Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2008 It is only because we confront this " this " (idam) that we can say " not this " or " not like this " . Need we then not to be thankful to Brahman for providing this " this " in the first place to begin the enquiry? We can't even visualize a scenario where this " this " is not existent at all. praNAms Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji Hare Krishna Yes, in our day to day business we do confront *this*...But dont you think that *this* which is appearing as time, space, casuality appropriate to each different state?? Dont we are subject to joys and sorrows of the particular state/world?? And, again, the scenario where this *this* is not existent at all also is very much there in our day to day experience..you know which state I am talking about here:-)) the state in which we know no limitation of time, space or causation, that is deep sleep state!!! Oh, I think we are going back to old days once again, wherein we had not so good/healthy dialogues on this issue :-))...Let us leave it at that.. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2008 Hi Durga, I really do not understand what I have written that prompts you to write any of this. I agree with all that you say and have said much the same things myself and written them in my books. I have even quoted Swami Dayananda's 'mithyA is satyam'. I have never implied that name and form are 'only apparent'. All that I have insisted upon is that everything is actually only brahman and that, in reality, there has never been any creation. Both these ideas are pure advaita. Where is there a problem? If you want to persist in countering what you think are my views, could you please quote actual statements that I have made so that I can explain where you have misunderstood what I was saying? Best wishes, Dennis <<Although it's true I don't have much time right now, I just wanted to say that the clay *is* the pot, while there is a pot form there to be called a pot. They are inseparable. They are the exact same 'thing.' Now, let's say the pot form goes, and perhaps that same clay now looks like a cup, or some other clay vessel. So what's there? Clay What has always been there clay. The clay is not modified by the pot form because it is always clay. The clay doesn't go out of existence, because that which we called a clay pot, by any other name (now maybe a plate) is clay.>> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2008 Humble praNAms Shri Shyam prabhuji Hare Krishna Sri S prabhuji : You are surprised Bhaskar-ji because I think you (perhaps subconsciously??) regard the views of any AchArya, other than your paramaGuru, to not represent " pure " Shankara advaita. bhaskar : I am infact consciously aware that some of the post shankaran works are not really reflecting the true purports of prasthAna trayi bhAshya. My parama guruji has shown this clearly in his work dedicated exclusively for this purpose...But while saying this, kindly be rest assured that none of the names that you have mentioned in the mail is there in my mind :-)) Sri S prabhuji : Please do not include my paramaGuru-ji Swami (not Shri) Dayananda-ji who is very much in the sampradAya of Shankara Advaita alongwith Neem Karoli Baba and Ramakrishna Parahamsa! bhaskar : I am afraid prabhuji, you are reading too much between the lines of my mail ....When I am asking for shankara's views, my concern was quite genuine & I did not have an iota of disrespect to downplay the teachings of these great souls...have I talked anyther about sampradAya?? have I said anywhere these spiritual teachers are not following shankara?? have I anywhere compared their teachings with that of shankara bhAshya?? Infact I am hearing the name of Shri Neem Karoli Baba* first time in this list...I dont know anything about his teachings & his tradition...Same is the case with Swamy Dayananda Saraswati prabhuji & Swamy paramArthananda prabhuji..Sofar I've read only 3-4 books written by Swami Dayanandaji (I think *value of values*, *Sri rudram* etc. which deal with some general topic & not pure shAstric in its contents ) I dont know anything about his works on prasthAna trayi & its compliance with shankara bhAshya. Under these circumstances, how can I adjudge whether swamiji is the follower of vivaraNa or bhAmati or shankara?? Only recently I came to know that (from your postings) Swamiji is the follower of vivaraNa school....So, kindly note that I am the last man to evaluate their traditional belongingness... After reading your above statement, one curious question is coming to my mind...what makes you to say 'dont put my guruji-s name *alongwith* Neem Karoli Baba & paramahamsa...In what way you see the difference between the teachings of these two spiritual teachers?? Kindly clarify. Sri S prabhuji : Amongst all the teachers of traditional vedanta as taught by Adi Shankara, Swami Dayananda and Swami Paramarthananda stand as amongst the foremost in the world today. bhaskar : I am really happy to know that prabhuji. My humble prostrations to them. Sri S prabhuji : So what they are saying is not " their " perspective or opinion, but what is taught by Shankara in his bhashyas which is based on the Shruti alone. bhaskar : Again, I am happy to note that...Kindly tell me what is their conclusion about the concept of Ishvara according to advaita?? Shankara makes it explicitly clear that Ishvara is only the vyAvahAri reality & there is no Ishvara, jIva, jagat bedha in the absolute reality. However, since there is no *second chaitanya* apart from brahman, shankara continues to say that the secondless brahman only is equated with Ishvara (ruler) who is omniscient and omnipotent. (example sutra 1-1-2). In short, shankara without any ambiguity concludes that The very brahman conditioned by name and form set up by avidyA becomes Ishvara (sUtra bhAshya 2-1-14) ...Whether this is what poojya Swamiji teaches?? pls. clarify... if not, kindly tell me what is his stand on this concept & based on which part of the bhAshya he is holding to prove it otherwise. And also let me know whether he anywhere talks about apara brahman & Ishvara and their differences (if any)... Sri S prabhuji : The word Ishwara, dear Bhaskar-ji, comes from the root " ish " - which means the Lord. In the smarta tradition the Lord refers to both Shiva as well as Vishnu and the two are used interchangeably. bhaskar : I agree. But if you read my mail carefully, you will come to know that I was not talking about the etymology of this word Ishwara...I was just talking about the conventional belief system existing here in South Indian smArtha tradition. Some examples, vishveshvara means shiva (namaste astu bhagavan vishveshwaraya, mahAdEvAya etc.), srikanteshwara means shiva, Ishvara means shiva, manjunAtheshvara means shiva, nanjundeshvara means shiva, maheshvara means shiva...see, all these prefixes to the term Ishvara invariably depict the various names & forms of shiva bhagavan only...Having said this, I dont have any issues if you say this Ishvara is nArAyaNa or shiva-nArAyaNa both :-)) Again, coming back to the main topic, the derivative meaning of the word Ishvara is *the ruler* or *the lord*...Dont you think it would be interesting to know how bhagavadpAda, an absolute proponent of non-duality who repeatedly says brahman is One & only one without a second, reconciles this idea of personified form of Ishvara, the ruler, the lord and the ruled, ordained into his system without any self contradiction?? How can there be distinction of a ruler and someing being ruled?? dont you think this would counter the fundamental tenet of accepting Isvara as the cause of the world?? shankara gives answer to this by saying the doctrine of causality is mAyik, does not hold any water from the absolute sense. Hence, the Ishvara who is conditioned by name & form is just like universal ether limited as it were by jars, pots etc. and from the empirical point of view this Ishvara rules over the souls (jeeva-s) conditioned by individual consciousness (vijnAnamAtmanaH)...If this is what ultimately your poojya guruji-s also saying I dont have anything in disagreement...Kindly clarify how they interpret this position of shankara on Ishvara. Hopefully with appropriate quotes from shankara bhAshya. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2008 I have even quoted Swami Dayananda's 'mithyA is satyam'. praNAms Hare Krishna This is what I am finding it difficult to understand in line with shankara bhAshya...First, is there any difference in the usage of terminologies mithyA and mAya according to Swamiji ?? If both mAya & mithyA are synonyms then shankara says this mAya/mithyA is anirvachanIya (cannot be defined to be identical with brahman or quite distinct from brahman)...Elsewhere in the bhAshya the same concept of mAya has been explained by shankara with the example of foam and water and says foam which is NOT quite the same as water, but yet not a different entity from water..(tattva anyatvAbhyAm anirvachanIya)...If this mysterious entity called mithyA is *satyaM* shankara would have not viewed it as above...He would have definitely said here, if the mithyA is viewed distinct from brahman is mithyA and if it is viewed as brahman then it is satyaM...is it not?? Please clarify. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2008 Hari OM~ Bhaskar ji, I always stick to Prasthana traya Bashyams when I deal with crucial issues in Vedanta. And those references were from Gita Bhasya. In my opinion, we must not extend views of Acharya in any direction even if it is 'seemingly' logical. So, if Acharya uses the term Iswara for Narayana or Visnu, it is simply Narayana and Visnu alone. We aint give scope for any sort of extensions here to bring in Brahma Shiva and so on. Theories like 'San matha sthapana' are all constructed only on these wrong extensions. There is no evidence for Iswaratva being ascribed to Shiva Brahma Indra or any other deities in the Prasthana traya Bashyams. Even Sureswara in the Antharyami Brahmana and in many other Vartika instances coin Visnu for the term Iswara. Padmapada gives no reference to Shiva to the term Iswara. Even in Hastamalakiya Bashyam, Visnu is equated with Bimba svarupa where Pratibimba bheda is regarded to be aupAdhika. This Bimba svarupa in Advaita is 'Evam eva' non-dual Iswara. Hence Visnu is the non-dual Iswara in our Sampradaya. there can be no second thought. Even though Pratibimba is non-different from Bimba, the aupAdika bhedas persist in that plane and hence subjected to different gradations. Apart from Visnu, all other bhuta-bautika-daiva bhutas fall under the Pratibimba category, while Iswara - Sarvajna Visnu 'Vyapana Sila' is celebrated as the Paramartha Tattvam. Sankara says 'tatha Buddhibedhesu nAnabuddhishu te tavApi nAnAtvam he Visno ParamArthastu tava Bhedo BuddhyupAdikrtastu Vidyata ityarthaH' iti. With Narayana Smrthi, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2008 Hari OM~ Shyam ji, I dont think we deserve such a question first of all. We are not here to catalyze tussle between Siva - Visnu Supremacy. Please. The question that we work on is this: 'What according to Advaita does the term Iswara mean?' Listen. Each system has there own techical terms. Say for instance the term 'Purusa' according to Advaita (as Adi Sesa - a pre Gaudapada Advaitin) means Brahman-Iswara while Kapila treats it entirely in a different sense. Similarly the term 'Paramarsa' (mark) to a Naiyayika refers to subsumptive reflection while in Advaita we take it in a different sense. So what does the term Iswara refer to ? To fix a contextual meaning to this term in Advaita, we will have to trace the term in Sruti, Smrti or Nyaya prasthanas, where we will find Bashyakara's definition. In that sense, in Bagavad Gita, we find many references to term 'Iswara' which Acharya refers it for Visnu - Narayana alone. This usage is very crucial and all sampradayins have systematically followed it. Why not we use the same term to other deities ? Why not the etymological root signify a different sense ? What is that which stops Sankara to use Shiva or Brahma for Iswara? Is Sankara then against Saivism ? All these questions are irrelevant here. These questions are not worth questioning on the first hand. Bagavad Pada has emphasized the notion of Visnu Drsti in all his canonical scriptures. In my view, Vernacular Verbos are pivotal and needs special attention essentially for all serious students of Advaita. With Narayana Smrthi, Devanathan.J Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2008 Dear Dennis-ji The shruti references I gave you clearly mention the terms IshAnA and pUrUshA - both synonyms of IshwAra. You rightly read them as referring to Brahman - because that is 100% correct. I fully agree with you - that is the whole point! This is also what the Gita and Shankarabhashya talk about: 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. The Panchadashi (by the way neither shruti nor smrti nor even shankarabhashya) talks about " ishwaratvam " and " jivatvam " as being interdependent variables and of relevance only with regards to each other. It needs to be understood in the context in which it is said. That is how tat tvam asi is to be rightly understood - but a right understanding tat tvam asi MUST result in an understanding and appreciation of Vasudeva sarvam iti - as this Bhagawad Gita verse I have quoted shows. If you read my prior posts this is what I have been saying (quite unsuccessfully!) as well. I don't think you are being pedantic at all Dennis-ji, primarily because I don't know what that word means! :-) Seriously, though, one can never be pedantic in Vedanta. An understanding of God or Ishwara is extremely central to the understanding of Vedanta. You cannot have any room for even an iota of vagueness about this. It is either " all there " or " not at all " . This is why even spiritual ginats like RAmAnujAchArya and MAdhavAchArya miss the boat and go off on a tangent. If there is devotion in the heart to NarAyanA and the intellect keeps thinking He is shaky, unreal, pseudoreal, illusory, a crutch, to be taken with a pinch of salt, etc - then both aspects of the personality - the emotional and the intellectual - have to further mature - unless this schizoidal approach is clarified in the light of right understanding of Vedanta, one's progress towards self(is God)-realization is both impeded and rendered impossible (- this is just a general statement to all seekers and I don't intend that this is applicable to anyone involved in this discussion.) Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam --- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote: > Dear Shyam-ji, > > > > I can understand that I must be seeming extremely, > even unreasonably > pedantic to some readers. However, although the > verses you have quoted could > certainly be interpreted as referring to Ishvara, I > read them as referring > to brahman. Since they do not at the same time > explicitly clarify which is > being spoken of, I suggest that my interpretation is > perfectly valid. I am > also following the instruction of Gaudapada in MU > kArikA III.23 ( " That which > is supported by shruti and corroborated by reason is > alone true. " > > > > On the other hand, the verse that I quoted from the > pa~nchadashI *does* > specifically mention both: > > " 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) " > > > > satyaM j~nAnamanantaM yadbrahma tadvastu tasya tat > > IshvaratvaM cha jIvatvamupAdhi dvayakalpitam > > > > But no one has commented on this yet. > > > > Best wishes, > > Dennis > > > <<Dear Dennis-ji - This is like you asking me to > show > some apples which are reddish in colour and when I > show you red apples you say these may be red but > they > are not " apples which are reddish in colour " ! :-) > > If you remember your original question was - " does > the > shruti state anywhere that sarvam is ishwara? " - I > have shown you a multitude of examples - in fact > there > are dozens more! - in which it is crystal clear that > both the shruti and the smrti talk only about God or > Ishwara as being sarvam, and also as it being Him > alone we need to realize in his transcendental form > which alone is Atman in our very hearts. > > The exact terms may be different in each Upanishad > or > the Gita. While I don't have the time to give you > the > original Sanskrit on all the verses I have > referenced > the two words most commonly used to denote Ishwara > in > these verses are Purusha and IshAna. They both mean > the Lord.>> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > ______________________________\ ____ 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 25, 2008 --- On Thu, 4/24/08, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote: Dennis - Under the title the discussion has diverged to various directions that I did not or could not really keep track off. Can you crystallize your thoughts and express clearly what the issue is. If you are looking for scriptural references to Brahman vs. Iswara - there are many - starting from Mandukya mantra 6 for Iswara and Mantra 7 for Brahman. Krishna emphasizes the Iswara part in - maayadhyaskhena prakRitiH.. and gatirbhaktaa, prabhuH saakshii .. I think in the 9th ch. avyakta aspect of brahman in the 8th chapter as aksharam paramam as well as in 9th - mayaa tatam idam sarvam .. and in the 7th Ch. apareyam .. dhaaryate jagat. May be you can restate the issue in view of multiple posts in different directions ending up with Iswara is Vishnu or Shiva etc. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2008 Hari Om The entire discussion that is going on, on this subject does not look like Advaita students talking. Students of Swami Dayananda and Swami Paramartananda Tat tvam Asi Vakyam if well understood and identify all living beings are due to the consciousness existence principle, then where is the name and the form. I cannot understand how we can say Iswara is not Shiva by one group, Vishnu by another group. Today morning when I was listening to a discourse by Swami Dayananda Sarawati on Upadesa Saram, he was mentioning some vaishnavaits prefer not to use iswara as Venkateswara instead call Venkatesa or Balaji for Peruma, as they are alergic to the word Iswara thinking that it is the name for Shiva. The discussion that is going on is on the same lines. Sorry if I hurt devotees feeling. We need to progress. Hari Om Kalyanasundaram - antharyami_in advaitin Friday, April 25, 2008 11:51 AM Re: brahman and Ishvara Hari OM~ Bhaskar ji, I always stick to Prasthana traya Bashyams when I deal with crucial issues in Vedanta. And those references were from Gita Bhasya. In my opinion, we must not extend views of Acharya in any direction even if it is 'seemingly' logical. So, if Acharya uses the term Iswara for Narayana or Visnu, it is simply Narayana and Visnu alone. We aint give scope for any sort of extensions here to bring in Brahma Shiva and so on. Theories like 'San matha sthapana' are all constructed only on these wrong extensions. There is no evidence for Iswaratva being ascribed to Shiva Brahma Indra or any other deities in the Prasthana traya Bashyams. Even Sureswara in the Antharyami Brahmana and in many other Vartika instances coin Visnu for the term Iswara. Padmapada gives no reference to Shiva to the term Iswara. Even in Hastamalakiya Bashyam, Visnu is equated with Bimba svarupa where Pratibimba bheda is regarded to be aupAdhika. This Bimba svarupa in Advaita is 'Evam eva' non-dual Iswara. Hence Visnu is the non-dual Iswara in our Sampradaya. there can be no second thought. Even though Pratibimba is non-different from Bimba, the aupAdika bhedas persist in that plane and hence subjected to different gradations. Apart from Visnu, all other bhuta-bautika-daiva bhutas fall under the Pratibimba category, while Iswara - Sarvajna Visnu 'Vyapana Sila' is celebrated as the Paramartha Tattvam. Sankara says 'tatha Buddhibedhesu nAnabuddhishu te tavApi nAnAtvam he Visno ParamArthastu tava Bhedo BuddhyupAdikrtastu Vidyata ityarthaH' iti. With Narayana Smrthi, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 2008 advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: > > Hi Durga, > > > > I really do not understand what I have written that prompts you to write any > of this. I agree with all that you say and have said much the same things > myself and written them in my books. I have even quoted Swami Dayananda's > 'mithyA is satyam'. I have never implied that name and form are 'only > apparent'. All that I have insisted upon is that everything is actually only > brahman and that, in reality, there has never been any creation. Both these > ideas are pure advaita. Where is there a problem? If you want to persist in > countering what you think are my views, could you please quote actual > statements that I have made so that I can explain where you have > misunderstood what I was saying? > > > > Best wishes, > > Dennis > Hi Dennis, Here is what I see as the problem (and of course, I could be wrong). It is my impression that you feel that the way the teachings of Vedanta work, is to first to give one view of the way things are, then knock that off, give another view, knock that off, give another, etc., (which I believe you refer to as sublation). Now, I can only speak from my own experience as a Vedanta student from within a very solid sampradaya. In terms of the 'sublation' technique, yes, I was exposed to this when the idea of 'sakshi' was introduced, sakshi being a teaching device, and later it is seen that there is in reality no sakshi. Sakshi was a pointer to consciousness. However, that was pointed out all along. So it seems to me that you are viewing the teachings of Vedanta as a ladder approach, and as one progresses, one view of 'the way things actually are' gets replaced by another, and then by another and so on, the former views left behind as untrue. I have not experienced the teachings of Vedanta in this way. The analogy which I feel to be more accurate is that of watching a polaroid picture develop, or that which my teacher uses, which goes like this: It's as if the teacher is painting a picture. First you see the broad brush strokes, then over-time all of the details get filled in. At the same time as the picture is being painted, the student gains more and more clarity, many 'aha' moments, and finally the 'whole' is revealed or recognized by the student. And what is the whole? You are the whole. That's the way the teaching works. The initial rejection, neti, neti, is only to help the student recognize my self (atma). which is in fact brahman, unchanging, but then the whole, which is changing, must also be recognized as my self. Swami Dayanada once said a nice thing " Vedanta swallows everything, and then it gives it back to you. And when it gives it back to you, it is entirely different. " Meaning what? Meaning 'You are the Whole. " The whole picture is in you, and the whole picture is You. There is no need to reject it. Okay, I feel that I've said enough. I find I'm neglecting my other duties and as much as I love discussing Vedanta, I need