• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Advaitham-Shri Mahaswamigal

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

s007bala

Guest
What would be the relationship between JIvAtmA and ParamAtmA ? This is an important question raised and answered by each of the schools in its own distinct way. One school says that the JIvAtmA will always be distinct from the ParamAtmA ; and in that state of moksha, the JIvAtmA would enjoy infinite bliss by worshipping the ParamAtmA with Bhakti – that is the Dvaita conclusion. Another says: Even though the JIvAtmA will be a separate soul doing Bhakti towards ParamAtmA , it will have the feeling of the ParamAtmA immanent in it as its soul; this is Vishishtadvaita. Still another says: When the Sun rises the stars do not lose their existence; they just disappear from view, because of the luminosity of the Sun; so also in moksha, the JIvAtmA , though it does not lose its existence, will have its own little consciousness submerged in the Absolute Consciousness of the ParamAtmA – this is the doctrine of Shaiva-siddhanta. There are still other schools of thought.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6661464/Advaita-Sadhana

sb
 
SELF is the answere

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - Dialog between Maitreyi and Yajnavalkya

The Dialog between Maitreyi and Yajnavalkya exploring the nature of Bhrahman as non-dual, all-inclusive and absolute, is an inspiring episode from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

The sage Yajnavalkya had two wives: Maitreyi and Katyayani. Of these, Maitreyi was conversant with the Knowledge of Brahman, while Katyayani had an essentially feminine outlook.

One day Yajnavalkya, when he wished to embrace another mode of life, said: “Maitreyi, my dear, I am going to renounce this life to become a monk. Let me make a final settlement between you and Katyayani.”

Maitreyi said: “Venerable Sir, if indeed the whole earth full of wealth belonged to me, would I be immortal through that or not?” “No,” replied Yajnavalkya, “your life would be just like that of people who have plenty. Of Immortality, however, there is no hope through wealth.” Then Maitreyi said: “What should I do with that which would not make me immortal? Tell me, venerable Sir, of that alone which you know to be the only means of attaining Immortality.”

Yajnavalkya replied: “My dear, you have been my beloved even before and now you have resolved to know what is after my heart. If you wish, my dear, I shall explain it to you. As I explain it, meditate on what I say.”
Everything is the Self, O Maitreyi !

Yajnavalkya said:

“Verily, not for the sake of the husband, my dear, is the husband loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self which, in its true nature, is one with the Supreme Self.

“Verily, not for the sake of the wife, my dear, is the wife loved, but she is loved for the sake of the self.

“Verily, not for the sake of the sons, my dear, are the sons loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.

“Verily, not for the sake of wealth, my dear, is wealth loved, but it is loved for the sake of the self.

“Verily, not for the sake of the animals, my dear, are the animals loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.

“Verily, not for the sake of the brahmin, my dear, is the brahmin loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self.

“Verily, not for the sake of the kshatriya, my dear, is the kshatriya loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self.

“Verily, not for the sake of the worlds, my dear, are the worlds loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.

“Verily, not for the sake of the gods, my dear, are the gods loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.

“Verily, not for the sake of the Vedas, my dear, are the Vedas loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.

“Verily, not for the sake of the beings, my dear, are the beings loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.

“Verily, not for the sake of the All, my dear, is the All loved, but it is loved for the sake of the self.

“Verily, my dear Maitreyi, it is the Self that should be realized—should be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon. By the realisation of the Self, my dear, through hearing, reflection and meditation, all this is known.

“The brahmin rejects one who knows him as different from the Self. The kshatriya rejects one who knows him as different from the Self. The worlds reject one who knows them as different from the Self. The gods reject one who knows them as different from the Self. The Vedas reject one who knows them as different from the Self. The beings reject one who knows them as different from the Self. The All rejects one who knows it as different from the Self.

This brahmin, this kshatriya, these worlds, these gods, these Vedas, these beings and this All—are that Self.

