niyamas of bhakti yoga

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

If all souls are eternally conscious of their nature, then why do we bother doing any spiritual practices at all? Anyway the soul is aware of his glory forever.

 

This is a good question and it has been answered for thousands of years. We, the material personalities produced by this illusory material world (ahankara etc.), are not aware of our true blissful nature, the nature of brahman. So we think we are enjoying, suffering etc. This is like the fish in the mirage saying the water in the mirage is sweet or salty. The desert is not affected whether the the fish in the mirage is finding the water sweet or salty. There is no problem that is worth solving because there is no real problem to solve. Otherwise, the Lord would have solved it.

 

But in this illusory world of three gunAs, Vedas and the spiritual practices are required because we, the illusory material personalities, do experience the mirage. While this is so, our soul is fully aware of its own nature and the nature of illusion.

 

When we become tattva vits or jivan mukta, even in this body we will relish the eternal bliss of the soul. One who surrenders to the Supreme Lord, attains His nature - eternal bliss.

 

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 06-07-2002).]

[raga 0]

We, the material personalities produced by this illusory material world (ahankara etc.), are not aware of our true blissful nature, the nature of brahman.

Are you saying that a combination of elements of prakRti is not aware of its true nature of being the Atma?

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

Are you saying that a combination of elements of prakRti is not aware of its true nature of being the Atma?

If you think I am foolish enough to say that the illusory matter is brahman, so be it. It is the difficulty of expressing in English concepts which are succinctly expressed in Sanskrit. Even though, I edit for correctness, mistakes do come in. Let me try my best to elucidate.

 

You are brahman (tat tvam asi) and by your nature you know that (vipascin). There is no such thing as ignorant genius or a foolish brahman. In the illusory material world, your material personality thinks I am this and that. Vedas teach you that it is not true. It tells you that you are like a man in the dream or fish in a mirage. Vedas also teach us that there is a real you - the soul or brahman.

 

While in this world, the false you can experience the real you. But at that time there is no false you because ahankara which is the cause of the false you is destroyed before you see the real you. This is obviously wonderful because self-realization is beyond all mundane experiences. That is why the Lord says that atma darshana is wonderful.

 

[raga 0]

This is like the fish in the mirage saying the water in the mirage is sweet or salty. The desert is not affected whether the the fish in the mirage is finding the water sweet or salty. There is no problem that is worth solving because there is no real problem to solve. Otherwise, the Lord would have solved it.

The example above is far-fetched and disfunctional.

 

1. There are no fishes in the deserts.

2. Mirages do not have a taste.

3. A desert is not a conscious entity.

4. The relationship between the fish and the desert does not resemble the relationship between the atma and the ahankara-produced identity.

5. The relationship between the fish and the mirage is not the same as between the ahankara-produced identity and the prakriti.

 

I wonder if your flow of conceptions draws from any recognized school of Vedanta. Which school's conceptions do you follow, Ram?

 

[karthik_v 0]

Originally posted by raga:

The example above is far-fetched and disfunctional.

 

1. There are no fishes in the deserts.

2. Mirages do not have a taste.

3. A desert is not a conscious entity.

4. The relationship between the fish and the desert does not resemble the relationship between the atma and the ahankara-produced identity.

5. The relationship between the fish and the mirage is not the same as between the ahankara-produced identity and the prakriti.

 

I wonder if your flow of conceptions draws from any recognized school of Vedanta. Which school's conceptions do you follow, Ram?

1. There are fishes in oases.

2. Taste is not dependent on the object. It depends on the taster. For example, a bland food tastes great if you had been starving for 48 hours. You may not touch the same stuff had your wife been cooking for you. The site of mango on TV brings to your nostrils a perception of its aroma and to your buds a perception of its taste.

3. Isn't every entity conscious? Isn't moon conscious?

4/5. Fish is real - mirage is unreal. Atma is real - the perception of the material world by ahankara is unreal. Hence, the relationship is the same.

 

An anology can only be used to demonstrate the truth. It doesn't have to be or doesn't become the truth itself. If we are stuck in semantics, we lose every oppurtunity to see the truth.

[Guest guest]

Examples are meant to explain some thing which seems difficult to understand. Let me briefly counter your arguments about the examples. But the points are established by direct statements like tejo vAri mRtam yata, ajam, vipascin, sthanuh, acalah etc. Do you agree with these direct statements ?

 

1. There are no fishes in the deserts.

Counter : This is an analogous to men in dream. The idea is to convey sub-real nature of material identity.