to stop for now. Koti pranams and love, Durga Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2008 Dear Shyam-ji, Thank you for posting this. What the Paramacharya states would have to be the implicit understanding of all Advaitins. Namaste and love to all Harsha advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Shyam Friday, April 25, 2008 12:24 AM advaitin Re: Re: brahman and Ishvara Should you wish to read what the sage of Kanchi has to say in this regard please read: http://tinyurl.com/2zuqob I am giving below an excerpt: He doesn't entertain the Siva-Vishnu Bhedham, even a bit. There is nothing wrong in having extra-oridnary devotion towards any particular ishta-dEvathA like Appaya dhIkshitA who remained a devout sAmbhavA (devotee of Siva) and LIlA sukar who was a devout bhAghavathA having deep love for Krishna, to quote a few from among advaitins. But, as these saints dissolved themselves in their bhakti for their ishta dEvathA without indulging in the 'nindhA' of other deities, we should also develop deep devotion towards our ishta mUrthy, without resorting to any criticism of any other deity. This is one of cardinal principles of the vEdic religion known as smArthA matham. While denigrating the other deity, if one's dEvathA is claimed to be 'the' dEvathA, then it can not be considered to have the acceptance of vEdA. Going by this test, only we - the smArthAs, who follow the AchAryAl alone are 'pUrna vaidIkAs'. " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2008 Hi Bhaskar-ji, All I understand by it is that, since there is *only* brahman, even those things that are not entirely real from the vyAvahArika standpoint must also be brahman. (What else could they be?) mithyA is simply a term that is useful in vyavahAra to bring the mind to a realization of the truth. Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Bhaskar YR Friday, April 25, 2008 11:30 AM advaitin RE: Re: brahman and Ishvara I have even quoted Swami Dayananda's 'mithyA is satyam'. praNAms Hare Krishna This is what I am finding it difficult to understand in line with shankara bhAshya...First, is there any difference in the usage of terminologies mithyA and mAya according to Swamiji ?? If both mAya & mithyA are synonyms then shankara says this mAya/mithyA is anirvachanIya (cannot be defined to be identical with brahman or quite distinct from brahman)...Elsewhere in the bhAshya the same concept of mAya has been explained by shankara with the example of foam and water and says foam which is NOT quite the same as water, but yet not a different entity from water..(tattva anyatvAbhyAm anirvachanIya)...If this mysterious entity called mithyA is *satyaM* shankara would have not viewed it as above...He would have definitely said here, if the mithyA is viewed distinct from brahman is mithyA and if it is viewed as brahman then it is satyaM...is it not?? Please clarify. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2008 advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: > > Hi Durga, > All that I have insisted upon is that everything is actually only > brahman and that, in reality, there has never been any creation. Both these > ideas are pure advaita. Where is there a problem? > > > Best wishes, > > Dennis Namaste Dennis, While I have already sent this letter to you privately, and while yesterday I said I wasn't going to write any more on the list about the topic, I felt it might be useful to post the letter on the list, (with a couple of additions to it), since it's already been written, and since we have been discussing the topic here. __________________________ I've been giving some more thought to this subject, and trying to think of how to convey more exactly the problem that my teacher saw with what you were saying, and how it was resolved in class. Above you said: " All that I have insisted upon is that everything is actually only brahman and that, in reality, there has never been any creation. Both these ideas are pure advaita. " Both of these ideas are pure advaita from a certain standpoint (the paramarthika only), but putting them together in a certain way, and then applying them to the creation, which is 'mithya,' makes for confusion. One can say " In reality there is only the paramarthika. There is no creation. " That's okay to say from the standpoint of the paramarthika. That's okay to say from the standpoint of the reality which is only paramarthika. But what about from the standpoint of the creation, of mithya, of experience? The creation is mithya. If you call the creation mithya, and you say there is no creation, then you are effectively saying that mithya is tuccham, non-existent. Vedanta doesn't say that. This is the first thing which my teacher pointed out. From the standpoint of the creation you can't say that there never has been a creation. What you can say is this creation is brahman, mithya brahman, not paramarthika brahman. It has a dependent reality. While you are within the creation, it exists as mithya, which although depending on brahman for its existence, does not mean that it does not exist to be experienced. One cannot transactionally experience the son of a barren woman, the horn of a rabbit, etc. (that which is non-existent) here within the creation, because they do not exist to be experienced. One can experience heat/cold, hunger/ thirst, pain/pleasure, etc. So those things which can be experienced are mithya brahman, or also can be referenced as being " in the 'given' scheme of things, " or " Ishwara shristi, " because our individual minds did not make them up. If we say there is only brahman, there has never been any creation, then we effectively have only two orders of reality, paramarthika brahman, and tuchham. If tuccham doesn't exist, then we just have paramarthika. That's okay too from thr standpoint of the paramarthika. But Vedanta teaches us there are three orders of reality, paramarthika, mithya and tuccham. While tuccham, being non-existent, doesn't really need to be discussed, mithya does. If we leave out or dismiss the creation, we've left out and dismissed mithya, and the teachings of Vedanta do not do that. So from the paramarthika standpoint, it is true there is no creation, but from the creation standpoint, there is; and we call it 'mithya,' which as Swami Dayanandaji says is a word which 'accounts' for what the creation is, or explains it. My teacher, like Swamiji, does not like the phrase 'apparent reality,' therefore it is not used in our classes because my teacher feels it makes for confusion. Instead the phrase, 'dependent reality,' is used which is felt to convey more accurately what the creation is. Why can what we see and experience be called " Ishwara shristi? " Because it is not the creation of our individual minds. We can see that the creation is highly logical, orderly and complex, and that it is held together by, and functioning through, an intricate set of laws, which our individual minds cannot change or make to function differently. *That* is the 'intelligence' which is manifest and operating here, woven through the creation warp and woof. That intelligence is a called a 'power' of brahman; and we also call that intelligence 'Ishwara,' which is brahman manifest as the creation. So, IMO, that is why those born as Hindus, within that tradition, whose very culture is based upon this understanding, do not have any problem with seeing every manifest thing as Ishwara or divine, which being a manifestation of brahman it would have to be. And unlike the son of a barren woman, one can have a transactional relationship with Ishwara, which means one can see every single thing as divine, and relate to it as such, or one can choose one single thing to focus on and