Guest guest Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Namaste Sadaji. I have already presented my position in 42963. Of course I can improve on it by including some authority and some more explanations. I am now busy packing for a short holiday. As such, I need time upto end-Feb. for a fresh submission. I can guess that your message implies the exclusion of Bh. Ramana, Nisargaddatta Maharaj et al as they are 'individual mahAtmAs'. What about Sw. Krishnananda and Sw. Sivananda? I am sure the other side would be relying heavily on on post-Shankara advaitins including the current Sw. Paramarthananda et al. That is why this question. What is your exact mandate for Dr. Shyamji? If there is a decision going to be taken favouring any one of the sides, I would recommend an impartial arbitrator to play this role. My suggestions are Anandaji and Sunderji (in alphabetical order). Best regards. Madathil Nair ______________________ advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > I have a proposition to all: Nariji, Bhaskar, Shyam, Sastriji, Dennis, Brahmacariji, Mouna and any other who would like to present > > Describe the position, with as much scriptural support as possible, providing the English translation of the sloka, or Bhashya if you are quoting. Keep it to one or two pages. I do not want individual mahatmaas stated opinions only because these can be subject to further interpretations and they are not here to clarify our interpretation of their statement. > > This position papers will be reviewed and will be presented as point and counter point format, without any reference to individuals who are makingf the points and this will stored for future reference that can downloaded by those who are interested. This is our tradition. > > Please give a serious thoughts leaving out any personalities. I would like this to be wrapped up in a week or two. Thanks to all.After two weeks no more discussion on this topic will be entertained since no new input is being presented in support of the views. > > We are requesting Shree Shamji to collect point/counter point and prepare the position paper on this. That will be final. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Namaste Dr. Shyamji. Yours 43115. My comments are in under relevant excerpts from your mail: Shyamji: Just as the Sun does not need any other light in order to illumine itself, Knowledge does not require any other knowledge except that which is its own nature to reveal itself. Brahman, my own nature, is ever known to me. [MN: I believe you mean the limited entity (jIvA) by the word `me' here. Some such limited entities are completely unaware of their self-evidence. I know a person of great intellectual achievements who answered the question " Do you exist? " with an unabashed " I don't know " . Such is the denseness of the cloud of ignorance that most people never even appreciate an iota of the splendour of the Sun shining behind it. And here you are saying that that splendour is ever known to the limited entity!] Shyamji: It is ever-present - no question of it revealing itself at some time in the future, when It is Self-revealing, all the time. [MN: The cloud if ignorance has to go for the Sun called the Self to shine forth. That is revealing. If the Self were fully self- revealing all the time as you say, we wouldn't be talking Vedanta here now.]. Shyamji: Understanding Vedanta means to understand that I, the witnessing consciousness, the knowing which enlivens every perception, am akarta-abhokta. [MN: Agreed that is just understanding Vedanta. No more.] Shyamji: If after this " simple " understanding I still feel the need to " DO something to reach a state where realization will " dawn " - after which the perception of the Universe is decidedly different " , then my own understanding needs more clarity. [MN: You have contradicted yourself below and, in fact, admitted there is something to be done. We are coming to that.] Shyamji: In Vedanta, in my humble opinion, self-realization is a sarvatrika anubhava, a Universal experience - there is no place here for some extraordinary experience that is unique only to a jnAni, and that too at a particular point in time when " realization " happens. [MN: Does that statement make me a jnAni right now? I am not asking about you. If I am not a jnAni right now, then there is a possibility that I can become one in future. In the language of the transactional, that would be a point in time. Something happening at a point in time would be an event – again in the language of the transactional. Why are you talking about extraordinary experience?. No one said anything of that sort here.] Shyamji: That is where mananam comes in - to improve upon and complete that " simple " understanding. [MN: So there is a need to improve upon the understanding?!] Shyamji: And inspite of our right understanding perfunctory modes of