 

2. Mirages do not have a taste.

Counter : Is that not my point too ? There is no real taste in the material world - happiness or distress. Compared to spiritual bliss, this is misery - duhkhalayam.

 

3. A desert is not a conscious entity.

Counter : I did not say that. Just like mirage cannot exist without the desert, the material world does not exist without the substratum. The point of the example is to say that that a mirage does not make the desert muddy. This has been communicated by direct statements like vipascin.

 

4. The relationship between the fish and the desert does not resemble the relationship between the atma and the ahankara-produced identity.

5. The relationship between the fish and the mirage is not the same as between the ahankara-produced identity and the prakriti.

Counter : It depends on the conception of the atma that you have - whether it is sastric or not.

 

I wonder if your flow of conceptions draws from any recognized school of Vedanta. Which school's conceptions do you follow, Ram?

Counter : Please reflect dispassionately. You have presented the concepts from the acharyas. I may not have fully convinced you and never may but the questions that I raised are not answered. Also, I have so far established my points in a self-consistent manner without contradictions. Is it possible for me, who am a mere mortal ? It should be obvious to you that this only possible for a Vedanta school of thought. Recognized! by whom may I ask ?

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 06-07-2002).]

[raga 0]

Originally posted by ram:

You are brahman (tat tvam asi) and by your nature you know that (vipascin). There is no such thing as ignorant genius or a foolish brahman. In the illusory material world, your material personality thinks I am this and that. Vedas teach you that it is not true. It tells you that you are like a man in the dream or fish in a mirage. Vedas also teach us that there is a real you - the soul or brahman.

"In the illusory material world, your material personality thinks I am this and that. Vedas teach you that it is not true."

 

What do you mean? The material personality consists of a combination of material elements with particular characteristics, which combine into a certain "personality". That is certainly true. The body and the mind are what they are.

 

[raga 0]

Where is the Atma in your fish-example? Is it the desert? If so, please explain the similarity between desert/fish and atma/false-identity. The desert does not contribute to the existence or consciousness of the fish as atma does to the existence of the false-identity.

 

Also, I have so far established my points in a self-consistent manner without contradictions. Is it possible for me, who am a mere mortal ? It should be obvious to you that this only possible for a Vedanta school of thought.

"Self-consistent manner" -- Well, I guess it depends on who's looking at it.

 

Recognized! by whom may I ask ?

Yes, you may. By anyone. Any school of thought.

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

"In the illusory material world, your material personality thinks I am this and that. Vedas teach you that it is not true."

 

What do you mean? The material personality consists of a combination of material elements with particular characteristics, which combine into a certain "personality". That is certainly true. The body and the mind are what they are.

I humbly submit it is not true. Sastras say tejo vAri mRtam tatA. Gold looks different from a stone. But it is made of the same five elements. So it is non-different from a mere stone. Material world is not completely false. Just that it does not have any existence independant of Vasudeva, who is brahman by nature. Vasudevam sarvam iti. Whatever appears to be different from Him, is non-real.

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 06-07-2002).]

[Guest guest]

Statement : Where is the Atma in your fish-example? Is it the desert? If so, please explain the similarity between desert/fish and atma/false-identity. The desert does not contribute to the existence or consciousness of the fish as atma does to the existence of the false-identity.

 

Counter : Why dont you look at the direct statements ? tejo vAri mRtam yatA, viapscin, ajam etc. Instead of understanding the examples, you are arguing them sematically. Any way.

 

Desert/Fish is similar to Dreamer/Dream. As I told you I just combined them for what I thought would make it simpler. A dreamer may dream of a horse with a horn in the dream who suffers pain and pleasure. Without the dreamer, there is no dream or the "consciousness" of the freak horse. But the dreamer exists in between the dreams also. Is the dream real ? No. Is it unreal ? No.

 

 

[Guest guest]

By anyone. Any school of thought.

No school of thought accepts the other fully. Then there is no need for two schools of thought. What kind of certification do you want ?

 

 

[raga 0]

Kindly excuse me for signing out of this discussion. I do not have the time, the energy nor the interest for unlimited counter-counter-counter arguments.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sarvam KrishnArpanamasthu. Hare Krishna.

[gHari 0]

Gentlemen,

 

I have followed this discussion with great interest, for indeed the topic itself is cleansing to consider. I see much truth from both schools in terms of my own experience and understanding. Deep down inside I have to cite the fallibility of words to be the seemingly apparent difference in the two conceptions of the mighty Atma and the conditioned state.

