Guest guest Report post Posted April 18, 2008 Dear Durga-ji and Shyam-ji, (I have started a new thread here because my post is triggered by two separate threads and effectively starts a new topic.) In the 'Free Will ' thread (to which I am no longer contributing!), Durga says: <<My first guru, Neem Karoli Baba, was famously quoted as saying, " I do nothing. God does everything. " Until recently I had thought how humble and self-effacing this statement was. Now I realize that what he was saying was literally true, meaning, " I (brahman) do nothing. God (Ishwara) does everything. " IMO this is a perfect statement.>> and: << Once the mind realizes 'I' am brahman, unchanging, and the body/mind belong to Ishwara, then who is acting?>> I find these statements a bit confusing and wonder if you are effectively mixing paramArtha and vyavahAra. I would have said that Neem Karoli Baba meant by his statement that I, the jIva, do nothing while God, Ishvara, does everything. Surely, once I realize that 'I am brahman', I realize that there is no jIva and I also realize that there is no Ishvara either. If I know that everything is brahman, I must also know that there is nothing other than brahman. I know that the apparent manifestation is only movement of name and form; no one is doing anything at all. To my mind, one can only talk about Ishvara *actually* doing things in the same context as jIva, from an unrealized state of mind. Subsequent to realization, there is only the *appearance* of action. I may be being pedantic here (as I often seem to be!) but it seems that this may also be the point of conflict between Bhaskar-ji and Shyam-ji in the latest post on that thread. Shyam says: << Who are " you " to dismiss Ishwara as unreal? Are you real or unreal? If you say I am real then let me ask you if it is the real you the Atman that is dismissing Ishwara? Can the Atman do any dismissing? If you say I am unreal then how can a unreal you dismiss anything let alone Ishwara? If you say " I alone am " then Lord Narayana has allowed you to realize your oneness with Him! Ishwara is (at least) as Real as you are prabhu-ji. :-) The only thing that is shaken off in advaita (there is only ONE kind no question of shuddha and ashuddha at least in advaita!) Prabhu-ji is the ego's notional separation from Ishwara.>> Of course, the jIva cannot dismiss Ishvara as unreal because both are equally real from the vyAvahArika standpoint of the unenlightened. But surely, once there is enlightenment, it is known that both are equally *unreal*. It is not a case of 'dismissal'. Once non-duality is realized, there can be no further duality in reality. Of course, the appearance continues and we may (must?) continue to speak of Ishvara and the world but this does not alter what we now know to be the truth. Best wishes, Dennis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 21, 2008 -- In advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: > > Dear Durga-ji and Shyam-ji, > > > > (I have started a new thread here because my post is triggered by two > separate threads and effectively starts a new topic.) > > > > In the 'Free Will ' thread (to which I am no longer contributing!), Durga > says: > > > > <<My first guru, Neem Karoli Baba, was famously quoted > as saying, " I do nothing. God does everything. " > > Until recently I had thought how humble and self-effacing > this statement was. Now I realize that what he was saying > was literally true, meaning, " I (brahman) do nothing. > God (Ishwara) does everything. " IMO this is a perfect > statement.>> > > > > and: > > > > << Once the mind realizes 'I' am brahman, unchanging, > and the body/mind belong to Ishwara, then who > is acting?>> > > > > I find these statements a bit confusing and wonder if you are effectively > mixing paramArtha and vyavahAra. I would have said that Neem Karoli Baba > meant by his statement that I, the jIva, do nothing while God, Ishvara, does > everything. Surely, once I realize that 'I am brahman', I realize that there > is no jIva and I also realize that there is no Ishvara either. If I know > that everything is brahman, I must also know that there is nothing other > than brahman. I know that the apparent manifestation is only movement of > name and form; no one is doing anything at all. > > > > To my mind, one can only talk about Ishvara *actually* doing things in the > same context as jIva, from an unrealized state of mind. Subsequent to > realization, there is only the *appearance* of action. > > Of course, the jIva cannot dismiss Ishvara as unreal because both are > equally real from the vyAvahArika standpoint of the unenlightened. But > surely, once there is enlightenment, it is known that both are equally > *unreal*. It is not a case of 'dismissal'. Once non-duality is realized, > there can be no further duality in reality. Of course, the appearance > continues and we may (must?) continue to speak of Ishvara and the world but > this does not alter what we now know to be the truth. > > > > Best wishes, > > Dennis Namaste Dennisji, I've written two replies to your post. The one below includes some quotes and some other things which I've heard and read. The second post was written after speaking with my teacher about all of this, who advised me to just write what I felt. So here is post #1, written prior to speaking to my teacher. First of all, the two people whom I trust most in the world, Swami Dayananda and my teacher, his disciple, who are both mature jnanis, who do not speak from the standpoint of the 'unenlightened,' or from 'an unrealized state of mind' (both terms you used above), continually speak of the importance of understanding Ishwara. I do not feel that they are doing this as some sort of preliminary teaching which will then later be withdrawn. My teacher once said, " Swamiji gives you the whole truth. He doesn't hold anything back. " Both Swamiji and my teacher have said that the 'equation (the aikyam) is between the jiva and Ishwara.' My teacher translates 'Tat Tvam Assi' as 'You are the Whole,' or 'You are Ishwara.' When my teacher asked Swamiji in an interview: " What about Ishwara, Swamiji? A lot of westerners want to escape Ishwara? " Swamiji replied: " Without Ishwara there is no equation. " I think that sometimes people like to 'go around,' dismiss, avoid talking about, considering, or trying to understand Ishwara, because it makes them uncomfortable, perhaps because of some 'God' concepts they were exposed to early in life, and have now dismissed as illogical and therefore untrue. For myself, I no longer find that I am uncomfortable in the understanding of Ishwara, because that understanding is totally different from any illogical or ill-informed God concept I was exposed to in my youth. I feel that understanding Ishwara provides a locus of integration for the whole teaching. I also think it's important to understand that the world is not 'unreal' as I infer you are saying above. What is unreal is that which doesn't exist, such as the horn of a rabbit. What is real is that which is satyam, brahman. What is neither real nor unreal, not available for categorization, but available for experience, is the creation. So according to the above definitions, we cannot apply the word 'unreal' to the creation. Even the word 'apparent' is a word which Swami Dayananda says he doesn't like, and he doesn't it use any more. I think until one really has jnana nishta one cannot totally comprehend what mithya is, and after that it's a marvel. You said in your post: " If I know that everything is brahman, I must also know that there is nothing other than brahman. I know that the apparent manifestation is only movement of name and form; no one is doing anything at all. " Well, what power is moving those names and forms? Does that movement have an order? Are there observable laws in operation or not? Can we provide a name for that order, that movement, and perhaps call it, 'Ishwara?' And, if everything is brahman, which cannot be seen as an object, why do these names and forms appear at all? Do we have a way to account for any of it? Here are a few quotes and a few more things to add. There is a famous story, the details of which can be found in the 'Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna.' It is the story of the sage, Totapuri, who felt the creation was unreal and that all that existed was the nondual. He had terrible pains in his stomach, and decided to drown himself in the Ganga. But he found that the farther he proceeded into the river, the more the water receded. He eventually found that he had walked to the other side of the river. Finally he gave up trying to drown himself and gained some respect of the power of Maya. (Anyone wanting to read this story in its entirety can look it up in the Gospel.) Quote from the 'Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna' given after the telling of Totapuri's story: " When I think of the Supreme being as inactive—neither creating nor preserving, nor destroying—I call Him Brahman or Purusha, the Impersonal God. When I think of Him as active—creating, preserving, and destroying—, I call Him Sakti or Maya or Prakriti the Personal God. But the distinction between them does not mean a difference. The Personal and the Impersonal are the same thing, like milk and its whiteness, the diamond and its luster, the snake and its wriggling motion. It is impossible to conceive of the one without the other. The Divine Mother and Brahman are one. " Here are some words of Swami Dayananda's on the subject of the creation: Swamiji: In the Taitriya, we have this statement: " That from this self-existent consciousness, not limited by time or space, which was the only thing that was there before this jagat, this nama/rupa, from this alone everything has come. [Then Swamiji chants the verse in Sanskrit] Space, time, air, fire, water, earth, that's