thought keep coming back - why? - because of lack of sadhanachhatushtaya sampatti - and so, viveka-vairagya shatsampatti needs to be cultivated, the mind made more singlepointed, and nidhidhyasana is needed to gain an abidance or nishta in that verisame understanding - until that verisame understanding is complete in spirit and there is a spontaneity in that understanding characteristic of a Knower of Truth - a tatvavit or a Brahmavit. [MN: So, there are qualities to be acquired and cultivated even after the understanding. We have to work on the mind too. We have to make sure that we don't stray away from the path. There is a need to complete something. The result would be a " spontaneity in the understanding characteristic of a Knower of Truth " . Shyamji – that spontaneity is what I call self-realization. To me, that Knower of Truth is the Truth itself because when the above spontaneity arises, the understanding with which we began would have blossomed into the Wholeness of Truth where there is no place for any externality or duality. I can think of it only as extra-ordinary. I can avoid using the word experience for your sake.] Shyamji: If by understanding a Self-evident fact, that I am Brahman, I dont realize Brahman, then nothing I " do " can ever make me realize it. [MN: You said we have to work on our initial understanding. You talked about the understanding to be made complete. Is there any difference between the initial understanding and this complete understanding? If yes, please mention the same.] Shyamji: Self-realization is the immediate culmintaion of a understanding of tat tvam asi - please refer to the tat tvam asi prakaranam of the Upadesa Sahasri where the purvapakshin makes a very similar argument to the one you, and many others make, about the importance of karma after jnana in order for self-realization - something Shankara strongly rejects. [MN: I have no quarrels with Shankara and Upadesha Sahasri. In the above statement, you have defined self-realization as the immediate culmination of an understanding of tat tvam asi. Culmination means an end or a result. So, may I take it that you admit that self- realization is not the same as an understanding? Besides, it is said jnAna itself is self-realization. So, there is no need for karma after attaining jnAna. If it is karma after an understanding, you yourself have mentioned above that there are things to be done. So, karma has to follow understanding.] Shyamji: Please not Nair-ji Pure Knowing, or Jnanam, does not see anyone or anything, let alone a stabber and a knife. [MN: Very true.] Shyamji: If a jnAni sees such a thing, it is the reflected consciousness alone that is doing the seeing - just as in you and me - only difference being that the reflected consciousness, in the case of the jnAni, has an abidance in understanding that the knife, this body, its pain, and the stabber, are all mithyA, reflections as it were, in the substratum of Knowing, which is His own Real nature. [MN: I have been saying something entirely different. The problem is that most people here seem not to carefully read what others are saying. Fallacies are imposed on detractors and then valiantly refuted. I said long long back that it is the ones languishing in the vyAvahArika who need jnAnis. So, a jnAni's embodiment and reflexes are our requirement. Even the plurality of jnAnis, i.e. the possibility of more than one jnAni existing (which is impossible if jnAni is jnAnaM), is our requirement. Not jnAni's. We are the ones who see Consciousness as reflected consciousness and impose it, due to our ignorance, on jnAni who is pure jnAna. ] Shyamji: When you say " For him pain being consciousness is non- different from pleasure " - Nair-ji - I can only go with what Bhagwan Krishna says about this.:BG:12:13 - " sama sukhadukha kshami " - He is the same in pleasure AND in pain and is long-suffering [note Bhagwan does not say his PERCEPTION of pain and pleasure is the same] To make sure there is no confusion Adi Shankara also clarifies: He looks upon pain and pleasure with detachment. He is not moved to act by pain and pleasure. He is long-suffering, i.e. reacts without emotion even when abused and smitten (transl by A.G.Krishna Warrier) I leave it to your judgement Nairji whether these words of both Bhagwan Krishna and Bhagwan Shankara are consistent with the position you are advocating. [MN: Do you think Bh. Krishna or Shankara would give the above explanations to jnAni, if at all they can? They are meant for me and others like me. The words of Bh. Krishna and Shankara relate to pure jnAna appearing as embodied and reflected consciousness to ajnAnis in the transactional, which I termed Grace in my 42963. This applies to prArabda etc. mentioned as reason for jnAni's embodied continuance.] [MN: I would have liked to give a much detailed explanation. I am busy with other things and an impending holiday. If ever I get a chance to submit that final paper about which I wrote to Sadaji, then I can dwell on all points in perfect detail.] Best regards. