Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Guest guest

brahman and Ishvara

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Dear Durga-ji:

 

I look forward to Sada-ji's answer. I am of the view that if your Guru says

something, that Guru is in the best position to clarify it. Of course,

Swamiji is right to say that You are the Whole. Thou art That! Say the

Upanishads clearly.

 

In the relative world though, we do not say, " I am Ishwara " if the term

Ishwara is being used in its traditional sense. At least I have not

personally heard any Hindus say it. The Upanishadic Advaitic teaching is

Aham Brahamsmi. I Myself am Brahman. It is not, " I am Ishwara " .

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Durga

Sunday, April 27, 2008 11:46 AM

advaitin

Re: brahman and Ishvara

 

 

My teacher often says, " You are the Whole. You are

Ishwara. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

advaitin , " Harsha " wrote:

>

> Dear Durga-ji:

>

> I look forward to Sada-ji's answer. I am of the view that if your

Guru says

> something, that Guru is in the best position to clarify it. Of course,

> Swamiji is right to say that You are the Whole. Thou art That! Say the

> Upanishads clearly.

>

> In the relative world though, we do not say, " I am Ishwara " if the term

> Ishwara is being used in its traditional sense. At least I have not

> personally heard any Hindus say it. The Upanishadic Advaitic teaching is

> Aham Brahamsmi. I Myself am Brahman. It is not, " I am Ishwara " .

>

> Namaste and love to all

> Harsha

>

Namaste Harsha,

 

It seems I am feeling chatty today. Hope

I have not exceeded my number of posts.

 

I was speaking with a fellow student of

Swamiji's today, one who has known him

for a long time, and was trained by

him as a teacher.

 

She said that a long time ago Swamiji

did not speak much about Ishwara,

mostly concentrating on the

statement: 'I am Brahman'

 

However, lately she said that he (as well as my

own teacher) seem to be emphasizing the understanding

of Ishwara, and 'You are the Whole,' more and more.

 

Of course, the danger of saying 'You are

Ishwara,' as my friend pointed out, is that

it could seem egotistical, or really confuse

people into thinking somehow that self-knowledge

meant one 'became Ishwara's total upadhi,' all

knowledge, all power etc., which of course

is not true.

 

So, perhaps it is better to just understand

the statement the way it is intended when said in class,

which is the way that Nair-ji explained it, and

not bring it up in a public way, which might

be a cause for confusion and even possibly

upset, since it is not the 'usual' statement,

I was not aware of that.

 

Best to you and thank you so much for your explanation,

Durga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

--- On Sun, 4/27/08, Durga <durgaji108 wrote:

 

Durgaji - PraNAms - I will try to attempt answer based my understanding of the

question you posed.

 

>My teacher often says, " You are the Whole. You are

>Ishwara. "

 

>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. "

 

------------

 

Shree Nairji has explained in his amicable way your question (which I

reformulate it in a simple way), ‘How can I be the whole? and How can I be the

Iswara?’ – as Shree Swami Dayanandaji’s statement implies. Here is my

understanding of the statements.

 

Let us take the example of the dream world. When I dream, obviously I have the

knowledge of the creation – hence I am the nimitta kaaraNa, intelligent cause.

The material for the creation also comes from me – the waking mind. The waking

mind with all its impressions forms the basis (to put in upanishadic terms –

karma janita vaasanas or subtle impressions in the mind that are ready to

explode like a big bang as soon as I go to sleep). You can call this as maaya or

ajnaana or past impressions in the potential form, etc. I, as the

existence-consciousness, using these mental impressions, project the world of

plurality in my dream (only a conscious entity can dream). Hence I am not only

the intelligent cause but the material cause as well, when I identify myself

with the mind as I am the mind. Hence I am the Iswara of the dream world –

both the intelligent and material cause of the universe. Thus, in the creation

of the dream world, ‘I am’,

the conscious-existence (Brahman), using the mind and its subtle impressions as

the basis, project the world of plurality. In the projction process, I take the

role of Iswara.

 

Now let us look at the dream world that is projected. There are both beings as

well as world of objects in the dream. I also project myself as a tiny subject

in my dream which has its own BMI (body,mind and intellect) that differs from

the BMI’s of the other subjects. Forgetting that I am Iswara of the dream, due

to delusory power of maaya, I take myself to be only that tiny jiiva in my

dream and look at the world of objects and other beings separate from me and

suffer the consequence of this separation attitude. Now I want to be free from

this sufferings and I want moksha - I want to realize that truth that pervades

this universe. Swami Dayanandaji comes in my dream says you are the whole and

you are the Iswara. If I ask – sir how can I become Iswara – he would say

– you do not become Iswara, you are Iswara, even while you are thinking that

you are only this tiny jiiva. You are the intelligent and the material cause for

the whole universe

– that is Iswara. However much I want to be Iswara, and however much I

respect the Swamiji, I am baffaled. How can I be Iswara, the tiny fellow with

limited knowledge, etc.

 

Now Is the Swamiji statement true or not?

 

Not true, if I think I am only the tiny jiiva with the limited BMI which are

different from the other jiivas and the world of objects. Because I consider

myself is limited by space-wise, time-wise, and object-wise – desha, kaala,

vastu paricchinnam and how can I be the all pervading, omnipotent Iswara. Even

if I have wishful thinking that I am Iswara, this tiny BMI says you are crazy

and says do not fool your self with these crazy ideas.

 

But true, if I understand and appreciate Vedanatic statement as pramaaNa, that

the basis of the (dream) world is nothing but existence-consciousness that I am,

along with the total mind that the subtle impressions which are now grossifying

in the form of dream world. If I understand these mechanics, I can declare that

– ‘mayaa adhyakshena prakRitiH suuyate sacaraacaram’ – Under my

presidentship, the maaya or prakRiti is projecting the world of movables and

immovables.

 

When, even the mind folds, the existence-consciousness that I am still there

without any projection. That is the deep sleep state – where jiiva sleeps is

called laya and Iswara sleeps is called pralaya. The slokas 5 and 6 of Mandukya

respectively accounts from both perspectives.

 

Now am I a jiiva or Iswara? I am a jiiva if I identify with the local BMI as in

my dream state. I am Iswara of the dream world if I identify myself with the

total mind that is projecting the all the tiny BMI of all subjects as well as

inert jagat. Please note that the identification is by a conscious entity since

unconscious entity cannot do any identification.

 

The analogy is exact – That is the beauty of the Mandukya Upanishad which is

the most scientific analysis of the total human experience of waking world,

dream world and deep sleep world.

 

But the truth is – I am neither jiiva nor Iswara – I am the very substantive

for both as well as the world that is being projected in the three states of

consciousness. This aspect is brought out by Mantra 7 of the Upanishad. –in

its description it says ‘prapancopashamam’ – all the world are dissolved

into me, the existence-consciousness that I am which is advaitam, shivam,

shantam, chaturtham manyante, sa aatma, sa vijneyaH.

 

Hence Am I a jiiva – yes from the local BMI reference – micro level

Am I Iswara – yes from the global perspective – macro level

The truth is I am pure unadulterated consciousness-existence-infiniteness that I

am. I can still be Iswara at macro level and jiiva at micro level – and live

like Krishna!

 

But Durgaji – having said all this, from the sadhana point, it is easier to

project the Lord or Iswara and be a devotee until I can see the Lord everywhere

in everything including in myself where I and the Lord become one – when the

universe also becomes one with me since I see Him everywhere and in everything

or I see myself everywhere and in everything – that is when there is no more

questions in the mind whether I am jiiva or Iswara. All the questions dissolve

into myself, that I am.

 

Hence Krishna says in two ways in 6th Ch.

‘sarva bhutastam aatmaanam sarvabhuutani ca aatmani’ One who sees himself in

all beings and all beings in himself – and in the very next sloka

from the Iswara’s point

‘yo maam pasyati sarvatra sarvam ca mayi pasyati’ – who sees Me everywhere

and everything in Me

 

My suggestion is instead of wondering I am Iswara or jiiva - keep surendeing to

that Iswara until Iswara Himself shows up that he is not different from you,

since He is the essence of you. This happens by exposing oneself more and more

to vedantic teaching - are shrotavyaH, mantavyaH, nidhidhyaasitavyaH.

-------

Hope this helps.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

namaskaram,

 

very nicely stated Sadaji.

 

You have beautifully simplified it for bettering the understanding and

clarity.