the Vedic model of the universe. All these came from that satyam/jnanam/anantam, self-existent, self-revealing, not limited by time/space, not being any one object, anantam, limitless. So from self-revealing, self-existing consciousness, limitless, for which all these nama/rupas are attributes. These attributes, nama/rupas, they have a certain status, in terms of reality. They are not illusion, much less they are non-existent. They have their own status. " Then later in same talk Swamiji says: " These, all the names, mean only certain forms. We are not dismissing [them] as non-existent. We are not dismissing [them] as delusion also. We are not dismissing [them] as illusion also. Understand this, no delusion, no illusion, no non-existence, nor are they self-existing. They enjoy a status of no non-being, no self-existent being. What is the status? Why do you want a status? Human intellect has this problem of categorical grasping. We like categories, so that is the mediocrity of our mind. Is it real or unreal? Satyam, self-existent, or tuccham, non-existent? The whole life is lived in between. All that you have is form, sometimes it has a function too. Every function can be reduced to different forms, nama/rupas. And therefore, 'sat asat bhyam anirvacaniyam.' It is neither satyam or asatyam, anirvacaniyam. Nirvacaniyam means that which is subject to categorical bracketing. So that which can be categorically bracketed. Anirvacaniyam means that which cannot be categorically bracketed. Then they say 'inexplicable.' So why are you opening your mouth? That which is not categorically bracketed. That is your shirt. That is your house. That is the universe. That is your body. That is the particle behavior too. " [End quote] In February I had the great good fortune to personally ask Swamiji a question which had been puzzling me for a long time. " Swamiji, I don't understand what is meant when it is said that the jnani becomes Ishwara after death. " Swamiji replied, " You are Ishwara right now, but you don't know it due to the limitation of the upadhi. There is nothing other than Ishwara. " At this time I was attending some talks which Swamiji was giving in Australia. One evening a musician came and played some compositions of Swamiji's. While I don't understand Sanskrit, there was one bhajan to Mother Meenakshi which was so beautiful that the memory of it seemed to stay with me. As we were sitting in the airport with Swamiji before he departed, I said to him, " Swamiji, that Meenakshi bhajan was really lovely. " Swamiji just sat there in silence for awhile, then he started to quietly hum, then he began to sing the bhajan, and then he graciously translated the words into English. Although I cannot remember all of the beautiful words which he said, (and how I wish I could!) I do remember this one thing. " That very mithya maya, which is the cause of self-ignorance, conveys self-knowledge in the form of a vritti. " Because I trust the words of my teachers, I accept that the Mahavakya 'Tat Tvam Assi,' means 'You are the whole, You are Ishwara,' and that directly seeing the truth of those words, constitutes the complete gain of self-knowledge. Perhaps until one has jnana nishta, one may not be able to see how 'it all really is.' After gaining jnana nishta, perhaps only some few can help another to see the same thing. But I do feel that we need to look into the subject of Ishwara, and listen with sraddha to the words of teacher when Ishwara is explained and spoken of, and not just dismiss the understanding of Ishwara, as some sort of 'preliminary teaching' because it isn't. In fact, if we want to categorize it that way, I'd say it was an advanced teaching. And if we dismiss it, I don't think we've grasped the teaching of Vedanta at all. For myself, I feel amazingly lucky to have encountered, not only one, but two who seem to really know and understand the totality of which they speak, and through proper listening to whose words the student can gain 'the total vision' of Vedanta, which is 'You are Ishwara.' Both of these teachers speak of the importance of integrating the understanding Ishwara into knowledge, so that the mind becomes mature and gains nishta in jnanam. Perhaps this is because in the creation, although we can know that every object is an attribute of brahman, an attribute which does not change brahman in any way, our minds need to mature in the light of that knowledge. And perhaps there still may be 'things' in our minds, or in the creation, which trip us up and confuse us. So we need to understand the total, and not just say " Oh, that isn't real. " But rather say, " Oh this is Ishwara, " and offer Him our pranams. Pranams, Durga Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 21, 2008 advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: > > Dear Durga-ji and Shyam-ji, > In the 'Free Will ' thread (to which I am no longer contributing!), Durga > says: > <<My first guru, Neem Karoli Baba, was famously quoted > as saying, " I do nothing. God does everything. " > > Until recently I had thought how humble and self-effacing > this statement was. Now I realize that what he was saying > was literally true, meaning, " I (brahman) do nothing. > God (Ishwara) does everything. " IMO this is a perfect > statement.>> > > > I find these statements a bit confusing and wonder if you are effectively > mixing paramArtha and vyavahAra. I would have said that Neem Karoli Baba > meant by his statement that I, the jIva, do nothing while God, Ishvara, does > everything. > > Best wishes, > > Dennis Here is post #2. Dear Dennis, First of all, last night I mentioned the Neem Karoli Baba quote to my teacher, along with my interpretation of it. The response that I received from my teacher was that my interpretation of that quote was indeed correct. I told my teacher that I was having some trouble responding to what you had said, and was advised to just write what I felt. So here goes. It seems very evident to me that the mind can know and recognize that 'I' do nothing. I am that very self which doesn't change, doesn't modify, doesn't do, just is, self-evidently so. I am the locus of all happiness which the mind enjoys. I am the most beloved. There is nothing dearer to the mind than this unchanging 'me,' which I am. And despite all its angst to the contrary, oh mind, you are never ever at any time apart from 'me.' Well, what about everything else? If we are speaking from the POV of paramarthika satyam, then we can say, 'there is no creation.' But actually, I don't think it is quite possible to speak from the POV of paramarthika satyam, because in paramarthika satyam there is no creation, and paramarthika satyam can't speak, any more than the self, which the mind has recognized my self to be, can speak. That self and paramarthika satyam are the same. I also do not think that we can say 'there is no creation.' It seems pretty evident that there is one here to be experienced. So let's try and analyze it. If we try and do that analysis by taking one object, we will quickly notice that we can take an object apart, divide it up into smaller and smaller parts, and what we once called by a name is now seen to be a collection of other things with different names. Where, oh, where does it stop? And does it? Perhaps we might also be able to see that the one 'thing' that all of these differing objects seem to have in common is being. Hmmmmm. One might ask the question, is there anything else which the mind has recognized to have being? Yes, the self-evident being which I am. Okay, being seems to be something which these changing objects and the unchanging 'me' share. Is there more than one being? Well, if there is I can't seem to find it, because the more I analyze the objects, the less I find any single object. One object seems to be made of many objects. I cannot find an object which is constant, while all the while, what the objects and I have in common, the one constant 'thing,' is being. Just from a logical POV, one might then draw the conclusion from this exercise that there is only being here. And since the mind has recognized 'me,' (my self) as self-evident being itself, one might surmise that the being of the objects and my own being are the same. However, although the objects and I both share being, there does seem to be a difference, between the objects and me, because the objects change and I don't. How can that be accounted for if the objects and I have the same being, which has been seen directly by the mind to be the locus of my self and unchanging? Do the teachings of Vedanta account for that? They do! What the teachings say is these objects, in fact the whole creation, are 'sat asat bhyam anirvacaniyam.' Well, " Thanks a lot, " one might say, " translation please. " They are neither real from the paramarthika standpoint of reality because they change, nor are they unreal because they exist. They are not available for categorization in that way. " Thanks a lot, " one might say again, " meaning please. " How can my being, which has been recognized as unchanging, be the same being of all of these objects which do change? Well, we have seen that the one constant in all of this, despite change, is being. Vedanta tells us that the only 'thing' which exists absolutely is my being. The only thing which can be called 'paramarthika satyam' is my being. The teachings further inform us that the universe manifests from my being through a power of my being called 'maya shakti.' So, where did the universe come from? My being, because there is nothing else. What is the universe made of? My being, because there is nothing else. Is the universe intelligent? It appears to have intelligence in that it seems to display a perfect order. Where did that perfect order come from? It came from my being because there is nothing else. Did the universe exist before it