Guest guest Report post Posted April 9, 2010 PraNAms Putranmji - I have changed the title of the discussion. I am sure the moderators will not have any problem. The original discussion was terminated since it is centering on a particular group practice rather than on the issue. We have no interest in any particular group religious practice as long as they do not insist that it should be followed universally by all groups. One can join any group that appeals to their heart. --- On Fri, 4/9/10, putranm <putranm wrote: A point you keep coming to is that our rationality or conclusion on truth must be consistent with the scripture - or we must verify the consistency with the scripture. --------- KS Yes - that is the basis of Nyaaya prasthana (brahma suutras) - with tat tu samanvayaat suutra - as the basis where consistency in interpretation of Vedanta texts. It is not dismissal of the scriptures but resolving the apparent contradictions in the teaching into a self-consistent non-contradictory teaching. The bhaashyaas are meant for that too. There are shree bhaashyaas by Ramanuja and Shankara bhaashyaas by Shankara - trying to establish the self-consistency in the teaching. --------------- Putranm: A valid question here is whether you look to see whether the scripture speaks of truth that your rationality/ experience/ insight led to. Or whether you start with the scripture and see whether your rationality/ experience/ insight/convicti on also concludes there. It may go somewhere else from where you started but again there also should be validation from scripture. KS: Putranmji - what the scriptures do is taking anubhava of everyone - the avasthaatraya - the three states of experience - waking, dream and deep sleep state and resolve the experiencer I am different from the experienced states using anvaya-vyatireka lagic and that I am is beyond the three states of experience. Hence anubhava here is not some new experience of advaita - it is realization of the experiencer who is beyond the three states of experiences and who is present in all the three states. Hence when scriptures say shaatra, yukti and anubhava - scripture, logic and experience all go together. That is why they give the 10th man story to show the missing 10th man that they are all searching is never away at any time even while they are searching and being experienced all the time. The very search is by the missing man himself. Hence it is aparokshaanubhuuti - direct and immediate not some experience that one is longing for in future time. This aspect I have discussed elaborately in the series. ----------- Putranm: Suppose your rationality/ experience/ insight leads somewhere totally antagonistic to Upanishads in spite of all their potential for variety in interpretation. I suppose there are schools that think so. What should our conclusion be at this stage? KS: Putramnji - The order of pramANa is scriptures, yukti and last is anubhava - hence if the rationality is leads somewhere totally antagonistic Upanishad teaching then there is something wrong with the rationality. Scripture says that which can never be negated is the truth, right? .. In the analysis of the three states of experience, the subject I am is the only one that is never negated as one goes from waking, dream and deep sleep states. Here anubhava is taken into consideration and yukti is taken into consideration and arrive at tvam padaartham. The scripture says that tvam is tat - prapanchopashamam, shaantam, shivam advaitam, chaturtham manyante - sa aatmaa sa vijneyaH - that has to inquired and recognized says the scripture. Hence if one arrives at something else different from one self as non-negatable entity, then there is definitely wrong with the logic as well as with the scriptural interpretations and also with the analysis of everybody's anubhava. Hence as I see, your supposition has no basis. Hence anubhava or experiential duality is not rejected what is rejected is the interpretation that the experiential duality as reality. Hence Vedanta does not reject anubhava it provides an explanation to the anubhava, just as science is not against experiential sunrise and sunset but only negates the truth of the reality ascribed to that experience. Yes there are schools that give different interpretations including the dream of individual mind is the creation of Iswara as vishiShTaadvaita says. Good that there are different interpretations for the mind to churn about to think deeply. Hence I advise those who are really interested to study Shree bhaashya of Ramanuja particularly his mahaapurva paksha where he criticizes advaita interpretation. This should be done after understanding clearly the advaitic position on the topics. ---------- Putranm: I know you may not answer, so it is just a point I am making - for it deals with Jeffrey Long's point on anubhava validating scripture as opposed to having anubhava validated by reason based on scripture. KS: Frankly I have no interest to study Jeffrey Long's point of view. The reason for the sampradaaya teacher is to be clearly understood only because we need to first establish the fundamental of Vedanta before one inquires independently. Independent research in any field (Ph.D - even there also a guide is required) is possible only after developing basic qualifications for critically examining the facts verses interpretations. This problem I find even in Objective sciences too for inexperienced scientists. Many scientists mistake interpretations as facts. There is absolutely only one fact - the existent conscious entity that I am - that is tvam aspect. Scripture says that tvam is the same as tat - the creator, sustainer and annihilator, Brahman - the sat chit aananda swaruupa and everything else is only apparent on that Brahman. This knowledge comes only from the scriptures. The mahaavaakya provides the equation of tvam and tat as one only - advaita. Hence if something is opposed to scriptures then it is not pramaa since scripture is pramaaNa - it can only be bhramaa or delusion. If he is intelligent enough he goes back to the basics to recognize he is only the absolute non-negatable entity and scriptural understanding of that I am is that He forms the basis for the world too. If he does not believe in the scriptures, there is no problme either, He will come to know later and it will only take few more lives. It is better to leave it to him to evolve slowly. Only one has to make sure his misinterpretations are not propagated to others. Hence these discussions too. I hope I have addressed all the issues you have raised. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 9, 2010 Sadaji, thanks for the clarifications. They are clear. I will read them more carefully later as well. thollmelukaalkizhu advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > > PraNAms Putranmji - I have changed the title of the discussion. I am sure the moderators will not have any problem. The original discussion was terminated since it is centering on a particular group practice rather than on the issue. We have no interest in any particular group religious practice as long as they do not insist that it should be followed universally by all groups. One can join any group that appeals to their heart. > > --- On Fri, 4/9/10, putranm <putranm wrote: > > > A point you keep coming to is that our rationality or conclusion on truth must be consistent with the scripture - or we must verify the consistency with the scripture. > --------- > KS > Yes - that is the basis of Nyaaya prasthana (brahma suutras) - with tat tu samanvayaat suutra - as the basis where consistency in interpretation of Vedanta texts. It is not dismissal of the scriptures but resolving the apparent contradictions in the teaching into a self-consistent non-contradictory teaching. The bhaashyaas are meant for that too. There are shree bhaashyaas by Ramanuja and Shankara bhaashyaas by Shankara - trying to establish the self-consistency in the teaching. > > --------------- > Putranm: > A valid question here is whether you look to see whether the scripture speaks of truth that your rationality/ experience/ insight led to. Or whether you start with the scripture and see whether your rationality/ experience/ insight/convicti on also concludes there. It may go somewhere else from where you started but again there also should be validation from scripture. > > KS: Putranmji - what the scriptures do is taking anubhava of everyone - the avasthaatraya - the three states of experience - waking, dream and deep sleep state and resolve the experiencer I am different from the experienced states using anvaya-vyatireka lagic and that I am is beyond the three states of experience. Hence anubhava here is not some new experience of advaita - it is realization of the experiencer who is beyond the three states of experiences and who is present in all the three states. Hence when scriptures say shaatra, yukti and anubhava - scripture, logic and experience all go together. That is why they give the 10th man story to show the missing 10th man that they are all searching is never away at any time even while they are searching and being experienced