ADVAITA-L Digest - 4 May 1997 to 5 May 1997

[Madhavan Srinivasan]

>From @tamvm1.tamu.edu:owner-advaita-l at tamu.edu Mon May  5 18:44:10 1997
>Received: from TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU by tamvm1.tamu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
>   with BSMTP id 0551; Mon, 05 May 97 20:40:54 CDT
>Received: from TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV at TAMVM1) by TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU
(LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1953; Mon, 5 May 1997 20:40:54 -0500
>Received: from TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU by TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
>          1.8b) with spool id 1620 for ADVAITA-L at TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU; Mon, 5 May
>          1997 20:40:49 -0500
>Received: from TAMVM1 (NJE origin SMTPI at TAMVM1) by TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU (LMail
>          V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1947 for <advaita-l at TAMVM1>; Mon, 5 May
>          1997 20:40:48 -0500
>Received: from mail.tamu.edu by tamvm1.tamu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with TCP;
>          Mon, 05 May 97 20:40:48 CDT
>Received: (from daemon at localhost) by mail.tamu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA02575
>          for advaita-l at tamvm1.tamu.edu; Mon, 5 May 1997 20:40:53 -0500 (CDT)
>Received: from aba.nsrc.nus.sg (aba.nsrc.nus.sg [137.132.15.2]) by
>          mail.tamu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA02557 for
>          <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>; Mon, 5 May 1997 20:40:48 -0500 (CDT)
>Received: (from prasad at localhost) by aba.nsrc.nus.sg (8.8.5/8.8.4) id JAA06786
>          for ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU; Tue, 6 May 1997 09:40:40 +0800 (SGT)
>X-PH: V4.1 at mail.tamu.edu
>X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8b]
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Message-ID:  <199705060140.JAA06786 at aba.nsrc.nus.sg>
>Date:         Tue, 6 May 1997 09:40:39 +0800
>Reply-To:     "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
>Sender:       "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
>From:         Srinivas Prasad <prasad at NSRC.NUS.SG>
>Subject:      Re: ADVAITA-L Digest - 4 May 1997 to 5 May 1997
>Comments: To: ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU
>To:           Multiple recipients of list ADVAITA-L <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
>In-Reply-To:  <199705051708.BAA04948 at aba.nsrc.nus.sg> from "Automatic digest
>              processor" at May 5, 97 12:00:27 pm
>
>>
>> Date:    Mon, 5 May 1997 11:04:55 -0500
>> From:    VP Nandakumar <nandav01 at M0E3S33.NMB.NORWEST.COM>
>> Subject: Bhakthi, Karma and Jnana Yoga
>>
>>         I've been thinking about what was said on Bhakthi Yoga, Karma Yoga
and
>> Jnana Yoga. That one cannot attain Brahman, by practicing each alone, but
> should
>> practice all three.
>>
>
>   In all the three cases One is interlinked with the other. Bhakti can come
>  only by removing agnana. This leads to pure devotion, which will get
>  transformed in doing Nishkamakarma. At later stage one will attain
>   Jnana yoga by Sadhana. Just having Jnana with out Karma and Bhakti
>  is useless.

What? "Just having Jnana without Karma and Bhakti is useless"
What is the meaning of "Just having Jnana"?
The supreme goal of all the three yogas is "Jnana".
So, one can follow one of the three yogas to attain "Jnana".
Jnana Yoga is the direct approach to attain "Jnana" by removing the
agnana through enquiries.
Bhakthi and Karma Yogas are used to attain "Jnana" by removing the
agnana through Bhakthi and Karma.




---------------------------------------------------------
Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------
>From ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU Wed May  7 10:03:39 1997
Message-Id: <WED.7.MAY.1997.100339.0230.ADVAITAL at TAMU.EDU>
Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 10:03:39 -0230
Reply-To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy at MORGAN.UCS.MUN.CA>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Kala Dharma
Comments: To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <9704068629.AA862937724 at smtplink.ar.bmc>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 6 May 1997, Anand Hudli wrote:

>   Gummuluru Murthy wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 2 May 1997, Pawan Kumar wrote:
>
> >> Namaskaram,
> >>
> >>         Is there any rule that "Brahmins should follow kaladharma"
> >>         (I am referring out whether a Brahmin can forget some things
> >>          like Upanayanam) because for his earnnings and comforts
> >>          he may not get time to do it. Can anyone tell me more on
> >>         Kaladharma in this context.
> >>
>
>
> >I think it depends on the attitude of the individual. If you think there
> >is kaaladharma, there is; if you think there is not, there is not.
>
> >In my view, there is no kaaladharma. Personally, I feel that dharma does
> >not change with time. Irrespective of time and place, there is the
> >individual that has to perform duties. What the duties are and why one
> >has to perform them are set by the individual him/herself. There is no
> ^^^^^^
> >one else setting the rules. It is you who are setting the rules for
> >yourself.
>
> >Living with oneSELF and answering to the SELF is the only answer one has
> >to give. YourSELF is the highest judge. That SELF is with you all the
> >time. You cannot run away from it. My father advised me when I left
> >India: "You follow your conscience all the time and answer to your
> >conscience".
> >I think that is the best advice anyone can give.
>
>   Many things may be perfectly fine with our conscience but still we do not do
>   those things. For example, it may be perfectly acceptable and honorable to
>   consume alcoholic beverages as far as the society in general is concerned.
 So
>   drinking alcohol may be acceptable to the conscience. But it may be against
>   one's dharma. Therefore, following dharma is not the same as following one's
>   conscience.
>
>   To help us understand what our dharma is, we need to look at four things.
>
>    1) Vedas or Shruti
>    2) Smriti, dharma shastras
>    3) Tradition as followed by our ancestors
>    4) Conscience
>
>    So Conscience is NOT the only factor that determines dharma.
>
>    First in the list is Vedas or shruti. Whatever the Vedas say is
>    infallible; it can never be wrong at any time or at any place.
>    If there is something that is not touched upon by the Vedas, we need
>    to consult Smriti. Usually, Smriti is based on the Vedas, but in case
>    there is a conflict between Smriti and shruti, we have to decide in
>    favor of shruti. Tradition is also important in many matters, such as
>    marriage, for example. Lastly, if the previous three cannot help us
>    decide our dharma in some matter, we may rely on our conscience. But
>    again, whatever decision we take must not be in contradiction with the
>    Vedas.
>

Our dharma is indeed dictated by what was written by Shri Anand Hudli. My
response was with regard to kaala-dharma, i.e. the change of dharma with
time.

Let us look at the four above. The vedas are eternal. They said the same
thing a few thousand years ago, now and thousand years hence. So, dharma
does not change with time according to vedas. Thus, if we follow vedas
only, the question of kaala-dharma does not arise. Dharma is same for all
time. As Shri Anand Hudli says, smriti is sub-ordinate to vedas anyway.

The thing that changes with time are 3 and 4 above. I mean here by
conscience, the buddhi, the discriminator between the Real and unreal.
One's buddhi is determined by the past experiences and tendencies and
past lives. Thus (3) above determines (4).

Question of kaala-dharma is simply what sort of a short-cut one takes.
That is, simply, what choice of a pleasant rather than the good. [Pardon
me for using the terminology of Katha u. in these matters as that is the
one I am constantly reflecting on now]. Buddhi is always there to question
the choice. If the pleasant is chosen rather than the good, buddhi is
there to question. Purer the buddhi is, the better your choice of the
course of action (choosing the sreyah rather than the preyah) and stronger
the buddhi questions the short-cut chosen.

Ultimately, while what one's dharma is proscribed in vedas, what course of
action one takes and how close it is to the right action depends on one's
buddhi. It is always there and one has to answer it.

Shri Anand Hudli gives example of alcoholic consumption. My response to
that example is the same. Whether the jeeva regards alcoholic consumption
as an acceptable norm (to the jeeva) depends on jeeva's buddhi. The jeeva
knows what the vedas have stated about it. Whether the jeeva makes amends
to it (to what the vedas say) and accepts alcohol depends on the
upbringing of the jeeva, with buddhi the discriminator between the Real
and the unreal making the decision.

>
>     Anand
>

Regards
Gummuluru Murthy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarvaagamaanaa maachaarah prathamam parikalpathe !
                                          Sage Vyasa in Maha Bharatha

For all (incoming) knowledge, discipline is the most fundamental.
------------------------------------------------------------------------