niyamas of bhakti yoga

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

Yes, I am proven quite foolish by a mighty observer such as yourself. Therefore I submit my utter inability to substantiate my every word based on sruti shastra, and request Ram to proceed and present his conclusive views based on the same. I will be eager to witness the standard of evidence which he considers conclusive. Thank you.

Dear Raga, your sarcasm implies offense on my part. Let me please offer my humble obeisances and ask for your forgiveness. The fact that I have been offensive shows that I have been proud. One of the qualifications of a knowledgeable person is humility (vidya vinaya sampanne), not pride. Far from being a mighty observer, it proves that I am a great fool. What then, is the value of listening from me ?

 

Even truth should be spoken sweetly. In the siddha pranali thread from which this started, I just pointed out that those of us who are discussing are taking the topics to great heights while the basics are themselves unclear. The fact that there was difficulty establishing these truths does not prove/disprove them but just shows that we are not on that level.

 

I am an ordinary person with some rudimentary understanding of vedas. In fact despite my birth in an orthodox brahmin family my knowledge is just a fragment of what wonderful devotees that I have met around the world have - including yourself. Neither am I advanced in devotion. Even though our discussion can be educative to some extent, only the seers of truth can actually establish one thing or the other. All we can say is that this is what the different acharyas have spoken.

 

Let me again apologize to all the devotees present for any offenses that I might have committed due to my ignorance and baseless pride.

[raga 0]

I did attempt to present the conclusions as I have understood them. Given my status as a conditioned soul, I may not succeed in establishing truths to an extent which would satisfy everyone. Therefore I am keen to hear others' views on a particular siddhanta. If there is disagreement over a particular presentation, there should be counter-arguments to allow the discussion to proceed. Then, having considered the evidence at our disposal, we may proceed further in pursuit of a conclusion. I am open to hear other views. I took it from your confidence in insisting more and more evidence that you have ample contrary evidence yourself.

 

No offence implied, no offence taken, and no offence considered. You are a very polite participant in discussions.

 

 

In the siddha pranali thread from which this started, I just pointed out that those of us who are discussing are taking the topics to great heights while the basics are themselves unclear.

In regards to what is clear, the basic practices are clear, while the philosophical details behind each and every word may not be clear. To the best of my discretion, awareness or unawareness of certain specific [upanishadic] philosophical details does not cause eligibility for engaging in practices of devotion, or participating in discussions thereof. To propose this would place bhakti in a dependent and subservient position to jnana, which it certainly is not, though jnana is certainly helpful.

 

[Guest guest]

Raga, as you did not establish that there are spiritual practices that influence the soul directly, the basic practices are not clear. Unless, we are clear on this, even if I proceed it will have no effect. Secondly, there should be some prayojana in a serious discussion. If you believe that there is no need for shruti - smriti basis for practices, there is no point in discussing the sastras or getting others'understanding.

 

Just feel free to say, "I do what I want and I dont care a damn if it contradicts shruti and smriti alike". It just helps if volumes of "vedic literature" is not presented.

[Guest guest]

I gave a reply earlier but I dont see it. I dont know if it is a computer problem or moderator. If it is moderator's discretion, please let me know so that I may refrain from continuing this thread. I am reposting it.

 

Raga, I dont think the basic practices are clear. The philosophical basis of the practices that you were advocating was that they have direct influence on the soul. But from the sources available to you, change to soul could not be established. How can the tower be strong if the foundation is weak ?

 

Thanks for welcoming my views. But if one believes that even in the absence of sastric evidence one can follow any practice, then what is the use of my writing any thing at all ?

[raga 0]

The philosophical basis of the practices that you were advocating was that they have direct influence on the soul.

I said it umpteen times that niyama as we decided to outline it (according to Patanjali) is concerned with body/mind.

 

The question we are faced with is: "Is there anything which can directly influence the soul or its cognitive functions?"

 

I am not a master of shruti shastra, and consequently unable to draw the content directly from the Upanishads to explain the relationship of bondage between the soul and matter. I offered my view based on the Gita. I invited our pandits to explain the truth. I am still waiting.

 

[raga 0]

Raga, I dont think the basic practices are clear.

The practices are very clear. Only we are faced with an underlying philosophical question, which is yet to be resolved.