“As the various particular kinds of notes of a drum, when it is beaten, cannot be grasped by themselves, but are grasped only when the general note of the drum or the general sound produced by different kinds of strokes is grasped;

“And as the various particular notes of a conch, when it is blown, cannot be grasped by themselves, but are grasped only when the general note of the conch or the general sound produced by different kinds of blowing is grasped;

“And as the various particular notes of a vina, when it is played, cannot be grasped by themselves, but are grasped only when the general note of the vina or the general sound produced by the different kinds of playing is grasped;

“As from a fire kindled with wet fuel various kinds of smoke issue forth, even so, my dear, the Rig—Veda, the Yajur—Veda, the Sama—Veda, the Atharvangirasa, history (itihasa), mythology (purana), the arts (vidya), Upanishads, verses (slokas), aphorisms (sutras), elucidations (anuvyakhyanas), explanations (vyakhyanas), sacrifices, oblations in the fire, food, drink, this world, the next world and all beings are all like the breath of this infinite Reality. From this Supreme Self are all these, indeed, breathed forth.

“As the ocean is the one goal of all waters (the place where they merge), so the skin is the one goal of all kinds of touch, the nostrils are the one goal of all smells, the tongue is the one goal of all savours, the ear is the one goal of all sounds, the mind is the one goal of all deliberations, the intellect is the one goal of all forms of knowledge, the hands are the one goal of all actions, the organ of generation is the one goal of all kinds of enjoyment, the excretory organ is the one goal of all excretions, the feet are the one goal of all kinds of walking, the organ of speech is the one goal of all the Vedas.

“As a lump of salt has neither inside nor outside and is altogether a homogeneous mass of taste, even so this Self, my dear, has neither inside nor outside and is altogether a homogeneous mass of Intelligence. This Self comes out as a separate entity from the elements and with their destruction this separate existence is also destroyed. After attaining this oneness it has no more consciousness. This is what I say, my dear.” So said Yajnavalkya.

Then Maitreyi said: “Just here you have completely bewildered me, venerable Sir. Indeed, I do not at all understand this.” He replied:

“Certainly I am not saying anything bewildering, my dear. Verily, this Self is immutable and indestructible

sb:attention:
 
"After attaining this oneness it has no more consciousness"

who translated this....
 
this " no more consciousness" is something wrong and erroneous

for consciousness is satyam,gnanam , anantam and brahmam...
 
re

this " no more consciousness" is something wrong and erroneous

for consciousness is satyam,gnanam , anantam and brahmam...

M M,self attains a state of no more consciouness,or samadhi or moksham or merging with brahman or a state of non-dual existence,thru which state Adi Sankara could drink molten lead or walk thru a locked door...etc but yet adi sankaras disciples could not emulate such acts....when you become non dual ie self of self as self....my expressions may not convey the exact mahavakyas as mine is a feeble attempt with enlightened masters of yore...

sb
 
pch,pch...

if you correctly know, then you have reached the ashore... if your knowing is mistaken then you will never reach the ashore.

that is the significance of knowing correctly about SELF.
..........................

even when you sleep with your consciousness completely covered in tamas, consciousness exist in latent form, that's why you get rejuvented , when you woke up.

your first sentence is an erroneous guess work.

regards
 
re

Dear All,

Please tel the gayathri mantra at every minute of your life

Shri Manikandan

When Mahaswamigal was alive in a body with his physical presence,he used urge brahmins to chant the Gayathri Mantram and do SandyaVandanam,as the very least of all rituals to be followed.When i used to do this,a potent force of spiritual nature used to exist in me.Nowadays,i have fallen on the wayward side and become too materialistic,and forgotten to listen to the grand old wise saint of the world.

sb
 
M M

>>your first sentence is an erroneous guess work.<<

Its a matter of your opinion.

sb
 
re

correctly said.

my opinion has the support of logic

People should evaluate your opinion,and pass on their opinion.Thats the norm.Self-opiniated persons declaring their own opinion,also do exist.Mahaswamigal is a wise old avataram.For me,his opinion matters,even though its an relic of antiquity.Vedas are the pramanas,and different schools of doctrines have emanated.12 schools if we include the 6 schools which do not adhere the vedic injunctions.

