Sumary of views on samadhi.... a request.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Vishal- ji.

 

Please see within .

_______________

 

> Both the jnana and yoga paths ultimately reach a state where only

non-dual unity remains and knowledge and experience merge or dissolve

(as rightly pointed out by Ananda Ji)

 

[Without taking sides on the heated debate about the efficacy of yoga

paths currently raging on the List, let me say this. Whatever the

path, one's ultimate objective is important. Someone can pursue

yogic sAdhana for the purpose of acquiring siddhis. He may end up

just there. If there is an intense desire for liberation (AtmajnAna)

and the requisite preparedness, then Grace will certainly manifest

and show the way culminating in the occurrence of knowledge.]

_____________________

>

> Now this state where only non-dual unity remains is called by

different names, NS being one of them.

>

> My only contention was that this state of non-dual unity is an

absolute must, its impossible to be bypassed.

> It is one of the major milestones in the spiritual journey.

 

[Yes. Non-dual unity is our inescapable real nature. SamAdhi is a

name for it. We are samAdhi.]

______________________

>

> Actually all things like karma, samkaras, dharma, pancha-kosa,

sharira traya, chakras, kundalini, tantra, yoga, siddhi, samadhi,

shiva-shakti lila are all linked.

> One has to take a holistic approach towards all of them.

 

[You do have a good point there and I tend to share your opinion

without any fear of compromising the advaitin in me.]

______________________

>

> But what i found on this list was we were becoming very narrow-

minded, just discussing Shankara Pratipadit Brahma-atmaikya siddhanta

(to the exclusion of the rest).

>

> I know this what this list is for and rest all the above things

are outside the scope.

 

[Let everyone have the opportunity to express within List guidelines

and let us forge ahead together as one family despite our apparent

differences. That we are all here avowedly to promote advaita is a

sign of our strength and unity of purpose.]

 

________________________

>> I belive that this 'intuitive awareness' is present in each and

every particle right from the inanimate objects like rocks (I know

most will disagree), to vegetation, to ants, to animals and to humans.

> This longing for immortality is nothing but the longing of shakti

to unite with shiva (the controller of shakti).

> Shakti emanated from Shiva at the time of maha-sarga. She tries

to unite with him and in that process the whole samsara comes into

being.

> Once she unites with him, it is maha-pralaya.

 

[i have no problem appreciating your grand vision.]

 

______________________

 

> On our individual level, we have kundalini shakti (a spark of

cosmic shakti). She is trying incessantly to unite with Shiva,

resulting in entanglement into samsara.

> Once she reaches sahasrara, she unites with shiva, and that is a

sort of pralaya on our individual level.

 

[i am a Devi bhakta and a regular chanter of LalitA SahasranAma,

Saundarya Lahari etc. I may not be a kundalini adept. However, due

to Her Grace, I have enough of experience to appreciate the truth of

kundalini shakti.]

_________________________

> Some food for thought (just for a change) - Upanishads declare

that knower of Brahman becomes Brahman. If so, is he/she/it able to

cause pralaya or sarga?

 

[in answer, I will limit myself to quoting the following from

BhadrakAli Stuti:

 

"yasyA unmIlite nEtrE, jagadEtad prakaSatE

nimIlitEtu niScEStaM, namastasyai namO namaH"

 

Salutations again and again to Her in whose eyes this whole Universe

shines when they are open and dissolves when they are closed. Not a

good translation, I know.

 

This happens to us ordinary mortals every night. Then, what to speak

of a brahmavid?]

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Nair-ji wrote:

 

[Without taking sides on the heated debate about the efficacy of yoga paths

currently raging on the List, let me say this. Whatever the path, one's

ultimate objective is important. Someone can pursue yogic sAdhana for the

purpose of acquiring siddhis. He may end up just there. If there is an

intense desire for liberation (AtmajnAna) and the requisite preparedness,

then Grace will certainly manifest and show the way culminating in the

occurrence of knowledge.]

 

Namaste Nair-ji,

 

It seems to me one cannot leave Grace out of the equation. If we do so we

may well end up simply arguing over words and methodologies. There a couple

of passages from Ramana Maharshi's dialogues which may be relevant to what

you say and to the ongoing discussion.

 

"Divine Grace is essential for Realisation. It leads one to God-realisation.

But such Grace is vouchsafed only to him who is a true devotee or a yogin,

who has striven hard and ceaselessly on the path towards freedom."

(Talks 29)

 

and..

 

"Talking of the innumerable ways of different seekers after God, Bhagavan

said, "Each should be allowed to go his own way, the way for which alone he

may be built. It will not do to convert him to another path by violence. The

Guru will go with the disciple in his own path and then gradually turn him

into the supreme path at the ripe moment. Suppose a car is going at top

speed. To stop it at once or to turn it at once would be attended by

disastrous consequences.

(Day by Day with Bhagavan, Devaraja Mudaliar).

 

Best wishes to all advaitins,

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

Namaste Subbu-ji,

>

> In the midst of a lengthy discussion on the Bhagavadgita 13th

chaper

> 2nd verse, the Acharya says:

>

> AtmahA svayam mUDho anyAmscha vyAmohayati shAstrArtha-sampradAya-

> rahitatvAt....tasmAT asampradAya-vit sarvashAstra-vidapi

mUrkhavadeva

> upekShaNiyaH.(unquote)

>

> Meaning: Ignorant in himself, he confounds others, devoid as he is

of

> the traditional key (sampradAya) to the teaching of the shastras.

> Ignoring what is directly taught, he suggests what is not taught.

> Therefore, not being acquainted with the traditional

interpretation

> (a-sampradAya-vit), he is to be neglected as an ignorant man,

though

> learned in all shaastras. (unquote)

>

 

I vaguely recollect hearing the term "a-sampradAya-vit" and was

thinking of it yesterday after reading Skanda-ji's post and your

reply today answered my question.

 

Sankara is well-known to be a strong supporter of sampradya and

Skanda-ji's post shed light on how important sampradya is in the

transmission of knowledge and the importance of the Guru-Sishya

relationship.

 

There is another place in the Gita Sankara makes reference to Guru-

sampradAya. Commenting on verse 18.50, Sankara explains that Atman

is directly realizable to those whose intellect has become free from

external appearances and who have obtained the grace of a teacher

and serenity of mind;

 

Then comes this important para emphasing Guru-sampradAya:

//

However, some pandits assert that the intellect cannot comprehend

the entity called the Self since It is formless; hence, complete

steadfastness in Knowledge is impossible.

 

This is truly so for those who have not associated with a

traditional line of teachers (guru sampradAya);

 

who have not heard the Upanisads; whose intellects are too much

engrossed with external objects; and who have not applied themselves

diligently to the perfect means of knowledge.

 

For those, on the other hand, who are the opposite of these, it is

absolutely impossible to have the idea of reality with regard to

empirical objects, which are within the realm of duality involving

the knower and the known, because in their case there is no

perception of any other thing apart from the Consciousness that is

the Self. We have already said how this is certainly so and not

otherwise. It has been stated by the Lord also, 'That during which

creatures keep awake, it is night to the seeing sage' (2.69).

//

 

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Pranams Bhaskar-ji

>

> Pujya Guruji Swami Paramarthananda-ji, is one of the

> foremost exponents of brahmavidya in bharatdesam

> today.

> He has been teaching vedanta at Chennai for over two

> decades.

>

> He received his teachings from Swami Chinmayananda-ji

> as well as from Swami Dayananda-ji.

>

> His students are actively teaching vedanta in

> different parts of India.

> His teaching style I would characterize as lucid,

> simple, very systematic, very detailed and most

> importantly steeped in tradition.

>

> More information about his works, cassettes and mp3,

> books, etc can be obtained for those interested at the

> following websites.

>

> www.yogamalika.org

> www.vedantavidyarthisangha.org

> www.sastraprakasika.org

>

>

> A thousand pranams at the lotus feet of my Guru,

>

> Shyam

 

 

Nmaste Shym-Ji:

 

Thank you for the links:

 

http://vedantavidyarthisangha.org/talks.html

 

I was listening to swami-ji's talk on sarasvti and may be some one

can help me understand the meaning of the phrase "kamalajadahita" (@

Time 4:3 min).

 

Here Swamiji explains this as "kamalajaH dahita" - meaning PuraaNika

lord Brahma's wife

 

Is this correct !? because as we know "dhatR^i" - means daughter.

 

Am I missing something !?

 

Plese cantact me directly off-list because discussion may go beyond

the scope of this list.