 

My view in brief: The awareness of the soul is focused on matter. I draw this understanding from the following statements of the Gita (3.27, 15.7)

 

prakRteH kriyamANAni guNaiH karmANi sarvazaH

ahaGkAra-vimUDhAtmA kartAham iti manyate

 

mamaivAMzo jIva-loke jIva-bhUtaH sanAtanaH

manaH-SaSThAnIndriyANi prakRti-sthAni karSati

 

The soul's awareness is focused on matter due to his desire to enjoy matter. This awareness is diverted away from matter (the desire is changed) into an inquiry for its spiritual constitution upon tasting something which is of spirit by nature (such as the Holy Names of the Lord). I draw this understanding from the Gita (2.59):

 

viSayA vinivartante nirAhArasya dehinaH

rasa-varjaM raso 'py asya paraM dRSTvA nivartate

 

I understand this "paraM dRSTvA" to refer to an experience affecting the self, which comes in touch with its original spiritual nature. Atma is the source of awareness, and the mind and intelligence are components of prakriti, though having distinctive functions in manifesting awareness. Gita 7.4, 3.42:

 

bhUmir Apo 'nalo vAyuH khaM mano buddhir eva ca

ahaGkAra itIyaM me bhinnA prakRtir aSTadhA

 

indriyANi parANy Ahur indriyebhyaH paraM manaH

manasas tu parA buddhir yo buddheH paratas tu saH

 

Hence it is my understanding that the self (Atma) is the one from whom the desire ultimately comes. This desire can change. Gita proclaims the atma to be unchangeable:

 

nAsato vidyate bhAvo nAbhAvo vidyate sataH

ubhayor api dRSTo 'ntas tv anayos tattva-darzibhiH

 

From the surrounding verses, it is not very difficult to understand how this refers to the atma's not being affected by material changes. When I spoke of something affecting the soul, I did not refer to a material impetus, but to a spiritual impetus, such as the Holy Name and Vigraha of the Lord, which are eternally beyond matter -- and constitutionally of the same nature as the atma.

 

If anyone is under the impression that I have misunderstood the Gita, I would be very grateful if he could explain the subject matter thoroughly based on shruti-smriti.

 

By the way, much of the Gaudiya practices is drawn from Pancaratrika scriptures -- which are not shruti. Any learned soul may also wish to elaborate on the relationship of shruti and pancaratra.

 

[Guest guest]

Raga, there is no need to go to the upanishads so soon. Let us try to understand Gitopanishad which is the essence of all the Vedic knowledge. We can establish the bonafide practices from the Gita.

 

You are quoting verses out of order, which is not the way to learn any subject. Anyway, let us try to understand 3.27 and 15.7. What is the meaning of the words :

 

vimUdhAthmA in 3.27 and

karsati in 15.7 ?

 

After you say that, we should discuss the relation of these verses to the verses before and after.

[raga 0]

You are quoting verses out of order, which is not the way to learn any subject.

Let me clarify one thing first: do you wish to point out faults whenever you get the chance, even if there are no faults?

 

If I make points on three topics, it is perfectly in place to quote verses from different places of the Gita, and they do not have to be in a numerical order.

 

there is no need to go to the upanishads so soon. Let us try to understand Gitopanishad which is the essence of all the Vedic knowledge.

Can you prove this assertation based on shruti?

 

In regards to 3.27 and "vimUDhATmA", I take it to mean "self", "person", the one who experiences existence.

 

In regards to 15.7 and "karSati", the word refers to the condition of the jIva in the bondáge of prakRti.

 

[Guest guest]

It is not my intent to baselessly find faults but where there is none. If you want to quote across in this context perhaps it is okay. But my point is we are not resolving one issue before moving on to the next. We have one question - whether the soul can be directly influenced which is the basis of some of the GV practices that you are proposing. It assumes defective cognition or ignorance on the part of the soul. Let us resolve it.

 

 

As far as your translation of vimUdhAthmA to refer to the self or person, is it the soul that you refer to ?

 

[Guest guest]

Raga, I was not intending to find faults. My basic point was that if you quote too many quotes in different contexts, then it is difficult to analyse them because each quote has to be seen in context. As a result it is taking a lot of time to establish anything which is inefficient. I was not saying that you have to quote in numerical order, whatever that means. I realize that the term "out of order", which I used is not in order and apologize for that.

 

[raga 0]

"Out of order" was out of order. OK, let's go on with the discussion. How do you view my conception of "vimUdhAtma"?

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

The nonchanging position of the soul is stated in the Mandukya Upanishad:

 

prakriter anyathabhavo na kathancid bhavishyati

 

"The mutation of one's nature, becoming anything other than one's internal nature, will not take place in any way whatsoever."

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 06-03-2002).]

[Guest guest]

Objection to your translation of vimUdhAtmA :

 

Earlier you said that vimUdhAtmA refers to the "self" or "person". Obviously "citta-VRtti" does not qualify as the "self" or as a "person" because the "self" by definition is "vipascin" (Katha Upanishad) or full of knowledge. Therefore "citta-VRtti" cannot be the self. For the same reason "citta-VRtti" cannot be a part of the "self". But if you insist that "citta-VRtti" is the part of the self that makes foolish mistakes but "changes" when it acquires knowledge, then such a knowledge is temporary because "nAsato vidyate bhAvo nAbhAvo vidyate sataH". How can the eternal Atma have some thing temporary ? So this translation is incorrect.