came to be manifest? It existed in my being as 'pure knowledge,' pure intelligence, like the 'knowledge' of a tree exists in a seed. What caused the universe to manifest? A power of my being (the paramarthika), which power is called 'maya shakti.' Where does that power come from? My being, because there is nothing else. What can we call this manifestation that comes from my being, is sustained by my being, which has my being for its material, and for its cause, which manifests in the form of an order so perfect, that intelligence can be seen to operate in the smallest particle? Perhaps we can call it Ishwara. Is the manifestation of the universe non-existent? How can that be so when it enjoys my being. Is it paramarthika satyam? No, because it changes. So what is it? It is neither totally real, nor is it totally unreal (non-existent). It is not available to be categorized in that way, as either totally real or totally unreal. Does that make for two, dvaita? No, because all that is here is my being. From the POV of the mind, my being can be recognized as unchanging, and the changing universe can be recognized as my being. To understand this is to understand 'Tat Tvam Assi. You are Ishwara. You are the whole.' But because it changes, the universe cannot be categorized as paramarthika satyam, nor can it be called non-existent. It is here to be experienced. It isn't unreal, nor is it paramarthika. It is my being which manifests as Ishwara, perfect order. A perfect order which governs the whole, and with which the individual mind can come into relationship. This is the paradox, and this is the wonder, which cannot be categorically understood or dismissed. And it is this wonder, (that Ishwara), which I believe, Sri Shankaracharya wrote hymns in praise of at the end of his life. Now, tell me, was he a beginner? Pranams, Durga Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 22, 2008 Pranams Dennis-ji Thank you for your observations. Let me try to clarify with an example. I happen to accidentally some dhatura seeds. Very shortly I find myself in a strange forest. There are fires burning all around. Hundreds of goblins are shrieking and I am filled with terror. I meet a passerby who I find to be not as terrified. He tells me to mutter " RaRa " continuously and that this would protect me from these goblins. When asked about " RaRa " he tells me that RaRa is the God of this world and if I chant his name I will be saved. I proceed to do the same and this seems to alleviate my anxiety temporarily, and seems to give me some solace. Shortly therafter, I find myself lying on my couch in my home, smiling sheepishly at my hallucination, finding it sublated by my appreciation of reality. Now in that hallucination, the entire forest was unreal, as were the goblins, as was the Lord RaRa. The whole package was nothing but I alone projecting a completely unreal world This is how a lot of neo-vedantins and some so-called traditional vedantins also view Ishwara. That this is a fictitious character who is relevant only as long as my duality delusion lasts, and upon the end of the delusion i come this realization, and find my " self " . The trouble with this sort of a approach is based on the mistaken idea that this world is a illusion and that enlightenment results in a grand sublative disappearance of the illusory world. This is neither true nor what vedantA conveys. Let us examine this a bit further. Thuis jagat that we cognize is not my mental projection but Ishwara srshti. If it was my mental projection it would be a dream or worse a hallucination - and would disappear in a poof with self-realization - what would be left would be nothingness - now misguided interpreters of ajAtivAdA will say - this is precisely what GaudapAda talks about - that nothing IS, and again i am afraid this is incorrect. If this were correct, there would be no realized souls amidst us, let alone would they have any ignorant people to teach and guide. The truth is that the world remains the same regardless of whether a person attains self-realization. The sun still rises in the east and sets in the west, the starts still twinkle in the moonlit skies. Then what? The realization is this and this only, that there is no separate subtantive thing called world. Everything is the Self alone, everything is Ishwara alone, and everything is I alone. That Ishwara i am - tat tvam asi. It is infinity alone that I as a conscious entity cognize and categorize, assign names and forms, and interact with. All these names and forms are in essence I, or Ishwara. What about now? Now also it is the same but because " i " the notional ahankAra am at this point viewing this Infinity through the prism of my own beginigless ignorance, i suffer from a sense of separation from the Infinite, the Whole. It is this notion alone that is discarded in the process of self-enquiry or vichArA. When I come to the realization that my true nature is of Knowing alone, that in and through every cognition, the known, the knowing and the knower are all Me alone, the very consciousness principle, that, wonder of wonders, I the true subject, the Saakshi, alone am the Support of all there Is, that the Divinity that is immanent in and through all of manifest Nature is really my only true nature, then in that simple choiceless Awareness alone is Divinity and abidance in that Divinity alone in which my sense of limitation has permanently died is Being. The culmination of vichArA can only result in an absorption into the Total - and the Total is IshwarA! Who got sublated? me, the phantom. What remains? Truth, God, Consciousness. When One realizes the truth about Himself he cannot but discover it to be the Truth of the whole Jagat. Then He is Divine - everything He as though cognizes is nothing but the Divine. In the words of the Gita - " Yo mam pashyati sarvatra sarvatra sarvam cha mayi pashyati; TasyAham na pranashyAmi sa cha me na pranashyati. " " One who sees Me in everything, and sees all things in Me-I do not lose out of his vision, and he also is not lost to My vision. " and further " Samam pashyan hi sarvatra samavasthitam Ishwaram; Na hinasty Atmana AtmAnam tato yAti parAm gatim. " Since by seeing equally God who is present alike everywhere he does not injure the Self by the Self, therefore he attains the supreme Goal. And notice the similar lines in the Kaivalya Up. " Sarva bhutastham AtmAnam sarva bhutAni ca Atmani Sampasyan brahma paramam yanti, na anyena hetunA. " Seeing the Atman in all beings, and all beings in the Atman, one attains the highest Brahman – not by any other means. It is only the ignorant who look at self-realization and god-realization as two different entities - who look at atma-vichAra as being superior and bhakti as being inferior. In the words of Shankaracharya " mokSha-kAraNa-sAmagryAM bhaktireva garIyasI* " - Among the instruments of moksha, bhakti is the most important. That is because what one seeks, what one is devoted to, what one yearns for is one and the same thing - the Infinite within, or the Infinite without - isnt it obvious then that the one that seeks the without or the within is the phantom - what is true is only the Infinite! If I say I found God but could not lose my identity, my notion of separation from Him who is the All, in that realization, then my devotion my bhakti is incomplete. In this way Jnana completes devotion. If I say I have found myself, but find it empty, bereft of Divinity, of all-encompassing Love, then my self-discovery is incomplete as well, and in this way devotion alone will culminate in a true understanding of advaita. This is precisly what is meant when Neem Karoli Baba said " I do nothing, God does everything " - there is no mixing up of levels here at all! What is the one thing that every realized Master has discovered is, sublimate the Ego, and what remains is only Truth, and that Truth is God. " I am the way and the truth and the life " And it is for the direct appreciation of this eternal transcendental Truth that Vedanta provides an intellectual framework. It is precisely for this reason that a parAbhaktA and a JnAni are one and the same - one cant be a parAbhaktA without dying onto oneself. When as JnAni one has died to onself what remains is an appreciation of one's own inherent intrinsic Divinity. That is why the spontaneous bhakti of a Jnani has no comparison. If you see the numerous stotras that Adi Shankara and many many other realized Masters have composed, this fact becomes very clear. These were certainly not outpourings of devotion to a fictitious character named Ishwara meant for equally fictitious beginners in the unreal field of self-knowledge to serve as illusory tools to help train their undeveloped minds by making them focus on a unreal God. These represent spontaneous outpourings of a realized intellect, that revels in its intrinsic Divinity - " Shivoham Shivoham " If one has ever had the fortune of witnessing a jivanmukta in bhakti " bhAva " - be it Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, or Ramana Maharshi or the Sage of Kanchi, one will be able to relate to this simple fact - this is a devotion that is spontaneously expressed from the wellspring of Pure Being - and is nothing but All-encompassing Love. Ishwara is the totality, he is BOTH immanent and transcendent. From the standpoint of the ego he is Personal. From an absolute, He is Impersonal. Either way He Alone is. What then is jnAna? When in Awareness one " dis " -cover's oneSelf, then there is neither acceptance of Ishwara nor rejection of Ishwara, but a simple, choiceless recognition of Ishwara as one's own " Be " ing. Humble pranams Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam --- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote: > Dear Durga-ji and Shyam-ji, > <<My first guru, Neem Karoli Baba, was famously > quoted > as saying, " I do nothing. God does everything. " > > Until recently I had thought how humble and > self-effacing > this statement was. Now I realize that what he was > saying > was literally true, meaning, " I (brahman) do > nothing. > God (Ishwara) does everything. " IMO this is a > perfect > statement.