niyamas of bhakti yoga

[raga 0]

If we insist as an absolute fact the idea that there is no transformation in that which is eternal, then how do you explain the following:

 

Vedanta Sutra 4.1.18:

 

Atma-kRteH pariNAmAt

 

Atma - self; kRteH - because of making; pariNAmAt - because of transformation.

 

This sutra explains how brahman becomes the world on account of transformation. But how do you explain that?

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

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.

 

Your objection is the same as what I said : "One can study the nature of both [matter and spirit] and still be transcendental. Knowledge of ignorance does not make you ignorant." My point again is mere knowledge of material world (ignorance) does not make the soul ignorant.

 

[raga 0]

My point again is mere knowledge of material world (ignorance) does not make the soul ignorant.

But how is this relevant? The jIvAtmas out there, they do not recognize it as ignorance, as opposed to spiritual wisdom. They are in bondage.

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

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.

 

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

Objection : When did I talk about them becoming independantly conscious. You are opposing some thing I never said. By the virtue of association with the Supreme Brahman, even a stone is getting the qualities of brahman (which includes knowledge). Similarly, the mind which by the influence of ahankara is bereft of knowledge becomes tattva vit or knowledgeable by the influence of the Supreme Brahman (God).

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

But how is this relevant? The jIvAtmas out there, they do not recognize it as ignorance, as opposed to spiritual wisdom. They are in bondage.

The knowledge is not absent in the atma because it is vipascin by definition. This is its eternal position. Where is the question of ignorance in the atma ?

 

Your objection is : But they are in bondage which is the sign of ignorance.

 

Counter : If there is an omnipotent lord and compassionate devotees, then why is there bondage, evil and suffering ? Why does not the Lord intervene or the devotees ? That is because the Lord is wise. He knows there is no endurance of this temporary dream which is like a mirage in a desert or fire in water. (tejo vAri mRtam yatA)).

__ ____

Note Aside : This is also the solution to the problem of evil posed by atheists and buddhists.)

______

By the influence of ahankara the mind thinks "I am the doer". Ahankara is destroyed through knowledge. When that happens, even while in the body, one becomes tattva vit (knower of brahman and situated therein) and hence transcendental to the gunAs.

 

When a devotee is pure, He sees the Lord - not his material self born of ahankArA - in everything. By conquering the cause of material identification, he realizes his svarUpA.

[raga 0]

By the influence of ahankara the mind thinks "I am the doer". Ahankara is destroyed through knowledge. When that happens, even while in the body, one becomes tattva vit (knower of brahman and situated therein) and hence transcendental to the gunAs.

All well, mind and ahankara are confused, thinking they are the doer. But they are the doer, is it not? After all, that's what it says in the verse, the elements of material nature are declared to be the doer. Why should the mind then be called foolish for thinking it is the doer?

 

Please answer this question: If the atma has absolutely no relationship with matter, then why is it aware of matter, and not of its eternally liberated position? And if the atma does have a relationship with matter, then what is that relationship, and what is its cause?

 

[raga 0]

When that happens, even while in the body, one becomes tattva vit (knower of brahman and situated therein) and hence transcendental to the gunAs.

Here you suggest that one becomes tattva vit, a knower of brahman and situated therein. Who is the one here who becomes? The mind, or the Atma?

[raga 0]

Originally posted by ram:

----------

Originally posted by raga:

All well, mind and ahankara are confused, thinking they are the doer. But they are the doer, is it not? After all, that's what it says in the verse, the elements of material nature are declared to be the doer. Why should the mind then be called foolish for thinking it is the doer?

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

Ram: I answered that already. The fault that the Lord is pointing out here is that the part thinks it is doer where as the whole is the doer.

Hmmm... This is not a sound proposal in my view. The verse says that prakRti is the doer. The actions are carried out by tri-guna, and the Atma bewildered by ahankara thinks of himself as the doer.

 

For all I can see, Bhagavan is not concerned with pointing out how Arjuna should understand that it is not only the mind who is the doer, but both mind and body. After all, He points out how it is foolish to think of oneself as the doer. And who is the non-doer? The Atma.