 

Also the prefix "vi" implies that the "Atma" referred to in the verse is not by itself "mUdha". On the other hand, it is made so by "ahankAra" - "ahankAra vimUdhAtma". That is the material agent "Ahankara" causes a change to the "Atma", which is not possible if "atma" is translated as the soul or part of it. That is because there cannot be material impetus to spiritual change. This you also agree in line with the sastras.

 

Now, you have opposed translating Atma as a material element on two counts.

 

Your anumana #1 :

"It cannot refer to any of the subtle elements individually, since they are part of the prakrti (which is declared the doer), "

 

Objection :

Your reasoning goes as follows (my understanding) :

1. prakRti is the doer.

2. Atma, if translated as referring to any individual material element, is prakRti.

3. Therefore, it cannot be called mudha or ignorant for thinking that I am the doer because it is indeed the doer.

 

While Atma, referring to a material element like the mind is part of the prakRti, is not the whole. The fault that the Lord points out here is that the part thinks it is doer where as the whole is the doer.

 

Your anumana #2 :

 

It cannot refer to any of the subtle elements individually, since they do not possess individual cognitive power.

 

Objection :

Just like the nature of the fire is to give heat, the nature of the mind is to think (by the influence of the gunas). So it is incorrect to say that the mind does not have cognitive power. Here if Atma is translated directly - without any word jugglery - to mean the mind, then there is no problem in saying the mind thinks that I am the doer - kartAham.

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 06-03-2002).]

[raga 0]

Originally posted by jndas:

The nonchanging position of the soul is stated in the Mandukya Upanishad:

 

prakriter anyathabhavo na kathancid bhavishyati

 

"The mutation of one's nature, becoming anything other than one's internal nature, will not take place in any way whatsoever."

 

 

prakrter - of nature [prakRti -- the great doer!]; anyatha - other; bhava - become; na - not; kathancid - somehow; bhavisyati - shall become.

 

"Nature shall not anyhow become something else."

 

Your translation is not too verbatim, huh? This is the first time I hear the word prakRti used in describing the jIvAtma's eternal nature.

 

In the Gita (3.33) we see the word prakRti used as one's nature acquired from the three modes of material nature, which constantly compete with each other, causing changes in one's acquired nature.

 

What is the context of this verse?

 

 

[raga 0]

What do you suggest for defining "vimUdhAtma"?

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

What do you suggest for defining "vimUdhAtma"?

I have already replied. Please counter that.

 

 

[raga 0]

Originally posted by ram:

I have already replied. Please counter that.

 

I couldn't see you define the word. Please repost the relevant portion in which you define "vimUdhAtma".

 

Did you mean this sentence? "The fault that the Lord points out here is that the part thinks it is doer where as the whole is the doer."

 

Then I say: If one of the three aspects of linga-sharira is the vimUdhAtma, or the totality of these three aspects is the vimUdhAtma, then I say: Without the presence of the citta-vRtti of the Atma, these three elements have no life or individuality, and therefore they cannot be called the self. Therefore the citta-vRtti of the Atma must be counted within the definition of vimUdhAtma.

 

I have objected to definitions "mind", "intelligence", "ahankara". You have objected to "citta-vRtti of Atma projected through the medium of ahankara towards matter, forming the conception of self". What are we left with?

 

<small>

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 06-04-2002).]

[raga 0]

It is not my intent to baselessly find faults but where there is none. If you want to quote across in this context perhaps it is okay.

"Perhaps"? Of course it is okay. Do you propose that in your tradition, when having scriptural discussions, you always have to quote verses in a numerical order?

 

 

As far as your translation of vimUdhAthmA to refer to the self or person, is it the soul that you refer to ?

In my view, the "vimUDhAtma" refers to citta-vRtti of the Atma which is focused on matter through the medium of ahamkAra, experiencing the changes in this world and thinking of himself as the doer. It cannot refer to any of the subtle elements individually, since they a are part of the prakrti (which is declared the doer), and do not possess individual cognitive power.

 

In the following verse, Bhagavan refers to "tattva-vit" who is "guna-karma-vibhAgayoH". In the thirteenth chapter, the jIvAtma has been established as the kSetra-jñA. Based on this, I understand the word "vimUdhAtma".

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

What are we left with?

 

Truth ?

 

Here if Atma is translated directly - without any word jugglery - to mean the mind, then there is no problem in saying the mind thinks that I am the doer - kartAham

 

 

Then you may say: If one of the three aspects of linga-sharira is the vimUdhAtma, or the totality of these three aspects is the vimUdhAtma, then I say: Without the presence of the citta-vRtti of the Atma, these three elements have no life or individuality, and therefore they cannot be called the self. Therefore the citta-vRtti of the Atma must be counted within the definition of vimUdhAtma.