relate to it as such. [i apologize to those who read here if I've gotten any part of that wrong] Sometimes words such as the above may seem dualistic, but we have to use them to understand the experience of the creation. If we are trying to understand the creation which is here to be experienced, and we just say, 'there never has been one,' that isn't exactly correct. So mithya is not some sort of intermediate teaching, which is later withdrawn and replaced by the teaching of paramarthika satyam, as in 'everything is actually only brahman and in reality, there has never been any creation.' This statement only applies from the standpoint of paramarthika satyam, and not from the standpoint of the creation, which exists to be experienced and has a 'dependent' reality. brahma/satyam. brahman is being. The jiva is brahman. I am brahman. Jivatvam is mithya. I do not depend upon name and form for my being. Or one can say, my being does not depend on name and form for existence. Jagan/mithya. Name and form depend upon me. The creation depends upon me for its existence. The creation (the whole jagat) all name and form, depend upon me/brahman for their existence. Therefore, I am the whole. I hope that explains a bit more clearly what it was that my teacher told me. Thanks for this discussion. It has been very useful for me. Pranams, Durga Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 26, 2008 Hi Sada-ji, Yes, it's a pity you were not 'in from the start' of this discussion as I would value your input. I'm not sure if I can easily and fairly represent the essential points. Certainly it would be from my own viewpoint obviously and, since that seems to be a large part of the problem, might fail miserably to express the other views. However, with that proviso, I will attempt to summarize very simply the essence as I see it and my apologies in advance to other participants who might see the whole thing entirely differently. It all began, as I recall, when I queried a statement (from, I believe, Durga-ji) which appeared to say effectively that 'everything is Ishvara' or 'I am the whole', rather than 'everything is brahman' or 'I am brahman'. I argued subsequently that, while 'I am brahman' and 'Ishvara is brahman', the reverse is not the case. I pointed out that (according to the Mandukya Upanishad) Ishvara is that which holds the gross and subtle forms of creation in unmanifest form, i.e. the macrocosmic causal state, paralleling the microcosmic, causal state of deep sleep for the jIva. Shyam-ji and others quoted many verses from the scriptures purporting to support the contention that Ishvara and brahman are somehow interchangeable. These quotations referred variously to 'the Lord', 'Narayana' and so on. I stated that, when I encounter such statements, I always understand that 'brahman' is meant. I asked if there were any explicit statement anywhere that contained both actual words 'brahman' and 'Ishvara' and said they were the same. I gave the following quotation from the pa~nchadashI which *does* specifically mention both and appears to state plainly that they are *not* the same: " 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) " satyaM j~nAnamanantaM yadbrahma tadvastu tasya tat IshvaratvaM cha jIvatvamupAdhi dvayakalpitam I asked how this could be explained by the objectors but I don't believe anyone has attempted to answer this, other than to point out that this is not prasthAna traya and, moreover, is post-Shankara. I'm sure that we would all be grateful for any input you may have. Best wishes, Dennis <<May be you can restate the issue in view of multiple posts in different directions ending up with Iswara is Vishnu or Shiva etc. Hari Om! Sadananda>> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2008 My understanding is provided in the end. --- On Sat, 4/26/08, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote: It all began, as I recall, when I queried a statement which appeared to say effectively that 'everything is Ishvara' or 'I am the whole', rather than 'everything is brahman' or 'I am brahman'. I argued subsequently that, while 'I am brahman' and 'Ishvara is brahman', the reverse is not the case. I pointed out that (according to the Mandukya Upanishad) Ishvara is that which holds the gross and subtle forms of creation in unmanifest form, i.e. the macrocosmic causal state, paralleling the microcosmic, causal state of deep sleep for the jIva. Others quoted many verses from the scriptures purporting to support the contention that Ishvara and brahman are somehow interchangeable. These quotations referred variously to 'the Lord', 'Narayana' and so on. I stated that, when I encounter such statements, I always understand that 'brahman' is meant. I asked if there were any explicit statement anywhere that contained both actual words 'brahman' and 'Ishvara' and said they were the same. I gave the following quotation from the pa~nchadashI which *does* specifically mention both and appears to state plainly that they are *not* the same: " 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) " satyaM j~nAnamanantaM yadbrahma tadvastu tasya tat IshvaratvaM cha jIvatvamupAdhi dvayakalpitam I asked how this could be explained by the objectors but I don't believe anyone has attempted to answer this, other than to point out that this is not prasthAna traya and, moreover, is post-Shankara. I'm sure that we would all be grateful for any input you may have. ---------- (From some reason when I press replay button I used to get the (>) sign to differentite the contents that I am replying it. This new mail does not give and also leaves me in Rich text the that does not accept. I have to change to plane text that does not give the greater than sign.) ---------------------- Dennisji – First I am glad that you are persistent. Here is my understanding as I see from yours and Durgaji’s last post. Durgaji, I will respond slowly to your post since it is big.  The above sloka indeed says that existence – consciousness- infiniteness – satyam-jnaanam- anantam is the swaruupa lakshaNa of Brahman. That is the Upanishadic definition – in Tai. Up. – In that there is no Sajaati, vijaati and swagata bhedaas – since it is part-less. Hence Iswara-jiiva-jagat distinctions have no meaning, from that reference. This is the essence of mantra 7 of Mandukya and both GauDapaada and Shankara’s commentaries echo that essence. Durgaji, if I may say so, the mantra 7 of Mandukya exists describing that state which is not a state as it says ‘people call it as the fourth’ – caturtham manyante –but not really the fourth since it pervades all the three states.   Yet upanishad provide a description of Brahman- the paaramaarthikam –(even though any description of paaramaarthikam is a futile exercise) but is provided only to help us (who are not in that state) to transcend to that state from the three states – that as Dennisji rightly pointed out involves transcending jiiva-jagat-Iswara both from the point of micro (jiiva) and macro (Iswara) perspectives. Ontologically jiiva-jagat-Iswara are all mithyaa only, since the substantive for all the three is Brahman. They are taught as mithyaa – you can call it as apparent and not real, or dependent and not independent, with the additional definition that dependent (existence) has to be apparent and nor real since its existence depends on that which is independent. Not real does not mean unreal or tuchhaa, as other darshanikaas pound us to accept, since not real can also be at the same time not unreal too, and that is what we call as sat asat vilakshanam or mityaa – a separate category by itself.  