all the time. The very search is by the missing man himself. Hence it is aparokshaanubhuuti - direct and immediate not some experience that one is longing for in future time. This > aspect I have discussed elaborately in the series. > > ----------- > Putranm: > Suppose your rationality/ experience/ insight leads somewhere totally antagonistic to Upanishads in spite of all their potential for variety in interpretation. I suppose there are schools that think so. What should our conclusion be at this stage? > > KS: Putramnji - The order of pramANa is scriptures, yukti and last is anubhava - hence if the rationality is leads somewhere totally antagonistic Upanishad teaching then there is something wrong with the rationality. > > Scripture says that which can never be negated is the truth, right? > . > In the analysis of the three states of experience, the subject I am is the only one that is never negated as one goes from waking, dream and deep sleep states. Here anubhava is taken into consideration and yukti is taken into consideration and arrive at tvam padaartham. The scripture says that tvam is tat - prapanchopashamam, shaantam, shivam advaitam, chaturtham manyante - sa aatmaa sa vijneyaH - that has to inquired and recognized says the scripture. Hence if one arrives at something else different from one self as non-negatable entity, then there is definitely wrong with the logic as well as with the scriptural interpretations and also with the analysis of everybody's anubhava. Hence as I see, your supposition has no basis. Hence anubhava or experiential duality is not rejected what is rejected is the interpretation that the experiential duality as reality. Hence Vedanta does not reject anubhava it provides an explanation to the anubhava, just as > science is not against experiential sunrise and sunset but only negates the truth of the reality ascribed to that experience. > > Yes there are schools that give different interpretations including the dream of individual mind is the creation of Iswara as vishiShTaadvaita says. Good that there are different interpretations for the mind to churn about to think deeply. Hence I advise those who are really interested to study Shree bhaashya of Ramanuja particularly his mahaapurva paksha where he criticizes advaita interpretation. This should be done after understanding clearly the advaitic position on the topics. > > ---------- > Putranm: > I know you may not answer, so it is just a point I am making - for it deals with Jeffrey Long's point on anubhava validating scripture as opposed to having anubhava validated by reason based on scripture. > > KS: Frankly I have no interest to study Jeffrey Long's point of view. The reason for the sampradaaya teacher is to be clearly understood only because we need to first establish the fundamental of Vedanta before one inquires independently. Independent research in any field (Ph.D - even there also a guide is required) is possible only after developing basic qualifications for critically examining the facts verses interpretations. This problem I find even in Objective sciences too for inexperienced scientists. Many scientists mistake interpretations as facts. > > There is absolutely only one fact - the existent conscious entity that I am - that is tvam aspect. Scripture says that tvam is the same as tat - the creator, sustainer and annihilator, Brahman - the sat chit aananda swaruupa and everything else is only apparent on that Brahman. This knowledge comes only from the scriptures. The mahaavaakya provides the equation of tvam and tat as one only - advaita. > > Hence if something is opposed to scriptures then it is not pramaa since scripture is pramaaNa - it can only be bhramaa or delusion. If he is intelligent enough he goes back to the basics to recognize he is only the absolute non-negatable entity and scriptural understanding of that I am is that He forms the basis for the world too. If he does not believe in the scriptures, there is no problme either, He will come to know later and it will only take few more lives. It is better to leave it to him to evolve slowly. Only one has to make sure his misinterpretations are not propagated to others. Hence these discussions too. > > I hope I have addressed all the issues you have raised. > > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 10, 2010 Sadaji, thanks. I want to ask you something frankly since you have talked strongly on being rational and enquiring oneself. You seem to mention scripture only for the end mahavaakyas. I usually get bogged down with a lot of middle things where rationality is not really sufficient. Like reincarnation, i.e. subtle body remaining after death of gross body. You have mentioned of this life or life after multiple times, I noticed, so you seem to accept this. There are other things like devas and doing our karmas which are directed for this or that super-natural ends (even though the rational part that we get chittashuddhi is also there). Furthermore as in my recent reply to Shyamji, there is mention of how there is Purusha-Avyakta-Hiranyagarbha which dilineations are not exactly apparent to the intellect. So, when I am told that one must place shraddha in the sruthi, I take it all this is meant to be accepted initially, as we cannot have the intellect getting us such information in a confirmed manner, unless we coax it to accept the logic offered by others. How do you approach the scriptures on these fronts? Are you really satisfied that there is " this life or life after " ? The essential truth of advaita that you mention is not particularly difficult to accept; but the rest, which puts the pursuit of Truth in a wholesome setting for the " jiva " - what is their place and relevance according to you, and do you feel comfortable placing shraddha in such things? thollmelukaalkizhu advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > --- On Fri, 4/9/10, putranm <putranm wrote: > > > KS: Putranmji - what the scriptures do is taking anubhava of everyone - the avasthaatraya - the three states of experience - waking, dream and deep sleep state and resolve the experiencer I am different from the experienced states using anvaya-vyatireka lagic and that I am is beyond the three states of experience. Hence anubhava here is not some new experience of advaita - it is realization of the experiencer who is beyond the three states of experiences and who is present in all the three states. Hence when scriptures say shaatra, yukti and anubhava - scripture, logic and experience all go together. That is why they give the 10th man story to show the missing 10th man that they are all searching is never away at any time even while they are searching and being experienced all the time. The very search is by the missing man himself. Hence it is aparokshaanubhuuti - direct and immediate not some experience that one is longing for in future time. This > aspect I have discussed elaborately in the series. > > Scripture says that which can never be negated is the truth, right? > . > In the analysis of the three states of experience, the subject I am is the only one that is never negated as one goes from waking, dream and deep sleep states. Here anubhava is taken into consideration and yukti is taken into consideration and arrive at tvam padaartham. The scripture says that tvam is tat - prapanchopashamam, shaantam, shivam advaitam, chaturtham manyante - sa aatmaa sa vijneyaH - that has to inquired and recognized says the scripture. Hence if one arrives at something else different from one self as non-negatable entity, then there is definitely wrong with the logic as well as with the scriptural interpretations and also with the analysis of everybody's anubhava. Hence as I see, your supposition has no basis. Hence anubhava or experiential duality is not rejected what is rejected is the interpretation that the experiential duality as reality. Hence Vedanta does not reject anubhava it provides an explanation to the anubhava, just as > science is not against experiential sunrise and sunset but only negates the truth of the reality ascribed to that experience. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 10, 2010 Namaskaram Sitaraji, yes I know that there is such a viewpoint. In fact, I have read long back Dennisji's record of posts on this topic, wherein I think he quotes from this book as well. However, here my objective is not so much to negate reincarnation, but to ask Sadaji's opinion in the matter, as the issue is ultimately beyond what can be proved by reason. It is to find out the role of shraddha in scriptures at these levels, whether we lose by dismissing as and what we please at these levels or whether we should guide the mind to conform to such conclusions. If so, why? For instance, karma rituals are for chitta shuddhi - does it matter that we accept or deny their proposed supernatural ends, or does it matter only that we surrender the results and do what is asked? What type of shraddha is expected, and for what end(s)? Of course, there is the argument that reincarnation need not at all be claimed as being asserted in sruthi. I think the swami below takes such a viewpoint if I recall correctly. That is fine. But this is not just on this issue. I want to know the more general role of sruthi, whether it does constitute faith in more than just advaita (Brahma satyam,...). When we believe in the wave-identity and want freedom from it, we may have to understand how the waves interact among themselves and with the Ocean at large. Is there right and wrong understandings regarding the waves - what takes me out of that dream is right. This is one viewpoint. Anyway, that is why I want Sadaji's opinions, since I don't know for sure in these matters. thollmelukaalkizhu advaitin , Sitara Mitali <smitali17 wrote: > > Putranmjipranams > > Sadaji will certainly provide excellent answers to your questions. > > I would just like to recommend a booklet about reincarnation to you that Dennisji once recommended to me. While all the other views regarding reincarnation, karma etc. definitely have their place on the path, I would call the view expressed here truly advaitin, i.e. the paramarthika view on the issue. > The booklet is called " Karma and Reincarnation " by Swami MuniNarayanaPrasad. Let me quote the publisher: > > About the author: > " Swami MuniNarayanaPrasad is presently the Regulating Secretary of the NarayanaGurukula, a Guru-Disciple foundation founded by Nataraja Guru, the disciple-successor of Narayana Guru.(...) > Became a disciple of Nataraja Guru in 1960 and was initiated as a renunciate in 1984. " > > And about the book: > " The notions of karma and reincarnation constitute the fundamental tenets of Indian thinking; though these, like many other doctrinal beliefs, are hard to prove/disprove in purely rationalistic or even empirical terms. Swami MuniNarayanaPrasad looks afresh at these age-old-doctrinal beliefs - from the viewpoint of an Advaitin, developing stimulating insights from his studies of the Upanishads, the BhagavadGita, the Brahma Sutras and, these besides, the works of his mentor: Narayana Guru. " > > Om Shanti > Sitara > > > > ________________________________ > Von: putranm <putranm > An: advaitin > Gesendet: Samstag, den 10. April 2010, 10:32:03 Uhr > Betreff: Re: Guru-shisyasambandha > > > Sadaji, thanks. > > I want to ask you something frankly since you have talked strongly on being rational and enquiring oneself. > > You seem to mention scripture only for the end mahavaakyas. I usually get bogged down with a lot of middle things where rationality is not really sufficient. > > Like reincarnation, i.e. subtle body remaining after death of gross body. You have mentioned of this life or life after multiple times, I noticed, so you seem to accept this. > > There are other things like devas and doing our karmas which are directed for this or that super-natural ends (even though the rational part that we get chittashuddhi is also there). > > Furthermore as in my recent reply to Shyamji, there is mention of how there is Purusha-Avyakta- Hiranyagarbha which dilineations are not exactly apparent to the intellect. > > So, when I am told that one must place shraddha in the sruthi, I take it all this is meant to be accepted initially, as we cannot have the intellect getting us such information in a confirmed manner, unless we coax it to accept the logic offered by others. > > How do you approach the scriptures on these fronts? Are you really satisfied that there is " this life or life after " ? The essential truth of advaita that you mention is not particularly difficult to accept; but the rest, which puts the pursuit of Truth in a wholesome setting for the " jiva " - what is their place and relevance according to you, and do you feel comfortable placing shraddha in such things? > > thollmelukaalkizhu > > advaitin@ s.com, kuntimaddisadananda <kuntimaddisada@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > --- On Fri, 4/9/10, putranm <putranm@ > wrote: > > > > > > KS: Putranmji - what the scriptures do is taking anubhava of everyone - the avasthaatraya - the three states of experience - waking, dream and deep sleep state and resolve the experiencer I am different from the experienced states using anvaya-vyatirekalagic and that I am is beyond the three states of experience. Hence anubhava here is not some new experience of advaita - it is realization of the experiencer who is beyond the three states of experiences and who is present in all the three states. Hence when scriptures say shaatra, yukti and anubhava - scripture, logic and experience all go together. That is why they give the 10th man story to show the missing 10th man that they are all searching is never away at any time even while they are searching and being experienced all the time. The very search is by the missing man himself. Hence it is aparokshaanubhuuti - direct and immediate not some experience that one is longing for in future time. This > > aspect I have discussed elaborately in the series. > > > > Scripture says that which can never be negated is the truth, right? > > . > > In the analysis of the three states of experience, the subject I am is the only one that is never negated as one goes from waking, dream and deep sleep states. Here anubhava is taken into consideration and yukti is taken into consideration and arrive at tvampadaartham. The scripture says that tvam is tat - prapanchopashamam, shaantam, shivamadvaitam, chaturthammanyante - saaatmaasavijneyaH - that has to inquired and recognized says the scripture. Hence if one arrives at something else different from one self as non-negatable entity, then there is definitely wrong with the logic as well as with the scriptural interpretations and also with the analysis of everybody'sanubhava. Hence as I see, your supposition has no basis. Hence anubhava or experiential duality is not rejected what is rejected is the interpretation that the experiential duality as reality. Hence Vedanta does not reject anubhava it provides an explanation to the anubhava, just as > > science is not against experiential sunrise and sunset but only negates the truth of the reality ascribed to that experience. > > > > > > > > > Sie sind Spam leid? Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails. > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 10, 2010 Putranmji- PraNams Happy to share my understanding as you have asked very important and pertinent questions. Here are some thoughts for you to ponder to see if they are rational enough. First some thoughts related to inquiry of the truth. Rationality or logic itself cannot prove much - Using anvaya and vyatireka logic I can arrive that I am not this, as this is object and I am subject - in the process I can reject all the koshaas - leaving myself as pure existence and consciousness that cannot be objectified as - this. This much only one can arrive at using logic if one is discriminative enough. Even in this I have to use the mind – so, using the mind, I have to deduce that I am not the mind. That deduction is a thought too, but the fact of the deduction is a fact and not a thought. It is similar to laddu is tasty is an expression of a fact and not a thought. The inquiry of - who am I- can lead only up to this point. For this scripture is not necessary but helpful. This is the analysis of tvam padaartham. For the next step we need scriptures that say through mahaavaakya that tvam is equal to tat. Understanding of that tat and understanding of tvam and how this strange equation is valid again using bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa is What is involved in understanding mahaavaakya tat tvam asi. I have discussed these elaborately in the perspective series under tat tvam asi analysis and I do not want to repeat myself again. Now the other questions you asked. --- On Sat, 4/10/10, putranm <putranm wrote: You seem to mention scripture only for the end mahavaakyas. I usually get bogged down with a lot of middle things where rationality is not really sufficient. ----- KS - Yes rationality alone will not be sufficient - hence the pramaaNa is not anumaana but shabda - that is, scripture is the means of knowledge. Yet even though the truth is beyond logic, it is not illogical. So one has to be conscious of these facts in the analysis. -------- Putranm: Like reincarnation, i.e. subtle body remaining after death of gross body. You have mentioned of this life or life after multiple times, I noticed, so you seem to accept this. KS. Putranmji - we need to be clear here. First we do not know what life is, do we? All we know is the expression of life through physiological functions. So logically we cannot deduce what is life even though we know we are alive. Logic ends there. This is where scriptures start becoming more important than pratyaksha and anumaana pramaaNaas. Gross body is inert and what makes bunch of minerals and carbohydrates so living and dynamic is a wonder indeed. Scripture says through anupravesha statement that He entered into the bodies to make it alive. What is that entering and who is entering etc has to be clear - for that only a proper study of scriptures become important. Science does not have an answer other than by accident consciousness arose in the matter. That is not an