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Namaste Durgaji. I am sure Bhaskarji knew the right meaning when he penned his message. He also knew that we all would understand it in the right sense. So, there was no need for Shantanuji to have played on it and made you come out with a clarification. Best regards. Madathil Nair _______________ advaitin , " Durga " <durgaji108 wrote: > > of 'THIS' sun moves, wind waves says our scriptures... > The word 'fear' here is not meant to be taken > literally. It is rather a poetic use of the > word, and serves to indicate, that in terms > the two orders of reality, the relative > (sun, wind, water, etc.), and the absolute, > (brahman), the absolute is superior. > > Thus Brahman is the absolute order of reality, > and because of brahman, everything else is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Re: Identity of jIva and Ishvara? Namaste Shri Sadananda, In response to your message # 43161 of 22 Jan 09, here (as my input on the subject) is a brief note on the concepts of 'God' and 'self' in the Upanishads. 'God' and 'self' From the Vedas to the Upanishads, there is a general movement away from the myths and rituals of religious worship, towards philosophical questioning. In two of the main Upanishads, the concept of 'God' figures prominently; but it does so in the context of a reasoned enquiry into the nature of reality, knowledge and happiness. Of these two Upanishads, one is called by the name 'isha', which means 'God' or the 'Lord'. In Sanskrit, 'ish-' is a verbal root that means both to 'own' and to 'rule'. So, when God is called 'isha', it implies that all things belong to God and that they are all governed by God. The Isha Upanishad adds to this sense of divine belonging and governance, by saying that everything in the world is 'isha-vasyam'. Literally, this means that everything is 'for the sake of God to live in'. The implication is clear. God is not some alien owner or ruler who dominates from a distance. Instead, God's presence is immediate, in everything. All things belong to that divine presence, whose home is everywhere. That presence is the single, inner life of the entire universe. Each thing perceived is just an outer habitation of that one inmost life. From that, all governance and guidance comes, in all acts and happenings. All things are for its sake. Our bodies and our minds are no exception. Each body, each mind, each faculty of body or mind, each physical and mental act belongs to a single, divine presence that is called 'God'. That one presence lives in each personality. It rules each personality from deep within, beneath all outward names and forms and qualities. That divine presence is obscured by our various personal claims, that our bodies and minds are personal owners and rulers of the life within them. In most of our personalities, there is an egotistical claim: that the personality belongs to its body or its mind. This claim makes it appear that our bodies or our minds are in charge, that they decide their acts and rule their personal experiences. This is a false pretence. It hides the true source from which our decisions and our experiences arise. Each person's body and mind are driven instruments. They cannot be the real source of anyone's experience. If one looks for such a source, it may be conceived as a 'divine presence', beyond each body and each mind. It is that presence which lives truly, in every one of us. But most of us misunderstand it, by claiming that we personally own the life within us. Its purity of inner guidance gets confused, with the personal and petty will of our externally conditioned egos. So, in the Isha Upanishad, a twofold approach is described. On the one hand, the ego's claims are surrendered; so that all changing things may be more truly enjoyed, as expressions of a divine presence. On the other hand, to enable this surrender, a simple question is asked. Whose are these changing things that appear in the physical and mental world? What is the divine presence to which they belong? And the answer is given that such a presence may be realized as atman: the real self that shines unmixed in everyone and everything, beneath all names and forms and qualities of personality and world. Ananda The above note is taken from a chapter called 'The divine presence' in my book Interpreting the Upanishads. For those who want to read a more detailed discussion, the book is available for free download from:http://www.advaitin.net/Ananda/InterpretingTheUpanishads.