 

namaskaram

 

 

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

 

--- On Sun, 4/27/08, Durga <durgaji108 wrote:

 

Durgaji - PraNAms - I will try to attempt answer based my understanding of the

question you posed.

 

>My teacher often says, " You are the Whole. You are

>Ishwara. "

 

>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. "

 

------------

 

Shree Nairji has explained in his amicable way your question (which I

reformulate it in a simple way), ‘How can I be the whole? and How can I be the

Iswara?’ – as Shree Swami Dayanandaji’s statement implies. Here is my

understanding of the statements.

 

Let us take the example of the dream world. When I dream, obviously I have the

knowledge of the creation – hence I am the nimitta kaaraNa, intelligent cause.

The material for the creation also comes from me – the waking mind. The waking

mind with all its impressions forms the basis (to put in upanishadic terms –

karma janita vaasanas or subtle impressions in the mind that are ready to

explode like a big bang as soon as I go to sleep). You can call this as maaya or

ajnaana or past impressions in the potential form, etc. I, as the

existence-consciousness, using these mental impressions, project the world of

plurality in my dream (only a conscious entity can dream). Hence I am not only

the intelligent cause but the material cause as well, when I identify myself

with the mind as I am the mind. Hence I am the Iswara of the dream world –

both the intelligent and material cause of the universe. Thus, in the creation

of the dream world, ‘I am’,

the conscious-existence (Brahman), using the mind and its subtle impressions as

the basis, project the world of plurality. In the projction process, I take the

role of Iswara.

 

Now let us look at the dream world that is projected. There are both beings as

well as world of objects in the dream. I also project myself as a tiny subject

in my dream which has its own BMI (body,mind and intellect) that differs from

the BMI’s of the other subjects. Forgetting that I am Iswara of the dream, due

to delusory power of maaya, I take myself to be only that tiny jiiva in my dream

and look at the world of objects and other beings separate from me and suffer

the consequence of this separation attitude. Now I want to be free from this

sufferings and I want moksha - I want to realize that truth that pervades this

universe. Swami Dayanandaji comes in my dream says you are the whole and you are

the Iswara. If I ask – sir how can I become Iswara – he would say – you do

not become Iswara, you are Iswara, even while you are thinking that you are only

this tiny jiiva. You are the intelligent and the material cause for the whole

universe

– that is Iswara. However much I want to be Iswara, and however much I respect

the Swamiji, I am baffaled. How can I be Iswara, the tiny fellow with limited

knowledge, etc.

 

Now Is the Swamiji statement true or not?

 

Not true, if I think I am only the tiny jiiva with the limited BMI which are

different from the other jiivas and the world of objects. Because I consider

myself is limited by space-wise, time-wise, and object-wise – desha, kaala,

vastu paricchinnam and how can I be the all pervading, omnipotent Iswara. Even

if I have wishful thinking that I am Iswara, this tiny BMI says you are crazy

and says do not fool your self with these crazy ideas.

 

But true, if I understand and appreciate Vedanatic statement as pramaaNa, that

the basis of the (dream) world is nothing but existence-consciousness that I am,

along with the total mind that the subtle impressions which are now grossifying

in the form of dream world. If I understand these mechanics, I can declare that

– ‘mayaa adhyakshena prakRitiH suuyate sacaraacaram’ – Under my

presidentship, the maaya or prakRiti is projecting the world of movables and

immovables.

 

When, even the mind folds, the existence-consciousness that I am still there

without any projection. That is the deep sleep state – where jiiva sleeps is

called laya and Iswara sleeps is called pralaya. The slokas 5 and 6 of Mandukya

respectively accounts from both perspectives.

 

Now am I a jiiva or Iswara? I am a jiiva if I identify with the local BMI as in

my dream state. I am Iswara of the dream world if I identify myself with the

total mind that is projecting the all the tiny BMI of all subjects as well as

inert jagat. Please note that the identification is by a conscious entity since

unconscious entity cannot do any identification.

 

The analogy is exact – That is the beauty of the Mandukya Upanishad which is

the most scientific analysis of the total human experience of waking world,

dream world and deep sleep world.

 

But the truth is – I am neither jiiva nor Iswara – I am the very substantive

for both as well as the world that is being projected in the three states of

consciousness. This aspect is brought out by Mantra 7 of the Upanishad. –in

its description it says ‘prapancopashamam’ – all the world are dissolved

into me, the existence-consciousness that I am which is advaitam, shivam,

shantam, chaturtham manyante, sa aatma, sa vijneyaH.

 

Hence Am I a jiiva – yes from the local BMI reference – micro level

Am I Iswara – yes from the global perspective – macro level

The truth is I am pure unadulterated consciousness-existence-infiniteness that I

am. I can still be Iswara at macro level and jiiva at micro level – and live

like Krishna!

 

But Durgaji – having said all this, from the sadhana point, it is easier to

project the Lord or Iswara and be a devotee until I can see the Lord everywhere

in everything including in myself where I and the Lord become one – when the

universe also becomes one with me since I see Him everywhere and in everything

or I see myself everywhere and in everything – that is when there is no more

questions in the mind whether I am jiiva or Iswara. All the questions dissolve

into myself, that I am.

 

Hence Krishna says in two ways in 6th Ch.

‘sarva bhutastam aatmaanam sarvabhuutani ca aatmani’ One who sees himself in

all beings and all beings in himself – and in the very next sloka

from the Iswara’s point

‘yo maam pasyati sarvatra sarvam ca mayi pasyati’ – who sees Me everywhere

and everything in Me

 

My suggestion is instead of wondering I am Iswara or jiiva - keep surendeing to

that Iswara until Iswara Himself shows up that he is not different from you,

since He is the essence of you. This happens by exposing oneself more and more

to vedantic teaching - are shrotavyaH, mantavyaH, nidhidhyaasitavyaH.

-------

Hope this helps.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Check out the all-new face of India.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Namaste Harsha-ji.

 

You might perhaps like to take a look at this concluding verse of

Shankara's " Dakshinamurthi Stotra " (Stanza: 10). (Durga-ji, kindly

note that it is Stotra and not Ashtaka. There is an Ashtaka. That

is a prayer, whereas the Stotra is a complete exposition of the

entire gamut of Advaita.):

 

Sarvaatmattvamiti sphutikritamidam

yasmaadamushmin stave

Tenaasya sravanattadarthamananaat

dhyaanaatcha sankritanaat;

Sarvaatmatvmahaa vibhooti sahitam

syaadisvaratvam svatah

Sidhyettatpunarashtadhaa parinatam

chaisvaryamavyaahatam

 

[The " Knowledge " " all-this-Atman " (Sarvaatmattvam) has been explained

in this Hymn and so, by hearing it, by reflecting and meditating upon

its meaning and by reciting it, one will attain that Divine State,

endued with the glory of the all-Self-hood, along with the permanent

eight-fold holy-powers of Goodhood.]

 

(Transliteration and translation exactly as printed in Sw.

Chinmayanandaji's commentary.)

 

I would take this to mean that sarvAtmatvaM is IshwaratwaM, or, in

other words, the one who has realized that he himself is everything

is verily Ishwara.

 

Kindly see how Sw. Chinmayanandaji further clarifies this point:

 

QUOTE

 

" Not only does a man, who has realized this Highest, experience the

great glory of Sarvatmattvam, but he comes to experience Pure God-

hood (Isvaratvam). He not only comes to experience and live, but

really becomes the Supreme, Eternal Knowledge-Bliss. "

 

" Does it mean that a man of wisdom, who has experienced in himself,

the Omnipotent, Eternal Consciousness, has not got in him the eight

supernatural powers (Siddhis) of the Yogi? No. Sankara says that a

man, who has realised the One Self everywhere (Sarvaatmattvam) and

who has, in his experience, become the Eternal Knowledge-Bliss-Nature

of the Supreme (Isvaratvam), again (Punah) gains the mastery of the

eight-fold modifications of Maya called in the Upanishadic lore as

the glory of Lord (Aiswarya). These are none other than the eight

siddhis described earlier. "

 

UNQUOTE

 

I have quoted just too much. Those interested can listen to Sw.