 

Out of curiosity I checked Swami Bhaktivedanta's translation of 3.27. As follows: "The spirit soul bewildered by the influence of false ego thinks himself the doer of activities that are in actuality carried out by the three modes of material nature."

 

Any comments, JNDasJi?

 

[raga 0]

Originally posted by ram:

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

Originally posted by raga:

If the atma has absolutely no relationship with matter, then why is it aware of matter, and not of its eternally liberated position? And if the atma does have a relationship with matter, then what is that relationship, and what is its cause?

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

 

Ram: I have answered all these questions in the earlier posts. Let me restate that differently : The connection is like the connection of a desert (atma) with a mirage (matter). A mirage does not muddy make a desert.

 

One who knows one svarUpA is aware of matter (ignorance) but is actually in knowledge.

No, in fact you have not answered the question.

 

The question is WHY, not HOW. WHY is the atma conscious of matter?

<small>

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 06-05-2002).]

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

Here you suggest that one becomes tattva vit, a knower of brahman and situated therein. Who is the one here who becomes? The mind, or the Atma?

The person here is the false material personality produced by ahankara (due to prakRti and its gunAs), who by knowledge (of the Absolute, the Lord not material knowledge) realizes the illusion his material personality. He sees the atman by the rarified intelligence.

 

He sees the Lord every where. He sees every one equally because he sees only His nature. His ahankAra is completely destroyed, his intelligence is free of all doubts, his mind is completely controlled and spontaneously absorbed in meditating about the Lord. He is perfectly situated in his svarUpA even in this world.

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 06-05-2002).]

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

Hmmm... This is not a sound proposal in my view. The verse says that prakRti is the doer. The actions are carried out by tri-guna, and the Atma bewildered by ahankara thinks of himself as the doer.

 

For all I can see, Bhagavan is not concerned with pointing out how Arjuna should understand that it is not only the mind who is the doer, but both mind and body. After all, He points out how it is foolish to think of oneself as the doer. And who is the non-doer? The Atma.

 

Out of curiosity I checked Swami Bhaktivedanta's translation of 3.27. As follows: "The spirit soul bewildered by the influence of false ego thinks himself the doer of activities that are in actuality carried out by the three modes of material nature."

 

Any comments, JNDasJi?

I dont know, why JNDas should chip in ? Or why Srila Prabhupada's comments should be relevant to us if he is not our authority ?

 

We have all given up his so called shelter and gone to higher authorities. There is no need to return to his teachings.

 

Atma is transcendental to action and inaction, & eternally knows it is the non-doer. Simply saying this is not a sound proposal does not hold ground after I have refuted your proposal and answered all the questions. If you still have more questions, please let me know so that I can clear them.

 

The Lord is not telling something simple like mind and body are at work, not just the mind. He is telling something we cannot see ourselves directly - the working of ahankArA. He is telling how the ahankAra befools the mind. He is telling the basis of ahankArA - that prakRti is at work through gunas. This is the process of becoming nistrai-guna. These are not *simple* teachings for a person who has discrimination.

 

Ultimately, He is telling Arjuna about the basis of everything - Him, the Supreme Brahman. Knowing Him is the goal of all Vedas.

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

No, in fact you have not answered the question.

 

The question is WHY, not HOW. WHY is the atma conscious of matter?

<small>

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 06-05-2002).]

It is her nature to be full of knowledge. Knowledge includes knowledge of ignorance (matter) as well. But this knowledge does not make the Atma ignorant or unhappy. He actually is eternally happy.

 

 

[raga 0]

You did not answer the question.

 

Why are some atmas conscious of matter, embodied in this world, while others are not? What is the reason for this?

[raga 0]

I dont know, why JNDas should chip in ?

Perhaps because he is a person who has a wealth of knowledge in Vedanta, and he might contribute something worthwile to the discussion.

 

That's what we're doing here, discussiong -- is that right?

 

[Audarya lila 0]

I hope you won't consider me an intruder to your discussion here, but I have read through this thread and I am inclined to be involved at least peripherially.