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Pranams Nair-ji "[MN: I believe you mean the limited entity (jIvA) by the word `me' here." *** The whole crux of Vedanta is that the jivA is not limited. The jivA if limited cannot become limitless. It is the ever-limitless jivAtma who has to as though realize his intrinsic nature to be limitlesness. I am taking care to mention this because only if this is true can the following follow.... *** "[MN: Agreed that is just understanding Vedanta. No more.]" "[MN: You have contradicted yourself below and, in fact, admitted there is something to be done......So, karma has to follow understanding.]"*** You seem to be of the opinion that realization is a two-step process - one is the gain of a intellectual understanding of tat tvam asi which you feel is very simple, and attainable in a matter of a few minutes or perhaps a few hours. After this intellectual understanding, you feel the Ego needs to "do it" and at some point gain a "experience" or realization of non-duality subsequent to which there is no return to the mundane duality based world. To my limited knowledge such a notion is not endorsed by Bhagwan Shankara. Manana and Nidhidhyasana are not extraenous actions subsequent to understanding after shravana, but an extension of the process of hearing - if required - Adi Shankara is categorical that if the mind is ripe, simple shravana is adequate for understanding tat tvam asi and hence self-realization is immediate. If understanding is shaky, or lacking, no amount of "doing" will result in graduating from "understanding" to "realization" - all one can "do" is understand better. And if understanding is firm realization is already attained. Please dwell on the story of the 10th man which Shankara quotes so often to better understand this. In any case I do not expect you to alter your personal views in this regard nor is that even remotely my intention. With regards to Bhagwan Krishna clear-cut assertions of the transactions of a Wise, I think the words are self-evident and Bhagwan Shankara's Bhashya crystal clear - I have nothing further to add to the words both the Bhagwans(!) have spoken. Wish you a pleasant holiday. Humble pranams Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam --- On Thu, 1/22/09, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote: Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair Re: Identity of jIva and Ishvara?advaitin Date: Thursday, January 22, 2009, 7:06 AM Namaste Dr. Shyamji.Madathil Nair Recent Activity 10 New Members 1 New FilesVisit Your Group Finance It's Now Personal Guides, news, advice & more. Y! Messenger PC-to-PC calls Call your friends worldwide - free! John McEnroe on Join him for the 10 Day Challenge. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Namaste Dr. Shyam-ji. It is not a two-step theory. If the mind is not ripe, only an understanding takes place first. I think that is my current status. To such blessed ones who already have a ripe mind, probably due to past merits, realization comes about just by hearing the truth. The others have to work hard and it is about these others I was talking about. Ripe mind's understandig(realization) and unripe mind's understanding are entirely different. The dispute here is about the nature of that ripe mind, i.e. if it still remains a limited ordinary mind as before where realization has occurred and if an individual entity can still exist as separate from and owner of that mind. Best regards. Madathil Nair _______________ advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote: > > Pranams Nair-ji > > " [MN: I believe you mean the limited entity (jIvA) by the word `me' here. " > *** > The whole crux of Vedanta is that the jivA is not limited. The jivA if limited cannot become limitless. It is the ever-limitless jivAtma who has to as though realize his intrinsic nature to be limitlesness. I am taking care to mention this because only if this is true can the following follow.... > *** > " [MN: Agreed that is just understanding Vedanta. No more.] " > " [MN: You have contradicted yourself below and, in fact, admitted there is something to be done......So, karma has to follow understanding.] " > *** > You seem to be of the opinion that realization is a two-step process - one is the gain of a intellectual understanding of tat tvam asi which you feel is very simple, and attainable in a matter of a few minutes or perhaps a few hours. After this intellectual understanding, you feel the Ego needs to " do it " and at some point gain a " experience " or realization of non-duality subsequent to which there is no return to the mundane duality based world. To my limited knowledge such a notion is not endorsed by Bhagwan Shankara. Manana and Nidhidhyasana are not extraenous actions subsequent to understanding after shravana, but an extension of the process of hearing - if required - Adi Shankara is categorical that if the mind is ripe, simple shravana is adequate for understanding tat tvam asi and hence self-realization is immediate. If understanding is shaky, or lacking, no amount of " doing " will