>> > I find these statements a bit confusing and wonder > if you are effectively > mixing paramArtha and vyavahAra. > Best wishes, > > Dennis ______________________________\ ____ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 22, 2008 Namaste, I feel this is a very interesting topic, I felt like posting Swami Vivekananda's take on this very subject, as, like almost everything else related to Vedanta, my little understanding about this comes from his teachings. http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_5/vol_5_frame.htm " Ishwara is the sum total of individuals; yet He Himself also is an individual in the same way as the human body is a unit, of which each cell is an individual. Samashti or the Collective is God. Vyashti or the component is the soul of Jiva. The existence of Ishwara, therefore, depends on that of Jiva, as the body on the cell, and vice versa. Jiva, and Ishwara are co-existent beings. As long as the one exists, the other also must. Again, since in all the higher spheres, except on our earth, the amount of good is vastly in excess of the amount of bad, the sum total or Ishwara may be said to be All-good, Almighty, and Omniscient. These are obvious qualities, and need no argument to prove, from the very fact of totality. Brahman is beyond both of these, and is not a state. It is the only unit not composed of many units. It is the principle which runs through all, from a cell to God, and without which nothing can exist. Whatever is real is that principle or Brahman. When I think " I am Brahman " , then I alone exist. It is so also when you so think, and so on. Each one is the whole of that principle. . . . " ======= Again, in another lecture, he says: " Who is Ishvara? Janmâdyasya yatah — " From whom is the birth, continuation, and dissolution of the universe, " — He is Ishvara — " the Eternal, the Pure, the Ever-Free, the Almighty, the All-Knowing, the All-Merciful, the Teacher of all teachers " ; and above all, Sa Ishvarah anirvachaniya-premasvarupah — " He the Lord is, of His own nature, inexpressible Love. " These certainly are the definitions of a Personal God. Are there then two Gods — the " Not this, not this, " the Sat-chit-ânanda, the Existence-Knowledge-Bliss of the philosopher, and this God of Love of the Bhakta? No, it is the same Sat-chit-ananda who is also the God of Love, the impersonal and personal in one. It has always to be understood that the Personal God worshipped by the Bhakta is not separate or different from the Brahman. All is Brahman, the One without a second; only the Brahman, as unity or absolute, is too much of an abstraction to be loved and worshipped; so the Bhakta chooses the relative aspect of Brahman, that is, Ishvara, the Supreme Ruler. To use a simile: Brahman is as the clay or substance out of which an infinite variety of articles are fashioned. As clay, they are all one; but form or manifestation differentiates them. Before every one of them was made, they all existed potentially in the clay, and, of course, they are identical substantially; but when formed, and so long as the form remains, they are separate and different; the clay-mouse can never become a clay-elephant, because, as manifestations, form alone makes them what they are, though as unformed clay they are all one. Ishvara is the highest manifestation of the Absolute Reality, or in other words, the highest possible reading of the Absolute by the human mind. Creation is eternal, and so also is Ishvara. " He then discusses the fourth pada of the fourth chapter of the Sutras (whether a jnAni gets the power of Creation of the worlds etc.) as interpreted by the three acharyas from different viewpoints, and concludes finally thus: " True it is that we cannot have; any idea of the Brahman which is not anthropomorphic, but is it not equally true of everything we know? The greatest psychologist the world has ever known, Bhagavan Kapila, demonstrated ages ago that human consciousness is one of the elements in the make-up of all the objects of our perception and conception, internal as well as external. Beginning with our bodies and going up to Ishvara, we may see that every object of our perception is this consciousness plus something else, whatever that may be; and this unavoidable mixture is what we ordinarily think of as reality. Indeed it is, and ever will be, all of the reality that is possible for the human mind to know. Therefore to say that Ishvara is unreal, because He is anthropomorphic, is sheer nonsense. It sounds very much like the occidentals squabble on idealism and realism, which fearful-looking quarrel has for its foundation a mere play on the word " real " . The idea of Ishvara covers all the ground ever denoted and connoted by the word real, and Ishvara is as real as anything else in the universe; and after all, the word real means nothing more than what has now been pointed out. Such is our philosophical conception of Ishvara. " ================================= So, if my understanding of the whole concept is on the correct path, I would summarize this as: 1. Ishwara is the samasthi, collection of all jIvAs, just like the body is to individual cells. 2. Ishwara is the highest conception of human mind, is Eternal and hence Almighty. It comes into existence along with the duality, or the Primal thought in the One that " I should be many " . 3. Ishwara is real; as much as a jiva is real, since it is the collection of all jivas. The Eternal Brahman, when seen through the concept of mind, becomes Ishwara. 4. Just like in the body, although individual cells act to perform an action, we say the body performs an action; similarly although individual jivas do the karmas, which runs the Universe (since there wont be universe if no jivas did any karma); we say Ishwara performs the action of running the Universe. Indeed, it is in this way that Ishwara is the bestower of the results of all karma. This is my understanding, and I would be delighted to know the thoughts of others. Pranam, Vaibhav. Bring your gang together. Do your thing. Find your favourite Group. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 22, 2008 Dear Durga-ji, The bottom line is that there is only brahman - end of subject. Anything else - anything at all, including all of the teaching of advaita, no matter by whom - is only a rationalization for the benefit of the mind. This is what advaita itself says so I do not see how any teacher can say otherwise if pressed. So, whatever we discuss here is about mithyA concepts and not about how things 'really are'. <<Both Swamiji and my teacher have said that the 'equation (the aikyam) is between the jiva and Ishwara.' My teacher translates 'Tat Tvam Assi' as 'You are the Whole,' or 'You are Ishwara.'>> Sorry, but I do not understand this. To use the wave-ocean metaphor, my understanding is that the wave is a part of the ocean but both are (in essence) water alone. Similarly, the jIva is a part of Ishvara but both are (in essence) brahman alone. From the standpoint of the mANDUkya upaniShad, which along with the kArikA I regard as the definitive statement on advaita, all three states are mithyA and the only reality is turIya. Ishvara on this model is effectively the macrocosmic causal form, analogous to the microcosmic deep-sleep state of the jIva. I am not attempting to dispute the teaching value of Ishvara for a certain type of mind but I would refute that it is an *essential* concept. Indeed, as you indicate, it actually causes problems for some westerners. <<I feel that understanding Ishwara provides a locus of integration for the whole teaching.>> I agree with this statement. I accept that a failure to address Ishvara at all *also* causes problems, even if the westerner would rather not! <<I also think it's important to understand that the world is not 'unreal' as I infer you are saying above. What is unreal is that which doesn't exist, such as the horn of a rabbit.>> I think you know that when I use the word 'unreal' in such a context, I intend 'mithyA' (I have written about the subject plenty of times). <<Well, what power is moving those names and forms? Does that movement have an order? Are there observable laws in operation or not? Can we provide a name for that order, that movement, and perhaps call it, 'Ishwara?' And, if everything is brahman, which cannot be seen as an object, why do these names and forms appear at all? Do we have a way to account for any of it?>> All of this is now an attempt to rationalize the appearance - describe and explain the dream if you will - so is beyond the scope of the point that I was making. <<But I do feel that we need to look into the subject of Ishwara, and listen with sraddha to the words of teacher when Ishwara is explained and spoken of, and not just dismiss the understanding of Ishwara, as some sort of 'preliminary teaching' because it isn't. In fact, if we want to categorize it that way, I'd say it was an advanced teaching. And if we dismiss it, I don't think we've grasped the teaching of Vedanta at all.>> As I said, I do accept this and acknowledge yet again the depth of your own knowledge and your ability to communicate to others. ><Pranams, Durga>> And my humble praNam-s to you also, Dennis (I will now move onto your next post on the subject!) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 22, 2008 praNAms Hare Krishna The bottom line is that there is only brahman - end of subject. Anything else - anything at all, including all of the teaching of advaita, no matter by whom - is only a rationalization for the benefit of the mind. This is what advaita itself says so I do not see how any teacher can say otherwise if pressed. So, whatever we discuss here is about mithyA concepts and not about how things 'really are'. > This is beautifully said Sri Dennis prabhuji...The brahman with attributes or Ishwara is meant for meditation for the medium & lower category aspirants (like most of us) this brahman can not be compared with the highest reality of attributeless parabrahman & say Ishwara-hood of parabrahman is the highest reality of brahman..It is only empirical reality nothing else. ..As you have rightly pointed out, the distinctions among jIva, jagat & Ishwara is there just for teaching purpose and ultimately dissolved into ONE non-dual reality. > Due to severe time constraints I am not able to participate in the discussions...I have a small question here, whether there is any difference among apara brahma, Ishwara, hiraNya garbha, kArya brahma (effect brahma), sOpAdhika brahma (brahman with limiting adjuncts) ?? Shankara uses these variants while denoting the *brahman with attributes*..Please clarify. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 22, 2008 It is only the ignorant who look at self-realization and god-realization as two different entities - who look at atma-vichAra as being superior and bhakti as being inferior. praNAms Sri Shyam prabhuji Hare Krishna I shall come back to you on brahma sUtra & vivaraNa's avidyA discussion later (if possible next week) ...I really have plenty to share with you about it:-)) In the meanwhile may I say shankara himself says there is difference between Atma/brahma (ultimate) jnAna & jnAna that obtained through upAsana & archirAdi path which only leads to *krama mukti*...Shankara says an upAsaka, after the physical death, would travel in dEvayAna path & reach brahma lOka, where he enjoys all superhuman powers (like aNimAdi subtle powers) & luxuries but does not have the powers of creation etc. that what *Ishwara* has...Shankara continue to say, this type of realization is still on the platform of avidyA whereas in the ultimate jnAni/jnAna there is no transactions like this which is based on duality..This does not anyway mean that bhakti is inferior to Atma vichAra as these two spiritual practices have its own importance in its respective sphere. vEdAnta sUtra 4th chapter & 4th adhikaraNa (for example 4-4-16 to 4-4-21) has extensive discussions on these topics... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 22, 2008 Durga-ji. Your two posts are very interesting. However, the part excerpted below steered me in a different direction: QUOTE > So, where did the universe come from? My being, > because there is nothing else. What is the universe > made of? My being, because there is nothing else. > > Is the universe intelligent? It appears to have intelligence > in that it seems to display a perfect order. Where did > that perfect order come from? It came from my being because > there is nothing else. > > Did the universe exist before it came to be manifest? > It existed in my being as 'pure knowledge,' pure intelligence, > like the 'knowledge' of a tree exists in a seed. UNQUOTE Having concluded that everything is indeed your own being, aren't you bringing in an unfortunate chronology by asking the questions " Where did the universe come from? " and " Did it exist before it became manifest? " ? Are these questions not tantamount to asking " Where did I come from? " and " Did I exist before? " . Can't we stay put with the understanding that everything is our own being, as you rightly concluded, and has always been there and will always be there? (I know even my question is drenched in inescapable temporality! That is the pity of language!) In other words, we need to entertain questions such as the ones you asked only if we need to conclude the existence of an Ishwara to whom the intelligence and order of the universe can then be attributed. Am I right or totally outside your frequency? Best regards. M.R. Nair Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 22, 2008 Dear Durga-ji, I don't actually think I have much to add from my last response. <<But actually, I don't think it is quite possible to speak from the POV of paramarthika satyam, because in paramarthika satyam there is no creation, and paramarthika satyam can't speak, any more than the self, which the mind has recognized my self to be, can speak. That self and paramarthika satyam are the same. >> I would say that it is definitely not possible to speak from a pAramArthika standpoint. What we do is to talk about it from a vyAvahArika standpoint, as does the shruti. <<I also do not think that we can say 'there is no creation.' It seems pretty evident that there is one here to be experienced. So let's try and analyze it.>> But this is clearly the message of advaita, Gaudapada states in the kArikA: " No kind of jIva is ever born nor is there any cause for any such birth. The ultimate truth is that nothing whatsoever is born. " (IV.71) and " All aggregates (such as body etc.) are produced by the illusion of the Atman (i.e. the perceiver) as in a dream. No rational arguments can be adduced to establish their reality, whether they be equal or superior (to one another). " (II.10), to which Shankara adds: " That is to say, they do not exist from the standpoint of the ultimate reality. If it be argued, in order to establish their reality, that there is a superiority (among the created beings)-as in the case of the aggregates of cause and effect constituting gods who are superior to lower beings, such as birds and beasts-or that there is an equality (of all created beings), yet no cause can be set forth regarding their creation or reality. As there is no cause therefore all these are due to avidyA or ignorance: they have no real existence. " Obviously I do not dispute the apparent multiplicity of the appearance and agree with its mithyA status. Within this context, the concept of Ishvara has its place in the teaching of advaita, as I said in the last post. But, if we are talking 'bottom line' (as far as this is possible when talking and vyAvahArika go together) then my original statement (whatever that was - I can't remember now!) stands. Best wishes, Dennis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 22, 2008 Hi Shyam-ji, I get the impression from your post that you think I am saying rather more than, in fact, I am. I agree with practically all that you say (and don't think that I suggested otherwise). The only part that I would contest is the statement: " Everything is the Self alone, everything is Ishwara alone, and everything is I alone. That Ishwara i am - tat tvam asi. " I think this is 'where we came in', as they say. I would certainly agree with " Everything is the Self alone " but I would clarify this as: " everything is brahman " (sarvaM khalvidam brahman). I have not come across a statement in the shruti which says 'sarvam khalvidam Ishvara'. And, as I think I pointed out in response to Durga-ji's post, my understanding of tattvamasi is 'I am That', where That is brahman, not Ishvara. Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Shyam Tuesday, April 22, 2008 12:17 AM advaitin Re: brahman and Ishvara Pranams Dennis-ji Thank you for your observations. Let me try to clarify with an example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 22, 2008 advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > Durga-ji. > > Having concluded that everything is indeed your own being, aren't you > bringing in an unfortunate chronology by asking the questions " Where > did the universe come from? " and " Did it exist before it became > manifest? " ? Are these questions not tantamount to asking " Where did > I come from? " and " Did I exist before? " . > > Can't we stay put with the understanding that everything is our own > being, as you rightly concluded, and has always been there and will > always be there? (I know even my question is drenched in inescapable > temporality! That is the pity of language!) > > In other words, we need to entertain questions such as the ones you > asked only if we need to conclude the existence of an Ishwara to whom > the intelligence and order of the universe can then be attributed. > Am I right or totally outside your frequency? > > Best regards. > > M.R. Nair Namaste Sri Nairji, Well, actually I think my two replies to Dennis were intended to conclude the existence of Ishwara. Prior to meeting my teacher and Swami Dayananda, I thought as you and Dennis seem to think. Because they continually speak of the importance of understanding Ishwara, and because I have benefited tremendously from their teaching, I feel that what they have to communicate on the subject is worthwhile trying to understand and assimilate. I would not want to try and 'cherry pick,' as it were, from what they say, or dismiss parts of their teaching prior to totally understanding them. When I first met my teacher I was heavily influenced by the western neo-advaitin 'so-called' teachings, which really are so varied that they cannot be classified as one particular teaching, except to say that the one common thread amoung them seems to be ignorance and confusion on almost every point. Therefore, I came to the teachings of Vedanta with some concepts on the subject of advaita which I see now were really the height of ignorance. And somehow along the way, because I had been listening to those teachings for so long, I had also acquired a kind of 'superior' attitude that I was 'seasoned,' that I really knew the subject. So what can one say, ignorance compounded with pride. Not a great combination. In the beginning when I listened to the words of my teacher, I often thought I knew better. At that time, although I did not express it, I realize now that my inner attitude when I listened was at times quite disrespectful. Yet, somehow through Ishwara's grace, enough of a partical of shraddha was there which allowed me to stay. Now, of course, I see I did not know better at all. So many of the notions and conclusions I had gathered here and there were totally and utterly wrong and twisted understandings of the subject, compounding the basic ignorance of jivatvam with which everyone comes to the teachings. With infinite patience, kindness, and love my questions were answered, my doubts were knocked off, a certain amount of clarity was gained, and trust was established. Now if that same teacher and my teacher's guru say 'tat tvam asi' means 'You are Ishwara,' what should I do, think, I know better? Think they are giving me a 'junior teaching?' Think there is some type of 'senior teaching' they are purposely hiding from me? What type of mind would that bring to the unfoldment? The only thing at this point which I now hope to 'know better' is to listen and to try and understand what they say. Hari Om, Durga Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 22, 2008 Dear Durga-ji, Just to be pedantic (again!), the mahAvAkya tattvamasi is from the ChAndogya upaniShad 6.8.7: " 'That Being which is this subtle essence (cause), even That all this world has for its self. That is the true. That is the Atman. That thou art, O Svetaketu.' 