 

I was a little surprised, Ram, by your comments that you feel that 'we all' (whoever that is - I assume you and Raga as I know that Janava Nitai certainly doesn't hold that same sentiment) have given up the 'so-called' shelter of Srila Prabhupada and have gone on to higher authorities and that therefore his interpretations are not germane to the discussion at hand. I know what authorities Raga has gone on to, but I am certainly most curious as to who the authorities are that you consider to be 'higher'. Be that as it may, you should know that Srila Prabhupada did not give simply his own interpretations of Bhagavad-gita, but relied heavily on previous Gaudiya acharyas, particularly Baladeva Vidyabushana.

 

Here is the translation and commentary of my spiritual master, Swami B.V. Tripurari, of the verse in question:

 

All actions are performed by the gunas. One who misidentifies with the body in false ego imagines "I am the doer."

 

*note: ahankara-vimudha is translated as: bewildered by egotism, and atma as: self

 

Commentary

 

"In this verse Krsna describes the bewilderment of the ignorant, who identify themselves with the body and mind. In ignorance, people think themselves to be independent in their action, seeing themselves as the agents of action. If they are enlightened, they can understand the nature of action: when it arises and how it can be harnessed to bring about emancipation. The functions of the body are the movements of material nature, whereas the soul is the nondoer. Without this understanding, ignorant people do not realize that they are embodied souls and that their physical actions and thoughts are not really their own - not the movement of their self, but movement under the influence of material nature, overseen by God.

 

While this verse stresses the difference between spirit and matter, the former being a witness to the action of the latter, the Gita's message is not entirely dualistic, and thus this verse understood in the context of the entire Gita cannot be equated with Sankya philosophy, which maintains complete dualism of matter and spirit. Baladeva Vidyabhusana points out that the individual soul is a factor in action, although only one among others. He cites Bhagavad-gita 18.14 where Krsna says as much himself. Material nature acts only as a result of contact with spirit, both God and the individual soul. Thus the soul is not without its influence over actions of the body. The limited sense in which the soul also acts is brought out in the following verse wherein we learn rather than becoming attached to the senses and sense objects, one can do otherwise."

 

Personally, I have thought about Ram's idea with regard to this verse and I don't feel that it accurately represents what Krsna is saying here. Matter is anitmated by consciouisness and it is this consciousness which is covered by the ego. This is the theme throughout the Gita - that there are two energies at work here - matter which is inferior and experienced and spirit which is conscious and thus the experiencer. The material energy is described as being constituted of eight principal ingredients in B.G. verse 7.4 and in 7.5 Krsna explains that there is a higher energy of his which consists of souls by which the universe is sustained.

 

Here is the translation and commentary to this verse from the Bhagavad-Gita, it's feeling and philosophy. I include this verse and commentary because it relates to the overall discussion:

 

However, other than this, O mighty-armed one, you should know that I have another, superior nature consisting of souls, by which this universe is sustained.

 

Commentary

 

"Material nature is inferior to consciousness. It is that which is experienced, as opposed to that which experiences. Matter is insentient, while consciousness is life itself.

 

The jiva-shakti consisting of individual souls is God's intermediate power. It is similar in nature to God and dissimilar to matter. It is at the same time dissimilar to God in that it is prone to being deluded by the influence of material nature. How can the jiva-shakti be deluded by material nature if it is superior to matter? Such is the power of illusion. Even while souls, units of consciousness, sustain the material world by their presence, due to their association with matter they think their existence is dependent on material conditions.

 

Krsna has described his intermediate power here as jiva-bhuta. In using the singular, he refers to the entire class of individual souls. The source of both the indiviual souls and matter is Krsna himself, as he affirms in the next verse."

 

I think this sheds some light on the questions being posed by Raga and lends some support to the interpretation of the word vimudhatma which he gave as well.

 

Your servant,

Audarya lila dasa

[raga 0]

I was a little surprised, Ram, by your comments that you feel that 'we all' (whoever that is - I assume you and Raga as I know that Janava Nitai certainly doesn't hold that same sentiment) have given up the 'so-called' shelter of Srila Prabhupada and have gone on to higher authorities and that therefore his interpretations are not germane to the discussion at hand. I know what authorities Raga has gone on to, but I am certainly most curious as to who the authorities are that you consider to be 'higher'.