result in graduating from " understanding " to " realization " - > all one can " do " is understand better. And if understanding is firm realization is already attained. Please dwell on the story of the 10th man which Shankara quotes so often to better understand this. In any case I do not expect you to alter your personal views in this regard nor is that even remotely my intention. > > With regards to Bhagwan Krishna clear-cut assertions of the transactions of a Wise, I think the words are self-evident and Bhagwan Shankara's Bhashya crystal clear - I have nothing further to add to the words both the Bhagwans(!) have spoken. > > Wish you a pleasant holiday. > > Humble pranams > Hari OM > Shri Gurubhyoh namah > Shyam > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 1/22/09, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote: > > > Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair > Re: Identity of jIva and Ishvara? > advaitin > Thursday, January 22, 2009, 7:06 AM Namaste Dr. Shyamji. > > Madathil Nair > > > > Recent Activity > > > 10 > New Members > > 1 > New FilesVisit Your Group > > > Finance > It's Now Personal > Guides, news, > advice & more. > > Y! Messenger > PC-to-PC calls > Call your friends > worldwide - free! > > John McEnroe > on > Join him for the > 10 Day Challenge. > . > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Dear all, Namaskar I cannot let this opportunity pass without adding my sincerest appreciation of Anandaji's explanation to that expressed by Sadaji and Shyamji. Every word and phrase is so carefully thought out that it has provided me with much shall I say happiness? Let us know more please. Yours sincerely Shantanu Panigrahi advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote: " It is that presence which lives truly, in every one of us. " ......and that " tat " tvam asi!..... how beautiful and eloquent Ananda-ji - my humble pranAms. Please keep contributing your wisdom to this list, to the extent possible Ananda- ji - it is always a blessing to hear your words. Hari OM Shyam --- On Thu, 1/22/09, Ananda Wood <awood wrote: > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Dear Bhaskar-ji, Apologies for the late response – I am having difficulty catching up with the large numbers of posts while I have been ill with flu. If you are able to provide convincing scriptural support for your contentions, I for one would be happy to accept them. I have no wish to argue a contrary view purely for intellectual satisfaction. Unfortunately, I’m afraid your posts seem to be becoming increasingly Sanskrit-bound to the point where I am quite unable to understand them. This must be even more the case for the majority of members whose familiarity with the terms may be even less than my own. Could I please request that you attempt to provide some English equivalent, with Sanskrit perhaps in brackets if absolutely necessary? If not, I fear that you will be reaching only a very few with your presumed valuable input. Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Bhaskar YR Tuesday, January 20, 2009 8:06 AM advaitin Re: Re: Identity of jIva and Ishvara? This is where I am finding it difficult to do samanvaya between shruti/shankara siddhAnta & your presentation/understanding of the same. The anupravesha shruti-s (tatsrushtvA, tadevaanuprAvishat..I think you are talking about taitireeya shruti here), jiva is amsha of brahman shruti-s, jeeva-s are like sparks from fire etc. etc. are there just to convey the fact that Atman is yeka and there is no bedha between kAraNa & kArya and kAraNa is the ONLY reality. The order what you have mentioned, the socalled reflected consciousness etc. etc. are there only in avidyA...And it has been said for maNda viveki-s says shankara (not me shankara saying this) yadA mandabuddhipratipipAdayishayA shrutyA AtmanaH jAtiruchyate jeevAdeenAM tadA jAtau upagamyamAnAnAM etannidarshanaM drushtAntaH yathA udita AkAshavat ityadiH ...kArikA bhAshya 3-3)...So we cannot take this srushti of jeeva literally and carry the jeeva's upahita chaitanya and indriya-s even after attaining the bhuma...His realization reveals the fact that AyaM AtmA brahmA sarvAnubhuH..for this how can there be a vyavahAra asks shankara. He observes in bruhadAraNyaka bhAshya (2-4-14) : yatra tu brahmavidyayA avidyA nAshaM upagamitA tatra AtmavyatirekeNa anyasya abhAvaH...yatra vA asya brahma vidaH sarvaM nAmarUpAdi Atmanyeva pravilApitaM Atmaiva saMvruttaM, yatra evaM Atmaiva abhut tat tatra kEna karaNEna kaM ghrAtavyaM kO jighrEt?? taThA pashyet, vijAneeyaat...Where is the jnAni's localized karaNa here?? prabhuji dont you see shankara clearly saying here : (a) AtmavyatirekeNa anyasya abhAvaH (b) yatra vA asya brahma vidaH sarvaM nAmarUpAdi Atmanyeva pravilApitaM Atmaiva saMvruttaM © tat tatra kEna karaNena kaM ghrAtavyaM kO jighrEt?