'Revered sir, please explain it further to me'. 'So be it, dear boy', said (the father). " The 'That' which uddAlaka says that shvataketu 'art' is Atman, not Ishvara. " sa ya eshho.aNimaitadaatmyamida\m+ sarvaM tatsatya\m+ sa aatmaa tattvamasi shvetaketo iti bhuuya eva maa bhagavaanviGYaapayatviti tathaa somyeti hovaacha " Best wishes, Dennis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 22, 2008 Dear Durga-ji, That is helluva lot of explanation! I just expressed a thought which occurred to me when I read your post. That is all. I didn't mean to question the concept of Ishwara or the teachings of Sw. Dayanandaji, from whom I also derive tremendous advaitic inspiration and enthusiasm. When I began reading your current post under refernece, I was chanting the Lalita Sahasranama, which is one of the many Devi hymns I chant morning and evening. I just finished the Sahasranama and then began this reply. That would tell you pretty lot about where I stand vis-a-vis Ishwara. Your thoughts and the way you express them are just wonderful. Kindly continue the good work. You definitely have Ishwara's blessings and grace. Best regards. Madathil Nair ___________________ advaitin , " Durga " <durgaji108 wrote: >> > > Now if that same teacher and my teacher's > guru say 'tat tvam asi' means 'You are Ishwara,' > what should I do, think, I know better? > Think they are giving me a 'junior teaching?' > Think there is some type of 'senior teaching' > they are purposely hiding from me? > > What type of mind would that bring to the > unfoldment? > > The only thing at this point which I now > hope to 'know better' is to listen and to try > and understand what they say. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 22, 2008 advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: > > Dear Durga-ji, > > > > Just to be pedantic (again!), the mahAvAkya tattvamasi is from the ChAndogya > upaniShad 6.8.7: > > " 'That Being which is this subtle essence (cause), even That all this world > has for its self. That is the true. That is the Atman. That thou art, O > Svetaketu.' 'Revered sir, please explain it further to me'. 'So be it, dear > boy', said (the father). " > > > > The 'That' which uddAlaka says that shvataketu 'art' is Atman, not Ishvara. > > > > " sa ya eshho.aNimaitadaatmyamida\m+ sarvaM tatsatya\m+ sa > > aatmaa tattvamasi shvetaketo iti bhuuya eva maa > > bhagavaanviGYaapayatviti tathaa somyeti hovaacha " > > > > Best wishes, > > Dennis Hi Dennis, Well, atma is brahman, brahman is Ishwara. If this world has for itself brahmatma, then why not include the world, and say 'You are Ishwara' 'You are the whole' See, when you knock off the things from atma, as not 'I,' you've got to go back and collect them again as 'I,' or you've got two things, one of which is 'I,' and everything else which is not I. I think this may be a subtle, but important point. IMO the understanding of Ishwara is the absolute locus for the integration of self-knowledge. Otherwise, I think one is in danger have having some little places in the mind which have yet not come to be examined and accepted in the light of knowledge. If you say 'this world is just an appearance,' then I think one is in danger of saying (or thinking) 'it's not real,' so I see that as a problem. We can use the word 'mithya,' but what do we take that word to mean? An appearance? Isn't there some little bit of a thought that the word mithya means 'not real?' as Sri Shyamji said, like when I wake up from a dream, I see it wasn't real. So perhaps that is what my teacher meant when she said westerners like to escape Ishwara, and frankly it cannot be done. We can't blast it all into nonduality. We have to accept it as manifest brahman. If we reject it, then that is dvaita, not advaita. I seem to understand what I'm saying, but I guess I cannot get you to see the same thing. I am the whole. I am Ishwara. I am that which does not move and I am the movement. Did I leave something out? :-) Pranams, Durga Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 22, 2008 ___________ Durga: My teacher translates 'Tat Tvam Assi' as 'You are the Whole,' or 'You are Ishwara.'>> ____________ Dennis: Sorry, but I do not understand this. To use the wave-ocean metaphor, my understanding is that the wave is a part of the ocean but both are (in essence) water alone. ___ Shyam: Sathyapi bhedhapagame nadha thwaham na mamakeenasthwam, Saamudhro hi tharanga kwachana samudhro na tharanga. Even at the time of true realization, when I see no differences, I am but a part of you, and you are never my part, For a tide is a part of the sea and sea can never be a part of the tide. Shat Padi by Adi Shankara ___________ Dennis: I am not attempting to dispute the teaching value of Ishvara for a certain type of mind but I would refute that it is an *essential* concept. Indeed, as you indicate, it actually causes problems for some westerners. I accept that a failure to address Ishvara at all *also* causes problems, even if the westerner would rather not! __ Shyam: I am curious and wonder if either of you may choose to elaborate why this may be so? After all a spiritual tradition does exist even in Christianity with emphasis on values, prayer, faith,surrender, etc Why then should Westerners have a discomfort (in some I have found almost a anathema) to the concept of God or Divinity (almost to the point of as though it were something grounded in superstition.) ________________________________ Dennis: I get the impression from your post that you think I am saying rather more than, in fact, I am. I agree with practically all that you say (and don't think that I suggested otherwise). The only part that I would contest is the statement: " Everything is the Self alone, everything is Ishwara alone, and everything is I alone. That Ishwara i am - tat tvam asi. " I think this is 'where we came in', as they say. I would certainly agree with " Everything is the Self alone " but I would clarify this as: " everything is brahman " (sarvaM khalvidam brahman). I have not come across a statement in the shruti which says 'sarvam khalvidam Ishvara'. ___ Shyam Let us start with the Smrti - a beautiful verse from the Gita: bahunam janmanam ante jnanavan mam prapadyate vasudevah sarvam iti sa mahatma su-durlabhah At the end of many births the man of Knowledge attains Me, (realizing) that Vasudeva is all. Such a high-souled one is very rare. Shankara comments on this verse: Ante, at the end, after the completion; bahunam, of many; janmanam, births, which became the repository for accumulating the tendencies leading to Knowledge; jnanavan, the man of Knowledge, who has got hiis Knowledge matured; directly prapadyate, attains; mam, Me, Vasudeva, who am the inmost Self; (realizing)-in what way?-iti, that; Vasudeva is sarvam, all. Sah, such a one, who realizes Me, Narayana, thus as the Self of all; is mahatma, a high-souled one. There is none else who can equal or excel him. Therefore he is su-durlabhah, very rare among thousands of men. Let us now turn to the Shruti Shvetashvara Upanishad Part 2 15 And when the yogi beholds the real nature of Brahman, through the Knowledge of the Self, radiant as a lamp, then, having known the unborn and immutable Lord, who is untouched by ignorance and its effects, he is freed from all fetters. 16 He indeed, the Lord, who pervades all regions, was the first to be born and it is He who dwells in the womb of the universe. It is He, again, who is born as a child and He will be born in the future, He stands behind all persons and His face is everywhere. 17 The Self—luminous Lord, who is fire, who is in water, who has entered into the whole world, who is in plants, who is in trees— to that Lord let there be adoration! Yea, let there be adoration! Part 3 7 The Supreme Lord is higher than Virat, beyond Hiranyagarbha. He is vast and is hidden in the bodies of all living beings. By knowing Him who alone pervades the universe, men become immortal. 8 I know the great Purusha, who is luminous, like the sun and beyond darkness. Only by knowing Him does one pass over death; there is no other way to the Supreme Goal. 9 The whole universe is filled by the Purusha, to whom there is nothing superior, from whom there is nothing different, than whom there is nothing either smaller or greater; who stands alone, motionless as a tree, established in His own glory. 