I do not know to which authorities Ram has gone, but personally I respect the views of Swami Prabhupada, being a scholar and a teacher of the Vaishnava tradition. I may not take every word he says with the same absolute authority as his dedicated followers do, but this is certainly not tantamount to my disregarding his views.

 

[raga 0]

I think this sheds some light on the questions being posed by Raga and lends some support to the interpretation of the word vimudhatma which he gave as well.

Thanks Audarya-lilaji for sending it in. I am supposed to get a copy of the same in a few weeks, along with the Tattva Sandarbha.

 

I already began to ponder how far off the track I may be, but to my solace I discovered similar patterns of thought from both Baladeva and Jiva just yesterday. However, I'll not post them in this context, since here it is only shruti that counts, never mind the acaryas' commentaries on or derivations of the same.

 

[Guest guest]

So many of Srila Prabhupada's disciples have gone beyond what he taught in his books. This is because they believe at some point, his teachings are insufficient and not complete in the sense he did not cover everything the pUrvAchAryAs taught. What is wrong in me applying the same logic to the pUrvAchAryAs ? This is my reason for questioning the authority the authority. Please see my post in the thread "Siddha Pranali" for the complete reasons like sastras vs. acharyas.

 

As far as JNDas is concerned, he is the host in this forum, in another thread he declares that Srila Prabhupada is his spiritual master and I shall not debate him in his forum. Similarly, if any one accepts Srila Prabhupada as an authority in this forum then I shall not debate him here. I can't give no sruti support for this Raga - .

 

 

[Guest guest]

Audarya, let me humbly submit that mere assertion does not prove anything. I have countered Raga's presentation and am yet to answer just one more question that he has which I shall if every one wants.

 

[raga 0]

Originally posted by ram:

Audarya, let me humbly submit that mere assertion does not prove anything. I have countered Raga's presentation and am yet to answer just one more question that he has which I shall if every one wants.

What exactly is it that you have countered, Ram?

 

However, please proceed and answer to the question of why.

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

What exactly is it that you have countered, Ram?

B]

If you think I have not dealt with anything in the previous page, then even if I proceed it may be just be futile.

 

 

[raga 0]

Originally posted by ram:

If you think I have not dealt with anything in the previous page, then even if I proceed it may be just be futile.

 

 

Whenever it gets to the point that you should present a clear answer, you get around it.

 

Now, without any excuse -- please proceed to explain why one jIvAtma is conscious of matter, and another jIvAtma is not.

 

[Guest guest]

There is no need to give excuse for making a mistake, if I did, because it is very beneficial to learn, if wrong. Your question shall be answered.

 

Before that, let me clear the lack of clarity in my previous points. If it has not been clear to you, I submit that it is due to my miscommunication. Please specify what exactly is unclear in what I said so far before asking me to speak further.

[raga 0]

Originally posted by ram:

There is no need to give excuse for making a mistake, if I did, because it is very beneficial to learn, if wrong. Your question shall be answered.

 

Before that, let me clear the lack of clarity in my previous points. If it has not been clear to you, I submit that it is due to my miscommunication. Please specify what exactly is unclear in what I said so far before asking me to speak further.

We have now arrived at the root of all questions, which is likely to resolve everything. Let us return to any subsidiary concerns later.

 

Why some jIvAtmas are nitya-mukta, while others are in a state of bondage, focused on matter?

 

[Guest guest]

Let me also add that I presented my understanding only after we found the problems in translating atma as the soul or atma vRtti. Refer Page 3. If my objections are invalid, in your opinion, you should have established your thesis instead of asking me to present mine. Even now, if you think you can counter the points I made in page-3 onwards, please proceed and establish your points.

 

Even proving my understanding as wrong would not make yours right as there are objections. This may not be construed as an excuse, as I am more than willing to proceed with the answer to your question after you are done with your points.