which help us do that. We go on and on into this articulation of

that which is unarticulable. It was because lord Krishna was an

avataara that he had to be requested and could pardon only 100

mistakes. That is why Krishna himself was killed by an arrow of a

hunter. That is why Rama had to live in the forest for many years.

We are all brahman. Only when we transcend beyond the articulating

brain can we realize brahman. Brain and language are the biggest

hindrances to moksha.

 

Regards - Taranandanatha.

[Guest guest]

Namaskaram to all,

You all know this story.

a person was walking alone ..

being alone he has usual fear in his mind..

and he thought of the EASHWARA..

when he looked back, he saw 4 foot prints..

two of his and two of presumably EASHWARA..

then the man thought in his mind...it is nice to have the EASWARA with me and I need not be afraid...

on way, he had so many difficulties..

he felt so weak and tired...

he felt like almost dead..

after some time the thought came to his mind...

well...EASHWARA was with me and still i had all these difficulties????

he looked back to find only two foot prints...

then he thought...

Oh...when I had to face difficulties...EASHWARA is missing????

but then some voice told him in very soft voice ...in ears..

son...you see the two foot prints only...because, I was carrying you...

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

we all talk of PRASADA............

but our perception of PRASADA is only some thing sweet, something good, something that is acceptable to us...

Including me, wonder very often, will I have the strength to think that what ever I receive is PRASADA????

god.....give us the strenth...

DHIYO YO NAHA PRACHODAYAT..

namaskaram

 

 

> Why is the Iswara so insistent that he will look after you only if

> you go after him seeking him? Even a cat does it and why not Iswara?

>

> Taranandanatha

 

Pranams

Ishwara is looking after you even now.

Surrender to Him simpley means recognizing this and allowing Him the

opportunity to take care of you fully, and asking your ego-sense to

sit tight.

 

Hari Om

Shyam

 

 

 

 

 

Here's a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers

Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Messenger Version 8. Get it NOW

[Guest guest]

Namaste Subbuji,

Sorry for the delay in replying. I was away from home.

"Nobody asks him about the mother whose support has been immense, without which he could not have reached this stage."

What a profound statement Subbuji!

When a live person who is, mAtR^i devo bhava,( may you consider your mother as God) is forgotten, where is the place for Isvara in our memory? How is it possible for us to see Isvara everywhere? Or recognise Isvara in every manifestation?

In this thread on moxa, more of Isvara has been discussed than the theme "Why moxa?

What is moxa? it is liberation from samsAra.

What is samsara? the cycle of birth and death. Samsara is mithya.

How do we know that the samsara exists? shabdha pramANa.

How and means? By studying vedanta, dharma shAstra and by chitta shuddhi, gaining sadhana catuShTaya sampatti.

But why moxa? When samsara is mithya, then moxa is also mithya?

Please enlighten.

om namo narayanaya

Lakshmi Muthuswamy

 

 

Get your email and more, right on the new .com

[Guest guest]

"If you are able to tell this to me and if I am able to tell this to you it is because we belong to a group and we are ready to listen to others. Why is it that some don't even listen to us although they are also brahman? Why don't they realise they

need to worship themselves."

 

Namaste Taranandanathji,

I am sorry for the the delay in replying to this post, as I was away from home.

I found the above very amusing.

What I write now may be out of context of vedanta discussion, but still I thought i should share to know if the situation is the same elswhere in the world too.

There are many public lectures and talks on vedanta organised by very popular speakers and Swamis at Chennai.

Swami Dayanandaji, Swami omkaranandaji, Vedanta Parthasarathy, and his daughter Sunanda, or Swami Tejomayandaji ........ What I discovered was that there are a group of 4000 people who keep repeatedly attending these talks. I used to wonder why I dont see any new faces. Same old faces I see including myself. For years this has been happening. But the population of Chennai is in millions. I am sure the speakers would love to see new faces among the audience. They must be getting tired of seeing the same old faces. Or may feel happy that the hall is full. A full hall is a source of inspiration for the speaker.

The percentage of increase in the new faces is hardly 1% every year.

Why dont the others realise the value and attend these talks?

When I go to any of these restuarants, I see no old faces only new faces.

durlabham trayamevaitaddevAnugrahahetukaM..

manuShyatvaM mumuxutvaM mahApuruShamshrayaH..vievekchoodamai 3

These are the unique graces in life - human birth, burning dsire for moxa, and the capacity to surrender to mahAtma, these are rare indeed, and where ever they are found it's only due to the grace of Isvara.

om namo narayanaya

Lakshmi Muthuswamy

 

 

Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.