10 That which is farthest from this world is without form and without affliction They who know It become immortal; but others, indeed, suffer pain. 11 All faces are His faces; all heads, His heads; all necks, His necks. He dwells in the hearts of all beings. He is the all— pervading Bhagavan. Therefore He is the omnipresent and benign Lord. 12 He, indeed, is the great Purusha, the Lord of creation, preservation and destruction, who inspires the mind to attain the state of stainlessness. He is the Ruler and the Light that is imperishable. 13 The Purusha, no bigger than a thumb, is the inner Self, ever seated in the heart of man. He is known by the mind, which controls knowledge and is perceived in the heart. They who know Him become immortal. Mundaka Up Ch2 9 From Him come all the oceans and the mountains; from Him flow rivers of every kind; from Him have come, as well, all plants and flavours, by which the inner self subsists surrounded by the elements. 10 The Purusha alone is verily the universe, which consists of work and austerity. O my good friend, he who knows this Brahman—the Supreme and the Immortal, hidden in the cave of the heart—cuts asunder even here the knot of ignorance. Ch3 3 When the seer beholds the self—luminous Creator, the Lord, the Purusha, the progenitor of Brahma, then he, the wise seer, shakes off good and evil, becomes stainless and reaches the supreme unity. Katha Up 12 There is one Supreme Ruler, the inmost Self of all beings, who makes His one form manifold. Eternal happiness belongs to the wise, who perceive Him within themselves—not to others. 13 There is One who is the eternal Reality among non—eternal objects, the one truly conscious Entity among conscious objects and who, though non—dual, fulfils the desires of many. Eternal peace belongs to the wise, who perceive Him within themselves—not to others. 14 The sages realise that indescribable Supreme Joy as " This is That. " How can I realise It? Is It self—luminous? Does It shine brightly, or not? 15 The sun does not shine there, nor the moon and the stars, nor these lightnings—not to speak of this fire. He shining, everything shines after Him. By His light all this is lighted. _____________ Bhaskar: In the meanwhile may I say shankara himself says there is difference between Atma/brahma (ultimate) jnAna & jnAna that obtained through upAsana & archirAdi path which only leads to *krama mukti*...Shankara says an upAsaka, after the physical death, would travel in dEvayAna path & reach brahma lOka, where he enjoys all superhuman powers (like aNimAdi subtle powers) & luxuries but does not have the powers of creation etc. that what *Ishwara* has...Shankara continue to say, this type of realization is still on the platform of avidyA whereas in the ultimate jnAni/jnAna there is no transactions like this which is based on duality __________ Shyam: Dear Bhaskar-ji I think you are confusing two things - videhamukti and the realization " Vasudeva sarvam iti " of a jivanmuktA. When one has already discovered in his heart the Supreme Being, then his sense of separation is already dissolved in toto. How can there be place for two things in one locus - that too One who is the Light of Lights and the other who is of the nature of a shadow? Where will such a Realized One travel? Where is the " other " for Him besides Narayana, his own Self?? So please do not confuse the parAbhakti of a jivanmukta with the upAsana bhakti of a seeker. UpAsanA arises at the level of the mind - it is a mental kriya, a activity, that helps train the seeker's mind and goads it in the direction of a deity of his choice. ParAbhakti arises at the level of the Ego or ahankAra itself - and represents the anguish of a phantom Ego longing for its own annihilation having fully turned away from the dance of Samsara it has long-endured in its own beginingless ignorance of its Real nature. UpAsanA aims to gain proximity to the Lord. The result is kramamukti. ParAbhakti aims to lose oneself entirely in the Lord. The result is jivanmukti There is a subtle but crucial difference between the two. Humble pranams Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh nam Shyam ______________________________\ ____ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 22, 2008 Durgaji said: > Well, atma is brahman, brahman is Ishwara. > > If this world has for itself brahmatma, > then why not include the world, and > say 'You are Ishwara' 'You are the whole' > Durgaji, I really like your style of description, and it makes the reading of such complex concepts easier. I just remembered that a similar question was asked to Shri Ramakrishna Paramhamsa once by Keshab Chandra Sen (the member of Brahmo Samaj). This was his answer: ================= " MASTER: " The jnanis, who adhere to the non-dualistic philosophy of Vedanta, say that the acts of creation, preservation, and destruction, the universe itself and all its living beings, are the manifestations of Sakti, the Divine Power. (Known as maya in the Vedanta philosophy.) If you reason it out, you will realize that all these are as illusory as a dream. Brahman alone is the Reality, and all else is unreal. Even this very Sakti is unsubstantial, like a dream. " But though you reason all your life, unless you are established in samadhi, you cannot go beyond the jurisdiction of Sakti. Even when you say, 'I am meditating', or 'I am contemplating', still you are moving in the realm of Sakti, within Its power. " Thus Brahman and Sakti are identical. If you accept the one, you must accept the other. It is like fire and its power to burn. If you see the fire, you must recognize its power to burn also. You cannot think of fire without its power to burn, nor can you think of the power to burn without fire. You cannot conceive of the sun's rays without the sun, nor can you conceive of the sun without its ravs. " What is milk like? Oh, you say, it is something white. You cannot think of the milk without the whiteness, and again, you cannot think of the whiteness without the milk. " Thus one cannot think of Brahman without Sakti, or of Sakti without Brahman. One cannot think of the Absolute without the Relative, or of the Relative without the Absolute. " The Primordial Power is ever at play. (This idea introduces the elements of spontaneity and freedom in the creation.) She is creating, preserving, and destroying in play, as it were. This Power is called Kali. Kali is verily Brahman, and Brahman is verily Kali. It is one and the same Reality. When we think of It as inactive, that is to say, not engaged in the acts of creation, preservation, and destruction, then we call It Brahman. But when It engages in these activities, then we call It Kali or Sakti. The Reality is one and the same; the difference is in name and form. " It is like water, called in different languages by different names, such as 'jal', pani', and so forth. There are three or four ghats on a lake. The Hindus, who drink water at one place, call it 'jal'. The Mussalmans at another place call it 'pani'. And the English at a third place call it 'water'. All three denote one and the same thing, the difference being in the name only. In the same way, some address the Reality as 'Allah', some as 'God', some as 'Brahman', some as 'Kali', and others by such names as 'Rama', 'Jesus', 'Durga', 'Hari'. " ===================== Perhaps this is what Shri Krishna refers to when he says: " The one who sees inaction in action, and action in inaction, is a wise person. Such a person is a yogi and has accomplished everything. " ? Hari Om! Vaibhav. Explore your hobbies and interests. Go to http://in.promos./groups/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2008 Namaste Dennis-ji. You said " QUOTE " I would certainly agree with " Everything is the Self alone " but I would clarify this as: " everything is brahman " (sarvaM khalvidam brahman). I have not come across a statement in the shruti which says 'sarvam khalvidam Ishvara'. And, as I think I pointed out in response to Durga-ji's post, my understanding of tattvamasi is 'I am That', where That is brahman, not Ishvara. " UNQUOTE Then what about 'IsAvAsyamidaM sarvaM' the first line and running theme of Isopanishad, Dennisji?! What about this statement by Shankara in Dakshinamurthi Stotram: " He, whose eight-fold forms are the " Earth, Water, Fire, Air, Ether, Sun, Moon and Jeeva " , and who manifests Himself as this universe of the movable and immovable objects - and besides which, the Supreme All-Pervading Lord, there exists nothing to those who reflect well upon ..... to Him, the Divine Teacher Sri Dakshinamoorthy, is this Prostration. " (Translation by Sw. Chinamayanandaji) Earth, Water and Air are representative of all that is solid, liquid and gas in creation; Fire is all that burns, Ether is space (time goes with it), Sun and Moon for all the galaxies, stars, planets and other heavenly bodies and interstellar matter, and Jeeva for all his internalizatons and also all that is living which can include all life forms in this universe that we know of and that we will in future (I am including the possibility of extra-terrestrials!). That is sarvaM khalvidaM brahma or sarva< khalvidaM Ishwara! Dennis-ji, we need to understand the frequency at which Sw. Dayanandaji is communicating. Once, during a discussion on " pUrNamadaH... " , he laughingly concluded: " What is mithyA? MithyA is satyaM " . (Ref: post # 25725). That statement shocked some of us here. We know that Swamiji was not going against the tenets of " pure Advaita " . In fact, he was only expressing the all-encompassing message and nature of Advaita in his inimitable style. Advaita cannot be an an alienation. His views on Ishwara are therefore to be understood in that context. Durgaji is really fortunate to have been able to understand him despite being a Westerner. If sarvamidaM (all this or all this universe or all that is there in this universe) is brahman, then the rose is brahman, the diamond is brahman, the roach is brahman and wife is also brahman! There is nothing other than Brahman. BrahmaivedaM vishwaM.. (Mund. Up.). How can I relate