Dayanandaji's audio or read Subbuji's interpretation of the Stotra in

our Files section. I don't think they have said anything much

different.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

 

advaitin , " Harsha " wrote:

>

> Dear Durga-ji:

>

> I look forward to Sada-ji's answer. I am of the view that if your

Guru says

> something, that Guru is in the best position to clarify it. Of

course,

> Swamiji is right to say that You are the Whole. Thou art That! Say

the

> Upanishads clearly.

>

> In the relative world though, we do not say, " I am Ishwara " if the

term

> Ishwara is being used in its traditional sense. At least I have not

> personally heard any Hindus say it. The Upanishadic Advaitic

teaching is

> Aham Brahamsmi. I Myself am Brahman. It is not, " I am Ishwara " .

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

Swami Dayanandaji comes in my dream says you are the whole and you

are the Iswara.

>

> Now Is the Swamiji statement true or not?

>

 

> Hope this helps.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

 

Namaskar Sadananda-ji,

 

The Swamiji statement is seen to be true

by the help of your brilliant explanation.

Thank you so much. You have told the whole

subject very clearly.

 

I have copied your reply and pasted it into

my documents, to refer to for mananam.

 

One is indeed blessed to have beings

such as yourself, who can explain the

subject with such depth and clarity,

writing on this list.

 

This is truly satsang!

 

Many pranams,

Durga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Dear Nair-ji:

 

Thank you for sharing. For a non-scholar like me, this list is a great boon.

 

Sri Ramana used to say that to speak of yogic siddhis and to demonstrate

them, the " other " has to be presumed. All of these powers belong to the

realm of the mind or the supermind.

 

Self is One without a second. The Self is Sat-Chit-Ananda and does not admit

of any differences.

 

When one knows one's nature as Eternal and Whole, to whom shall one

demonstrate the yogic powers?

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Madathil Rajendran Nair

Monday, April 28, 2008 12:39 AM

advaitin

Re: brahman and Ishvara

 

Namaste Harsha-ji.

 

You might perhaps like to take a look at this concluding verse of

Shankara's " Dakshinamurthi Stotra " (Stanza: 10). (Durga-ji, kindly

note that it is Stotra and not Ashtaka. There is an Ashtaka. That

is a prayer, whereas the Stotra is a complete exposition of the

entire gamut of Advaita.):

 

Sarvaatmattvamiti sphutikritamidam

yasmaadamushmin stave

Tenaasya sravanattadarthamananaat

dhyaanaatcha sankritanaat;

Sarvaatmatvmahaa vibhooti sahitam

syaadisvaratvam svatah

Sidhyettatpunarashtadhaa parinatam

chaisvaryamavyaahatam

 

[The " Knowledge " " all-this-Atman " (Sarvaatmattvam) has been explained

in this Hymn and so, by hearing it, by reflecting and meditating upon

its meaning and by reciting it, one will attain that Divine State,

endued with the glory of the all-Self-hood, along with the permanent

eight-fold holy-powers of Goodhood.]

 

(Transliteration and translation exactly as printed in Sw.

Chinmayanandaji's commentary.)

 

I would take this to mean that sarvAtmatvaM is IshwaratwaM, or, in

other words, the one who has realized that he himself is everything

is verily Ishwara.

 

Kindly see how Sw. Chinmayanandaji further clarifies this point:

 

QUOTE

 

" Not only does a man, who has realized this Highest, experience the

great glory of Sarvatmattvam, but he comes to experience Pure God-

hood (Isvaratvam). He not only comes to experience and live, but

really becomes the Supreme, Eternal Knowledge-Bliss. "

 

" Does it mean that a man of wisdom, who has experienced in himself,

the Omnipotent, Eternal Consciousness, has not got in him the eight

supernatural powers (Siddhis) of the Yogi? No. Sankara says that a

man, who has realised the One Self everywhere (Sarvaatmattvam) and

who has, in his experience, become the Eternal Knowledge-Bliss-Nature

of the Supreme (Isvaratvam), again (Punah) gains the mastery of the

eight-fold modifications of Maya called in the Upanishadic lore as

the glory of Lord (Aiswarya). These are none other than the eight

siddhis described earlier. "

 

UNQUOTE

 

I have quoted just too much. Those interested can listen to Sw.

Dayanandaji's audio or read Subbuji's interpretation of the Stotra in

our Files section. I don't think they have said anything much

different.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

 

advaitin , " Harsha " wrote:

>

> Dear Durga-ji:

>

> I look forward to Sada-ji's answer. I am of the view that if your

Guru says

> something, that Guru is in the best position to clarify it. Of

course,

> Swamiji is right to say that You are the Whole. Thou art That! Say

the

> Upanishads clearly.

>

> In the relative world though, we do not say, " I am Ishwara " if the

term

> Ishwara is being used in its traditional sense. At least I have not

> personally heard any Hindus say it. The Upanishadic Advaitic

teaching is

> Aham Brahamsmi. I Myself am Brahman. It is not, " I am Ishwara " .

>

 

 

---

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

excellent

 

Harsha wrote: Dear Nair-ji:

 

Thank you for sharing. For a non-scholar like me, this list is a great boon.

 

Sri Ramana used to say that to speak of yogic siddhis and to demonstrate

them, the " other " has to be presumed. All of these powers belong to the

realm of the mind or the supermind.

 

Self is One without a second. The Self is Sat-Chit-Ananda and does not admit

of any differences.

 

When one knows one's nature as Eternal and Whole, to whom shall one

demonstrate the yogic powers?

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Madathil Rajendran Nair

Monday, April 28, 2008 12:39 AM

advaitin

Re: brahman and Ishvara

 

Namaste Harsha-ji.

 

You might perhaps like to take a look at this concluding verse of

Shankara's " Dakshinamurthi Stotra " (Stanza: 10). (Durga-ji, kindly

note that it is Stotra and not Ashtaka. There is an Ashtaka. That

is a prayer, whereas the Stotra is a complete exposition of the

entire gamut of Advaita.):

 

Sarvaatmattvamiti sphutikritamidam

yasmaadamushmin stave

Tenaasya sravanattadarthamananaat

dhyaanaatcha sankritanaat;

Sarvaatmatvmahaa vibhooti sahitam

syaadisvaratvam svatah

Sidhyettatpunarashtadhaa parinatam

chaisvaryamavyaahatam

 

[The " Knowledge " " all-this-Atman " (Sarvaatmattvam) has been explained

in this Hymn and so, by hearing it, by reflecting and meditating upon

its meaning and by reciting it, one will attain that Divine State,

endued with the glory of the all-Self-hood, along with the permanent

eight-fold holy-powers of Goodhood.]

 

(Transliteration and translation exactly as printed in Sw.

Chinmayanandaji's commentary.)

 

I would take this to mean that sarvAtmatvaM is IshwaratwaM, or, in

other words, the one who has realized that he himself is everything

is verily Ishwara.

 

Kindly see how Sw. Chinmayanandaji further clarifies this point:

 

QUOTE

 

" Not only does a man, who has realized this Highest, experience the

great glory of Sarvatmattvam, but he comes to experience Pure God-

hood (Isvaratvam). He not only comes to experience and live, but

really becomes the Supreme, Eternal Knowledge-Bliss. "

 

" Does it mean that a man of wisdom, who has experienced in himself,

the Omnipotent, Eternal Consciousness, has not got in him the eight

supernatural powers (Siddhis) of the Yogi? No. Sankara says that a

man, who has realised the One Self everywhere (Sarvaatmattvam) and

who has, in his experience, become the Eternal Knowledge-Bliss-Nature

of the Supreme (Isvaratvam), again (Punah) gains the mastery of the

eight-fold modifications of Maya called in the Upanishadic lore as

the glory of Lord (Aiswarya). These are none other than the eight

siddhis described earlier. "

 

UNQUOTE

 

I have quoted just too much. Those interested can listen to Sw.

Dayanandaji's audio or read Subbuji's interpretation of the Stotra in

our Files section. I don't think they have said anything much

different.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

advaitin , " Harsha " wrote:

>

> Dear Durga-ji:

>

> I look forward to Sada-ji's answer. I am of the view that if your

Guru says

> something, that Guru is in the best position to clarify it. Of

course,

> Swamiji is right to say that You are the Whole. Thou art That! Say

the

> Upanishads clearly.

>

> In the relative world though, we do not say, " I am Ishwara " if the

term

> Ishwara is being used in its traditional sense. At least I have not

> personally heard any Hindus say it. The Upanishadic Advaitic

teaching is

> Aham Brahamsmi. I Myself am Brahman. It is not, " I am Ishwara " .