answer but expression of our ignorance of what life is or what makes one alive. We have law of action and results operating logically. I am what I am because of my past actions - that much I see. I am scientist because I went through rigorously that disciple of thinking. If this is obvious similarly scriptures says what you are and what you have- are due to what you did in the past - coined as praarabda and what you do with what you have is your present action and future praarabda is past praarabda modified by the present action. These are logical, yet the cause-effect relations in terms of vaasanas or tendencies are difficult to quantify on logical grounds. For example even if the actions being the same results depends on the mental attitudes too, which are subtle and cannot be quantified on logical grounds- and that my friend is not illogical. If cause-effect relations are valid from birth to death and suddenly there are two discrete points where everything fails -that is illogical. If the results depend on what I did and now I am reaping the benefits of those actions, then we have at these two limits birth and death - two limiting conditions where cause-effect relations seem to fail unless I accept the continuity of life. If not I have to explain why there are so much of disparities in the lives of many people who have not yet done anything to deserve. We need to resort to randomness or luck - but that is not an answer either. Statistics apply only to group behavior and not to individual behavior. Why me? that question remains. Hence there must be life before for which I am experiencing the result of those actions - which preserves the cause-effect relations. At the other end, I see people doing all sorts of things and escaping the local law and die after causing misery for many. There has to be life after to reap the benefits or consequences of those actions - Hence without accepting the continuity of life, we have at these two discrete points unaccountable results or actions - which is otherwise illogical. That my friend is logic of Shankara too - and giitaopadesa starts with that premise. ------------ Putranm: There are other things like devas and doing our karmas which are directed for this or that super-natural ends (even though the rational part that we get chittashuddhi is also there). KS - I like Swami Chinmayanandaji explanation here. Devas are phenomenal forces operating in the field that give results for the action. Devas are pleased means one has performed the action properly to arrive the result that is intended for that action. When I study hard with sincerity and devotion, the Goddess Saraswati of that field has to descend on me with the knowledge- that is the law that Krishna discussed in 3rd Ch. When I please the deva of that field they have to shower appropriate results. This wheel of action and results is set from the beginning of creation by prajaapati himself – the original law maker- says Krishna. --------- Putranm: Furthermore as in my recent reply to Shyamji, there is mention of how there is Purusha-Avyakta- Hiranyagarbha which dilineations are not exactly apparent to the intellect. KS - since I did not follow the correspondence I cannot follow the question - Shyamji may answer it. --------- Putranmji: So, when I am told that one must place shraddha in the sruthi, I take it all this is meant to be accepted initially, as we cannot have the intellect getting us such information in a confirmed manner, unless we coax it to accept the logic offered by others. KS: In any science, I do not understand lot of things when told since my mind is not mature enough to understand the whys and why-nots at that stage. I accept as working hypothesis for me to proceed further until I am able to question it with better understanding. These cause-effect relations are valid in the vyavahaara level until I dismiss all these are mithyaa at paaramaarthika level. I do not have to accept them but I have no better answer to these. Scripture provides how the creation started first with hiranya garbha as first born and subsequently the rest of the creation. It is a working model seem to be valid - only parallel example is the dream creation - I myself become hiranyagarbha in creating the whole dream world. The process does not seem to be illogical but one can take it as working model unless you have one better than that. ---------------- Putranmji How do you approach the scriptures on these fronts? Are you really satisfied that there is " this life or life after " ? The essential truth of advaita that you mention is not particularly difficult to accept; but the rest, which puts the pursuit of Truth in a wholesome setting for the " jiva " - what is their place and relevance according to you, and do you feel comfortable placing shraddha in such things? KS: I have explained how I understood. Logic can take me up to some level - when it comes to what is life and life after etc logic itself has limitations since we do not know what life is. What is consciousness is also not understood - yet life starts with being conscious. I am a conscious being is an undeniable fact of life. I proceed with that accepting as if it is granted until I question what consciousness is. For these scripture alone becomes a pramaaNa. I am satisfied with explanations since I am conscious entity and not inert entity, the BMI. All things that are discussed seems to follow strict cause-effect relations valid in the vyavahaara level. They do not seem to be illogical and are sufficient as working hypothesis for me to proceed to discover the underlying truth which is beyond even the scriptures, logic or experience. Hope I am clear. Hari Om! Sadananda thollmelukaalkizhu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 10, 2010 Sadaji, thankyou for your reply. I will read this carefully. Along with this, can you please answer some questions that came to me when I was responding to Sitaraji. They are also pertinent here and can help clarify furhter, though there is some overlap to what you may have responded already. I am reposting part of my post: " here my objective is not so much to negate reincarnation, but to ask Sadaji's opinion in the matter, as the issue is ultimately beyond what can be proved by reason. It is to find out the role of shraddha in scriptures at these levels, whether we lose by dismissing as and what we please at these levels or whether we should guide the mind to conform to such conclusions. If so, why? For instance, karma rituals are for chitta shuddhi - does it matter that we accept or deny their proposed supernatural ends, or does it matter only that we surrender the results and do what is asked? What type of shraddha is expected, and for what end(s)? .... I want to know the more general role of sruthi, whether it does constitute faith in more than just advaita (Brahma satyam,...). When we believe in the wave-identity and want freedom from it, we may have to understand how the waves interact among themselves and with the Ocean at large. Is there right and wrong understandings regarding the waves - what takes me out of that dream is right. This is one viewpoint... " thollmelukaalkizhu advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > Putranmji- PraNams > > Happy to share my understanding as you have asked very important and pertinent questions. Here are some thoughts for you to ponder to see if they are rational enough. > > First some thoughts related to inquiry of the truth. > > Rationality or logic itself cannot prove much - Using anvaya and vyatireka logic I can arrive that I am not this, as this is object and I am subject - in the process I can reject all the koshaas - leaving myself as pure existence and consciousness that cannot be objectified as - this. This much only one can arrive at using logic if one is discriminative enough. Even in this I have to use the mind †" so, using the mind, I have to deduce that I am not the mind. That deduction is a thought too, but the fact of the deduction is a fact and not a thought. It is similar to laddu is tasty is an expression of a fact and not a thought. The inquiry of - who am I- can lead only up to this point. For this scripture is not necessary but helpful. This is the analysis of tvam padaartham. > > For the next step we need scriptures that say through mahaavaakya that tvam is equal to tat. Understanding of that tat and understanding of tvam and how this strange equation is valid again using bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa is What is involved in understanding mahaavaakya tat tvam asi. I have discussed these elaborately in the perspective series under tat tvam asi analysis and I do not want to repeat myself again. > > Now the other questions you asked. > > --- On Sat, 4/10/10, putranm <putranm wrote: > > You seem to mention scripture only for the end mahavaakyas. I usually get bogged down with a lot of middle things where rationality is not really sufficient. > > ----- > KS - Yes rationality alone will not be sufficient - hence the pramaaNa is not anumaana but shabda - that is, scripture is the means of knowledge. Yet even though the truth is beyond