 

I would find it interesting to hear of our understandings of the one other variable in the equation that we have not addressed to any great length. We have described the interplay of the hierarchy of the senses, mind, intellect, ahaGkAra, and Atma. The other component of this topology is actually beyond the soul. It is param Atma; namely ParamAtmA.

 

As Ram has recently noted, it is actually ParamAtmA who effects the dancing of the gunas. We were at one point attempting to define the mechanism by which the jivatma who is perfect finds itself drowning in the material whirlpool. Karma is certainly a factor. Is it stored in the memory of ParamAtmA for later implementation? Does it remain in the ahaGkAra which then follows attached to the jiva soul?

 

My feel is that it is all a question of devotion which is an eternal facet of the jiva's make-up. When devotion is correct and focused on the Supreme, then we experience the Atma beyond space and time, without the gunas. However, when devotion goes awry, ParamAtmA arranges suitable learning experiences in the material world for the jiva to become rehabilitated.

 

I keep remembering the verse in the MuNDaka and SvetAzvatara Upanishads that explains the dynamic of the Atma and ParamAtmA as two birds in the same tree, one trying to enjoy the fruits in the tree while the other waits patiently for His friend to turn towards Him. I cannot speak of the Atma without involving ParamAtmA.

 

I am sure we all realize that this topic is in no way trivial; that a few paragraphs off the cuff here and there will likely not be able to sum up the complex dynamic that places us in this human form questing after the eternal AtmA nature we read about and sense is our true self. I think if we keep this simple fact about the wonderful complexity of God foremost in our hearts, we can relate more readily to the various pieces of wisdom that the great acaryas, sadhus and Vedas have left for us hinting at our real dilemma.

 

Here is a reference from that same Upanishad as translated by A.C. Bhaktivedanta:

According to the MuNDaka UpaniSad (3.1.1–2):

<center>

dvA suparNA sayujA sakhAyA

samAnaM vRkSaM pariSasvajAte

 

tayor anyaH pippalaM svAdv atty

anaznann anyo 'bhicAkazIti

 

samAne vRkSe puruSo nimagno

'nIzayA zocati muhyamAnaH

 

juSTaM yadA pazyaty anyam Izam

asya mahimAnam eti vIta-zokaH

</center>

The MuNDaka UpaniSad completely distinguishes the Lord from the living entities. The living entity is subjected to the reactions of fruitive activity, whereas the Lord simply witnesses such activity and bestows the results. According to the living entity's desires, he is wandering from one body to another and from one planet to another, under the direction of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, ParamAtmA. However, when the living entity comes to his senses by the mercy of the Lord, he is awarded devotional service. Thus he is saved from the clutches of mAyA. At such a time he can see his eternal friend, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and become free from all lamentation and hankering. This is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gItA (18.54), where the Lord says, brahma-bhUtaH prasannAtmA na zocati na kAGkSati: "One who is thus transcendentally situated at once realizes the Supreme Brahman and becomes fully joyful. He never laments or desires to have anything." Thus it is definitely proved that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the master of all potencies and that the living entities are always subjected to these potencies. That is the difference between mAyAdhIza and mAyA-vaza.

 

gHari

[gHari 0]

Oooops.

 

[This message has been edited by gHari (edited 06-08-2002).]

[gHari 0]

Originally posted by ram:

[...] We, the material personalities produced by this illusory material world (ahankara etc.), are not aware of our true blissful nature, the nature of brahman. [...]

This again begs the unanswered question: Why are "the material personalities produced by this illusory material world (ahankara etc.)"? Which souls end up having one of these ahankaras leeched upon it, and why, and what circumstances? After we get rid of the ahankara and experience the cool, then can that ever happen again - will the ahankara ever resurrect?

 

From the writings here, it almost appears that we feel that somehow we are now experiencing the bliss of the soul and at the same time experiencing the illusion. Or perhaps we need to define what is the atma - is it an object, place, quality, process, etc? Or maybe the atma is sitting there enjoying bliss, but no one is aware of that except Paramatma, since we are here experiencing the internet? This is as though a cancer diseased body is experiencing great pain, but since the owner of that body is on drugs, he does not actually experience the pain - although pain is the nature of the body now.

 

 

[Guest guest]

As Raga has left the thread, I dont want to continue the thread as it was started for him. Let me just say a few words. The soul is not affected by the illusory material personalities (tejo vAri mRtam yatA). Atma has been defined in the Bhagavad Gita by the Lord Himself. There is no need to redefine it. It is sufficient to TRY understand about the atma.

 

 

[Guest guest]

There are no contradictions in the Vedas. If the brahman is eternally without fault, there cannot be another verse which says that the soul gets muddied by matter and is rehabilitated. In these verses, there is no mention of atma and paramatma in the verses themselves.