Mithyaa is – vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam - the name and form is only the vak or speech level. For transactional purposes or vyaavahaarika satyam – a name is required for transactions but from the substantive which is beyond the name and form, it has no name and form. Any indulgence giving importance to name for Iswara as NarAyaNa or Shiva is giving importance to superficiality that could distract the mind from transcending to substantive – yan manasaa na manute yenaahur manomatam tadeva tvam viddhi nedam yadidam upaasate – that which mind cannot think of, but because of which the mind has the capacity to think – know that alone is Brahman not this that you worship here – say Kena.  When I have to drop all names and forms what name should I drop becomes irrelevant from the point of those who want to drop all ‘this’ nedam yadidam upaasate – not this that you worship here. Iswara-jiiva and jagat – come together as a package since they are mutually exclusive. Iswara is with maaya as adjunct as His upahita chatanya and jiiva as avidya as adjunct as his upahita chaitanya.  Jagat is mityaa which is kalpitam. Brahman being substantive for all – Iswara-jiiva-jagat where sat-chit and anantatva aspects are expressed to varying degrees depending on the upAdhiis or adjuncts. Iswara is different from Brahman since creation involves modification and infinite cannot undergo modification or vikaara. Brahman identified with maaya, the power of creation is Iswara. Aham brahmaasmi is the teaching not aham Iswarosmi, because it is the unity of jiiva-jagat-iswara, the contradictory qualifications of each has to be dropped – That is what bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa implies – where the identity is from the point of the essence of jiiva-jagat-Iswara. – from the conscious-existence point from jiiva-Iswara and just existence point from jjiva-jagat. Aham brahmaasmi incudes oneness of all the three. Dennisji – If I may say so – I am brahman and Iswara is brahman and jagat is brahman (sarvam khalvidam brahma) – involves identity only at the substantive levels ( I know that you know) and not at the attributive level. Hence, if the identity is understood that it is only at that level and from the attribute level, then the converse is also true – since there is nothing other than Brahman at that level. Hence Brahman is jiiva, Brahman is Iswara and Brahman is jagat – that is what is implied in the BrahmaarpaNam brahma haviH … sloka – Gita 4-24. Hari Om! Sadananda. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2008 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > Iswara is different from Brahman since creation involves modification and infinite cannot undergo modification or vikaara. Brahman identified with maaya, the power of creation is Iswara. Aham brahmaasmi is the teaching not aham Iswarosmi, because it is the unity of jiiva-jagat-iswara, the contradictory qualifications of each has to be dropped " That is what bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa implies " where the identity is from the point of the essence of jiiva-jagat-Iswara. †" from the conscious-existence point from jiiva-Iswara and just existence point from jjiva-jagat. Aham brahmaasmi incudes oneness of all the three. > > > Hari Om! > Sadananda. > Namaste Sadnanda-ji, Thank you for your very detailed, logical and step by step reply, which I do feel that I understand. I do have tremendous admiration and appreciation for the way in which you were able to explain such a big topic so concisely. The statement, 'You are the Whole' is the one which my teacher and her guru, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, continually use, and say is the tat pariya of the Upanishads, so that is the understanding which I am working toward gaining. I know that the wording " You are the Whole, " might seem a bit unusual, but I trust that they know what they mean, and also that by Ishwara's grace someday I may gain the same 'vision,' which I actually think is what you referred to by saying " Aham brahmaasmi incudes oneness of all the three. " The three being jiva, jagat and Ishwara, having 'oneness' in the way that you so clearly described above. Swami Dayanandaji has written a book entitled " You are the Whole, " which I believe I have in my library, so I will reread it again. The posts on this thread have been many and varied, spinning off into other threads, and other subjects, with different titles, which I'm sure would be difficult to try and trace back in order to untangle and make sense of them all at this point. From my own perspective I feel the most important point which I was trying to address in various ways was the observation that for some westerners the topic of the creation as taught by the Upanishads is a challenging one, because in those teachings is posited an Ishwara, and a creation, which is divine in nature. For myself, personally, this does not present a problem. In fact, I like it. What else can this creation be but divine? Some other westerners don't seem comfortable with this understanding or view, so it seems at times as if they might prefer to say 'the creation never happened,' and thus bypass the topic altogether. So that was my initial point, and many people had other points, which they felt were the most important ones. We had some nice discussions, and I learned a lot. Pranams, Durga Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2008 Dear Sadananda-ji, Many thanks for your view on the topic. I think we have probably all now said (more than) enough on the topic and hopefully clarified our understanding. I think, in the end, we have established that we are all effectively in agreement –at least I hope we all now think this way! I had continued the discussion in parallel with Durga-ji off-line but I don’t now think it would be useful to post these other thoughts to the group. I think you have hit the nail on the head with your last point about equating substantive and not attribute. I have always happily stated that jIva is brahman, world is brahman etc. but I have always objected to saying that brahman is jIva, brahman is world etc. As you say, as long as we know that we are talking about substantive only, then these must also be true (If A=B, then B=A). The reason I have always balked at doing this is because the very words ‘jIva’ and ‘world’ for me *mean* their associated attributes and not their essence. If I was talking about the essence of the world, I would use the word ‘brahman’ and not ‘world’. I believe that, for myself at least, I will continue to do this since it seems to minimize confusion. But I will now try to be open to the fact that, for others, the alternative view may be minimizing confusion! Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of kuntimaddi sadananda Sunday, April 27, 2008 12:26 AM advaitin Re: brahman and Ishvara My understanding is provided in the end. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2008 --- On Sat, 4/26/08, Durga <durgaji108 wrote: > I know that the wording " You are the Whole, " might seem a bit unusual, but I trust that they know what they mean, and also that by Ishwara's grace someday I may gain the same 'vision,' which I actually think is what you referred to by saying " Aham brahmaasmi incudes oneness of all the three. " The three being jiva, jagat and Ishwara, having 'oneness' in the way that you so clearly described above. > Durgaji - PraNAms. First thanks for your kind comments. Swami Dayanandaji and more so his disciple Swami Paramarthanandaji are my teachers too. Yes 'whole' excludes nothing and hence it is infinite - and therefore Brahman. Please study Swami Dayanandaji's analysis of Purnam adhaH Purnam idam - that is whole and this is whole,etc. Nairji has written beautiful analysis of that and the file is stored in the advaitin list. Iswara's grace is always there, owning it our problem. With His/Her grace we can own it too. All the best. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2008 --- On Sun, 4/27/08, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote: > The reason I have always balked at doing this is because the very words ‘jIva’ and ‘world’ for me *mean* their associated attributes and not their essence. If I was talking about the essence of the world, I would use the word ‘brahman’ and not ‘world’. I believe that, for myself at least, I will continue to do this since it seems to minimize confusion. But I will now try to be open to the fact that, for others, the alternative view may be minimizing confusion! > Dennisji - PraNAms Although attributes make distinctions of one object from the other, we know that attributes cannot exist without substantive. GouDapaada's statement - adou naasti ante naasti vartamaanepi taddathaa - pot was not there before and pot will not be there later and if you look carefully pot is really not there even now. YOu may call it a pot based on attributes but actually it is only clay and the attributes are just adhyaasa. If you know it and can still call it as a pot for transactional purposes to differentiate it from jug etc, there is no problem. But if you give importance to the attributive knowledge only and ignore the substantive then samsaara starts. Hence it is not just to relive the confusion but to have clear view of the substantive of the jiiva-jagat-iswara even while transacting with the attributive knowledge - makes us wise. Chandogya Upanishad's sad vidya teaching - eka vijnaanena sarva vijnaanam bhavati - knowing onething everything is (as well) known - comes from not attributive knowledge but substantive knowledge only. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2008 Dear Sada-ji: Thank you for putting forward and explaining the classical Upanishadic teaching in the context of Advaita. The heart of the teaching of the Upanishads as you point out is, " Aham Brahmasmi " . I Myself am Brahman. Heard from the Guru in whom one has complete faith produces the strong conviction, " I Myself am Brahman " . This is the same as " Brahman I am " . This strong conviction plays an essential role in Self-Realization. I recall reading (it was posted on this list I believe) one of the Shankracharyas stated that Ishwara (Brahman identified with Maya) through grace helps in Self-Realization. Being a non scholar this made sense to me as we have all grown up hearing that there is no difference between Guru, God in their grace toward the devotees. Also, many of us use the term Ishwara, Bhagavan, and God interchangeably. If there is a more precise distinction that should be kept in mind, I would appreciate learning of that. Thank you. Namaste and love to all Harsha advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of kuntimaddi sadananda Saturday, April 26, 2008 7:26 PM advaitin Re: brahman and Ishvara --- The above sloka indeed says that existence – consciousness- infiniteness – satyam-jnaanam- anantam is the swaruupa lakshaNa of Brahman. That is the Upanishadic definition – in Tai. Up. – In that there is no Sajaati, vijaati and swagata bhedaas – since it is part-less. Hence Iswara-jiiva-jagat distinctions have no meaning, from that reference. This is the essence of mantra 7 of Mandukya and both GauDapaada and Shankara’s commentaries echo that essence. Iswara is different from Brahman since creation involves modification and infinite cannot undergo modification or vikaara. Brahman identified with maaya, the power of creation is Iswara. Aham brahmaasmi is the teaching not aham Iswarosmi, because it is the unity of jiiva-jagat-iswara, the contradictory qualifications of each has to be dropped – That is what bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa implies – where the identity is from the point of the essence of jiiva-jagat-Iswara. – from the conscious-existence point from jiiva-Iswara and just existence point from jjiva-jagat. Aham brahmaasmi incudes oneness of all the three. Dennisji – If I may say so – I am brahman and Iswara is brahman and jagat is brahman (sarvam khalvidam brahma) – involves identity only at the substantive levels ( I know that you know) and not at the attributive level. Hence, if the identity is understood that it is only at that level and from the attribute level, then the converse is also true – since there is nothing other than Brahman at that level. Hence Brahman is jiiva, Brahman is Iswara and Brahman is jagat – that is what is implied in the BrahmaarpaNam brahma haviH … sloka – Gita 4-24. Hari Om! Sadananda. --- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2008 2008/4/27 Harsha : > Also, many of us use the term Ishwara, Bhagavan, and God interchangeably. > If there is a more precise distinction that should be kept in mind, I would > appreciate learning of that. Thank you. My personal opinion is that we should stop using the English word God. It comes with a whole lot of baggage that only causes confusion. But others might think that I am being pedantic :-) To each his own, I guess. Ramesh Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2008 Ramesh, My personal opinion is that we should stop using the English word God. It comes with a whole lot of baggage that only causes confusion. Ramesh, I could not agree more. It's one of those catch-all words and I never know if people are talking about the same thing I am. Same with " love " , " patriotism " , " duty " ...I have a whole bunch of words where I have to ask people's definition of their usage of the words before we can speak. ______________________________\ ____ 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 27, 2008 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > Durgaji - PraNAms. > > First thanks for your kind comments. Swami Dayanandaji and more so his disciple Swami Paramarthanandaji are my teachers too. > > Yes 'whole' excludes nothing and hence it is infinite - and therefore Brahman. Please study Swami Dayanandaji's analysis of Purnam adhaH Purnam idam - that is whole and this is whole,etc. Nairji has written beautiful analysis of that and the file is stored in the advaitin list. > Iswara's grace is always there, owning it our problem. With His/Her grace we can own it too. All the best. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda Namaste Sadananda-ji, Thank you for the recommendation. Looking at Swamiji's book " You are the Whole, " last night, I realized that it is an analysis of Purnam adhaH Purnam idam. I will also try and find Nairji's writing which you recommended. I do have a question for you, if you have the time to address it, which I will preface with a small anecdote. One of the students in my Vedanta class once had a private interview with Pujya Swami Dayananda-ji. Pujya Swamiji said to him, " All of my disciples, who are teaching have various strengths, and the strength of your teacher is the total understanding of Ishwara. " My teacher often says, " You are the Whole. You are Ishwara. " Furthermore, I recently had an opportunity to ask Pujya Swamiji the following question directly, which was something that had puzzled me for some time, and it still does in a certain way. What I said was this, " Swamiji, I don't understand what is meant when it is said that the jiva becomes Ishwara after death. " Swamiji replied, " You are Ishwara right now, but you do not know it due to the limitation of the upadhi. Everything is Ishwara. " I have also heard Swamiji say, " You are the Whole. You are Ishwara. " So, I am wondering, what this can mean. My interpretation of it is this. All of this jagat is a manifestation of