logic, it is not illogical. So one has to be conscious of these facts in the analysis. > -------- > Putranm: > Like reincarnation, i.e. subtle body remaining after death of gross body. You have mentioned of this life or life after multiple times, I noticed, so you seem to accept this. > > KS. Putranmji - we need to be clear here. First we do not know what life is, do we? All we know is the expression of life through physiological functions. So logically we cannot deduce what is life even though we know we are alive. Logic ends there. > > This is where scriptures start becoming more important than pratyaksha and anumaana pramaaNaas. Gross body is inert and what makes bunch of minerals and carbohydrates so living and dynamic is a wonder indeed. Scripture says through anupravesha statement that He entered into the bodies to make it alive. What is that entering and who is entering etc has to be clear - for that only a proper study of scriptures become important. > > Science does not have an answer other than by accident consciousness arose in the matter. That is not an answer but expression of our ignorance of what life is or what makes one alive. > > We have law of action and results operating logically. I am what I am because of my past actions - that much I see. I am scientist because I went through rigorously that disciple of thinking. If this is obvious similarly scriptures says what you are and what you have- are due to what you did in the past - coined as praarabda and what you do with what you have is your present action and future praarabda is past praarabda modified by the present action. These are logical, yet the cause-effect relations in terms of vaasanas or tendencies are difficult to quantify on logical grounds. For example even if the actions being the same results depends on the mental attitudes too, which are subtle and cannot be quantified on logical grounds- and that my friend is not illogical. > > If cause-effect relations are valid from birth to death and suddenly there are two discrete points where everything fails -that is illogical. If the results depend on what I did and now I am reaping the benefits of those actions, then we have at these two limits birth and death - two limiting conditions where cause-effect relations seem to fail unless I accept the continuity of life. If not I have to explain why there are so much of disparities in the lives of many people who have not yet done anything to deserve. We need to resort to randomness or luck - but that is not an answer either. Statistics apply only to group behavior and not to individual behavior. Why me? that question remains. Hence there must be life before for which I am experiencing the result of those actions - which preserves the cause-effect relations. At the other end, I see people doing all sorts of things and escaping the local law and die after causing misery for many. There has to > be life after to reap the benefits or consequences of those actions - Hence without accepting the continuity of life, we have at these two discrete points unaccountable results or actions - which is otherwise illogical. > > That my friend is logic of Shankara too - and giitaopadesa starts with that premise. > ------------ > > Putranm: > There are other things like devas and doing our karmas which are directed for this or that super-natural ends (even though the rational part that we get chittashuddhi is also there). > > KS - I like Swami Chinmayanandaji explanation here. Devas are phenomenal forces operating in the field that give results for the action. Devas are pleased means one has performed the action properly to arrive the result that is intended for that action. When I study hard with sincerity and devotion, the Goddess Saraswati of that field has to descend on me with the knowledge- that is the law that Krishna discussed in 3rd Ch. When I please the deva of that field they have to shower appropriate results. This wheel of action and results is set from the beginning of creation by prajaapati himself †" the original law maker- says Krishna. > > --------- > Putranm: > > Furthermore as in my recent reply to Shyamji, there is mention of how there is Purusha-Avyakta- Hiranyagarbha which dilineations are not exactly apparent to the intellect. > > > KS - since I did not follow the correspondence I cannot follow the question - Shyamji may answer it. > --------- > Putranmji: > So, when I am told that one must place shraddha in the sruthi, I take it all this is meant to be accepted initially, as we cannot have the intellect getting us such information in a confirmed manner, unless we coax it to accept the logic offered by others. > > KS: In any science, I do not understand lot of things when told since my mind is not mature enough to understand the whys and why-nots at that stage. I accept as working hypothesis for me to proceed further until I am able to question it with better understanding. These cause-effect relations are valid in the vyavahaara level until I dismiss all these are mithyaa at paaramaarthika level. I do not have to accept them but I have no better answer to these. Scripture provides how the creation started first with hiranya garbha as first born and subsequently the rest of the creation. It is a working model seem to be valid - only parallel example is the dream creation - I myself become hiranyagarbha in creating the whole dream world. The process does not seem to be illogical but one can take it as working model unless you have one better than that. > > ---------------- > > Putranmji > How do you approach the scriptures on these fronts? Are you really satisfied that there is " this life or life after " ? The essential truth of advaita that you mention is not particularly difficult to accept; but the rest, which puts the pursuit of Truth in a wholesome setting for the " jiva " - what is their place and relevance according to you, and do you feel comfortable placing shraddha in such things? > > KS: I have explained how I understood. Logic can take me up to some level - when it comes to what is life and life after etc logic itself has limitations since we do not know what life is. What is consciousness is also not understood - yet life starts with being conscious. I am a conscious being is an undeniable fact of life. I proceed with that accepting as if it is granted until I question what consciousness is. > > For these scripture alone becomes a pramaaNa. I am satisfied with explanations since I am conscious entity and not inert entity, the BMI. All things that are discussed seems to follow strict cause-effect relations valid in the vyavahaara level. They do not seem to be illogical and are sufficient as working hypothesis for me to proceed to discover the underlying truth which is beyond even the scriptures, logic or experience. > > Hope I am clear. > > Hari Om! > > Sadananda > > > > thollmelukaalkizhu > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 11, 2010 Putranmji - PraNAms As requested, it is going to be my understanding which may differs from others.. --- On Sat, 4/10/10, putranm <putranm wrote: " here my objective is not so much to negate reincarnation, but to ask Sadaji's opinion in the matter, as the issue is ultimately beyond what can be proved by reason. It is to find out the role of shraddha in scriptures at these levels, whether we lose by dismissing as and what we please at these levels or whether we should guide the mind to conform to such conclusions. If so, why? For instance, karma rituals are for chitta shuddhi - does it matter that we accept or deny their proposed supernatural ends, or does it matter only that we surrender the results and do what is asked? What type of shraddha is expected, and for what end(s)? ------------- KS Yes, as I discussed, the very nature of life itself is beyond logic. Vedanta says it involves a mixture of aatma and anaatma- an apparent combination of conscious entity and unconscious entity. Science can only try to understand the later part and has no clue of the former. But no body, even the scientist thinks he is just a bunch of matter. He is an individual with likes and dislikes and what that individual means which Vedanta calls as jiiva is not clear since it involves an acceptance of consciousness independent of the matter. Hence it is beyond logic. Shastra alone can give us understanding on these matters. Since these cannot be proved in a lab, faith in the shastra becomes a requirement. However that I am a conscious-existent entity is beyond faith. Hence logically it is beyond logic or reason. Now on Shraddhaa- Shraddhaa should be mostly on the tatparya of the Vedic aphorisms. There is where vedantic study using principles of miimaamsa is involved. I am giving below an example that Swami Paramarthanandaji give recently explaining tatparya - if I am studying math and as part of problem it says each pen cost Rs. 35/- and how much it costs for 50 pens. Here the tatparya is only the principle of multiplication and not the discussion of the real cost of the pen to compare it with that in the shop. There is a methodology to arrive at the essential meaning of the Vedantic statements. Hence faith