 

Thank you

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

[Guest guest]

Nairji writes :

 

("yasyA unmIlite nEtrE, jagadEtad prakaSatE

nimIlitEtu niScEStaM, namastasyai namO namaH"

 

Salutations again and again to Her in whose eyes this whole

Universe shines when they are open and dissolves when they are

closed.

 

Nairji, one of the names of Sri Lalita mahatripurasundari is

 

Unmesha niminishotpanna vipanna bhuvanavali

 

The opening of whose eyes results in creation and closing in

destruction.

 

Since you are a shakti worshipper, Nairji, it gives me great

pleasure to share this verse from the Vigyana Bhairva Tantra -

Vijnana Bhairava means the 'wisdom of bhairava' - it is

an 'agama' coming from the mouth of the supreme principle of the

universe, Lord Shiva... here the guru is Bhairava and the

disciple is Bhairavi, the divine mother Shakti...

 

 

Urdhve Prano By Adho Jivi Viasargatha Paraocharet

Utpathidvitayasthane Bhranaad Bharita Sthitih (verse 24)

(forgive error in transliteration)

 

TRANSLATION

 

THE SUPREME SHAKTI whose nature is to create , constantly

expresses HERSELF upward in the form of exhalation , and downward

in the form of inhalation.

 

By steadily fixing the mind on either of the two spaces between

the breaths, one experiences the state of fulness of Bhairava.

 

Nair-ji, this is the natural 'Ham-sa' mantra - we were ininted into

mantra right when we were in our mother's womb!

 

And strangely enough, sri ramana maharishi also asks us to meditate

on the same ...

 

Ko ham ? who am i ?

 

Naham deham ! i am not this body !

 

so ham ! I am that!

 

what is so ham except the reeverse of hamsa mantra.

 

Once we know this , we can sing along with Tamizzh poet

Bharatiyaar, 'oru sakthi pirakathu moochinale ' - yes! there is

renewed 'energy' in every breath we take!

 

enjoy this interlude!

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr. Yadu-ji,

 

Please pardon the interruption.

 

It may be kamalajadayitA meaning the beloved of the one born from the

lotus (beloved of Brahma).

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir wrote:

 

>I was listening to swami-ji's talk on sarasvti and may be some one

> can help me understand the meaning of the phrase "kamalajadahita"

(@

> Time 4:3 min).

>

> Here Swamiji explains this as "kamalajaH dahita" - meaning

PuraaNika

> lord Brahma's wife

>

> Is this correct !? because as we know "dhatR^i" - means daughter.

>

> Am I missing something !?

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir wrote:

> I was listening to swami-ji's talk on sarasvti and may be some one

> can help me understand the meaning of the phrase "kamalajadahita"

(@

> Time 4:3 min).

>

> Here Swamiji explains this as "kamalajaH dahita" - meaning

PuraaNika lord Brahma's wife

>

> Is this correct !? because as we know "dhatR^i" - means daughter.

>

> Am I missing something !?

>

> Plese cantact me directly off-list because discussion may go beyond

> the scope of this list.

>

> Thank you

>

> Regards,

Srigurubhyo Namah

Namaste,

 

Since you have already raised this question on the List now, may i

provide my understanding, just that others who might like to hear

about it also get the information?

 

The word, in its full form is: kamala-ja-dayitAShTakam.

The meaning is Kamala-ja is 'born from the Lotus (Navel of Lord

VishNu)= Lord Chaturmukha Brahma. His consort, dayitA, is Saraswati.

 

(dayitaH is masculine meaning husband, beloved person, etc.)

 

This hymn, a composition of Sri SacchidAnanda ShivAbhinava Nrisimha

Bharati SwaminaH , the 33rd Jagadguru of Sringeri,(incidentally, Who

built the Bangalore Shankar Mutt, exactly 100 years ago) is addressed

to the Mother Saraswati. In Sringeri, I have seen the Paathashaala

vidyarthis chant this hymn of eight verses every day, sometimes in

the Sri Sharadamba Temple. It has for its refrain: vidyAm shuddhAm

cha buddhim kamalaja-dayite, satvaram dehi mahyam: Of Consort of

BrahmA, quickly grant me knowledge and a pure mind.

 

The word 'dayitaa' is most commonly heard by many of us in the famous

Sri Venkateshwara Suprabhatam: '....SrI-vEnkaTesha-dayite tava

suprabhAtam'.

 

It also occurs, i think, in the Soundaryalahari, somewhere like this:

shiva-dayite! addressing the Mother, Oh Consort of Shiva!

 

This is all i know, Sir, there may not be more from me even off-List.

 

Pranams,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

bhaskar.yr (AT) in (DOT) abb.com wrote:

In Sampradaya, Sankara's Bhashyas are not taken as an independent

authority,

Sampradaya is the authority.

praNAms Skanda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Bhaskar : Your first mail itself indeed, against your wish, opened can of worms :-))

Skanda: Is that so? Well, one can but try. ;-)

Bhaskar : what is that saMpradAya you are talking about here which is not granting

the adequate status to bhagavadpAda's works?? Is there any saMpradAya

existing without its mUlAchArya's teachings?? what this saMpradAya is

going to do when there is any clarification required on shruti purports??

whether this saMpradAya pushing aside bhagavad pAda's works & go by

theories sprout out of some individual supernatural experiences??

Skanda: My good man, can you tell me exactly where in my post that

you derived the above? What "supernatural" experiences are you talking

about? Did I say anywhere that the Sampradaya exists without the Acharya's

teachings? I am afraid you are grossly misreading my post.

Bhaskar : In advaita saMpradAya, if shankara's prasthAna trayi bhAshya is not an

independent authority

Skanda: Perhaps I should have worded it a bit differently. The key word above is

**independent**. When I meant that Sankara's Bhashyas are not taken as an

"independent" authority, and that the Sampradaya is the authority, what I meant

was this: Studying Sankara's works independently from the Sampradaya(the very

vehicle that has brought his teachings thus far) and coming to one's own conclusions

that conflict with the conclusions of the same living Sampradaya is, again according

to the Sampradaya, not the way to go. That's why Sankara's works are not an

**independent** authority. If they were, any Joe Bloe can go and read up on them

and figure out exactly what Sankara was saying. Unfortunately today, many people

do exactly that and therefore come to conclusions that conflict with those of the living

Sampradaya. Sankara's teachings have to be learnt from a teacher within the Sampradaya because only he knows how to interpret the teachings properly since what Sankara meant not just in teachings but also in practice has been handed down to him in disciplic succession starting from Sankara himself. That is what I meant by Sampradaya is the authority.

One of the points of my last post was to address the recent controversies regarding what Sankara actually authored as opposed to what were not actually his works.

Sampradaya never had and still does not have this problem. This is all very recent because many people today don't understand what Sampradaya is and how important it is to Advaita Vedanta.

Like I said in my last post, the guru-sishya relationship in Sampradaya is far more than the guru just lecturing to the disciple. Sankara's disciples lived with him and had first hand contact with him. The relationship Sankara had with his disciples is not something you will get by just looking at the Bhashyas. Not everything can be put down in books. Infact, from what I've seen from the paramparas in the Sampradaya, the relationship is not just words. Similarly, Sankara's grand disciples lived with his disciples and had first hand contact with them, and so on till the present day. Sampradaya believes that whatever Sankara had to offer in terms of achieving the goal of Advaita Vedanta, namely jivanmukta, has been handed down by the Sampradaya to this day. Now you may very well question the link from Sankara down to the present day teachers in the Sampradaya. What if people in the lineages veered from Sankara's "pure" teachings........If that is the case, it only makes

sense that those lineages cannot produce jivanmuktas now can they? And this is

why I brought up the Sringeri parampara as a shining example within the Sampradaya. If the Sringeri parampara is producing jivanmuktas, obviously they and the Sampradaya have got it right now haven't they?

Bhaskar : what was the need for later commentators

sub-commentary on shankara-s sUtra bhAshya...they could have easily floated

their *own* independent works without bothering about Acharya's works is it

not?? Kindly clarify these doubts...

Skanda: Later commentators clarified Sankara's teachings to the best of their

ability. But again, the litmus test for their commentaries was the Sampradaya

during their day. You can be rest assured that there were

probably many rebels or people with questionable commentaries and works

that the Sampradaya simply rejected and so such works just went into oblivion

with no one caring to pass them down. Ofcourse, today is a whole different story....

Anyone with any form of teaching however bogus it is can get disciples and have

his works published by a publishing house, and so such bunkum thrives and

gets handed down by the publisher.....The more controversial it is, the more sales,

the more universal it becomes.