to this, if I admantly insist that Brahman is immutable, indefinable etc. etc.? The only way I can relate is to accept this multiplicity that confronts me as one and the same and operate in a manner that there is nothing other than that one. Mund. Up. effectively uses the spider-cobweb analogy to help us here. The material of the web is not different from the spider. The spider releases the web matter from itself and withdraws it into itself. This is the way the universe manifests from brahman and later goes into dissolution into the same brahman. The immutable brahman of the shruti seen as manifesting as this universe is our Ishwara who pervades its multiplicity as itself as stated in Isopanishad. So, when I do suryanamaskar in the morning, I am not saluting just a yellow star who is an insignificant entity when compared to the other gigantic asterisms that glitter our skies. I am prostrating before Ishwara, the Lord of the Universe, who is none other than the brahman of vedanta. When an ant or roach passes by, then that again is the Lord. Why each and every atom of my body and the trillions of microorganisms that inhabit it are verily the Lord himself. What remains other than Him. Nothing. He alone remains. Brahman alone remains. That is Advaita - the way it is lived (not the way it is intellectually understood). Such living is a thrill, the pleasure of all pleasures. Best regards. Madathil Nair Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2008 Dear Vaibhav-ji, Pranams, thank you for posting this story. It makes it so beautifully clear that while there might be differences in the philosophical terms of Brahman and Ishvara, in TRUTH they are on and the same. Nair-ji clarified this further. Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti Sitara advaitin , vaibhav khire <vskhire wrote: > " Thus Brahman and Sakti are identical. If you accept > the one, you must accept the other. It is like fire > and its power to burn. If you see the fire, you must > recognize its power to burn also. You cannot think of > fire without its power to burn, nor can you think of > the power to burn without fire. You cannot conceive of > the sun's rays without the sun, nor can you conceive > of the sun without its ravs. > > " The Primordial Power is ever at play. (This idea > introduces the elements of spontaneity and freedom in > the creation.) She is creating, preserving, and > destroying in play, as it were. This Power is called > Kali. Kali is verily Brahman, and Brahman is verily > Kali. It is one and the same Reality. When we think of > It as inactive, that is to say, not engaged in the > acts of creation, preservation, and destruction, then > we call It Brahman. But when It engages in these > activities, then we call It Kali or Sakti. The Reality > is one and the same; the difference is in name and > form. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2008 Hi Durga, One last attempt! :-) My (simplistic) understanding of the microcosmic and macrocosmic views of the manifestation: Microcosmic: gross body, sthUla sharIra - the waker ego, vishva in jAgrat avasthA subtle body, sUkShma sharIra - the dreamer ego, taijasa in svapna avasthA causal body, kAraNa sharIra - the deep sleeper, prAj~na in suShupti avasthA Macrocosmic: gross body, virAt subtle body, hiraNyagarbha causal body, antaryAmin or Ishvara I.e. Ishvara is that which holds the entire universe in potential form prior to or post manifestation. But, just as we can say that I, the Atman, am not the gross, physical or causal body but turIya, that which is the essence of all of these, so we can that I, brahman, am not the gross physical universe, the subtle manifestation or that which is the cause of these but turIya, that which is the essence of all of them. This is my understanding from the Mandukya Upanishad. Apologies if any of the fine detail is incorrect but I think the essential point is clear. Best wishes, Dennis <<Hi Dennis, Well, atma is brahman, brahman is Ishwara. If this world has for itself brahmatma, then why not include the world, and say 'You are Ishwara' 'You are the whole' See, when you knock off the things from atma, as not 'I,' you've got to go back and collect them again as 'I,' or you've got two things, one of which is 'I,' and everything else which is not I.>> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2008 That indeed is a new angle, Vaibhav-ji. But I am afraid it doesn't fit the particular context in BG, i.e. karma yoga, where inaction signifies action without agency. May be I am wrong. I would, therefore, love to hear what others have to say. Best regards. Madathil Nair ______________ advaitin , vaibhav khire <vskhire wrote at the conclusion of an answer given by Shri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa regarding actionless Brahman and active Shakti being one and the same: > Perhaps this is what Shri Krishna refers to when he > says: > " The one who sees inaction in action, > and action in inaction, is a wise person. > Such a person is a yogi and has accomplished > everything. " ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2008 Dear All: When Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi was asked: -Is God (Ishwara) real? he responded: Yes, as real as you are. This single lines encompases, in a PRACTICAL way, all the Advaitic knowledge regarding all differences (or apparent similarities) between Brahman (Nirguna) and Jeeva/Ishwara (Saguna). All depends what we ourselves assume our-selves to be: either completely " separate " from That, a " part " of That, " simply " That... or All " and " None of the Above. Yours in All, Mouna Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2008 Hi Vaibhav-ji and Shyam-ji, I do not think that any of the shruti quotations from Shyam-ji shows that Ishvara is being spoken of rather than brahman. I like the quotation from Shri Ramakrishna and I think it does illustrate where the misunderstanding is arising. In particular the following extract is revealing: << " The Primordial Power is ever at play. (This idea introduces the elements of spontaneity and freedom in the creation.) She is creating, preserving, and destroying in play, as it were. This Power is called Kali. Kali is verily Brahman, and Brahman is verily Kali. It is one and the same Reality. When we think of It as inactive, that is to say, not engaged in the acts of creation, preservation, and destruction, then we call It Brahman. But when It engages in these activities, then we call It Kali or Sakti. The Reality is one and the same; the difference is in name and form. " >> The metaphor of gold and bangle explains the point. Bangle can be melted down and made into ring, ring into chain. The bangle is not the chain; the chain is not the ring and so on. Gold is that which exists in and through all three. Similarly, the waker is not the dreamer is not the deep-sleeper; turIya is that which exists in and through all three states. Bangle is gold; ring is gold; chain is gold but gold is not any of them. In the quotation above, Kali *is* verily brahman but brahman is *not* Kali. 'I' am brahman; 'you' are brahman; Ishvara is brahman. brahman is the essence of all three but is not any of these things, which are all only mithyA name and form of brahman. Best wishes, Dennis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2008 Just another quotation to add to the mix: Brahman who is existence, consciousness and infinity is the reality. Its being Ishvara (the omniscient Lord of the world) and jIva (the individual soul) are (mere) superimpositions by the two illusory adjuncts ( mAyA and avidyA, respectively). pa~nchadashI (III.37) Dennis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 2008 Dennisji, you said: > The metaphor of gold and bangle explains the point. > Bangle can be melted > down and made into ring, ring into chain. The bangle > is not the chain; the > chain is not the ring and so on. Gold is that which > exists in and through > all three. Similarly, the waker is not the dreamer > is not the deep-sleeper; > turIya is that which exists in and through all three > states. Bangle is gold; > ring is gold; chain is gold but gold is not any of > them. In the quotation > above, Kali *is* verily brahman but brahman is *not* > Kali. > I think the ocean-wave analogy is better suited. If I understand the whole thing correctly, Brahman is the water, Ishwara is the ocean and jiva is a wave. The definition of Ishwara as being the samashti/collection of jivas as given by Swami Vivekananda (my first mail in this thread) fits this analogy perfectly. So, is Ishwara real/unreal? The same question can be asked as " Is jiva real/unreal " ? I dont think anyone says a jiva is unreal; infact existence of Self is the basic axioms of Advaita. So if jiva is real, how can a collection of jivas be unreal? True, in reality there is only 1 jiva, and the multiplicity is only apparent, but that whole collection of jivas or 1 jiva apprearing as many IS REAL. And that is Ishwara! As Mounaji quoted Ramana Maharshi, " Ishwara is as real as you are " , meaning Ishwara is as real as the jiva. Otherwise, it is like saying a wave exists, water surely exists, but the ocean is unreal! ================================= My guess is the 'discomfort' with the concept of Ishwara starts with the various " attributes " the devotees give to It. But there again, isnt there a saguna Ishwara and a nirguna Ishwara? Only the nirgun Ishwara is equated to Brahman. It is like saying, if the Ocean is Infinite, there is no water outside the Ocean; then the Ocean is water and water is Ocean. In this case, noone has to worry about someone calling the Ocean blue, since it does not mean that water is blue! Hari Om! ~Vaibhav. From Chandigarh to Chennai - find friends all over India. Go to http://in.promos./groups/citygroups/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