>

 

---

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Dear Harsha-ji,

 

I believe, in your 40489, you said you haven't seen a statement

like " I am Ishwra " in any upanishadic teaching.

 

The purpose of my post was to show that, although it is not

explicitly repeated like AhaM BrahAsmi, such thought has been

expressed by none other than Shankara and what he means is that

IshwaratwaM (mastery over mAyAshakti with the eight siddhis and all

that) spontaneously occurs with brahmajnAnaM, whether or not the

jnAni wants to use such powers or not, so much so that the two or

not any different from each other.

 

Hanuman-ji was is a jnAni. Don't we extol him " ashtasiddhi nau

nidhi ke dAtA " in Hanuman chAlisA? Does it mean that Hanuman-ji is

a siddhi demonstrator? Our sages might not say " I am Ishwara " .

That is their humility. But, they do roar " You are Ishwara " . There

is no difference between the two statements.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________

 

advaitin , Surendra Shrestha

<coloramacentre wrote:

>

> excellent

>

> Harsha wrote: Dear Nair-ji:

>

> Thank you for sharing. For a non-scholar like me, this list is a

great boon.

>

> Sri Ramana used to say that to speak of yogic siddhis and to

demonstrate

> them, the " other " has to be presumed. All of these powers belong

to the

> realm of the mind or the supermind.

>

> Self is One without a second. The Self is Sat-Chit-Ananda and does

not admit

> of any differences.

>

> When one knows one's nature as Eternal and Whole, to whom shall one

> demonstrate the yogic powers?

>

> Namaste and love to all

> Harsha

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Dear Harsha-ji,

>

> I believe, in your 40489, you said you haven't seen a statement

> like " I am Ishwra " in any upanishadic teaching.

>

> The purpose of my post was to show that, although it is not

> explicitly repeated like AhaM BrahAsmi, such thought has been

> expressed by none other than Shankara and what he means is that

> IshwaratwaM (mastery over mAyAshakti with the eight siddhis and all

> that) spontaneously occurs with brahmajnAnaM, whether or not the

> jnAni wants to use such powers or not, so much so that the two or

> not any different from each other.

>

> Hanuman-ji was is a jnAni. Don't we extol him " ashtasiddhi nau

> nidhi ke dAtA " in Hanuman chAlisA? Does it mean that Hanuman-ji is

> a siddhi demonstrator? Our sages might not say " I am Ishwara " .

> That is their humility. But, they do roar " You are Ishwara " . There

> is no difference between the two statements.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

Namaste Nair-ji,

 

While I am no expert on Shankara, nor can

I read Sanskrit, I'm pretty sure that

self-knowledge does not mean that one

acquires all of the powers of Ishwara.

 

I've been told this by several people

who do have knowledge. As far as I know,

a jnani will always be limited (more

or less, I would suppose) by the human

upadhi.

 

My teacher has stressed this over and over

again, in order to do away with notions,

that along with self-knowledge, one

necessarily acquires siddhis.

 

Swami Dayanandaji told a nice story one

time. He was stopped in an airport

by a westerner, from the Hari Krishna organization,

who was selling books published by their group.

(This used to happen quite often to everyone

who traveled by plane in the 1970's and 80's

in just about every airport in America)

 

Swamiji politely tried to get away from the

devotee's attentions, as he as was rushing to

get his plane.

 

Finally the Hare Krishna devotee called

after Swamiji, " You are not Ishwara. "

 

Swamiji replied, " That's why I'm catching a plane! "

 

Pranams,

Durga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

--- On Mon, 4/28/08, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

 

 

 

The purpose of my post was to show that, although it is not

explicitly repeated like AhaM BrahAsmi, such thought has been

expressed by none other than Shankara and what he means is that

IshwaratwaM (mastery over mAyAshakti with the eight siddhis and all

that) spontaneously occurs with brahmajnAnaM, whether or not the

jnAni wants to use such powers or not, so much so that the two or

not any different from each other.

 

Our sages might not say " I am Ishwara " .

That is their humility. But, they do roar " You are Ishwara " . There

is no difference between the two statements.

 

----------------

Nairji - with all due respects my understanding differs from the above.

 

Jnaanam involves jnaanam of only the substantive - that pervades the

jiiva-jagat-Iswara - that is the knowledge of the essence and not the

particulars - saamanya jnaanam and not visheSha jnaanam. Knowledge of the

substantive does not mean knowledge of all the superficial attributive

knowledge. I know gold does not mean I have knowledge of all the attributes of

all ornaments that were made, are made and will be made. It only means I know

the essence. The others are adhyaasa only hence would make no difference in

terms of knowing or not knowing.

 

The same goes with siddhi-s too. Knowledge of those is neither necessary nor

sufficient to have the knowledge of the substantive, nor knowledge of the

substantive ensures the knowledge-attributive. Just because I know Brahman that

does not mean I know quantum mechanics or multitude of -logies or sciences that

are existing. Sarvajna here only means -as though known since he has substantial

knowledge without the superficialities.

 

I am Iswara in the sense of only substantive that I am existence-consciousness -

I am the self in all and all in myself - applies to the essence not to

particulars which are non-self. To acquire siddhis, one has to follow certain

disciplines which according to Vedanta may not help in the pursuit of

substantive knowledge - and in fact possibility that it can derail the

self-realization by boosting the ego. Hence the sages recommend not to go for

siddhis. Incidentally if they come, they advise us not to give importance to

them either. The point is one gets siddhis if one becomes jnaani is not

necessarily true. That is my understanding.

 

Scriptures do not say you become Iswara - it only says you become Brahman by

knowing Brahman - brahma vit brahmaiva bhavati.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Dear Durga-ji,

 

 

 

My apologies again - I really did not intend to continue this discussion but

I am (even more) confused by your statements here.

 

 

 

You say: " I'm pretty sure that

self-knowledge does not mean that one

acquires all of the powers of Ishwara. "

 

 

 

I don't not understand how one can *be* Ishvara without having the 'powers

of Ishvara'. In what sense could this be understood? Are not the powers of

Ishvara what makes Ishvara Ishvara?

 

 

 

Also, your beautiful story about Swamiji seems to contradict what you said

before (My teacher often says, " You are the Whole. You are Ishwara. " How is

one to understand this apparent contradiction?

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

<<Swamiji politely tried to get away from the

devotee's attentions, as he as was rushing to

get his plane.

 

Finally the Hare Krishna devotee called

after Swamiji, " You are not Ishwara. "

 

Swamiji replied, " That's why I'm catching a plane! "

 

Pranams,

Durga>>

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Durga-ji,

>

>

>

> My apologies again - I really did not intend to continue this

discussion but

> I am (even more) confused by your statements here.

>

>

>

> You say: " I'm pretty sure that

> self-knowledge does not mean that one

> acquires all of the powers of Ishwara. "

>

>

>

> I don't not understand how one can *be* Ishvara without having the

'powers

> of Ishvara'. In what sense could this be understood? Are not the

powers of

> Ishvara what makes Ishvara Ishvara?

>

>

>

> Also, your beautiful story about Swamiji seems to contradict what

you said

> before (My teacher often says, " You are the Whole. You are Ishwara. "

How is

> one to understand this apparent contradiction?

>

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

Hi Dennis,

 

I think if you reread Sadanandaji's wonderful

post #40491 on this topic, everything should

become clear. (And I also do not want to

continue this discussion. Thank you.)

 

Maybe we all just need to do a little

mananam around this topic, read and reread

Sadanandaji's post, and rest easy.

 

Pranams,

Durga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Namaste.

This morning I happened to open a book which contains a Tamil

translation of a Samskrit work known as `svArAjyasiddhi' by

Gangadharendra Sarasvati, published in 2001. In it there is a Foreword

in Tamil by Swami Dayananda. The English translation of the first

sentence of this Foreword is given below:

VedAnta is the shAstra that declares jIveshvara aikya—the identity of

jIva and Ishvara. Swamiji cannot be unaware of the fact that the

identity is between the jIva and brahman. Yet he has used the

term `jIveshvara aikya'. It obviously means that he uses the word

Ishvara in the sense of brahman here. So when he says " You are

Ishvara' he means only `You are Brahman " .

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Pranams Sada-ji and thank you for your posts which always help clarify

the subject matter very precisely. My apologies for the delayed

response on accounts of time constraints at my end.