Back in the good old days(way, way back), the Sampradaya was everything

when it came to any school of thought. If you decided to go against Sampradaya,

you had better have been one smart, powerful cookie, because otherwise you would

have been accused of being a guru drohi and your life would be pretty much over.

That's why the other two Vedanta Darshanas that came after Advaita Vedanta

and challenged it were led by powerhouses who ended up starting their own

Sampradayas. Today, anyone can start their own "Sampradaya" so to speak......

All they need is charisma, some half-baked philosophy, ochre robes, a beard, and

they're set. Disciples will flock to them in groves.

And so today, Sampradaya is more important than it ever was.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

Best Regards,

Skanda.

 

 

 

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

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Pranams Subbuji

> Thank you for corrections of Swami

> Paramarthananda-ji's teachings.

> In the Kathopanisad we find these lines

>

> "Atman, when taught by an inferior person, is not

> easily comprehended, because It is diversely regarded

> by disputants. But when It is taught by him who has

> become one with Atman, there can remain no more doubt

> about It. Atman is subtler than the subtlest and not

> to be known through argument"

>

> On a general note, whenever we hear words from a

> Mahatma, esp if it happens to be our Guru, whose

> teaching we freely utilize to help us in our own

> selfunderstandinf, we should with humility try to

> understand the import of their nectarine words,

> instead of jumping to contradict them.

> Only then can there be learning.

> "tad viddhi pranipatena pariprasnena sevaya" is what

> Bhagwan Krishna says in his teachings.

> Even if we don't render service nor surrender, the

> least we can do is try to understand their benevolent

> and freely available advice. Water always flows from

> above below, and so it is with knowledge.

> Scholarship and learning are hence different entities

> - scholarship is relatively easy to be had without the

> right attitude, but for learning you require a mind

> which accepts its current state of ignorance.

 

 

Srigurubhyo NamaH

 

Namaste Dear Shyam ji,

 

Thanks for the above response. Thanks also for those exalting words

above. I have often recognized that i am very low in Bhakti. It is

only by His Grace that i can hope to grow in Bhakti.

 

While almost all of the observations made by you in the above post

have been addressed by other members in other posts and myself in the

latest post to Sri Bhasker ji, (especially the 'time-bound'

liberating experience of the Timeless Absolute along with the

reasoning of its being in the time-inescapable vyavaharic plane), i

shall confine myself to making some observations about the

term 'anubhUti', 'experience'.

 

At the outset, let me tell you with all truthfullness that I regard

Swami Paramarthananda ji as the best exponent of Vedanta in English

today. I have heard Swami Chinmayananda's discourses in Bangalore

and his last ever series in Bangalore just before his end was also

attended by me. As for Swami Dayananda ji's lectures, apart from one

recorded 'nAntaH prajnam' series and his live one during his latest

visit to Bangalore, i have not much exposure. I have definitely

enjoyed these. But with Swami Paramarthananda ji, the case is

entirely different. It was a case of 'love at first hearing'. I

have with me his Mandukya (80 hours) and Katha up. (some 40 hours)

and portions of Panchadasi tapes. I listen to these every day for at

least one hour (some days two lectures of an hour each) and the

current cycle is the seventh or eighth of these. It has become an

addiction. Even as a person he is such a fine individual that it is

impossible for one to not to have a feeling of natural affinity

towards him. I owe my understanding of the Mandukya and the Katha

Upanishads almost entirely to his lectures. My humble Pranams to

him. Excepting a few but nonetheless vitally important concepts, i

have absolutely no objections to or hesitation in imbibing what he

teaches.

 

Let me touch upon one point you made. You equated 'understanding'

with 'aparoksha anubhuti'in addressing Vishal ji's objection. Fine.

But if that is the meaning 'understanding'ultimately conveys, why is

there a meticulous, counscious, avoiding of the word 'experience'?

We have seen several instances where Acharya Shankara freely

uses 'anubhava' in the bhashyams. After all, 'experience' or 'direct

realization' are words that are the most naturally fit ones to

express the sense of 'anubhava'. Why feel shy of using that

expression, if that is what is meant by 'understanding' anyway ?

After all, neither the Upanishads nor the Acharya have decreed

against using that term with respect to direct realization.

 

In the VivekachUDAmani, we have a verse (no. 475):

 

svasya-avidyA-bandha-sambandha-mokShAt

satya-jnaana-Ananda-rUpa-Atma-labdhau |

shAstram yuktiH deshikOktiH pramANam

cha antaH-siddhA svAnubhUtiH pramANam ||

 

The overall meaning is: in the matter of freeing oneself from the

ignorance-born bondage and attaining the True state of sat chit

Ananda, the pramAnam, authoritative means are: Scripture, reasoning,

the Guru's teaching AND THE EXPERIENCE ONE INTERNALLY HAS (of the

freedom from ignorance and that of one's Brahmanhood). If an

experience of one's true Self is impossible to be had, why would the

Acharya say this above and in the various bhashyams? In fact the

scripturally accepted liberating experience of 'akhandAkaara vritti'

is the one that has the Self for its content. It is this vritti that

destroys avidya and liberates the person once and for all. It is

this experience that is an unmistakable, unique one that the person

has that is the proof incontrovertible for himself to know beyond

doubt that he is free(d) indeed.

 

I am sure the such an ace scholar in Sanskrit that Swami

Paramarthananda ji is and the opportunity he has had in studying the

Bhashyam in its original and even expounding it, this vital point

would not have been missed by him. I have often wondered if he is

under any compulsion to not to use the word 'experence' with respect

to the ultimate liberating saakshaatkaara, or Brahma/Atma darshanam.

 

Incidentally, in the 'tad viddhi praNipAtena' verse 34 of the Gita IV

chapter that you quoted above, the Jnanis are spoken of as 'tattva-

darshinaH'. The Acharya in the commentary makes a very significant

observation that is extremely relevant to our above discussion:

(quote): jnAnavanto api, kechit yathAvat tattva-dharshana-shIlaaH,

apare na, ato vishinaShTi 'tattva-darshinaH' iti. (unquote) Meaning:

Some only, but not all, KNOW AS WELL AS REALIZE the truth. By this

the Lord means to say that that knowledge alone which is imparted by

those who have realized the truth- and no other knowledge - can prove

effective.(unquote). It looks like this line is exactly meant for the

situation that we have on hand. It appears that the Acharya has

sensed the confusion that failing to use the appropriate term could

lead to. Evidently the Acharya makes a distinction between

the 'knower' paroksha jnani and the 'realized' tattva-darshi

aparoksha jnani. Will not the express usage of the

term 'understanding' and the express denial of 'experience' restrict

fatally the import of the Vedantic teaching?

 

I think the room for objection arises not just from the use of the

word 'understanding'. But the emphatic comment that follows that to

deny 'direct realization' 'experience' 'anubhava' seems to me, in my

humble opinion and respect to the Swami ji, that offers occasion for

the adverse comments raised by various quarters.

 

Since we have analysed the problem threadbare and have known it

thoroughly, i think we can move on to other topics.

 

With humble pranams,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

ymoharir <ymoharir > wrote: Here Swamiji explains this as "kamalajaH dahita" - meaning PuraaNika

lord Brahma's wife

Shri Dr.-ji Nmaskar

The stotra is "Kamalaj Dayita Stotra", as mentioned in the web and not

"KamalajaH dahita" as referred by you.

As far as I understand, Duhita is a daughter and Dayita is wife.

As regards to pravachan of Swamiji which I heard from the link given ,

it is my opinion that it is good for those who spare their valuable

time from busy schedule of work to worship God.

Anil

 

 

All-new Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

[Guest guest]

Srigurubhyo NamaH

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

 

Humble praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Thanks a lot for taking time to share your thoughts with me...Most of the

members in this list, thinking that this is a heated discussion in a

hostile atmosphere...but sincerely I dont think so..in my opinion it is

sharing our thoughts with different perspective on a common

premise...nothing personal here...I am relatively *new* & raw in shankara

philosophy where compared to *puNdita mahAjana* in this list....But

ofcourse our style of discussion sometimes gives an impression that there

is lot of fire in it..but I can assure that my only intention is to do the

discussions in a friendly atmosphere...

 

And now, let us come back to the topic...

 

Subbu prabhuji:

 

Just one observation regarding 'anubandha-chatushtaya': This, as per a

dictionary of Vedantic terms, means: 1.adhikArI, 2. viShayaH, 3.sambandhaH

and 4. prayojanam. This is, in any work on shastra, the person who is fit

to take up this study, the subject matter expounded in the work, the

relationship between the person and the subject matter and the relationship

between the subject matter and the prayojana and finally the substantial

benefit that is promised by the work= - these are to be explicitly or

implicitly discernible. This is the 'anubandha-chatushtaya' generally

spoken of in shastra.