But then,you are an excellent debater,with a wealth of knowledge,helping one and all in the forum to understand sanathana dharma.I personally acknowledge your superior logic,as well as knower of knowledge.

sb
 
sb!

which school is correct should be contested and the matter should be settled.

if we leave it like that, it only confuses people.As you see the musings here, they say there are many philosophies, many paths , even one elder here, went on to say , Truth doesn't need any path as Truth is inexpressible, another said all religion leads to same goal , path doesn't matter.

Even within the advaita , people like you began to quote the translations available in the net, without even checking the quality of the translation.

See if the "Truth" is wrongly understood , then the stake is enoromous. One is doomed in Samsara .

But if one approach for the "Truth" , is done with shradda, devotion and take precaution to gain knowledge through a structured way, what he gains is "Freedom" .
Just see the difference between the two.

People like you should consider this again and again my deep request and give proper priority to attain the KNOWLEDGE.

Regards
 
M M

>>which school is correct should be contested and the matter should be settled.

if we leave it like that, it only confuses people.As you see the musings here, they say there are many philosophies, many paths , even one elder here, went on to say , Truth doesn't need any path as Truth is inexpressible, another said all religion leads to same goal , path doesn't matter.<<

Just as in engineering,we have many branches like Mechanical,Civil,Electronics....similiarly in Vedanta based on Vedas,we have Advaita,Dvaita,Visistadvaita.....all are seemingly correct,in their own parameters.And all are needed as a choesive group to function in humanity.

>>Even within the advaita , people like you began to quote the translations available in the net, without even checking the quality of the translation.<<

The example from the net was about merging of salt with water and becoming oneness.Just for argument sake,these two molecules of hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen,are needed to combine to produce water,as oneness!!Similiarly one molecule of Sodium and one molecule of choloride is required to produce sodium chloride which we call as common salts.So,many compounds are required to produce an entity.Each has a distinct character,to gives us the final merging of complex compounds.These days even the english people whose mother tongue is english,is making a mess of their own language,let alone natives like me and you and other folks in India,trying to translate in english,from the original samskritam litreature!



>>See if the "Truth" is wrongly understood , then the stake is enoromous. One is doomed in Samsara .

But if one approach for the "Truth" , is done with shradda, devotion and take precaution to gain knowledge through a structured way, what he gains is "Freedom" .<<

The wise have said,Truth is said by many people,with their own perception,in many different ways.The attempt is,to make one understand this.Only the brahman knows the truth.Rest in the world have only speculated truth,and said this is truth!

>>Just see the difference between the two.

People like you should consider this again and again my deep request and give proper priority to attain the KNOWLEDGE.<<

If we want to see the difference and highlight it we can do that.If we want to integrate and see,we can do that.Ultimately,truth remains as truth,regardless how each one of us interpret it.And that is the truth :),is where my knowledge is hanging.Thanks to Mahaswamigals blessings.

sb
 
..even one elder here, went on to say , Truth doesn't need any path as Truth is inexpressible, another said all religion leads to same goal , path doesn't matter.

Since am the one that recently said that truth is inexpressable, am not sure if the above refers to me. Therefore am clarifying. If the post was not intended to refer to me, then my apologies for writing this in b/w here.

i said that truth is considered inexpressible coz have heard yogis say that the heartbeat (anahata) cannot be expressed in words, but it exists. It is real. When one merges into the heartbeat and moves into the world where the heartbeat has yet to originate (the place of unmanifest sound), it is impossible to express into words what exists there - and that world is not about perception. it is not an illusion, yet it exists, it is real, but describing it in anyway wud not yet describe it, so it is considered inexpressible.
 
Last edited:
On behalf of Malgova.Mango i am posting this....

From MM

SB JI!
your first para reply is illogical , as the subject of discussion is on one particular disciplin and not many.

See the answer to question "Who are You? or Who Am I" is the subject matter.

Mechanical , Electrical , Chemistry - deals with different domains wheras Vedanta Deals with only one question.

The answers are aslo given in the Pramana Vakyas.