 

While I (of course) agree with and well appreciate most of what you

have written, let me take something you wrote to offer my humble

perspective. (My post 40400 may give you my perspective on what i am

about to write further.)

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Iswara-jiiva and jagat †" come together as a package since they are

mutually exclusive.

> Iswara is different from Brahman since creation involves

modification and infinite cannot undergo modification or vikaara.

 

Does this mean that

a.Ishwara is not infinite? and

b.Jagat and Jiva are not included in Ishwara?

c.Ishwara undergoes any modification?

 

Lord Krishna clearly answers these questions with his words:

 

mayAtatam idam sarvam jagad avyakta-murtina

mat-sthAni sarva-bhutAni na chaham tesv avasthitah

na ca mat-sthAni bhutAni pasya me yogam aisvaram

bhuta-bhrn na ca bhuta-stho mamAtma bhuta-bhavanah

 

This whole world is prevaded by Me in My unmanifest form. All beings

exist in Me, but I am not contained in them! Nor do the beings dwell

in Me! Behod My divine Yoga! I am the sustainer and originator of

beings, but My Self is not contained in the beings.

 

If Ishwara is finite then what can limit Ishwara?! You cannot say Maya

because He Himself is the Lord of Maya, and Maya is not anything other

than Ishwara's own intrinsic Shakti.

 

At the same time you cannot postulate two independent infinite

entities - an Infinite Ishwara and an Infinite Brahman.

 

There is only one possibility - Ishwara IS Brahman AND vice-versa.

 

Now here there are two issues that cause confusion.

 

The first concerns what is meant by the term Ishwara.

The second issue is one's stage of development (- which in turn will

influence the first).

 

If one is taking Ishwara to be a deity, or a particular form, say Lord

Shiva, or Lord Vishnu, as a person or personality, to the exclusion of

all other forms and names, then certainly one cannot be justified in

claiming that one name and one form as the Absolute.

 

However when Ishwara is meant to signify the One Infinite, Supreme

Being, then all names and all forms are His alone.

This Supreme One is referred to in the Upanishads as Purusha, as

Ishana, as Shiva, as Atman, as Brahman, ParamAtma, AntaryAmi,

Maheshwara, Vishnu, Narayana, etc

 

What may perhaps be more appropriate to say is that the verisame

Supreme Being has two aspects - a nirguna aspect and a saguna aspect -

the latter aspect that is applicable to me the ignorant jiva and the

former aspect that this verisame jiva recognizes to be at the very

core of his own being upon gaining knowledge. Even though He, is One,

it is only the jiva's ignorance that causes him to see himself as

separate - to use a popular Gita phrase - avibhaktam ca bhutesu

vibhaktam iva ca sthitam - in the Lord's eyes you are never separate

from Him.

Either way He alone is Real. The jiva's ignorance is ever the jiva's

problem - the Lord is asakta, asanga - unaffected, untouched.

 

So if Ishwara is understood and appreciated in this fashion - and I

have talked at greater length about this in my post no.40400 - then

the goal of self-realization is clearly understood to be non-different

from the goal of god-realization.

 

The Supreme One does not become any less Divine, any less Auspicious,

by a recognition of His non-duality (by a sublation of my notional

separation) as satyam/jnAnam/anantam - note the words Shivam Shantam

in the Mandukya to describe Turiya. Shivam means auspiciousness. In

the kArikyas, GaudapAda, referred to as the proponent of ajAtivAda by

many, says

 

sukham Avriyate nityam dukham vivriyate sadA

yasya kasya cha dharmasya grahena bhagawan asau

On account of the mind which is constantly apprehending individual

objects, Bliss, which is the essential nature of the Self, always

remains hidden. Hence the ever-effulgent Lord (note the word Bhagawan

in this context) is not easily realised.

 

Also in the same kArikA

pranavam hi Ishwaram vidyAt sarvasya hrdi samsthitam

sarva vyApinam omkAram matvA dhIro na shochati

 

Know Aum to be Ishwara the Lord ever present in the hearts of all.

Realizing Aum as All-pervading a man of discrimination does not grieve.

 

Note the similarity here with the Bhagawad Gita " isvarah

sarva-bhutanam hrdyeshe'rjuna tisthati " The very-same idea is conveyed.

 

Also

nivrtteh sarvadukhAnAm IshAnah prabhur avyayah

advaitah sarva bhAvAnAm devas-turyo vibhuh smrtah

 

In That which is indicated as the changeless and the Supreme Lord,

there is total cessation of all miseries. It is the One, without a

second, it is known as Turiya, the Ever-Efflugent, the All-pervading.

 

Again note the words IshAna and prabhu here - directly indicating

their identity with the shAntam shivam of Brahman.

 

Hence alone Lord KrishnA says

 

aham sarvasya prabhavo mattah sarvam pravartate

iti matva bhajante mam budha bhava-samanvitah

tesam evanukampartham aham ajnana-jam tamah

nasayamy atma-bhavastho jnana-dipena bhasvata

 

I am the origin of all; everything moves on owing to Me. Realizing

thus, the wise ones, filled with fervour, adore Me.

Out of compassion for them alone, I, residing in their hearts, destroy

the darkness born of ignorance with the luminous lamp of Knowledge.

 

for which Shankara writes

 

Aham, I, the supreme Brahman called Vasudeva; am the prabhavah,

origin; sarvasya, of all, of the whole world; sarvam, everything, the

whole world of changes, consisting of continuance, destruction, action

and enjoyment of the fruits of action; pravartate, moves on; mattah,

owing to Me alone. Matva, realizing; iti, thus; the budhah, wise ones,

the knowers of the supreme Reality; bhava-samanvitah, filled with

fervour-bhava is the same as bhavana, meaning ardent longing for the

supreme Reality; filled (samanvitah) with that, i.e. imbued with that;

bhajante, adore; mam, Me. Anukampartham, out of compassion; tesam eva,

for them alone, anxious as to how they may have bliss; aham, I;

atmabhavasthah, residing in their hearts-atmabhavah means the seat

that is the heart; being seated there itself; nasayami, destroy;

tamah, the darkness; ajnanajam, born of ignorance, originating from

non-discrimination, the darkness of delusion known as false

comprehension; jnana-dipena, with the lamp of Knowledge, in the form

of discriminating comprehension; i.e. bhasvata, with the luminous lamp

of Knowledge-fed by the oil of divine grace resulting from devotion,

fanned by the wind of intensity of meditation on Me, having the wick

of the intellect imbued with the impressions arising from such

disciplines as celibacy etc., in the receptacle of the detached mind,

placed in the windless shelter of the mind withdrawn from objects and

untainted by likes and dislikes, and made luminous by full

Illumination resulting from the practice of constant concentration and

meditation!!!

 

The truth that Vedanta declares is the verysame Truth that has been

known and recognized at the pinnacle of all spiritual perfection -

that the true Ishwartam the true Divinity is to be gained in one's own

heart by losing ones own notional self in the cognition of that very

Ishwara.

 

Humble pranams

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

 

Shyam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Dear Shyam-ji:

 

Sri Krishna has stated in the Bhagavad Gita, " I am the Self, O Gudâkesha,

existent in the heart of all beings; I am the beginning, the middle, and

also the end of all beings. "

 

This was one of Sri Ramana's favorite verses in the Gita. What you state

below is indeed the central truth of Vedanta and that is true Ishwartam, the

true divinity is gained by looking directly into one's own Heart.

 

With respect to all, this discussion between Brahman and Ishwara appears

somewhat academic to me. I am satisfied with the various explanations given

and feel that Sada-ji represents the Advaitic perspective faithfully.

However, one can accept any of these views depending on the inclination as

even great sages appear to differ at times and scriptures may make

statements which require additional insights to fully understand.

 

Sri Ramana used to say that discussions of this nature may not be fruitful

for everyone. The Sage of Arunachala held that the complexities of the mind

and the world and the scriptures are endless. Therefore, we need to grasp

the essential truth which you Shyam-ji, Sada-ji and others have stated. That

is that, our true divinity, our true nature that ancients referred to as the

Heart, Sat-Chit-Ananada, is discovered by meditating on the Self. The rest

(siddhis and all and what is really meant by Ishwartam) will become clear in

due time.

 

Self. Self is One without a second.