 

bhaskar :

 

thanks for the information prabhuji...

 

Subbu prabhuji:

 

It is possible that you are meaning the following, but using the wrong

terminology:

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, I was mistaken...thanks for correcting me prabhuji.

 

Subbu prabhuji:

 

(These refer to the various 'ingredients' that an 'adhikaraNam' will

contain. To briefly state: there is the spelling out of the main subject,

the doubt, the primafacie view, the reply to it, the benefit

arising out of taking the latter view, the connection between the earlier

adhikaranam and the present one, the final accepted view - these are the

items that are contained in an adhikaraNa.)

 

bhaskar :

 

again, thanks for the details about adhikaraNa...now, what would you think

about the adhikaraNa under discussion...what is the main vishaya (main

subject), saMshaya (doubt), pUrvapaxin's view, the reply by siddhAntin &

verdict (nirNaya) that is arrived...as far as my knowledge goes, I have

shared my understanding of this adhikaraNa in my previous mail...if you

feel any special emphasization given on *kAla* of brahmajnAna in any of the

*ingredients* of this adhikaraNa kindly let me know...

 

Sri Subbu prabhuji:

 

I am not talking about patanjali's method. The main point in highlighting

that sutrabhashya is to show that the Brahmadarshana or saakshaatkaara is

an event happening in time.

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji please note in this adhikaraNa, *event* is not the

vivikshitAmSha...it is a passing comment by bhagavatpAda to brief &

substantiate *brahman existence* to the pUrvapaxins...Anyway, what do you

mean by brahma *darshana* or sAkshAtkAra here?? do you mean to say here

brahma darshana is like a *slide show* for yOgins in NS ??

 

Moreover, in the experience of NS, this *event* not only has *from* time,

it has *to* time also...On this day, from 7 AM to 9.30 AM I was established

in brahman & then came out to do business as usual in this jagat:-)) is it

not???

 

Sri Subbu prabhuji:

 

You have repeatedly avoided this aspect since you have held from the

beginning that

brahma anubhava is kAlaatIta.

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, even now my contention is same, for the reasons you yourself defined

below.

 

Sri Subbu prabhuji:

 

While Brahman consciousness is undoubtedly transcending time, 'sarvadA

vartamAna svarUpatvAt'

(Eternally existent nature), the point to be noted is, the saakshaatkara

that marks enlightenment and liberates the sadhaka is decidedly an event in

time.

 

bhaskar :

 

when you are talking about Atma jnAna it is definitely not the *talk* of

vyavahAra...An ajnAni may think that this jnAni has realized THAT on such &

such date & time etc. Pls. note it is not his first hand experience & it is

only concoction...and a jnAni who has realized the ultimate, according to

shAstra transcends the very notion of time & space & cannot give *time

frame* for his realization...So, from both transaction & transcedental view

points bringing *brahma jnAna* within the boundaries of *time & space* is

simply against common senses / illogical / shruti viruddha.

 

Sri Subbu prabhuji:

 

This point is made clear in that sutrabhashya by the word 'samrAdhana

kAle'. You will appreciate that

in Advaita both bondage AND liberation are in the vyavahAric plane.

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, ofcourse, but you cannot talk in same style when you are narrating

*jnAna* enshrined in scriptures when the stress on shAstra drushti...that

is the reason why very often we find statements like *from transactional

view point OR from pAramArthik /absolute view point* in shankara bhAshya.

You cannot sing both songs in a same tone:-))

 

Moreover, you cannot take everything for granted just putting all the stuff

in the vyavahArik place...there is a systamatic procedure (adhyArOpa

apavAda) adopted by shruti to teach us Atma jnAna. It is not fair to the

method of teaching itself to claim that any type of assorted descriptions

in vyAvahAra is acceptable!!! After all, ultimately it is through the help

of those transactional descriptions we have to finally transcend vyAvahAra

...is it not prabhuji. If the manual of brahma jnAna itself is wrong,

methods suggested for erection & commissioning it self faulty where is the

question of effective usage of tool prabhuji :-))

 

Sri Subbu prabhuji :

 

And vyAvahAric plane is essentially kAla-antargata (within time).

 

bhaskar :

 

but prabhuji, we are not talking about vyAvahAric mundane *experience*here

....it is about brahmAnubhava which badly requires the narration from

shAstra drushti. And if you see this jnAna from that view point, you will

come to know that jnAna of our svarUpa is not time bound, temporary

experience.

 

Sri Subbu prabhuji :

 

The first hand experience of the KAlAtIta Brahman is had by the sadhaka in

the culmination of the sadhana within time-frame.

 

bhaskar :

 

again, this time frame is not logical and shAstra viruddha. It is

justifiable neither from the common man's view point nor from the jnAni's

view point. Hence it is baseless.

 

Sri Subbu prabhuji:

 

If this is not accepted, bandha-moksha vyavasthaa in Advaita is impossible

to be accounted for.

 

bhaskar :

 

avidyayA apAya *yEva* para prAptiH na arthAntharaM...shankara explicitly

says mOksh is nothing but removal of our ajnAna on our svarUpa..& it is not

a separate thing that can be achieved/perceived at some point of

frame...Hence it is possible to *account* the bandha mOksha vyavahAra

without putting time barriers to Atma jnAna.

 

Sri Subbu prabhuji:

 

The purpose of bringing that sutra for the second time was precisely to

point to this. I noticed, as expected, that you had glossed over this on

the first instance. The second time also i expected this to happen, and it

turned out to be true. Hence the explicit explanation as above.

 

bhaskar :

 

this special emphasization (or should I say cheap tactics) was not at all

required had you given your mind to vivikshitAmsha of that adhikaraNa.

 

Sri Subbu prabhuji:

 

Sincerely speaking, this point is not known to many people. Only those who

have had the experience of enlightenment can tell others about this. In

very rare cases, some extremely intelligent scholars

of high caliber get to know this subtle point and bring it out in their

writings.

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, I openly admit I am not a brahmavit nor I have razor edge like

intellectual scholarship...Scholars/jnAna nishTa-s like you have to educate

me....

 

Sri Subbu prabhuji:

 

Here again, you have played out the game exactly the way i expected.

 

bhaskar :

 

I appreciate your good anticipation prabhuji :-)) sometimes I do play like

that while playing the chess to get the opponents mind...but not here in

brahma jignAsa :-))

 

Sri Subbu prabhuji:

 

I have read that book. I am not implicating that it is in any way

advocating patanjali shastra.

 

bhaskar :

 

Then I must say we have no business to talk about patanJala way of dhyAna,

samAdhi when we are talking about vaidika dhyAna & samAdhi.

 

Sri Subbu prabhuji:

 

I thank you for recognizing that stilling the senses is to be taken in the

light of legitimate vedantic sadhana.

 

bhaskar :

 

I have already said several times upto the stage of *pratyAhAra*

(withdrawing the senses from external things) is acceptable to vaidik

method of practice...whats new in it??!!!

 

Sri Subbu prabhuji:

 

This is precisely what is spoken of in that 'dreaded' Vivekachudamani

verse where the REASON is spelt out

explicitly: 'otherwise, (the precise (sphuTam) saakshaatkaara of Brahman)

is impossible when the mind is in movement and thereby becomes tainted by

extraneous thoughts - na anyathA chalatayA

manogateH pratyayAntara-vimishritam bhavet - 366 latter half).

 

bhaskar :

 

I dont know what is the relevance here...we are talking about jnAna, time

frame etc. now the topic has been changed & is about stilling the mind &

for that support from VC....if you want to discuss VC verses in the light

of shankara's prasthAna trayi bhAshya, we can do so under a separate

thread..but now, let us not digress from the main topic of this thread...

 

Sri Subbu prabhuji:

 

It is fine if your Paramaguruji advocates the need for Adhyatma Yoga with a

strong dose of stilling the mind. But it is anathema if the Vivekachudamani

says the same thing. The only stinging word is Nirvikalpa samadhi. I

remember a kannada saying: aLiya antha heLade magala gaNDa antha heLuvudu'

The meaning is: A person does not want to refer to his son-in-law with this

common name. He however refers to that individual by saying: my daughter's

husband.