in the aachaaryas interpretation of the essential meaning of the scriptures is required. What is to be known is focused in the questions of a student of Vedanta of VivekachuuDaamaNi. ko naama bandha etc. What is bondage, etc. and the elaborate answers that follows by the teacher. One has to have faith in the answers given by the teacher for those questions. Obviously we are in the vedantic inquiry and crossed already the karmakaanda which Shankara says helps in chitta suddhi. What is required is chittasuddhi- how you get it- that is through karma yoga, upaasana and bhakti that Krishna himself discussed elaborately. With the mind prepared one develops chitta vishaalata or expansion of the mind, chitta ekaagrata, ability to focus the mind on the teaching, and vairaagyam dispassion towards the mental dissipative pursuits - all these are needed to some extent even to gain objective knowledge and more so for more subtle field of knowledge where I have strong pre-conceived notions which need to be dropped before knowledge can take place. For that Shraddhaa on the teaching is essential. It is not Shraddhaa on the karmakaanda results etc since a vedantic student has already understood that those pursuits will not lead you anywhere other than continuous birth-death cycles. Hence Shraddhaa here is on the inquiry of the nature of reality than anything else. If the mind can do that without getting dissipated to pursuits that are outside the scope then he has the chitta suddhi required and he needs to concentrate on the shravana, manana and nidhidhyaasana. ---------------- Putranm: .... I want to know the more general role of sruthi, whether it does constitute faith in more than just advaita (Brahma satyam,...). KS: Ultimate faith is in the mahaavaakya that involves the identity of jiiva Iswara using the bhaagatyaaga lakshaNa that is discarding the contradictory qualifications of each as trivial and concentrating on the essential oneness of the two at substantive level. Once one is established in that, the rest automatically becomes trivial or one can take it as Iswara vibhuuti. In fact I must say the life become enchanting and one sees everything as beautiful. All the dvandvaas or pairs of opposites are part of the glory of Iswara or part of my own glory too. aham annam aham annam aham annam; aham annnadou aham annnadou aham annaadou is the screaming song of the realized master. Brahmaarpanam brahma haviH.. becomes obvious vision than just a sloka to chant before meals. ------------------ Putranm: When we believe in the wave-identity and want freedom from it, we may have to understand how the waves interact among themselves and with the Ocean at large. Is there right and wrong understandings regarding the waves - what takes me out of that dream is right. This is one viewpoint... " KS: Putranmji - all I have to understand as a wave is I am the water and wave is only a name and form. Once I understand that I am water, then I am the water in the form of ocean I am the water in the form of other waves automatically follow. I am no more a wave supported by the ocean but I am water supporting even the ocean – that is the right knowledge. Hence Iswara himself become supported by my glory only. I can exist in many forms but that I am formless becomes the correct understanding. Forms become the glory of the water. Each name and form is different but I can play the game of life in the form but also recognize that I am formless. That is the right understanding. The other waves also become my glory and what relations I can have with myself in different forms?- play the dram in the scene as one plays the role in the dream knowing well it is only for entertainment. After the drama is over, shack hand with the villain in the dram and say with a smile see you again in the next drama. This understanding comes once I recognize that I am the actor and not the role that I am playing. I can still play as a son, father, husband, wife, etc as the scene demands justifying the role with no after effects of that role playing. I do not become a door-mat for other to step on unless that is the role I have play in the drama. That is the correct understanding - Everything else is trivial or just anaatma and hence mithyaa. aham vRikshasya reriva.. says a wise man - I am the tree of life supporting the whole drama of life. That is the correct understanding. I must say all these come slowly and steadily once one embarks systematic consistent study of the scriptures under a competent teacher. - Unfortunately there is no other substitute for this. Krishna could have used instead of 17 chapters of teaching with 700 and odd slokas. Hence He suggests – tat viddhi praNipaatena pariprashnena sevayaa.. Appoach a teacher with humility and ask relevant questions – ko naama bandhaH .. Hope this helps Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 11, 2010 Hari Om Oh revered ones. Could I wish to extend Sadaji's Wave example and stretch it with some poignant inquiries The Truth: The wave which is born out of the deep and serene ocean is really water . By floating to the top from its deep and serene Oceanic nature - it "water-ocean(now un-manifest)-wave" allows wind to play with it and form(manifest) into a wave which dies and merges back into the ocean. During this play the water-ocean-wave believes ( bonds itself) itself to be a wave and therefore it surrenders its existence to its temporary nature. As long as it allows itself to be at the mercy of the wind it has no other option but to be forming one wave after another. (is this is rebirth?) Irrespective of the its presence as the tumultuous wave (Jiva) or the serene and undisturbed deep ocean [a collection of all waves and also the undisturbed deep water mass] (Ishwara), it is , it was and will always be water ( Brahman) Om Namo Narayanaya Rammohan kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisadaadvaitin Sent: Sun, April 11, 2010 12:44:42 AMRe: Re: Guru-shisya sambandha Putranmji - PraNAmsAs requested, it is going to be my understanding which may differs from others.. --- On Sat, 4/10/10, putranm <putranm > wrote:" here my objective is not so much to negate reincarnation, but to ask Sadaji's opinion in the matter, as the issue is ultimately beyond what can be proved by reason. It is to find out the role of shraddha in scriptures at these levels, whether we lose by dismissing as and what we please at these levels or whether we should guide the mind to conform to such conclusions. If so, why? For instance, karma rituals are for chitta shuddhi - does it matter that we accept or deny their proposed supernatural ends, or does it matter only that we surrender the results and do what is asked? What type of shraddha is expected,and for what end(s)?------------ -KSYes, as I discussed, the very nature of life itself is beyond logic. Vedanta says it involves a mixture of aatma and anaatma- an apparent combination of conscious entity and unconscious entity. Science can only try to understand the later part and has no clue of the former. But no body, even the scientist thinks he is just a bunch of matter. He is an individual with likes and dislikes and what that individual means which Vedanta calls as jiiva is not clear since it involves an acceptance of consciousness independent of the matter. Hence it is beyond logic. Shastra alone can give us understanding on these matters. Since these cannot be proved in a lab, faith in the shastra becomes a requirement. However that I am a conscious-existent entity is beyond faith. Hence logically it is beyond logic or reason.Now on Shraddhaa- Shraddhaa should be mostly on the tatparya of the Vedic aphorisms. There is where vedantic study using principles of miimaamsa is involved. I am giving below an example that Swami Paramarthanandaji give recently explaining tatparya - if I am studying math and as part of problem it says each pen cost Rs. 35/- and how much it costs for 50 pens. Here the tatparya is only the principle of multiplication and not the discussion of the real cost of the pen to compare it with that in the shop. There is a methodology to arrive at the essential meaning of the Vedantic statements. Hence faith in the aachaaryas interpretation of the essential meaning of the scriptures is required.What is to be known is focused in the questions of a student of Vedanta of VivekachuuDaamaNi. ko naama bandha etc. What is bondage, etc. and the elaborate answers that follows by the teacher. One has to have faith in the answers given by the teacher for those questions. Obviously we are in the vedantic inquiry and crossed already the karmakaanda which Shankara says helps in chitta suddhi. What is required is chittasuddhi- how you get it- that is through karma yoga, upaasana and bhakti that Krishna himself discussed elaborately. With the mind prepared one develops chitta vishaalata or expansion of the mind, chitta ekaagrata, ability to focus the mind on the teaching, and vairaagyam dispassion towards the mental dissipative pursuits - all these are needed to some extent even to gain objective knowledge and more so for more subtle field of knowledge where I have strong pre-conceived