[raga 0]

There are no contradictions in the Vedas. If the brahman is eternally without fault, there cannot be another verse which says that the soul gets muddied by matter and is rehabilitated. In these verses, there is no mention of atma and paramatma in the verses themselves.

Let me just contribute my few more paisa.

 

Is there proof in the shruti (or anywhere) to back up the idea that the soul (Atma) is equal to brahman in all respects?

 

 

The soul is not affected by the illusory material personalities (tejo vAri mRtam yatA).

This verse does not particularly speak about the relationship of atma and matter. It just speaks about the suras being bewildered.

 

I would also like to note that if you quote from the Bhagavata, you'll have to accept its authority in full (according to your own logic). The Bhagavata (1.1.2) states:

 

zrImad-bhAgavate mahA-muni-kRte kiM vA parair IzvaraH

sadyo hRdy avarudhyate ’tra kRtibhiH zuzrUSubhis tat-kSaNAt

 

"Since Maha-muni Vyasa compiled the Srimad Bhagavata, where is the need for anything more? As pious men serve this Bhagavata, without delay the Supreme Lord will appear within their hearts."

 

Do you agree with this statement? If so, then we have no more need to refer to shruti-shastra.

 

[Guest guest]

Raga, if you have time, energy and interest I dont mind continuing the discussion. But if you leave in the middle, it may not add value. -

 

Question : Is there proof in the shruti (or anywhere) to back up the idea that the soul (Atma) is equal to brahman in all respects?

 

Answer : Yes. ahamasmi brahmaahamasmi. aham brahmasmi. tat tvam asi.

 

 

Question : This verse does not particularly speak about the relationship of atma and matter.

 

Answer : It talks about the nature of the material world as illusory. Something illusory does not affect the atma is an anumana which is confirmed by BG which says the soul is not affected by matter. Also, it goes on to say the soul is unaffected eternally.

 

Question : "Since Maha-muni Vyasa compiled the Srimad Bhagavata, where is the need for anything more? As pious men serve this Bhagavata, without delay the Supreme Lord will appear within their hearts." Do you agree with this statement? If so, then we have no more need to refer to shruti-shastra.

 

Answer : I never said that we have to quote only from shruti. In fact, most of my quotes were from Bhagavad Gita and one from Bhagavatha. When did I ever say that Bhagavatham or Bhagavad Gita are without authority ? Let us see why Jiva Gosvami did not use this statement to establish Bhgavatham as the only authority. Let us also try to understand why the gaudiya acharyas also quote from upanishads and even other puranas.

[Guest guest]

Let me just contribute my few more paisa.

 

If you have the time, energy and interest, put in all your dollars and I will take it. But without that it may not be fruitful. -

[raga 0]

Question : Is there proof in the shruti (or anywhere) to back up the idea that the soul (Atma) is equal to brahman in all respects?

 

Answer : Yes. ahamasmi brahmaahamasmi. aham brahmasmi. tat tvam asi.

How about "sarvam khalv idam brahma"? Everything is brahman, including the prakRti. Nevertheless, we observe changes in this brahman. Therefore the jIvAtmas are said to struggle with mind and senses in the Gita (15.7) in this material world. All the attributes of parabrahman, paramatma or brahmajyoti do not apply to the jIvAtma's faculty of consciousness.

 

Let us see why Jiva Gosvami did not use this statement to establish Bhgavatham as the only authority.

Jiva quotes a very similar verse (BhP. 12.13.15):

 

sarva-vedAnta-sAraM hi zrI-bhAgavatam iSyate

tad-rasAmRta-tRptasya nAnyatra syAd ratiH kvacit

 

"Srimad Bhagavatam is the essence of all Vedanta, spoken by Sri Bhagavan. Having tasted its rasa-amrita, one will not be attracted to any other literature." [The word "literature" is an evident meaning for the "other", drawing from the context in Bhagavata, where it is declared the supreme among Puranas.]

 

There are many similar statements therein. Prior to that, Jiva presents heaps of material from other sources to establish the eminent position of the Bhagavata, since it would be circular to begin with the statements of that which is to be established.

<small>

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 06-09-2002).]

[raga 0]

Originally posted by ram:

Let me just contribute my few more paisa.

 

If you have the time, energy and interest, put in all your dollars and I will take it. But without that it may not be fruitful. -

My bucks are already invested. I only have a few spare cents left to go, and I'll be using them sparingly. Let me give it a try anyway. Let me try this one, explaining the concept of jiva's being "tatastha-shakti" (marginal energy). Some shruti for change.