 

bhaskar :

 

I dont know what exactly is the problem here...ofcourse we do have to

withdraw our senses from external objects to concetrate (dhAraNa) ...it is

all about concentration of the mind on the svarUpa/self after withdrawing

it from the outer objects...this is also called adhyAtma yOga...and it has

also been told that this adhyAtma yOga is not like the other type of

meditations (like PY) which are of the nature of *kartru tantra* (reference

kartum, akartum, anyathA kartum...see sUtra bhAshya) that which depends on

the will and wish of the doer. Observing the facts as it is by

concentrating the mind on it to cognize it in its true perspective (samyag

drushti)....So, these things cannot be comparable to show me it is *aLiya

alla magaLa gaNda*...Please note Kartru taNtra jnAna is not *aLiya*

(son-in-law) nor vastu tantra adhyAtma yOga *magaLa gaNda* (daughter's

hustand)...here to equate :-)) Hope my position is clear here.

 

Sri subbu prabhuji:

 

Bhaskar ji, the bhashya for these mantras is clear that what makes these

mantras operative is the substantial upasana that has preceded it and is

present during its pendency. Let me quote the relevant bhashya vaakyams

first and laster give the English translation:

 

bhaskar :

 

thanks again for taking time to type out the whole bhAshya...but it is to

be noted it is not meant for any kartru tantra dhyAna as you

interpreted...(infact, I heard from my guruji during bhAshya shAnti that in

the sub-commentary anandagiri said that this praNavOpAsana is meant for

krama mukti) it is once again vastu tantra dhyAna which shankara

insisted...see for example 2.2.5 where shankara says AtmAnaM pratyaksha

rUpaM *yushmAkaM *sarvaprANinAM cha* what do you mean by yushmAkaM as well

as *sarvapANinAM* here?? definitely the purpose of this bhAshya would not

be served if it is meant for some static state of mind ....Moreover, it is

further confirmed that all these methods are imagined (taddarshanOpAyascha

yOgaH dhanurAdhyupAdAna kalpanayA...shankara before third muNdaka) & taught

by shruti just to drive home the point that true nature of ours to be

realized through vivEka of sarvAtma bhAva...what is the appropriate stand

of scriptures on meditator?? dhyAyEtieve, lElAyatEva....as if he is

meditating etc...

 

Pranams,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Anilji and subbuji :

 

Thanx a million for your responses!

 

anil-ji, you are right in your observation . Duhita does mean

daughter !

 

Ushas , the vedic deity (dawn) who is the daughter of the Dyaus of

Heaven divó duhitâ (e.g. RV 6.64.5).

 

Another meaning for "duhita" is milkmaid!

 

 

This note is for our beloved Subbuji !

 

Subbuji ! it is always a pleasure to read your great explanations .

How can you even say you are 'low in bhakti"? It is by Baharati mata

of Sringeri's Divine 'anugraham' and your Guru's vara prasadam you

are able to offer such 'padarthas and bhavarthas' at a moment's

notice. -Thank Vagdevi for bestowing on you both 'medha'

and 'pratibha' shakti !

 

Yes ! Dahita means 'beloved 'or wife (spouse) !

 

for example , in Srimad bhagvatam ,

 

jayati te 'dhikam janmana vrajah

srayata indira sasvad atra hi

*dayita* drsyatam diksu tavakas

tvayi dhrtasavas tvam vicinvate

 

["The gopis said: O beloved, Your birth in the land of Vraja has

made it exceedingly glorious, and thus Indira, the goddess of

fortune, always resides here. It is only for Your sake that we, Your

devoted servants, maintain our lives. We have been searching

everywhere for You, so please show Yourself to us." (Srimad-

bhagavatam 10.31.1)]

 

here , the gopis are addressing Sri Krishna paramatma as 'dayita' or

beloved!

 

In Ramayana also word 'dayita' is used to refer to beloved brother

of Sri Rama ( For example - Bbharata)

 

 

in Saundarya lahari , the actual phrase used is Isana dayIte

beloved /wife of shiva)

 

Vibhati tvan-netra-tritayam idam *Isana-dayite*

 

Oa relaqted thread , sri ramji is absolutely right - time to take a

deep breath and take a pause and contemplate on the following

upanasidic statement which occurs in Katha, Mundaka etc ...

 

 

Kathopanishad 1.2.23 says-

 

'nAyamAtma pravacanena labhyo

na medhayA na bahunA zrutena,

yame vaiSa vRNute tena labhya-

stasyaiSa AtmA vivRNute tanUM svAm.'

 

God is NOT known through the study of scriptures,

nor through subtlety of the intellect nor

through much learning.

 

WHOM the Lord CHOOSES (Out of His causeless Grace) by him alone is

God is attained, verily unto him does the Supreme reveal His true

Being.

 

And the very first verse of Adi shankara bhagvadapada's nirvna

shatakam says

 

Mano budhya ahankara chithaa ninaham,

Na cha srothra jihwe na cha graana nethrer,

Na cha vyoma bhoomir na thejo na vayu,

Chidananada Roopa Shivoham, Shivoham

 

 

I am not mind, nor intellect, nor ego,

nor the reflections of inner self (chitta). [more]

I am not the five senses. [more]

I am beyond that.

I am not the ether, nor the earth,

nor the fire, nor the wind (the five elements).

I am indeed,

That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva,

love and pure consciousness.

 

Sri GURAVE NAMAHA !

 

PS - i thank sri Lakshmiji for introducing me to Swami

Paramarthananda - his caseetes on Srimad bhagvad gita -chapter 8 is

a veritable treasure . What is encouraging is he is the

least 'political' of prsent day swamis.

 

 

advaitin, Anil <selfanil wrote:

>

>

>

> ymoharir <ymoharir wrote: Here Swamiji explains this

as "kamalajaH dahita" - meaning PuraaNika

> lord Brahma's wife

>

> Shri Dr.-ji Nmaskar

>

> The stotra is "Kamalaj Dayita Stotra", as mentioned in the web

and not

> "KamalajaH dahita" as referred by you.

>

> As far as I understand, Duhita is a daughter and Dayita is wife.

>

> As regards to pravachan of Swamiji which I heard from the link

given ,

> it is my opinion that it is good for those who spare their

valuable

> time from busy schedule of work to worship God.

>

> Anil

>

>

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin, J Skanda <skandaj2000 wrote

Dear Sri Skanda,

Genuine Vedantasampradaya plays a very vital role during the

journey of a sincere seeker. This aspect has been stressed again and

again by you for the good of the readers.

I have a small doubt. Is it that the sampradaya of teaching

Sri Sankara's commentaries is maintained only by the Pitadhipathis of

the four or five Muths in the name of Sri Sankaraor the devotees of

the Muths ? Is it necessary for a seeker to become a disciple of the

Pontiffs of the Muths for Atmaj~jAna? Are there srotriyas and

Brahmanishtas who do not belong to any of the above said Muths and

yet teaching Sri Sankara's commentaries in the genuine sampradaya

tradition.Their disciples are also carrying the tradition of teaching

Sri Sankara's commentaries to genuine and sincere seekers.There are

many many Jivanmuktas who are outside the framework of the Muths and

who are a beacon light to sincere seekers. Are they asampradayis

because they do not belong to any of the Muths?I will be very

grateful to you if you could clarify my doubt.

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

>

>

>

>

> Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and

30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

>

>

[Guest guest]

bhaskar.yr (AT) in (DOT) abb.com wrote:

>

> Moreover, in the experience of NS, this *event* not only has *from* time,

> it has *to* time also...On this day, from 7 AM to 9.30 AM I was

> established

> in brahman & then came out to do business as usual in this jagat:-)) is it

> not???

>

> ************************************

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. It is not Bhaskar-ji. What you say applies perfectly to deep sleep

but would not apply to Nirvikalpa Samadhi at all. The two (Deep Sleep

and Nirvikalpa Samadhi) are very similar but also like Night and Day.

Deep sleep is entered unconsciously by the mind and the mind comes out

unconsciously and becomes conscious in the waking state. Nirvikalpa

Samadhi, on the other hand, is entered into consciously by the mind and

the mind is absorbed into pure consciousness that is Sat-Chit-Ananda,

and it comes out consciously thus fully understanding the nature of

unbroken, continuous, and perpetual consciousness that is pure

being-awareness, and bliss which underlies all states and modifications.

 

Namaste

Love to all

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Pranams subbu-ji

 

Thank you for your response.

 

I am happy that Swamiji's teachings have been of some

use to you. Inspite of that you could not resist a

joke about "a man knowing there are 4 vedas" in

response to a post which simply was a reproduction of

His words by dear Prof-ji.

 

"Gurur-eva param brahma, tasmai syhri gurubhyo namah

 

In any case, to each his own.