notions which need to be dropped before knowledge can take place. For thatShraddhaa on the teaching is essential. It is not Shraddhaa on the karmakaanda results etc since a vedantic student has already understood that those pursuits will not lead you anywhere other than continuous birth-death cycles. Hence Shraddhaa here is on the inquiry of the nature of reality than anything else. If the mind can do that without getting dissipated to pursuits that are outside the scope then he has the chitta suddhi required and he needs to concentrate on the shravana, manana and nidhidhyaasana. ------------ ----Putranm:... I want to know the more general role of sruthi, whether it does constitute faith in more than just advaita (Brahma satyam,...).KS: Ultimate faith is in the mahaavaakya that involves the identity of jiiva Iswara using the bhaagatyaaga lakshaNa that is discarding the contradictory qualifications of each as trivial and concentrating on the essential oneness of the two at substantive level. Once one is established in that, the rest automatically becomes trivial or one can take it as Iswara vibhuuti. In fact I must say the life become enchanting and one sees everything as beautiful. All the dvandvaas or pairs of opposites are part of the glory of Iswara or part of my own glory too. aham annam aham annam aham annam; aham annnadou aham annnadou aham annaadou is the screaming song of the realized master. Brahmaarpanam brahma haviH.. becomes obvious vision than just a sloka to chant before meals. ------------ ------Putranm:When we believe in the wave-identity and want freedom from it, we may have to understand how the waves interact among themselves and with the Ocean at large. Is there right and wrong understandings regarding the waves - what takes me out of that dream is right. This is one viewpoint... "KS: Putranmji - all I have to understand as a wave is I am the water and wave is only a name and form. Once I understand that I am water, then I am the water in the form of ocean I am the water in the form of other waves automatically follow. I am no more a wave supported by the ocean but I am water supporting even the ocean – that is the right knowledge. Hence Iswara himself become supported by my glory only. I can exist in many forms but that I am formless becomes the correct understanding. Forms become the glory of the water. Each name and form is different but I can play the game of life in the form but also recognize that I am formless. That is the right understanding. The other waves also become my glory and what relations I can have with myself in different forms?- play the dram in the scene as one plays the role in the dream knowing well it is only for entertainment. After the drama is over, shack hand with the villain in the dram and say witha smile see you again in the next drama. This understanding comes once I recognize that I am the actor and not the role that I am playing. I can still play as a son, father, husband, wife, etc as the scene demands justifying the role with no after effects of that role playing. I do not become a door-mat for other to step on unless that is the role I have play in the drama. That is the correct understanding - Everything else is trivial or just anaatma and hence mithyaa. aham vRikshasya reriva.. says a wise man - I am the tree of life supporting the whole drama of life. That is the correct understanding. I must say all these come slowly and steadily once one embarks systematic consistent study of the scriptures under a competent teacher. - Unfortunately there is no other substitute for this. Krishna could have used instead of 17 chapters of teaching with 700 and odd slokas. Hence He suggests – tat viddhi praNipaatena pariprashnena sevayaa.. Appoach a teacher with humility and ask relevant questions – ko naama bandhaH .. Hope this helpsHari Om!Sadananda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 11, 2010 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: >> Now on Shraddhaa- Shraddhaa should be mostly on the tatparya of the Vedic aphorisms. There is where vedantic study using principles of miimaamsa is involved. I am giving below an example that Swami Paramarthanandaji give recently explaining tatparya - if I am studying math and as part of problem it says each pen cost Rs. 35/- and how much it costs for 50 pens. Here the tatparya is only the principle of multiplication and not the discussion of the real cost of the pen to compare it with that in the shop. There is a methodology to arrive at the essential meaning of the Vedantic statements. Hence faith in the aachaaryas interpretation of the essential meaning of the scriptures is required. > Sadaji, thanks for the response. It is fine. I will just make a point. If I pay Red Cross online or by mail, I am expecting that a real organization at the other end is using the cash for the said purpose. That is part of my understanding or faith. Now if I am told that the online-program is merely a video-game, but the process of playing sincerely has such and such a purpose - that also is acceptable. Though both of these scenarios are ultimately " mithya " , yet they are distinct in implications. A Bhaktha can be told that the ithihasas are " real " -histories. Or he can be told that belief in the ithihasas will allow one to have sincere bhakti to " Rama " or " Krishna " , and therefore help in his spiritual progress. Etc. They call for different versions of shraddha, for the latter is not asserting vyavaharika-satya to such history - what they are asserting is more like " helpful pratibhasika " . When our focus is the paramaarthika satya, we can perhaps avoid asserting vyvahaarika satya to some of these things that sruthi or smrithi mention. They are just as well prathibasika, for we know of them only because of scripture, and their utility is more the concern to us (who seek jnana) than whether they are " real " or not. To harness that utility might sometimes mean that our shraddha in them is that they constitute vyavahaarika satya - i.e. as real as we imagining our own limited identities. For the fault is with us, that we are differentiating vyavahaarika vs prathibhasika, personal vs impersonal, consciousness vs jada, and so on. While we make such distinctions, it may make sense (or not be nonsense) that our faith in Rama is that " He incarnated as recorded by Valmiki " rather than that " He is just as well a story-book character, but read the story since it inculcates sense of Dharma " . Similarly with reincarnation and karma-kanda. thollmelukaalkizhu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 11, 2010 Namaskaram RamMohan ji, I hope others can clarify on your post. But I am not sure what the " wind " represents/symbolizes. In the original analogy (with its inherent limitations), I think you should only think of the Ocean creating (or defined through) the presence of waves. It helps pictorially to think of our usual ocean, but it is not intended to bring the wind and the sky, shore, etc into the analogy. (Maybe dvaitins will find use for such.) thollmelukaalkizhu advaitin , Rammohan <s_rammohan wrote: > > Hari Om > > Oh revered ones. >  > Could I wish to extend Sadaji's Wave example and stretch it with some poignant inquiries >  > The Truth: The wave which is born out of the deep and serene ocean is really water . >  > By floating to the top from its deep and serene Oceanic nature -  it " water-ocean(now un-manifest)-wave " allows wind to play with it and form(manifest)  into  a wave which dies and merges back into the ocean. During this play the water-ocean-wave believes ( bonds itself)  itself to be a wave and therefore it surrenders its existence to its temporary nature. As long as it allows itself to be at the mercy of the wind it has no other option but to be forming one wave after another. (is this is rebirth?) >  > Irrespective of the its presence as the tumultuous wave (Jiva) or the serene and undisturbed deep ocean [a collection of all waves and also the undisturbed deep water mass] (Ishwara), it is , it was and will always be water ( Brahman) >  > Om Namo Narayanaya > Rammohan > > > > > ________________________________ > kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada > advaitin > Sun, April 11, 2010 12:44:42 AM > Re: Re: Guru-shisya sambandha > >  > Putranmji - PraNAms > > As requested, it is going to be my understanding which may differs from others.. > > --- On Sat, 4/10/10, putranm <putranm > wrote: > > " here my objective is not so much to negate reincarnation, but to ask Sadaji's opinion in the matter, as the issue is ultimately beyond what can be proved by reason. It is to find out the role of shraddha in scriptures at these levels, whether we lose by dismissing as and what we please at these levels or whether we should guide the mind to conform to such conclusions. If so, why? For instance, karma rituals are for chitta shuddhi - does it matter that we accept or deny their proposed supernatural ends, or does it matter only that we surrender the results and do what is asked? What type of shraddha is expected, > and for what end(s)? > > ------------ - > KS > Yes, as I discussed, the