 

Objection : The logic that mind is powered by the atma, and so the defect of the mind is attributed to the atma / atma vRtti is flawed.Every thing is due to the Lord but there is no ignorance in Him even though there is ignorance in the material world. tejo vAri mRtam yatA. A mirage in the desert does not make the ground muddy. Similaryly, the ignorance in the material body has no effect on the Atma.

 

[raga 0]

Here if Atma is translated directly - without any word jugglery - to mean the mind, then there is no problem in saying the mind thinks that I am the doer - kartAham

"Soul" is a very direct translation of the word Atma.

 

 

Objection : The logic that mind is powered by the atma, and so the defect of the mind is attributed to the atma / atma vRtti is flawed.Every thing is due to the Lord but there is no ignorance in Him even though there is ignorance in the material world. tejo vAri mRtam yatA. A mirage in the desert does not make the ground muddy. Similaryly, the ignorance in the material body has no effect on the Atma.

As I already noted, in the following verse, Bhagavan refers to "tattva-vit" who is "guna-karma-vibhAgayoH", addressing the issue of vimUdhAtma. In the thirteenth chapter, the jIvAtma has been established as the kSetra-jñA.

 

If we take the word Atma to refer to the mind, then Bhagavan advices Arjuna to think that the mind is the knower of truth who is beyond guna and karma. This is not true, since the mind is a creation of tri-guna.

 

[raga 0]

Objection : The logic that mind is powered by the atma, and so the defect of the mind is attributed to the atma / atma vRtti is flawed.Every thing is due to the Lord but there is no ignorance in Him even though there is ignorance in the material world. tejo vAri mRtam yatA. A mirage in the desert does not make the ground muddy. Similaryly, the ignorance in the material body has no effect on the Atma.

Counter-objection: The Lord and the living entity cannot be equated. The Lord is the source of maya, and therefore beyond it. The jIvAtma is not the source and the master of maya. Therefore their relationship with the illusory energy and their immunity in regards to its influence differ.

 

The fact that the jIvAtma is cognizant of this world means there must be some fault there. Otherwise no conditioned existence or cognizance thereof would exist, and the jIvAtma would be in full awareness of its eternal constitutional nature.

 

[Guest guest]

Statement : Atma is the direct translation of the word.

Objection : If you read your posts, you had to use Atma vRthi as the meaning of Atma after it was pointed out that soul is vipascin. This is what I called word jugglery.

 

You may say : I will use Atma to mean soul directly. The fact that the jIvAtma is cognizant of this world means there must be some fault there.

Objection : No. ubau vijanito exist. One can study the nature of both and still be transcendental. Knowledge of ignorance does not make you ignorant. It is faulty to apply mundane logic to the spirit soul. You cannot translate vimUdhAtma as referring to the soul in this context because it has been shown inconsistent with the nature of atma.

 

Statement : The Lord and the living entity cannot be equated. The Lord is the source of maya, and therefore beyond it. The jIvAtma is not the source and the master of maya. Therefore their relationship with the illusory energy and their immunity in regards to its influence differ.

Objection : Unless you can show that living entity is qualitatively different from the Lord and that by quality it is ignorant. This is not the case. On the other hand, simply stating that the living entity is likely to have ignorance is mere speculation.

[Guest guest]

Statement : tattva vit. If we take the word Atma to refer to the mind, then Bhagavan advices Arjuna to think that the mind is the knower of truth who is beyond guna and karma. This is not true, since the mind is a creation of tri-guna.

 

Objection : If a piece of stone can become transcendental in the service of the Lord, what is the problem in the mind becoming transcendental ?

 

Statement : kshetrajna.

 

Objection : Already answered. Mere knowledge of ignorance is not ignorance. It is actually knowledge.

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 06-04-2002).]

[raga 0]

Objection: "One can study the nature of both [matter and spirit] and still be transcendental. Knowledge of ignorance does not make you ignorant."

 

Counter-objection: We do not consider the embodied living entities in this world as students of matter and spirit. They are in ignorance over the difference between the two. One who knows this difference is liberated.

 

Statement : tattva vit. If we take the word Atma to refer to the mind, then Bhagavan advices Arjuna to think that the mind is the knower of truth who is beyond guna and karma. This is not true, since the mind is a creation of tri-guna.

 

Objection: If a piece of stone can become transcendental in the service of the Lord, what is the problem in the mind becoming transcendental ?

 

Counter-objection: On account of their being connected with brahma, they obtain the qualities of brahma. However, a piece of stone does not become individually cognizant, and neither does the mind.

 

<small>

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 06-04-2002).]

[raga 0]

An essential question

 

If we insist that neither the soul nor its conscious faculty can be influenced or covered over by ignorance, then why do we experience this material world?

 

If the soul and its citta-vritti (along with whatever else is related to it which is of the same quality) is completely and eternally liberated, then why do we experience this material world?