 

I continue to respect your scholarship - i know it

comes from a level of commitment and effort, which

comes only to a chosen few.

 

 

With regards to the discussion about experience - i

would not equate selfrealization with selfexperience.

Selfrealization is the realization about - well -

myself - it is a realization that I am the very vastu,

the substratum. So there is no need to equate it with

any experience. Can "you" experience "yourself"? the

self is ever the subject, the witnesser - this has to

be realized. This self neither does anything nor

experiences anything - this has to be realized or

understood. this is what selfrealization is all about.

 

 

With regards to tat tvam asi being a injuntion to

meditate upon, Bhagwan Sankara couldnt have made it

any more clear in these lines from the Upadesha

Sahasri

 

18.9

(objection)

Absolute liberation does not arise when one is told

tat tvam asi. One should therefore have recourse to

the repetition (of the idea I am Brahman) and support

it with reasoning...

18.15

No one is seen freed from the distress of this

transmigratory existence simply by understanding the

meaning of the sentence

 

(Sankara's answer)

18.19

This is not so.

And then proceeds an extensive exposition about how

ideas such as these are totally false - it is greatly

worth reading this entire section of the up. sahasri

to improve one's understanding about this subtle

truth.

 

You yourself brought up the example of a sweet mango

and Nair-ji repeated that. This is not a new

objection. Please read, again from the Up. Sah.

 

18.201

(objection)

The Bliss of liberation is not obtained after

ascertaining the meaning of the sentence (tat tvam

asi) unlike the satisfaction which is felt by

eating.(in today's terms - sweet mangoes - SS!)

(Sankara's reply)

Indirect knowledge it is true is the result produced

by the sentences regarding the non-Self but it is not

so in the case of those regarding the Innermost self.

It is on the other hand direct and certain knowledge

like that in the case of the tenth boy.

 

How much more clear should we expect Bhagwan Sankara

to be!!!

 

 

For those still unclear about the meaning here

when we talk of experiencing it is always in regards

to the nonself. So when you tell me a mango is sweet I

have to take your word for it, unless i eat it. Why?

Because the mango is something other than me.

So for ne to experience the mango a vrtti in my mind

will be formed when my senseorgans come in touch with

the fruit and my intellect recognizes that vrtti as a

"mango" if it has tasted a mango before, or as some

fruit unless taught that it is a mango.

 

But here the vastu some people are "waiting to

experience like a juicy ripe mango fruit" is Me, the

very self, who is ever present.

 

Again in this answer note the example of the tenth man

again.

Does the tenth man need a trance to know temporarily

who he is, to temporarily "experience" himself, so as

to enable him to know that he alone is the tenth man

before coming to a firm knowledge that "I am that"

 

Why is analysis needed?

To remove false conceptions I have - about what -

again about Me.

I am ever present - in fact i am the only thing that

is present.

How then can i wait to "experience myself" at a future

date??

Brahman experience and selfexperience cannot be two

different things.

If there is an experience there has to be a

experiencer and then that experiencer will decidedly

be different from the experience. There is no way out

pf this, no matter how many subglosses of commentaries

we read and take recourse to.

 

As Sunder-ji in his reply correctly stated

Yoga is subject to decay and destruction -

vardhate,apakshiyate,vinashyati, etc - something

noneternal as you well know cannot "produce" something

eternal. Sunder-ji is right, the best that yoga can

ever manage is a transient state.

 

Again according to Sunder-ji there are two paths

mentioned in the Yoga Vashista.

First of all Yoga Vashishta is a voluminous book, in

which repeatedly and repeatedly, over a hundred times

it is reemphasized that selfknowledge and vichara is

the only means to liberation(unless the translation by

Swami Venkatesananda I read has some major defects)

There is mention of kundalini in one of the stories of

Sikhidwaja, and one may take that as an endorsement of

the path of kundalini yoga as an independent means of

achieveing moksha - as far as i am concerned there is

only one path - that is the path of knowledge. The

Purusha suktam clearly says

 

Vedaham etham purusham mahantham.

Aadithyavarna thamasa parasthath.

Thamevam vidwan amrutha iha bhavathi.

nanya pandhaa vidhyathe ayanaaya. 2-2

 

I know that great Purusha,

Who shines like the sun,

And is beyond darkness,

And the one who knows him thus,

Attains salvation even in this birth,

And there is no other method of salvation.

 

 

The Upanishads many times mention knowledge as being

the only gateways to liberation. Anyone is welcome to

hold alternative views and I am not going to oppose

that at all. Just so those views are not thought of as

being "vedantic."

 

The Upanisahds say "by the mind alone is to be known"

or "it is known by the intellect" and then again they

talk about the vastu being relaized only when the

intellect is still

How to reconcile this?

These can be reconciled if we understand that the self

is ever evident. Forget about becoming evident only in

a trance, it is never ever nonevident.

 

Everything else that I can witness and objectify is

nonself. Can i look" at mind - yes. Can i look" at my

intellect - yes. Once all these are negated as being

the nonself, I understand that I verily am THE Self -

everexistent, unattached. Until I have fully

understood this I need the intellect - for helping me

stop identifying with who I am not - avasthatraya

prakriya, panchakosha prakriya, etc but once

understood - yes the intellect is subserveint - why ??

"I am" not "I know I am" but "I am". Hence there is no

knowing in a manner of speaking.

 

If the intellect had to be stilled to understand the

self the effort needed would be inversely proportional

to the amount of intellect that needed to be stilled!

 

This selfrealization can never ever be subject to

decay, nor can it ever be transient.

If anything, such as a trance, is subject to Kaala

(time) and is in the realm of an experience, then

whatever blessed thing one is experiencing is not the

vastu - this is clear. The term experience connotes

duality - of something to be experienced and an

experiencer - else the term itself does not make any

sense.

 

 

With respect to the Acharyas commentary about the

Gita, the term knowledge PLUS realization connote

aparoksha jnanam - again no need to read into it a

term "experience".

 

I agree with you that this discussion has long

exceeded its "date of expiry" and is hence becoming

stale.

It is time to move on.

 

My regards and pranams

Shri Gurubhyo namah

 

Shyam

 

--- subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote:

> But if that is the meaning 'understanding'ultimately

> conveys, why is

> there a meticulous, counscious, avoiding of the word

> 'experience'?

> We have seen several instances where Acharya

> Shankara freely

> uses 'anubhava' in the bhashyams. After all,

> 'experience' or 'direct

> realization' are words that are the most naturally

> fit ones to

> express the sense of 'anubhava'. Why feel shy of

> using that

> expression, if that is what is meant by

> 'understanding' anyway ?

> After all, neither the Upanishads nor the Acharya

> have decreed

> against using that term with respect to direct

> realization.

> Incidentally, in the 'tad viddhi praNipAtena' verse

> 34 of the Gita IV

> chapter that you quoted above, the Jnanis are spoken

> of as 'tattva-

> darshinaH'. The Acharya in the commentary makes a

> very significant

> observation that is extremely relevant to our above

> discussion:

> (quote): jnAnavanto api, kechit yathAvat

> tattva-dharshana-shIlaaH,

> apare na, ato vishinaShTi 'tattva-darshinaH' iti.

> (unquote) Meaning:

> Some only, but not all, KNOW AS WELL AS REALIZE the

> truth. By this

> the Lord means to say that that knowledge alone

> which is imparted by

> those who have realized the truth- and no other

> knowledge - can prove

> effective.(unquote). It looks like this line is

> exactly meant for the

> situation that we have on hand. It appears that the

> Acharya has

> sensed the confusion that failing to use the

> appropriate term could

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaskaram Shyamji and all

once the request for "Summary of views on Samadhi " were made, the topic without change of title moved on to so many things, including " Saraswati Ashtakam".

However, this positng my Shyamji really states the views with such clarity that a layman like me has to express many Pranam ...written in concise manner, in paragraphs - taking up each issue and expressing the view on that issue with such clarity.

And there is nothing to bother about " stale" since this SATSANG is an exercise to understand the 'SELF' , the repeated discussions - unless it generates the unwarranted HEAT , repeated debates are good as this brings to our mind the same thoughts ....some thing like a " mananam" - only here it is not mananam by one person, but a group mananam.

By the way some one told me a story about " experience". Once a Swamiji was travelling from Chennai to Delhi on a 3+3 configuration flight. Swamiji was having a window seat and next to him was a heavy weight foreigner. During the flight, the foreigner took out a peice of paper from his pocket. That paper contained the address and he showed to Swamiji and asked Swamiji if he knew this particular Swamiji. It so happened that the address was of the same Swamiji who is sitting next to him.

here the question is both of them are experiencing each other..but have no knowledge of each other.