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Not at all, Dennis - I find it quite re-assuring that even with your knowledge of sanskrit you found Bhaskar-ji's posts as impenetrable as I did due to the amount of sanskrit. Sometimes I wonder if it is just me! Best wishes, Peter advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Dennis Waite23 January 2009 16:40advaitin Subject: RE: Re: Identity of jIva and Ishvara? Sorry, Peter. I am a few days behind so just made the same comment before reading your post! Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of PeterTuesday, January 20, 2009 11:59 AMadvaitin Subject: RE: Re: Identity of jIva and Ishvara? Dear Bhaskar-ji and Moderators, There seems to be an increasing tendency for our very learned members to quote sanskrit passages without offering a translation. Is this to be the norm of the group that the elite write mainly for the elite? Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web ( ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Terms of Use | Un Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Namaste, Some verses for meditation: na nareNaavareNa prokta eshha suviGYeyo bahudhaa chintyamaanaH . ananyaprokte gatiratra naasti aNiiyaan.h hyatarkyamaNupramaaNaat.h .. 8.. naishhaa tarkeNa matiraapaneyaa proktaanyenaiva suGYaanaaya preshhTha . yaaM tvamaapaH satyadhR^itirbataasi tvaadR^iN^.hno bhuuyaannachiketaH prashhTaa .. 9.. [ http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_upanishhat/katha.itx ] 1-II-8. This (Self), if taught by an inferior person, is not easily comprehended, for It is variously thought of. Unless taught by another (who is a perceiver of non-difference) there is no way (of comprehending It), for It is not arguable and is subtler than subtlety. 1-II-9. This (knowledge of the Self) attained by thee cannot be had through argumentation. O dearest, this doctrine, only if taught by some teacher (other than a logician), leads to right knowledge. O, thou art rooted in truth. May a questioner be ever like thee, O Nachiketas. [ http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/katha.html ] ================================== Gita: nAhaM vedairna tapasA na dAnena na chejyayA . shakya eva.nvidho draShTuM dR^iShTavAnasi mA.n yathA .. 11\-53.. bhaktyA tvananyayA shakya ahameva.nvidho.arjuna . GYAtuM draShTu.n cha tattvena praveShTu.n cha parantapa .. 11\-54.. 53. Not through the Vedas, not by austerity, not by gifts, nor even by sacrifice can I be seen in this form as you have seen Me. 54. But, O Arjuna, by single-minded devotion am I-in this form-able to be known and seen in reality, and also be entered into, O destroyer of foes. Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Dear Radhe-ji, I am sorry I am not able to make out what your question is. Could you kindly clarify? Regards, S.N.Sastri advaitin , " Radhe " <shaantih wrote: > > Hari OM... > > Dear Shri Sastriji and Dear Anandaji: > > I am curious to know, on this advaitin list which > views and studies the Bhagavad Gita as being > the Holy Words of the " divine presence, " > why that Divine Presence is not identified > as Lord Krishna Himself? Why would it > matter which mantra is being referred to, > since all emanate from Him? And to whom > else could all things belong, including the > changeable ksetra in which we find ourselves, > but Him, our Beloved Lord Krishna? > > In His Service, > > Radhe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 28, 2009 Report Share Posted January 28, 2009 Dear All, The following is from Sri Ananda Wood posted to Advaitin groups, who has given me permission to forward it here. Peter Re: Identity of jIva and Ishvara? .... a brief note on the concepts of 'God' and 'self' in the Upanishads. 'God' and 'self' From the Vedas to the Upanishads, there is a general movement away from the myths and rituals of religious worship, towards philosophical questioning. In two of the main Upanishads, the concept of 'God' figures prominently; but it does so in the context of a reasoned enquiry into the nature of reality, knowledge and happiness. Of these two Upanishads, one is called by the name 'isha', which means 'God' or the 'Lord'. In Sanskrit, 'ish-' is a verbal root that means both to 'own' and to 'rule'. So, when God is called 'isha', it implies that all things belong to God and that they are all governed by God. The Isha Upanishad adds to this sense of divine belonging and governance, by saying that everything in the world is 'isha-vasyam'. Literally, this means that everything is 'for the sake of God to live in'. The implication is clear. God is not some alien owner or ruler who dominates from a distance. Instead, God's presence is immediate, in everything. All things belong to that divine presence, whose home is everywhere. That presence is the single, inner life of the entire universe. Each thing perceived is just an outer habitation of that one inmost life. From that, all governance