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of shyam_md

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 2:25 AM

advaitin

Re: brahman and Ishvara

 

 

The truth that Vedanta declares is the verysame Truth that has been

known and recognized at the pinnacle of all spiritual perfection -

that the true Ishwartam the true Divinity is to be gained in one's own

heart by losing ones own notional self in the cognition of that very

Ishwara.

 

Humble pranams

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

 

Shyam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Dear Sri Shyam_md,

 

Would it not be better to allow a little latitude in such matters?

Every advaitin accepts that brahman alone is, because the " is-ness " or

" such-ness " of all phenomena is brahman.

 

After that whether one needs to talk of " one supreme being " , " order " ,

" sustainer " and other such things is a matter of perspective. There

are any number of ways of expounding advaita-vedAnta. Once duality is

provisionally accepted, there will necessarily be many ways of

expressing it.

 

I feel drawn to the idea of the divinity of all phenomena but this

" one supreme being " concept always causes problems. Why the need to

give a number - one, two or 'n' ? And why can't there be two entities

(or ten entities) that are infinite? Does mathematics transcend

space-time? If not, how can we take our ideas of counting outside the

realm of space-time?

 

Let us be clear - one always means two. There is the entity that is

being referred to as 'one' and there is the entity that is doing the

referring. This is an important reason why we say 'advaita' instead of

'eka' - to stop this tendency to count and measure.

 

brahman simply is, the divine simply is, beyond all enumeration.

 

Ramesh

 

2008/4/30 shyam_md <shyam_md:

> Pranams Sada-ji and thank you for your posts which always help clarify

> the subject matter very precisely. My apologies for the delayed

> response on accounts of time constraints at my end.

>

 

--

santoShaH paramo lAbhaH satsa~NgaH paramA gatiH I

vicAraH paramaM j~nAnaM shamo hi paramaM sukham II

 

- yoga vAsiShTha mahArAmAyaNa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

advaitin , " Ramesh Krishnamurthy " <rkmurthy

wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Shyam_md,

>

> Would it not be better to allow a little latitude in such matters?

> Every advaitin accepts that brahman alone is, because the " is-ness " or

> " such-ness " of all phenomena is brahman.

>

> After that whether one needs to talk of " one supreme being " , " order " ,

> " sustainer " and other such things is a matter of perspective. There

> are any number of ways of expounding advaita-vedAnta. Once duality is

> provisionally accepted, there will necessarily be many ways of

> expressing it.

>

> I feel drawn to the idea of the divinity of all phenomena but this

> " one supreme being " concept always causes problems. Why the need to

> give a number - one, two or 'n' ? And why can't there be two entities

> (or ten entities) that are infinite? Does mathematics transcend

> space-time? If not, how can we take our ideas of counting outside the

> realm of space-time?

>

> Let us be clear - one always means two. There is the entity that is

> being referred to as 'one' and there is the entity that is doing the

> referring. This is an important reason why we say 'advaita' instead of

> 'eka' - to stop this tendency to count and measure.

>

> brahman simply is, the divine simply is, beyond all enumeration.

>

> Ramesh

>

Namaste Rameshji,

 

I do agree with you, and I also feel that when studying with

a teacher who knows how to introduce the understanding

of Ishwara in a certain way, such an understanding is

very useful for a certain type of 'integration' of

knowledge.

 

Thus, no part of the jiva is left out. No " conclusion

against the vastu " remains (to quote Swami Dayanandaji),

which conclusion might interfere with the gain of

knowledge.

 

The way that Ishwara is introduced and discussed in

our class primarily has a lot to do with the gain of

a calm and quiet mind, (antahkarana suddhi), and

perhaps all of that is difficult to explain in

such a forum as this, where the conclusions against

the vastu, (mental obstructions to self-knowledge)

can vary so greatly, depending upon a

person's background, exposure to which particular

sampradaya, or lack thereof, one's teacher, or

again, lack thereof, culture, etc.

 

Each student may have a particular 'sphere of Ishwara'

i.e. a particular place in their mind, be it a belief,

or some type of material held in the unconscious which

has not been examined, or something else, which the

understanding of Ishwara helps to bring to light

to be examined with compassion.

 

If examined in the light of the understanding that

'everything is Ishwara,' and as a part of Ishwara's

order has a reason to be there, then, whatever is

coming to light, whatever the obstruction is, then

letting go of that obstruction can be done with

an attitude of compassion, understanding, love,

and reverence, thus making for a whole and

complete person. (I hope what I am saying makes sense)

 

This may all sound very psychological, (and in some

instances it may be), or in some instances it

may be some other types of beliefs, such as

some of those we discussed earlier.

 

All of these different things can take a lot of explaining,

and may or may not be useful in this type forum.

(Although I think explaining why westerners have

a problem with a 'God' concept may have shed some

light on the subject.)

 

I used to only want to know, about brahman. Now

somehow, I want to know more about Ishwara, in that

if there is any small crevice or place in my mind

which has yet to be examined in the light of that

understanding, I now know that doing so will

be beneficial.

 

All this, for acquiring a certain type of mind,

without which self-knowledge will not happen, or even

if gained, the fruits thereof may not be enjoyed as

fully as they could be.

 

Hari Om,

Durga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Shyam - PraNams.

 

I will try to address to the best I can from my perspective.

 

First let us look at the problem in correct perspective (as I see!)

 

From Brahman point there is no creation what so ever.

 

Now who sees the creation? I am, because of the notion that I am a finite

existent-conscious entity, that is taking myself as jiiva, thinking using my 

mind that I am this (BMI) which is different from the rest of the universe.

 

Hence to begin with, it is the jiiva that sees the universe different from him,

not Iswara nor Brahman.

 

Since I see the universe different from me, I question where did this universe

come from and who created this universe? - Who is asking these questions? - It

is the jiiva who has the notion that he is separate from the rest of the

universe by his very identification with local BMI. Hence ignorace locused in me

clouds my vision of the truth that there is really no creation to start with

that I should be to be concerned.

 

Since I feel I did not create the Universe, and Universe is there; Now I have to

bring in Iswara who has to be omnicient to creat this universe which is

infinite. So creation or jagat itself is infinite - puuranam idam.

 

So in explaining the universe, I have to bring in Iswara also who is the creator

- jagat kartaa IswaraH - as Intelligent cause. He cannot be inside the creation

nor outside the creation - there is no outside since that outside has to be

created - hence creation has to be infinite. He cannot be inside since he

becomes part of the creation not a creator.

 

Hence I have to make that Iswara (that I have created or brought in to account

for that creation that I see as separate from me!) to be the material cause as

well - jagat kaaranam (Upaadana) IswaraH.

 

Since, I am part of the creation, Iswara that I have created has to create me

too so that I can create Him!  My statements may be circular logic and may sound

also like  blasphamy for some, but that is the situation I am in. Kaale jagat

bakshakaH -Time swallows the universe along with Iswara that created the

Universe but I swallow the time too, when I go to deep sleep.

 

Now where is the universe? where is jagat and where is this Iswara and who am I?

All disolved in Me.

That is advaita - ultmately I alone am - jagat and Iswara folded in to myself

since I brought them in the first becuase of my ignorance now ignorance lost, I

do not need both of them! - aham brahaamsi not jivosmi.

Now is Iswara infinite or jagat infinite - when both are swallowed by me who is

really infinite.

 

I will slowly address the rest of the issues you have raised.

 

I am protecting myself by saying that this is only my understanding of advaita.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Sadaji,

 

Pranams

 

thank you for your chrystal clear post which to me expresses purest

advaita. It would be very sad if you would have to protect yourself in

this list because of it, as you called it.

 

Whatever you said is expressed in Ashtavakra Gita as you certainly know,

which is adressed to those who are ready to dissolve all concepts into

pure satchitananda, Self or as you said: Me.

 

No need to start up the whole discussion again: polarizing between

Brahman and Ishvara is useless. Ishvara is wonderful and can help

tremendously on the way - as Durga described in her/(his?) last post.

 

Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti!

 

Sitara

 

 

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Shyam - PraNams.

>

> I will try to address to the best I can from my perspective.

>

> First let us look at the problem in correct perspective (as I see!)

>

> From Brahman point there is no creation what so ever.

>

(.....)

>

> I am protecting myself by saying that this is only my understanding of

advaita.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

--- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

" So in explaining the universe, I have to bring in

Iswara also who is the creator - jagat kartaa IswaraH

- as Intelligent cause. He cannot be inside the

creation nor outside the creation - there is no

outside since that outside has to be created - hence

creation has to be infinite. He cannot be inside since

he becomes part of the creation not a creator.