For your no.2

Again the equation is a simple statement like "I = Brahmam" "Aham Bramha Asmi"
it is not a chemical reaction equation ie. " I --> Brahmam" I become brhamam thru some process" , for if it is then equations should be "Aham Bramha bhavami" but that is not what the Pramana Shastra says.

again va and d rejects Brahmam ( guna rahita) , by that they challenges the Pramana shastram . If one say this is what the final say of Pramana shastra , then nothing could be more absurd.

d and va are the unrefined conculsions of any seeker for this you don't need need any teaching . No wonder many of our co-forumites have a lax attitude about teaching and theory.

If Pramana Shastram say "I = Bramha " then that's interesting is it not? . then only you will feel the urge to connect to the teaching. if not , no one will be interested.

for your no. 3

The wisest possible of anybody anyone and anything says the Truth is "Tat Tvam Asi"

Now what do you say about this.

VA says THERE IS NO TAT and if somene talks "TAT" then he is tatupithu .... What to say? In such a way there ACHARYALS made the Siddantam. What a Pity!

Regards
NR (how you find this? till now you didn't reply?)

I've no access to internet , only emails can be accessed for the next 2 days - so if you could post this on my behalf.. that would be great.

sb
 
M M

Ramana Maharshi's translation,by Shri Alan Jacob :-

Disputing the nature of the Self without attempting Self-realization merely constitutes delusion. Without trying to realize in the heart that reality which is the true nature of all, and without trying to abide in it, to engage in disputations as to whether the reality exists or not, or is real or not, denotes delusion born of ignorance.

From Bhagavath Gita:-

Chapter 3. Karma-yoga

TEXT 17

yas tv atma-ratir eva syad
atma-trptas ca manavah
atmany eva ca santustas
tasya karyam na vidyate

SYNONYMS
yah--one who; tu--but; atma-ratih--takes pleasure; eva--certainly; syat--remains; atma-trptah--self-illuminated; ca--and; manavah--a man; atmani--in himself; eva--only; ca--and; santustah--perfectly satiated; tasya--his; karyam--duty; na--does not; vidyate--exist.

TRANSLATION
One who is, however, taking pleasure in the self, who is illuminated in the self, who rejoices in and is satisfied with the self only, fully satiated--for him there is no duty.

Chapter 3. Karma-yoga

TEXT 33

sadrsam cestate svasyah
prakrter jnanavan api
prakrtim yanti bhutani
nigrahah kim karisyati

SYNONYMS
sadrsam--accordingly; cestate--tries; svasyah--in one's own nature; prakrteh--modes; jnana-van--learned; api--although; prakrtim--nature; yanti--undergo; bhutani--all living entities; nigrahah--suppression; kim--what; karisyati--can do.

TRANSLATION
Even a man of knowledge acts according to his own nature, for everyone follows his nature. What can repression accomplish?
......

Let's do self introspection.....

sb
 
A Dharma For All

Money is not essential to the performance of the rites enjoyed by the sastras, nor is pomp and circumstance essential to worship. Even dried tulasi and bilva leaves are enough to perform puja. The rice we cook for ourselves will do as the naivedya. "Marriage is also a sastric ceremony. We spend a lot of money on it. What about such expenses? " it is asked. All the lavish display we see at weddings today are unnecessary and do not have the sanction of the scriptures. Specifically, the dowry that forms such a substantial part of the marriage expenses has no scriptural sanction at all. If money were important to the performance of the rites enjoyed by our canonical texts it would mean that our religion is meant for rich people. In truth it is not so.

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part4/chap1.htm

sb
 
sb sir!

i'm not disputing the reality or Self, what I'm pointing is the conclusions of VA and D are not final - since they both reject pure Self (Nirguna aathma or Bramham).

thanks for the posting.

regards
 
M M

There are Achaaryals of all schools.We should give respect and take respect.If D and VA have a philosophical school of thought,we should respect it,at least i do.I go to all stalams ,all gurus,without distinction,as a true advaitin.Why i should see duality?isn't it?I try to correct myself,becoz i have seen,thats all one can do and by grace god i am happy,in my antaryami :)

sb
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top