and guidance comes, in all acts and happenings. All things are for its sake. Our bodies and our minds are no exception. Each body, each mind, each faculty of body or mind, each physical and mental act belongs to a single, divine presence that is called 'God'. That one presence lives in each personality. It rules each personality from deep within, beneath all outward names and forms and qualities. That divine presence is obscured by our various personal claims, that our bodies and minds are personal owners and rulers of the life within them. In most of our personalities, there is an egotistical claim: that the personality belongs to its body or its mind. This claim makes it appear that our bodies or our minds are in charge, that they decide their acts and rule their personal experiences. This is a false pretence. It hides the true source from which our decisions and our experiences arise. Each person's body and mind are driven instruments. They cannot be the real source of anyone's experience. If one looks for such a source, it may be conceived as a 'divine presence', beyond each body and each mind. It is that presence which lives truly, in every one of us. But most of us misunderstand it, by claiming that we personally own the life within us. Its purity of inner guidance gets confused, with the personal and petty will of our externally conditioned egos. So, in the Isha Upanishad, a twofold approach is described. On the one hand, the ego's claims are surrendered; so that all changing things may be more truly enjoyed, as expressions of a divine presence. On the other hand, to enable this surrender, a simple question is asked. Whose are these changing things that appear in the physical and mental world? What is the divine presence to which they belong? And the answer is given that such a presence may be realized as atman: the real self that shines unmixed in everyone and everything, beneath all names and forms and qualities of personality and world. Ananda The above note is taken from a chapter called 'The divine presence' in my book Interpreting the Upanishads. For those who want to read a more detailed discussion, the book is available for free download from:http://www.advaitin.net/Ananda/InterpretingTheUpanishads.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 The One Truth is He. All other manifestations flow from Him. You can address Him with any names you want but that will not change the immutable Truth that He is the One Truth. praNAms mAtAji Hare Krishna You are welcome to disagree with me & advaita's position on the same..But you may kindly be noted that Advaita does not categorically say that THAT truth is a masculine gender to repeatedly insist that 'HE' is the only truth :-)) Shankara says since brahman does not have any 'marks' (linga) it cannot be addressed as it/she/he...etc..Your BG quote tobe understood by keeping this ultimate truth of brahman in mind... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 --- On Fri, 1/30/09, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: The One Truth is He. All other manifestations flow from Him. You can address Him with any names you want but that will not change the immutable Truth that He is the One Truth. ----------- You are welcome to disagree with me & advaita's position on the same..But you may kindly be noted that Advaita does not categorically say that THAT truth is a masculine gender to repeatedly insist that 'HE' is the only truth :-)) Shankara says since Brahman does not have any 'marks' (linga) it cannot be addressed as it/she/he... etc..Your BG quote tobe understood by keeping this ultimate truth of brahman in mind... ----- PraNAms Thanks Bhaskar - As you see it is useless to convince others as you find in these discussions. Besides - Brahman is neuter gender - not even He or She. although in some prayers - we use - saH .. as in saH naavavatu.. etc - just to make life simple and in some others as she. Looks like this lady may be a Hare Krishna group. Madam, if I can suggest, there are separate that cater to your needs. This is an advaita list - where all dualities of He, She, It, etc are absorbed into I - the existence-consciousness, in whatever name you want to call it, as long as you do not insist that others also call it by the same name - that becomes a fanaticism which is not part of advaita. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Please consider this as my response to the posts of both Shri Bhaskarji and Shri Sadaji reproduced below: Hare Krishna, Bhaskarji! Hari OM, Sadaji! Dandavat pranams to all! First, may I repeat myself this once to note that the subject matter under discussion in this thread is saguna brahman, not nirguna brahman. That being said, I wish to note that I voluntarily end my participation in this thread, which has now spawned 106 messages as of Shri Sadaji's post to me. I am a member of a which " caters " quite nicely to my needs as a Krishna bhakta, and I have no need to convince you...I simply stated my thoughts just as others do on this list. And to end my participation in this thread, may I call upon Adi Shankaracharya: bhajagovindaM bhajagovindaM govindaM bhajamuuDhamate . saMpraapte sannihite kaale nahi nahi rakshati DukRiJNkaraNe .. (1) Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda. Oh fool! Rules of Grammar will not save you at the time of your death. " Sri Adi Shankaracharya is believed to have composed the 'Bhaja Govindam' during his famous pilgrimage to Kashi (Benares). The fourteen disciples are said to have accompanied him. The story goes that when he was walking along the streets of Kashi, he was pained to observe an elderly man trying hard to learn Sanskrit grammar. At his advanced age, the remaining valuable little time of his life should have been used for worshiping the God, instead of wasting on learning a language. This prompted Sri Sankara to burst out this composition, a sort of rebuke to foolish way of living. The Acharya urges the man to turn towards God and sing His glory instead of trying to learn a language. A censure is implied when the Acharya calls the man a fool (Moodhamathe). It may be added here that the tone of Bhajagovindam is not at all soft, but somewhat striking, in spite of its exotic poetic beauty and perfection of composition. This is no wonder, because such a treatment is required to wake up man from his slumber. A milder approach would delay the matter. The matter is urgent, as the Acharya explains in the next verse, for, when the hour of death approaches without any forewarning, the hard-learned verses of grammar are not going to save the poor soul. Hence the song rightly starts without any preamble: " ..... This article and the complete text to Adi Shankaracharya's Bhaja Govindam can be found in it's entirety at: http://vedantabheri.com/adi-shankaracharya/bhaja-govindam-moha-mudgara/ In His Service, Radhe --------------------------- - kuntimaddi sadananda advaitin 01/30/2009 10:29 AM Re: Identity of jIva and Ishvara? --- On Fri, 1/30/09, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: The One Truth is He. All other manifestations flow from Him. You can address Him with any names you want but that will not change the immutable Truth that He is the One Truth. ----------- You are welcome to disagree with me & advaita's position on the same..But you may kindly be noted that Advaita does not categorically say that THAT truth is a masculine gender to repeatedly insist that 'HE' is the only truth :-)) Shankara says since Brahman does not have any 'marks' (linga) it cannot be addressed as it/she/he... etc..Your BG quote tobe understood by keeping this ultimate truth of brahman in mind... ----- PraNAms Thanks Bhaskar - As you see it is useless to convince others as you find in these discussions. Besides - Brahman is neuter gender - not even He or She. although in some prayers - we use - saH .. as in saH naavavatu.. etc - just to make life simple and in some others as she. Looks like this lady may be a Hare Krishna group. Madam, if I can suggest, there are separate that cater to your needs. This is an advaita list - where all dualities of He, She, It, etc are absorbed into I - the existence-consciousness, in whatever name you want to call it, as long as you do not insist that others also call it by the same name - that becomes a fanaticism which is not part of advaita. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 " Radhe " <shaantih wrote: > Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda, > Worship Govinda. Oh fool! Rules of Grammar > will not save you at the time of your death. Dear Mrs Radhe, Allow me to intersect a thought or two on your recent post. First, Sanskrit Rules of Grammar is very different to learning the Shastras and discussing about their teachings. To my knowledge, almost 99% of this List discussions are not about Sanskrit grammar, but instead, they are about the application of Sruti and Smriti, practically, in one's own life. Second, I am not really sure that the current discussion (Identity of jIva and Ishvara) is about Saguna Brahman only, since any discussion about the relationship between Jivatman and Paramatman includes in both terms the word Atman, that as you well know equates to Brahman or Nirguna. Third, you will never know how different people worships Govinda. Some go to the Temple, some do Japa, some teach others Advaita Vedanta, some marvel about His Manifestation in Nature, some see Govinda in their Guru, some see Him in themselves, etc... etc... In fact, any kind of dharmic worship, coming from the Heart, is valid, and in some way, this list and it's discussions (even if heated sometimes) is also one of those offerings we made... to Him/Her/It/Us and " I " . Yours in Bhagavan, Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.