 

Hence I have to make that Iswara (that I have created

or brought in to account for that creation that I see

as separate from me!) to be the material cause as well

- jagat kaaranam (Upaadana) IswaraH. "

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

 

So, can the jiva, from the viewpoint where it is

identifying with the BMI, say that indeed all that it

'sees' is Ishwara (ISAvAsyam idam sarvam?). Since, if

as you conclude, there is nothing beyond Ishwara, as

Ishwara is infinite, everything one sees IS actually

Ishwara.

 

But that brings in the question whether Ishwara is

sentient or insentient! (Talk of blasphemy here!). If

Ishwara is ALL I see, and that includes myself as well

as all the other jivas, then surely it is as sentient

as me and the other jivas. And since all jivas are

part of it, Ishwara in turn is a collection of all

jivas.

 

The sun reflects in every drop of water, but it also

reflects in the whole lake. If a drop of water assumes

its own independent identity, it feels the reflection

of sun in it. If it assumes the independent identities

of other drops, it feels the sun in every drop. And if

it assumes an identity of the whole lake, it feels the

sun in the lake.

 

The drop is the jiva, and the lake, infinite and

all-pervading is the Ishwara. The phenomenon, which

takes place at the individual level of a single BMI

unit (Brahman reflecting in the body) is called a

jiva. When the same takes place for the collection of

all jivas (Brahman reflecting throughout the

universe), it is called Ishwara.

 

As usual, my limited understanding, and comments are

much welcome.

 

Hari Om!

Vaibhav.

 

 

From Chandigarh to Chennai - find friends all over India. Go to

http://in.promos./groups/citygroups/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

praNam-s Sada-ji,

 

 

 

Excellent! This is my understanding also. This is not blasphemy - this is

reason ratifying shruti as per gauDapAda's recommendation.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of kuntimaddi sadananda

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 7:47 PM

advaitin

Re: brahman and Ishvara

 

 

 

My statements may be circular logic and may sound also like blasphamy for

some, but that is the situation I am in. Kaale jagat bakshakaH -Time

swallows the universe along with Iswara that created the Universe but I

swallow the time too, when I go to deep sleep.

 

Now where is the universe? where is jagat and where is this Iswara and who

am I? All disolved in Me.

That is advaita - ultmately I alone am - jagat and Iswara folded in to

myself since I brought them in the first becuase of my ignorance now

ignorance lost, I do not need both of them! - aham brahaamsi not jivosmi.

Now is Iswara infinite or jagat infinite - when both are swallowed by me who

is really infinite.

 

I will slowly address the rest of the issues you have raised.

 

I am protecting myself by saying that this is only my understanding of

advaita.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Dear Harsha-ji and Ramesh-ji,

Pranams.

***********

--- Harsha wrote:

> With respect to all, this discussion between Brahman

> and Ishwara appears

> somewhat academic to me. I am satisfied with the

> various explanations given

> and feel that Sada-ji represents the Advaitic

> perspective faithfully.

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

If in my explorations on this subject, I have conveyed

a sense that what Sada-ji has so beautifully explained

is not a faithful representation of advaita, then let

me offer my sincere apologies, esp. to Sada-ji -

needless to say, his mastery of the subject matter is

both complete, and well-acknowledged - and we are all

blessed to have his guidance here. My only intention

was, to offer a humble perspective on how the very

same process of " self " -realization could be viewed

differently from the standpoint of a mature

understanding of Ishwara.

***********

advaitin , " Ramesh

Krishnamurthy " <rkmurthy wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Shyam_md,

>

> Would it not be better to allow a little latitude in

such matters?

> Every advaitin accepts that brahman alone is,

because the " is-ness " or

> " such-ness " of all phenomena is brahman.

>

> After that whether one needs to talk of " one supreme

being " , " order " ,

> " sustainer " and other such things is a matter of

perspective. There

> are any number of ways of expounding

advaita-vedAnta. Once duality is

> provisionally accepted, there will necessarily be

many ways of

> expressing it.

>

> I feel drawn to the idea of the divinity of all

phenomena but this

> " one supreme being " concept always causes problems.

Why the need to

> give a number - one, two or 'n' ? And why can't

there be two entities

> (or ten entities) that are infinite? Does

mathematics transcend

> space-time? If not, how can we take our ideas of

counting outside the

> realm of space-time?

>

> Let us be clear - one always means two. There is the

entity that is

> being referred to as 'one' and there is the entity

that is doing the

> referring. This is an important reason why we say

'advaita' instead of

> 'eka' - to stop this tendency to count and measure.

>

> brahman simply is, the divine simply is, beyond all

enumeration.

>

> Ramesh

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

I fully agree with your last comment dear Ramesh-ji.

If " one " always means " two " then would it not be

proper to say that the entity doing the referring

cannot dismiss the entity being referred to? That is

precisely my point - that Divinity is intrinsic only

to the realized, there being " no other " to accept or

reject, not otherwise.

 

In any case, if this appears as too dogmatic a

position to you, then please dismiss it as the random

ramblings of a rabid shivabhaktA! :-)

 

Humble pranams

Hari OM

Shyam

 

 

______________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Dear Shyam-ji:

 

I enjoy your writing and posts very much along with that of so many others here.

Your brilliance, sincerity, and humility shine like the various facets of a

genuine diamond.

 

Thank you for your many contributions which must take time to write.

 

Please don't take anything that I post as even the slightest criticism. In the

relative world, a number of excellent points of view are possible with the

underlying theme of Advaita. In fact, we see that played out on this list and

even among the founders and adherents of major philosophical system. I am not

knowledgeable enough to judge the merits of each view and so keep my sense on

the basic teaching that the nature of the Self is awareness or as some say

consciousness. Bhagavan Krishna says, " I am in the Heart of all beings. " My

feeling is that Bhagavan is there as the innermost subject as

consciousness/Self-Awareness. So, starting with this sense of " I " and

investigating it seems natural. Where else could Bhagavan be hidden? That

investigation into one's own truth of existence seems to be the beginning,

middle, and the end. The different spiritual practices and philosophies are like

garlands or ornaments on the basic truth of Aham Brahasami. Naturally, different

people will have different preferences and inclinations on how they wish to

pursue knowledge and that seems fine.

 

Words can only indicate the truth of the Heart to varying degrees. We use

language to go beyond language. Scriptures say that knowing Brahman one becomes

Brahman.

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of

Shyam

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 6:13 PM

advaitin

RE: Re: brahman and Ishvara

 

Dear Harsha-ji and Ramesh-ji,

Pranams.

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

If in my explorations on this subject, I have conveyed a sense that what Sada-ji

has so beautifully explained is not a faithful representation of advaita, then

let me offer my sincere apologies, esp. to Sada-ji - needless to say, his

mastery of the subject matter is both complete, and well-acknowledged - and we

are all blessed to have his guidance here. My only intention was, to offer a

humble perspective on how the very same process of " self " -realization could be

viewed €differently from the standpoint of a mature understanding of Ishwara.

***********

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Shyamji – PraNAms.

 

First I know that you have full knowledge of advaita. But we are discussing here

to bring in various points from different perspectives. In the processes of

discussion only our minds can see the issues involved in clear perspective. No

need for any apologies.

 

What I addressed in my last mail – is to keep the clear perspective of the

advaitic or non-dual aspect of the truth. Jiiva-jagat-Iswara –

Now we are entering into dualistic aspect which we need to ultimately negate as

‘not this’ as any ‘this’ that is not aham ultimately gets sublated.

Mandukya Upanishad zeroes in on that essence only with the famous mantra 7 –

The shivam, shantam, advaitam – refers to that sat-chit ananda swaruupa that I

am.

 

Now about different perspectives – the very word perspective implies we are

using dualistic goggles. Recognition that this vision is only an apparent vision

for the apparent duality, would help not to relay too much on this apparent

other than as a means to go beyond the apparent.

 

--- On Wed, 4/30/08, shyam_md <shyam_md wrote:

 

advaitin@ s.com, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada@ ...> wrote:

>

> Iswara-jiiva and jagat †" come together as a package since they are

mutually exclusive.

> Iswara is different from Brahman since creation involves

modification and infinite cannot undergo modification or vikaara.