Could it be , then , in a way, even the experience is useful only when the underlying knowledge is understood..???..

namaskaram to all

 

Shyam <shyam_md > wrote:

Pranams subbu-ji

 

 

Can "you" experience "yourself"? the

self is ever the subject, the witnesser - this has to

be realized. This self neither does anything nor

experiences anything - this has to be realized or

understood. this is what selfrealization is all about.

 

Why is analysis needed?

To remove false conceptions I have - about what -

again about Me.

I am ever present - in fact i am the only thing that

is present.

How then can i wait to "experience myself" at a future

date??

Brahman experience and selfexperience cannot be two

different things.

I The Upanisahds say "by the mind alone is to be known"

or "it is known by the intellect" and then again they

talk about the vastu being relaized only when the

intellect is still

How to reconcile this?

These can be reconciled if we understand that the self

is ever evident. Forget about becoming evident only in

a trance, it is never ever nonevident.

"I am" not "I know I am" but "I am". Hence there is no

knowing in a manner of speaking.

 

With respect to the Acharyas commentary about the

Gita, the term knowledge PLUS realization connote

aparoksha jnanam - again no need to read into it a

term "experience".

 

I agree with you that this discussion has long

exceeded its "date of expiry" and is hence becoming

stale.

 

Shyam

 

--- subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote:

> But if that is the meaning 'understanding'ultimately

> conveys, why is

> there a meticulous, counscious, avoiding of the word

> 'experience'?

> We have seen several instances where Acharya

> Shankara freely

> uses 'anubhava' in the bhashyams. After all,

> 'experience' or 'direct

> realization' are words that are the most naturally

> fit ones to

> express the sense of 'anubhava'. Why feel shy of

> using that

> expression, if that is what is meant by

> 'understanding' anyway ?

> After all, neither the Upanishads nor the Acharya

> have decreed

> against using that term with respect to direct

> realization.

> Incidentally, in the 'tad viddhi praNipAtena' verse

> 34 of the Gita IV

> chapter that you quoted above, the Jnanis are spoken

> of as 'tattva-

> darshinaH'. The Acharya in the commentary makes a

> very significant

> observation that is extremely relevant to our above

> discussion:

> (quote): jnAnavanto api, kechit yathAvat

> tattva-dharshana-shIlaaH,

> apare na, ato vishinaShTi 'tattva-darshinaH' iti.

> (unquote) Meaning:

> Some only, but not all, KNOW AS WELL AS REALIZE the

> truth. By this

> the Lord means to say that that knowledge alone

> which is imparted by

> those who have realized the truth- and no other

> knowledge - can prove

> effective.(unquote). It looks like this line is

> exactly meant for the

> situation that we have on hand. It appears that the

> Acharya has

> sensed the confusion that failing to use the

> appropriate term could

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Find out what India is talking about on - Answers India

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

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Pai-ji.

 

When the man knows that the Swamiji he is looking for is the one

sitting beside him, his joy will express as a WOW. That WOW is an

expression of joy and relief - joy for the luck of finding the

object of his enquiry so fast and easily and relief because the

dramatic end to his search saved him a lot of trouble which he would

have had to undergo otherwise tracking this Swamiji down. This

means that knowledge has brought some experience. The two are

inseparable.

 

I don't mean to point out that self-realization is a thrilling

mundane incident like this. I wrote this much because you gave us

this example to prove your point. Our ""Soham Devadatta" is any day

a better example.

 

Self-reaization is knowing that you are the whole and whatever is

there is all you. We are all agreed on it. Shri Pai experiences the

Sun and complains about the heat. He seeks refuge in the nearest

shade or runs for the luxury of airconditioned comfort. This happens

due to his false identifications and experiencing the Sun as

something foreign from his notion of himself. The same Shri Pai

suddenly realizes that he is the Sun. Can the Sun trouble him any

more?

 

Then, just visualize Shri Pai being everything. Will he look around

and address the world: "Look boys, this is just an understanding as

barren as T.S.Eliot's "Waste Land"? To my mind he would just

explode in ecstasy (or will he implode like Neruda?). Don't ask me

who is there to go ecstatic? That question belongs to the barren

land. We are no more there. Where we are, we roll in ecstasy

singing Her glory. Having gone universal, we have no time to

concern ourselves with inanities like body, mind and intellect. We

are a grand implosion!

 

Now,if you need authority, please refer to the last stanza of SrI

DakshiNAmurthy Stotram. Shankara has said (unless of course you

question the authorship) sarvAtmatwa vibhUti and Ishwaratwam are

there in Self-Knowledge. The implosion is sarvAtmatwa vibhUti. SrI

Subbuji can explain it better. I think he has already done it while

I was away from the List on vacation.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

_________________

 

advaitin, ram mohan anantha pai

<pairamblr wrote:

>

> By the way some one told me a story about " experience". Once a

Swamiji was travelling from Chennai to Delhi on a 3+3 configuration

flight. Swamiji was having a window seat and next to him was a

heavy weight foreigner. During the flight, the foreigner took out a

peice of paper from his pocket. That paper contained the address

and he showed to Swamiji and asked Swamiji if he knew this

particular Swamiji. It so happened that the address was of the same

Swamiji who is sitting next to him.

>

> here the question is both of them are experiencing each

other..but have no knowledge of each other.

>

> Could it be , then , in a way, even the experience is useful

only when the underlying knowledge is understood..???..

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

Dear Sri Shyam,

I would like to add further to your clarification an excerpt

from Sri Sankara's commentary on Mantra 4-4-20 of Bruhadaranyaka

Upanishad :

Quote:

j~jAnaM ca tasmin parAtmaBAvanivRittirEva |

na tasmin sAkShAt AtmaBAvaH kartavyaH |

vidyamAnatvAt AtmaBAvasya |

nityO hi AtmaBAvaH sarvasya atadviShaya iva

pratyavaBAsatE ||

The knowledge of Brahman too means only the cessation of the

identification with extraneous things.

It has not to be directly established,for

IT IS ALREADY THERE.

Everybody ALWAYS has that identity with It, but it

appears to be related to something else.

[Translator: Swami Madhavananda]

Note: The translation may not carry the complete meaning

of the Bhashya in Sanskrit.

The above quoted Bhashya clearly reveals that no new experience is

required for abiding in one's True Nature.

There is a beautiful proverb in Kannada ;"dEvaru vara kottarU

pUjAri vara koDa". It means that even if the Lord gives the boon, the

priest will not give it. In the name of Sankara/ Vedanta such a lot

of misconceptions are circulated so widely which have become the

biggest hurdles in the path of the sincere seekers. Sri Sankara's

commentaries do not need any commentaries to them. What Sri Sankara

has stated in them is self-evident and self-explanatory.The day to

day LIFE ITSELF provides the necessary guidance to realize the truths

stated by the Greatest Of All Teachers, Sri Sankara.

Once again a request to seekers of Advitaj~jAna : To ascertain

the Truth and abide as THE TRUTH, let us go to Sri Sankara And Sri

Sankara ALONE, because what he has blessed us with is PURNA.

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

 

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

namaskaram Shri Sreenivasa Murthyji and all,

Swami Paramarthanandaji while discussing Bhagavat Gita used to tell us...

Bhagavan Krishna explained to Arjuna and thru Arjuna to all of us exactly the same knowledge. But see while Arjuna understood it, millions of us are still gropping in the dark...

In any class, when the teacher teaches there are atleast 30 students sitting around and listening to him. ( In the end if the teacher ask questions, sure, they are going to answer different and that is what the exams are meant for to make the student aware how much he or she understood and how much more he or she has to understand ). Now though all of them listened to the same words, from the same person, the understanding is different. That is why some needs more help, more attention, more explanations etc..

Intelligent ones who understand by mere reading will not bother to attend the class except for the attendance, while ordinary students will need more help.

But as one understands, even if there is some wrong explanations given by some teachers, it will be corrected in SATSANG - as long as the student does not insisit that he will follow only what has been taught to him by his teacher .

 

It is better for every one be permitted to say what they wish to express as that helps in getting to know the mistake one makes ( as others will point out those mistakes) and so better possibility for correction in the thinking and understanding.

namaskaram

narayana145 <narayana145 (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote:

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

Dear Sri Shyam,

In the name of Sankara/ Vedanta such a lot

of misconceptions are circulated so widely which have become the

biggest hurdles in the path of the sincere seekers. Sri Sankara's

commentaries do not need any commentaries to them. What Sri Sankara

has stated in them is self-evident and self-explanatory.The day to

day LIFE ITSELF provides the necessary guidance to realize the truths

stated by the Greatest Of All Teachers, Sri Sankara.