Ishwara, including of course, the jiva upadhi. What is the 'truth' of the jagat? brahman. What is the truth of Ishwara? brahman. What is the truth of the jiva? brahman. Where did the jagat come from, of which this jiva upadhi is a part? Ishwara Where did Ishwara come (or emanate) from? Brahman. So brahman is the bottom line reality of everything. Now I come to the point I don't quite understand, but here is my surmise. If the truth of Ishwara is brahman, and the truth of the jiva is brahman, and then one can further say that Ishwara, emanates from brahman, and the creation manifests from Ishwara, then working in this way, one can say 'You are the Whole. You are Ishwara,' because maya shakti (Ishwara) emanates from brahman, which is the truth of Ishwara and the jiva and the jagat. So, if the truth of the jiva is brahman, then one can even say, 'the creation comes from me, is sustained by me, and is resolved in me, if one knows that by the word 'me' one means brahman.' So once we gotten to the truth by 'giving' up the upadhis of Ishwara and jiva, then can we from that place (brahman) now come back out and work the other way round (in a sense) by saying 'You are Ishwara,' 'You are the Whole?' 'You' being brahman, which the jnani has recognized him or herself to be. As long as the jiva upadhi is there experience will be limited by it. The jnani can know 'I am brahman,' and by logical extension, 'I am Ishwara' However experience will be limited by the jiva upadhi. I suppose in a sense what I am saying, is we transcend the upadhis to realize our oneness with all things, as 'brahman.' but then we can come back out and say there is nothing here other than my being, there is nothing here other then Ishwara. Therefore, I am Ishwara, because Ishwara comes from my being, although I do not have the Ishwara experience due to the limitation of the upadhi. Furthermore, because the upadhi of Ishwara is the total, much greater than the upadhi of the jiva, the jiva can then have a 'relationship' with Ishwara, while knowing at the same time, jiva, jagat and Ishwara are one/brahman. Added to that, through this understanding, all of the parts of the jiva, which were once rejected as 'not I,' can now be seen in a different light. After the recognition of myself as brahman, and the parts of the jiva as Ishwara, then I think that this recognition helps to make for a 'whole and complete' human being. I surmise perhaps the reason that Pujya Swamiji places emphasis the understanding of 'You are the Whole' is that he saw that people were becoming, in a sense, fragmented by rejecting everything changing as 'not I,' in order to recognize 'I am brahman unchanging' and that they then needed to come back out into the creation, as it were, to further recognize that there is no part of the jiva which is not brahmaishwara, thus leaving room for no a particle of alienation to exist on any level. I hope that this question is clear. I also once heard Pujya Swamiji say, " If the answer is not clear to the person, then the question will not be all that clear. " Since I am asking the question, obviously I don't have a completely clear answer, and thus I apologize if the question is somewhat murky. Would it possible for you to comment on any of what I have written? If so, I would be extremely grateful. Heartfelt pranams, Durga Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2008 Namaste Durga-ji. Reference your post # 40486. Although it is addressed to Sadaji, kindly permit me to jump the gun. For the time being, can we set aside the entities that go by the names of jIva, upAdhis, Ishwara etc. and look simply at our moment- to-moment anubhava (experience)? We find that there is a subject (you, me or anybody else) having objectifications which constitute the world. That world, by analysis a la neti neti, includes the BMI of the so-called subject, so much so that effectively there is no tangible subject for us to point out to. Yet, because the sense of experiencer is, we are compelled to conclude that there is a subject, or, in other words, there is something on which the objectifications are reflected on a continuous basis – the objectifications being " I know " (where all sensory knowledge and awareness of thoughts (internalizations) are included) and " I know that I don't know " (which takes care of the rest or all that I am ignorant of or I *know* I am ignorant of.). Thus, both knowledge and ignorance turn out to be knowledge in the ultimate sense. Thus, the subject is like a screen on which things known and unknown arise and subside like waves on the ocean surface. At any time, there is only the ocean. The ocean alone remains, whole, despite all the arisings! If you want the screen analogy, then all that arise and subside are only permutations and combinations of the screen fabric. There is nothing imported, for there cannot be anything external to the screen, for the whole cannot brook externality! There is only the screen. The screen alone remains. Now what does it matter if that whole (ocean or screen) is Brahman from the absolute point of view or Ishwara from the phenomenal point of view. You are Brahman, as well as Ishwara, and the Whole. Sorry for this simpleton or simplistic explanation. I like it that way, for terminology scares and mires me. I know that I have been accused of subjective idealism and solipsism for espousing this view. But, I am sure, being a serious student of Vedanta, you would know that solipsism and idealism are light-years distant from what I am saying. Beyond everything, I am sure this is what Shankara said in his famous Dakshinamurthi Ashtakam, which I hold closer to my heart than all our Upanishads, the complexity of which, I confess, I am yet to understand fully. I would strongly recommend that you listen to Sw. Dayanandaji's beautiful exposition of the Ashtakam, for which audio is available. Hope this has answered your questions. Or am I deluded in thinking so? Pardon me for being over-enthusiastic. Best regards. Madathil Nair Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2008 advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > Namaste Durga-ji. > > Reference your post # 40486. > > Now what does it matter if that whole (ocean or screen) is Brahman > from the absolute point of view or Ishwara from the phenomenal point > of view. You are Brahman, as well as Ishwara, and the Whole. > > Beyond everything, I am sure this is > what Shankara said in his famous Dakshinamurthi Ashtakam, which I > hold closer to my heart than all our Upanishads, the complexity of > which, I confess, I am yet to understand fully. I would strongly > recommend that you listen to Sw. Dayanandaji's beautiful exposition > of the Ashtakam, for which audio is available. > > Hope this has answered your questions. Or am I deluded in thinking > so? Pardon me for being over-enthusiastic. > > Best regards. > > Madathil Nair Thank you Nair-ji, Yes, that is the view I have, which you have described so beautifully. I also found and read the writing of yours, which I believe was the one Sadanandaji pointed me to. I couldn't find it in the advaitin files, but I found it here on Dennis's site http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/purnamadah_nair.htm It is wonderfully well-written and clear. It flowed right into the mind, and I had no trouble with any of it. I truly appreciate and marvel at your clear and lovely manner of expression. When you say above " You are Brahman, as well as Ishwara, and the Whole, " this is what I have been trying to say all along, but it seems, rather unsuccessfully so. I will definitely try and obtain a copy of Ashtakam, as you have suggested. Pranams, Durga Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