 

Does this mean that

a.Ishwara is not infinite? and

b.Jagat and Jiva are not included in Ishwara?

c.Ishwara undergoes any modification?

-------------------

Shamji – I have to watch myself – reminding myself the kshurasya dhaara

...mantra of Katho. Up. - rajor-edge path that I have to tread myself.

 

Iswara is infinite (in principle) since in reality it is sat chit ananda only.

As Chandogya explains – tad aikshata –bahusyaam - prajaayeya – It

visualized and it wanted to become many and it became many – it standing for

Sat eva which is ekam eva advitiiyam – one without a second, that is,

infinite.

 

Hence the way advaita explains this is – Brahman taking the role of Iswara

with maaya shakti visualized and wanted to become many and became many. Here

‘Iswara undergoing modification as creator and becoming many’ has to be

understood in the same way as vaachaarambhanam vikaaraH – It is only an

apparent creation just as gold becoming many ornaments while remaining as gold.

 

Now let us pose your questions – Is Iswara not infinte? – He is infinite he

does not undergo any transformation – the vikaara is therefore only vak or

naamake vaste. Hence transformation is transformationless transformation that is

it is not pariNaama but only vikaara. Jagat is mithyaa with Iswara as aadhaara

or support – same as purusha-prakriti and prakRit is maaya (maayantu prakRitim

vidyaat) – maaya as you know is yaa maa saa maaya – that which is not there

but appears to be there.

 

Jagat is obviously included as the very support or substantive for the universe

– but not the names and forms which are mithyaa – The later forms only his

lower nature or apparent nature. (Gita Ch. 7 –slokas 5 & 6). Apparent things do

not count since they are apparent. Iswara remains infinite but without apparent

things – he is the same as Brahman – that is his avyaka swaruupa.

Jiiva = sat chit ananda identified with local BMI – Local BMI is part of

prakRiti only hence comes under jagat. Sat chit ananda being akhanda is the same

as Iswara which is same as Brahman. Jiiva because of identification with local

BMI sees the universe separate from him – and my previous post follows. It is

similar to in my own dream I dream myself as a tiny subject and feel I am

separate from the dream world that I am dreaming.

 

Hence Iswara is sat chit ananda – with global BMI’s and jagat and

Jiiva is the same sat chit ananda with local BMI’s

This is what I wrote in response Durgaji’s question.

 

Since the BMI’s and jagat are only apparent they do not count – Brahman

remains as Brahman only. I can call myself as jiiva identified with BMI and

Iswara identified with global BMI and jagat but my pure nature is neither jiiva

nor Iswara – I am pure sat chit ananda.

I am reminded of Advaita Makaranda slokas 2 & 3.

-----------------

 

Shyamji:

Lord Krishna clearly answers these questions with his words:

 

mayAtatam idam sarvam jagad avyakta-murtina

mat-sthAni sarva-bhutAni na chaham tesv avasthitah

na ca mat-sthAni bhutAni pasya me yogam aisvaram

bhuta-bhrn na ca bhuta-stho mamAtma bhuta-bhavanah

 

This whole world is prevaded by Me in My unmanifest form. All beings

exist in Me, but I am not contained in them! Nor do the beings dwell

in Me! Behod My divine Yoga! I am the sustainer and originator of

beings, but My Self is not contained in the beings.

-----------------

Sadananda:

 

Yes that avyaka swaruupa is Brahman where there is no vyaka or manifestations.

Here Krishna is identifying himself as Brahman.

The contradictory statements in the above sloka – they are in me – but again

they are not in me – is indication of the apparent nature of the creation –

since maaya is sat asat vilakshanam – you cannot say it is and you cannot say

it is not. Advaita has no problem in accounting the world which just a

contradiction only, since it is there but not really there. One plus apparently

many is one only like gold plus many gold ornaments.

------------

Shyamji:

If Ishwara is finite then what can limit Ishwara?! You cannot say Maya

because He Himself is the Lord of Maya, and Maya is not anything other

than Ishwara's own intrinsic Shakti.

 

Sadananda: Hence Iswara is not finite neither jagat finite – since jagat is

superimposition on Iswara only. They are inseparable like ardhanaariiswara.

jagatH pitarou vande paarvatii parameswarou.

----------

Shyamji:

At the same time you cannot postulate two independent infinite

entities - an Infinite Ishwara and an Infinite Brahman.

 

There is only one possibility - Ishwara IS Brahman AND vice-versa.

 

Sadananda: Shyamji – no need to postulate two independent infinities.

Consciousness-existence is one – identified with global is Iswara and

identified with local is jiiva. The jagat is just a superimposition on Iswara.

From Brahman point no creation – only Brahman.

From jiiva’s point there is creation and creator – inseparable. Iswara and

jagat.

When I realize that I am not a jiiva but sat chit ananda – the apparent

becomes apparent and is not mistaken for real. Then the two slokas that quoted

to Durgaji follow – sarva bhuutastam aatamaanam … and yo maam pasyati

sarvatra…

--------------------

Shyamji:

Now here there are two issues that cause confusion.

 

The first concerns what is meant by the term Ishwara.

The second issue is one's stage of development (- which in turn will

influence the first).

 

If one is taking Ishwara to be a deity, or a particular form, say Lord

Shiva, or Lord Vishnu, as a person or personality, to the exclusion of

all other forms and names, then certainly one cannot be justified in

claiming that one name and one form as the Absolute.

 

However when Ishwara is meant to signify the One Infinite, Supreme

Being, then all names and all forms are His alone.

This Supreme One is referred to in the Upanishads as Purusha, as

Ishana, as Shiva, as Atman, as Brahman, ParamAtma, AntaryAmi,

Maheshwara, Vishnu, Narayana, etc

 

What may perhaps be more appropriate to say is that the verisame

Supreme Being has two aspects - a nirguna aspect and a saguna aspect -

the latter aspect that is applicable to me the ignorant jiva and the

former aspect that this verisame jiva recognizes to be at the very

core of his own being upon gaining knowledge. Even though He, is One,

it is only the jiva's ignorance that causes him to see himself as

separate - to use a popular Gita phrase - avibhaktam ca bhutesu

vibhaktam iva ca sthitam - in the Lord's eyes you are never separate

from Him.

Either way He alone is Real. The jiva's ignorance is ever the jiva's

problem - the Lord is asakta, asanga - unaffected, untouched.

 

Sadananda: Yes to all – none of this contradicts my statements.

One can say He alone is real or I am alone real – both statements are the same

since we are taking about reality which can only be sat which is chit and which

is anantam or anandam.

-------------

Shyamji:

So if Ishwara is understood and appreciated in this fashion - and I

have talked at greater length about this in my post no.40400 - then

the goal of self-realization is clearly understood to be non-different

from the goal of god-realization.

 

Sadananda: In my last post to Durgaji I have discussed– as a sadhana it is

easier to see the Lord as the creator and see his glory and his presence in

every manifestation as the self within. Ultimately He alone is – or I alone

am. There is no place for two since each limits the other!

--------------

The Supreme One does not become any less Divine, any less Auspicious,

by a recognition of His non-duality (by a sublation of my notional

separation) as satyam/jnAnam/ anantam - note the words Shivam Shantam

in the Mandukya to describe Turiya. Shivam means auspiciousness. In

the kArikyas, GaudapAda, referred to as the proponent of ajAtivAda by

many, says

 

------------

Sadananda: Shyamji – yes to all. No problem in any of the above statements.

And also with the rest your post too.

 

Just as a reminder – Shankara defines Bhakti in VivekachuDamaNi as:

 

moksha kaaraNa saamaargyaam bhakti reva gariiyasi|

swaswaruupa anusandhaanam bhaktirityabhidheeyate|

swaatmaanubhava sandhaanam bhaktirityaparejaguH||

Of all the means for moksha – bhakti is the highest. What is that bhakti?

Contemplating on one’s own self is called bhakti or realization of ones own

self is Bhakti.

 

Tat tvam asi – is the essence of the teaching – whether you approach from

tat or tvam – asi or akhandaakaara vRitti as bhagavan Ramana says aham aham

taayaa –spurati hRit swayam – that aham is parama and puurNam and sat

swaruupa. Chandogya sad vidya essentially zero’s on it.

 

I cannot pass it on this chance: And for those who are nearby Washington D.C. I

will be taking the Chandogya sad vidya for the Memorial Day week end camp –

sat and sun. Those who are interested in joining us – let us know.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...