 

From the Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad: <font color=blue><blockquote>7. Ganaka Vaideha asks: “What is the self?” Yajnavalkya replies, speaking about the self as follows:

 

Yajnavalkya replied: "He who is within the heart, surrounded by the pranas (senses), the person of light, consisting of knowledge. He, remaining the same, wanders along the two worlds, as if thinking, as if moving. During sleep (in dream) he transcends this world and all the forms of death (all that falls under the sway of death, all that is perishable).

 

8. "On being born that person, assuming his body, becomes united with all evils; when he departs and dies, he leaves all evils behind.

 

9. tasya vA etasya puruSasya dve eva sthAne

bhavata idaJ ca paraloka-sthAnaJ ca

sandhyaM tRtIyaM svapna-sthAnaM

tasmin sandhye sthAne tiSThann ete ubhe

sthAne pazyatIdaJ ca paraloke-sthAnaJ ca

 

(Brihad Aranyaka Upanisad, 4.3.9)

 

"For this person, there are two states, one in this world and one in the world beyond. He is in a third, marginal state, the state of sleep. Situated in this position of juncture, he sees both states."</font></blockquote>From this it is evident that there are different states of being for the jIvAtma, and its eternal, spiritual nature is not mixed with matter (though focused on it), thus remaining unchanged.

 

Besides, sarvam khalv idam brahma, it is all various manifestations of brahman, so how could there be any adulteration with something else than brahman! And if it is all brahman, how can there be adulteration in its nature of spirit, even if the jIvAtma were in touch with prakRti through its conscious faculty! At any rate, we perceive different states of awareness in the jIvAtma, and consequently there are varieties of divine impetus which have effect on the jIvAtma.

 

[Guest guest]

Raga, please dont read the following as an attempt to reconvert you to ISKCON. I suppose you were initiated in ISKCON by SP and then left. SP has been the source of GVV knowledge to the western world - world at large in fact. I suppose you are his disciple. If you accept his translation and authority, you will be on a strong wicket even though you think otherwise. Anyway, if you want to struggle with my counter-counter-counter arguments, it is fine. That is the ignorance of your atma -

 

Statement : How about "sarvam khalv idam brahma"? Everything is brahman, including the prakRti. Nevertheless, we observe changes in this brahman. Therefore the jIvAtmas are said to struggle with mind and senses in the Gita (15.7) in this material world. All the attributes of parabrahman, paramatma or brahmajyoti do not apply to the jIvAtma's faculty of consciousness.

Counter : The world of prakRti is illusory. tejo vAri mRtam yatA. So the only thing that is there is brahman - sarvam khalv idam brahman. So dont be bothered with the changing world. This is synonymous to saying vAsudevam sarvam iti. I wont bother to answer 15.7 because you are yet to answer the meaning that you take for karsati.

 

 

Statement : There are many similar statements therein. Prior to that, Jiva presents heaps of material from other sources to establish the eminent position of the Bhagavata, since it would be circular to begin with the statements of that which is to be established.

Counter : Why do Guadiya Vaishnava acharyas quote from any other literature like Padma Purana and even Skanda Purana ? Where is the need for Caitanya Caritamrta ? And countless other later day literatures ?

 

[raga 0]

I suppose you were initiated in ISKCON by SP and then left. SP has been the source of GVV knowledge to the western world - world at large in fact. I suppose you are his disciple.

No, I am not his disciple, and I did not receive initiation from him.

 

 

The world of prakRti is illusory. tejo vAri mRtam yatA. So the only thing that is there is brahman - sarvam khalv idam brahman. So dont be bothered with the changing world. This is synonymous to saying vAsudevam sarvam iti.

vAsudevam sarvam iti is certainly true, since zakti-zaktimator abhedaH.

 

 

I wont bother to answer 15.7 because you are yet to answer the meaning that you take for karsati.

KarSatI -- pulling to and fro , dragging , tormenting , vexing .

 

 

Why do Guadiya Vaishnava acharyas quote from any other literature like Padma Purana and even Skanda Purana ? Where is the need for Caitanya Caritamrta ? And countless other later day literatures ?

Whatever is in harmony with the message of the Bhagavata is accepted, quoted and relished among Gaudiya Vaishnavas. However, no emphasis is given for the sadhaka to extensively study other literature, since Bhagavata contains all the essential conclusions for developing suddha-bhakti. Countless later day literatures are elaborations on the Bhagavata, following in the wake of its inner mood.