Once again a request to seekers of Advitaj~jAna : To ascertain

the Truth and abide as THE TRUTH, let us go to Sri Sankara And Sri

Sankara ALONE, because what he has blessed us with is PURNA.

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

 

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

Find out what India is talking about on - Answers India

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

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v

wrote:

 

>

> Let me touch upon one point you made. You equated 'understanding'

> with 'aparoksha anubhuti'in addressing Vishal ji's objection. Fine.

> But if that is the meaning 'understanding'ultimately conveys, why is

> there a meticulous, counscious, avoiding of the word 'experience'?

> We have seen several instances where Acharya Shankara freely

> uses 'anubhava' in the bhashyams. After all, 'experience' or 'direct

> realization' are words that are the most naturally fit ones to

> express the sense of 'anubhava'. Why feel shy of using that

> expression, if that is what is meant by 'understanding' anyway ?

> After all, neither the Upanishads nor the Acharya have decreed

> against using that term with respect to direct realization.

>

 

>

> With humble pranams,

> subbu

> Om Tat Sat

 

Namaste respected members,

 

Although I have not followed this thread in its

entirety, it seems to me that aome teachers may sometimes

use the word 'experience' as a warning to students to

avoid looking or searching for an 'experience' of the self

which they are not already having. A grande sort of

'pie in the sky' experience.

 

So realization isn't having a new experience, one

grander than one is already having. It is recognizing

the 'experience' which is already 100% here and could

not be more here or more experienced.

 

When one recognizes that 'experience' (for lack of

a better word) for what it is (one's self), one will see,

or understand, "Oh, that has always been 'me' but my mind

thought that 'me' was completely dependent upon and interwoven

with qualities of the body/mind."

 

What I have come to understand from exposure to the

teachings is that it is understanding and clearly

seeing that present 'experience' for what it is that is self-knowledge.

 

All of these words, 'understanding, seeing, knowing, experience,'

all of these IMO can be confusing, because like all words, we are

trying to apply these words to an 'experience' an 'understanding' a

'seeing' which is not at all the 'usual' meaning of any of these words.

 

I experience this water as hot. I understand that

1 + 1 = 2. I see the clouds in the sky. I know

your name. This is the usual way we use these words.

 

IMO none of those is the same as experiencing, understanding

seeing, or knowing the self, (although perhaps the word

'know' somehow may come closer).

 

So all of these words have to be 'unpacked' or cleary

explained, in order to be used as effective pointers to

that which is already experienced and entirely known,

but mistaken for something else altogether.

 

Humble pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

advaitin, J Skanda <skandaj2000 wrote:

>

Since I am pretty much late on the recent

> Samadhi/Experience/Vivekachudamani discussions, I will try not to

> open a new can of worms by contributing more to the discussions.

> That said, given the recent post by Prof. VK, I would like to post s

> ome information I believe would be valuable especially for those who

> wish to know the views of the Acharyas of the sterling Advaita

> parampara of the Sringeri Sarada Peetham.

>

> Today, with many Swamis claiming to teach the "pure" teachings

> of Sankara unadultered by later commentators, commentaries, schools

 

Namaste,

 

My first post since returning from Cuba.

 

I also have been watching this discussion, and it just reinforces

various positions in my own mind.

First of all one cannot experience the Self and be realised, for who

is it that experiences the Self? One can experience the Self in lower

samadhis but that is all. One is experiencing the energy of the Sakti

until one becomes the Sakti(Saguna) and Nirguna Brahman simultaneously.

At this point it is all illusion and never ever happened. Whilst one

is connected by a body it is an appearance only....Ajativada.

All the other machinations and worshippings, puja etc are all in the

cause of concentration only.

 

We do all these things to realise we do nothing at all...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaskaram Durgaji and all.

After reading this note, my mind goes to the story of 4 or 5 blind men "experiencing " the elephant.

This was my doubt which i raised to Shri Nairji after reading his posting also.

and the doubt still remains ...is not the underlying knowledge that makes experience meaningful?

namaskaram

 

Durga <durgaji108 > wrote:

---

Namaste respected members,

 

 

So realization isn't having a new experience, one

grander than one is already having. It is recognizing

the 'experience' which is already 100% here and could

not be more here or more experienced.

 

When one recognizes that 'experience' (for lack of

a better word) for what it is (one's self), one will see,

or understand, "Oh, that has always been 'me' but my mind

thought that 'me' was completely dependent upon and interwoven

with qualities of the body/mind."

 

What I have come to understand from exposure to the

teachings is that it is understanding and clearly

seeing that present 'experience' for what it is that is self-knowledge.

 

IMO none of those is the same as experiencing, understanding

seeing, or knowing the self, (although perhaps the word

'know' somehow may come closer).

 

 

Humble pranams,

Durga

 

 

 

 

 

Find out what India is talking about on - Answers India

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

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ram mohan anantha pai <pairamblr

wrote:

>

> Namaskaram Durgaji and all.

>

> After reading this note, my mind goes to the story of 4 or 5 blind

men "experiencing " the elephant.

>

> This was my doubt which i raised to Shri Nairji after reading his

posting also.

>

> and the doubt still remains ...is not the underlying knowledge

that makes experience meaningful?

>

> namaskaram

>

 

Namaste,

 

I'm not sure if I understand your question or doubt,

so I'm not sure if I can address it.

 

If the self you already know yourself as, is already

free and is Brahman, but your mind incorrectly takes that self

to be one with and a product of the body/mind, then what

is the result of the removal of that incorrect understanding?

 

What is the result of directly knowing, the self which I am,

and which I always have been is not time bound or changing,

is not subject to death and rebirth, but rather is limitless

fullness?

 

I would say that if that is what you mean, then yes,

'knowing' that directly is what liberation is.

 

BTW I have heard a story similar to the one you related

about the Swami traveling on a plane.

 

This story was related to me by my teacher, and it

occurred to Pujya Swami Dayanandaji when he was

traveling on a train to Rishikesh. There was another

passenger in the compartment, and they began to

converse.

 

When the passenger discovered that Swamiji was traveling

to Rishikesh, he informed him that he was also traveling

to Rishikesh in order to meet Swami Dayananda. He then

asked Swamiji if he knew Swami Dayananda.

 

Pujya Swamiji replied, "I am that Swami Dayananda whom you

are traveling to Rishikesh to meet."

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

namaskaram,

really speaking my doubt is not very important...so it does not matter. however i was just wondering after reading the discussions here....

may be it is my misunderstanding...that experience is the most important thing..not mere knowledge ... ( and this misunderstanding made me wonder - if underlying knowledge makes that experience meaningful...

may be i think we should close this subject here for some time atleast..

namaskaram

 

Durga <durgaji108 > wrote:

advaitin, ram mohan anantha pai <pairamblr

wrote:

>

> Namaskaram Durgaji and all.

>

> After reading this note, my mind goes to the story of 4 or 5 blind

men "experiencing " the elephant.

>

> This was my doubt which i raised to Shri Nairji after reading his

posting also.

>

> and the doubt still remains ...is not the underlying knowledge

that makes experience meaningful?

>

> namaskaram

>

 

Namaste,

 

I'm not sure if I understand your question or doubt,

so I'm not sure if I can address it.

 

 

Find out what India is talking about on - Answers India

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

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Pai,

 

You are experiencing the sweetness of sugar. What underlying

knowledge makes your experience meaningful? There is no knowledge

in this particular case such as the one you have in the man on board

the aircraft meeting the Swami he is after.

 

Yet, advaita doesn't leave the case there. The knowledge in sugar

experience is Knowledge itself, the real You. That Knowldege is,

sugar experience is, sugar sweeetness is, all is. If you then look

in the reverse mode, each experience becomes the expression of that

Knowledge (the real You) alone, which we call Awarenesss,

Consciousness, Self etc. This applies to all understanding,

experiencing and knowing, which are all sustained by It.

 

Then why this affinity for the word 'understanding' is the question

we are asking. Hope it is clear to you now.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

______________

 

advaitin, ram mohan anantha pai

<pairamblr wrote:

>

 

>

> After reading this note, my mind goes to the story of 4 or 5

blind men "experiencing " the elephant.

>

> This was my doubt which i raised to Shri Nairji after reading

his posting also.

>

> and the doubt still remains ...is not the underlying knowledge

that makes experience meaningful?