very nature of life itself is beyond logic. Vedanta says it involves a mixture of aatma and anaatma- an apparent combination of conscious entity and unconscious entity. Science can only try to understand the later part and has no clue of the former. But no body, even the scientist thinks he is just a bunch of matter. He is an individual with likes and dislikes and what that individual means which Vedanta calls as jiiva is not clear since it involves an acceptance of consciousness independent of the matter. Hence it is beyond logic. Shastra alone can give us understanding on these matters. Since these cannot be proved in a lab, faith in the shastra becomes a requirement. However that I am a conscious-existent entity is beyond faith. Hence logically it is beyond logic or reason. > > Now on Shraddhaa- Shraddhaa should be mostly on the tatparya of the Vedic aphorisms. There is where vedantic study using principles of miimaamsa is involved. I am giving below an example that Swami Paramarthanandaji give recently explaining tatparya - if I am studying math and as part of problem it says each pen cost Rs. 35/- and how much it costs for 50 pens. Here the tatparya is only the principle of multiplication and not the discussion of the real cost of the pen to compare it with that in the shop. There is a methodology to arrive at the essential meaning of the Vedantic statements. Hence faith in the aachaaryas interpretation of the essential meaning of the scriptures is required. > > What is to be known is focused in the questions of a student of Vedanta of VivekachuuDaamaNi. ko naama bandha etc. What is bondage, etc. and the elaborate answers that follows by the teacher. One has to have faith in the answers given by the teacher for those questions. Obviously we are in the vedantic inquiry and crossed already the karmakaanda which Shankara says helps in chitta suddhi. What is required is chittasuddhi- how you get it- that is through karma yoga, upaasana and bhakti that Krishna himself discussed elaborately. With the mind prepared one develops chitta vishaalata or expansion of the mind, chitta ekaagrata, ability to focus the mind on the teaching, and vairaagyam dispassion towards the mental dissipative pursuits - all these are needed to some extent even to gain objective knowledge and more so for more subtle field of knowledge where I have strong pre-conceived notions which need to be dropped before knowledge can take place. For that > Shraddhaa on the teaching is essential. > > It is not Shraddhaa on the karmakaanda results etc since a vedantic student has already understood that those pursuits will not lead you anywhere other than continuous birth-death cycles. > > Hence Shraddhaa here is on the inquiry of the nature of reality than anything else. If the mind can do that without getting dissipated to pursuits that are outside the scope then he has the chitta suddhi required and he needs to concentrate on the shravana, manana and nidhidhyaasana. > ------------ ---- > Putranm: > ... I want to know the more general role of sruthi, whether it does constitute faith in more than just advaita (Brahma satyam,...). > > KS: > Ultimate faith is in the mahaavaakya that involves the identity of jiiva Iswara using the bhaagatyaaga lakshaNa that is discarding the contradictory qualifications of each as trivial and concentrating on the essential oneness of the two at substantive level. Once one is established in that, the rest automatically becomes trivial or one can take it as Iswara vibhuuti. In fact I must say the life become enchanting and one sees everything as beautiful. All the dvandvaas or pairs of opposites are part of the glory of Iswara or part of my own glory too. aham annam aham annam aham annam; aham annnadou aham annnadou aham annaadou is the screaming song of the realized master. Brahmaarpanam brahma haviH.. becomes obvious vision than just a sloka to chant before meals. > ------------ ------ > Putranm: > > When we believe in the wave-identity and want freedom from it, we may have to understand how the waves interact among themselves and with the Ocean at large. Is there right and wrong understandings regarding the waves - what takes me out of that dream is right. This is one viewpoint... " > > KS: Putranmji - all I have to understand as a wave is I am the water and wave is only a name and form. Once I understand that I am water, then I am the water in the form of ocean I am the water in the form of other waves automatically follow. I am no more a wave supported by the ocean but I am water supporting even the ocean †" that is the right knowledge. Hence Iswara himself become supported by my glory only. I can exist in many forms but that I am formless becomes the correct understanding. Forms become the glory of the water. Each name and form is different but I can play the game of life in the form but also recognize that I am formless. That is the right understanding. The other waves also become my glory and what relations I can have with myself in different forms?- play the dram in the scene as one plays the role in the dream knowing well it is only for entertainment. After the drama is over, shack hand with the villain in the dram and say with > a smile see you again in the next drama. This understanding comes once I recognize that I am the actor and not the role that I am playing. I can still play as a son, father, husband, wife, etc as the scene demands justifying the role with no after effects of that role playing. I do not become a door-mat for other to step on unless that is the role I have play in the drama. That is the correct understanding - Everything else is trivial or just anaatma and hence mithyaa. aham vRikshasya reriva.. says a wise man - I am the tree of life supporting the whole drama of life. That is the correct understanding. > > I must say all these come slowly and steadily once one embarks systematic consistent study of the scriptures under a competent teacher. - Unfortunately there is no other substitute for this. Krishna could have used instead of 17 chapters of teaching with 700 and odd slokas. Hence He suggests †" tat viddhi praNipaatena pariprashnena sevayaa.. Appoach a teacher with humility and ask relevant questions †" ko naama bandhaH .. > > Hope this helps > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 11, 2010 Putranmji - PraNAms Hence Vedanta understanding the varying state of evolution of the mind of the seeker provides a methodology known as adhyaaropa apavaada - where initially a triad system is used as in karma and upaasana yoga. Only when one comes to jnaana yoga, one has to move to dyad system of aatma and anaatma resolving aatma alone is real and anaatma is mithyaa. It is an evolution of the mind rather than revolution. Hence personified gods and avataaras etc all play a role in the evolution until the student is mature enough and to that mind alone scripture says give the devotion to the forms and look within - that which mind cannot think of but because of which the mind can think of know that alone is Brahman and this that you worship here. These statements are to take the mind to go beyond names and forms. At every stage faith is important. By the by the winds in the wave example can be thought of the subtle vaasanas that makes grosser form manifest. At the individual level it is avidya and at collective level it is maaya. Just a thought. Hari Om! Sadananda--- On Sun, 4/11/10, putranm <putranm wrote: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 11, 2010 Ok. Thank you very much, as usual, for the detailed replies. Now, I shall (re)-enter my tapas proposition of some posts back. Bye. thollmelukaalkizhu advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > Putranmji - PraNAms > > Hence Vedanta understanding the varying state of evolution of the mind of the seeker provides a methodology known as adhyaaropa apavaada - where initially a triad system is used as in karma and upaasana yoga. Only when one comes to jnaana yoga, one has to move to dyad system of aatma and anaatma resolving aatma alone is real and anaatma is mithyaa. It is an evolution of the mind rather than revolution. Hence personified gods and avataaras etc all play a role in the evolution until the student is mature enough and to that mind alone scripture says give the devotion to the forms and look within - that which mind cannot think of but because of which the mind can think of know that alone is Brahman and this that you worship here. These statements are to take the mind to go beyond names and forms. At every stage faith is important. > > By the by the winds in the wave example can be thought of the subtle vaasanas that makes grosser form manifest. At the individual level it is avidya and at collective level it is maaya. Just a thought. > > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > > > --- On Sun, 4/11/10, putranm <putranm wrote: > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 11, 2010 Namaste all. My father used to say: 'Advaita should not be taught to one who does not believe in Bhakti and saguna worship'! PraNAms to all advaitins. profvk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
