VairAgyam

[Gummuluru Murthy]

On Sat, 23 May 1998, Chelluri wrote:

>                                               Om
>
> VairAagyam (detachment from worldly affairs and attachment to divine.  I dont
> know whether this definition is correct if not somebody correct me).
> Vairagyam is a divine gift.   It comes automatically by her grace.
> >From what I learned from study, observation and experience, Vairagyam comes
> when one faces untold miseries, pain and suffering and at the same time, never
> looses the faith realizing that this is a passing phase and not permanent.

Namaste.

I would not call that vairAgya. The above description is for a *temporary*
indifference to worldly matters. The desire, the very opposite of
vairAgya, is only dormant in that stage; it has not died out. Because
the circumstances are not favorable, the desire, that particular
property of the ego, just is simply biding its time, and would show
up soon after the conditions are perceived to be favorable for the
pursuit of the desires. In my view, that is not vairAgya. It may be a
temporary depressive mentality.

Shri Shankara says in Viveka ChuDAmaNi (verse 424):

        VAsanAnudayo bhogye vairAgyasya tadAvadhih

When the rising of the desires for the objects of senses has ceased,
non-attachment or vairAgya has been complete.

Also, in verse 423

        ajnAna-hr^daya-granther vinAsho yadyasheshhatah
        anichhor vishhayah kim nu pravr^tteh kAraNam svatah

If the knots of the heart, the desires, which are nothing but the
effects of ignorance, are *totally* destroyed, then, having no
desire, how can the objects of senses be incentives to action ?

Also, in  verse 419:

vairAgyasya phalam bodhah bodhasyo'paratih phalam
svAnandAnubhavAt shAntir eshhaivo'parateh phalam

The result of non-attachment is knowledge; the result of knowledge
is renunciation; and the result of renunciation is peace that comes
from the enjoyment of the bliss of the Self.

>
> Having said all that, I conclude that it is not right to have a prerequisite
> whether it be difficulties and suffering or riches and enjoyment .  Any
> comments.
>
>
>                                                                Nagy
>

It may be a wrong way to look at. There is no pre-requisite for
anything. Pre-requisite is what the mind sets, when looking at the
finite. When you realize you are the infinite, where are the
pre-requisites ? On way to realizing That, one after the other
follow:

lack of desire for sensual pleasures -> equanimity -> vairAgya ->
        -> jnAna -> renunciation -> infinite bliss

Regards
Gummuluru Murthy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yadaa sarve pramucyante kaamaa ye'sya hr^di shritaah
atha martyo'mr^to bhavatyatra brahma samashnute   Katha Upanishhad II.3.14

When all the desires that dwell in the heart fall away, then the mortal
becomes immortal, and attains Brahman even here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

>From  Sun May 24 11:08:57 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.24.MAY.1998.110857.0400.>
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 11:08:57 -0400
Reply-To: ramakris at erols.com
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <ramakris at EROLS.COM>
Subject: Re: viprataa (was Re: Sadhana)
Comments: To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Anand Hudli wrote:

>  I agree that there will be exceptions to the general rules. In
>  fact, I stated so in my initial post.

In this case I don't think we can maintain that the "exception" proves
the "rule".

>  In any case, the matter is very complex, and I agree, very sensitive,
>  so it is better to seek the opinion of the Swami's and others well
>  versed in  Vedanta.

The problem I have with what you say is this: All we know (except for
some people who may know past births) is the present. It is also said
that karma is anAdi etc. We should note that these are all to explain
the present. So it stands to reason that the utmost we can do is try the
best to "attain" brahma GYAna now. Talking about krama mukti etc is
bound to discourage people. And for no reason, I would say. Utmost
effort must be made to attain purity, which is more important. This is
very nicely explained by HH chandrashekhara bhAratI mahAswamigaL in his
"Fate and Free will" in Dialogues with the guru.

I do agree that GYAna is obtained only through the mahAvAkya-s.

Rama.

>From  Sun May 24 11:16:32 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.24.MAY.1998.111632.0400.>
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 11:16:32 -0400
Reply-To: ramakris at erols.com
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <ramakris at EROLS.COM>
Subject: Re: moksha and mumukshutvam
Comments: To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Laura W. / Mantralaura wrote:
>
> sarvebhyo namaH,
>   In my notes from the class that Swami Dayananda taught, he stated
> that it means "desirelessness".

mumuxutva means burning desire for liberation. Dispassion is vairAgya.
Please refer to aparoxAnubhUti 2-9 for an explanation of standard terms.
Perhaps you transcribed what swamiji said wrong.

Rama.

>From  Sun May 24 11:18:17 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.24.MAY.1998.111817.0400.>
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 11:18:17 -0400
Reply-To: ramakris at erols.com
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <ramakris at EROLS.COM>
Subject: Re: What is adhikAra? (fwd)
Comments: To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

sadananda wrote:

> I also read the related input from Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian.
>
> There is still a question in my mind - Was caste ever intended to be based
> on birth?  Obviously, I am not questioning the practice.  Is there any

Yes. As I mentioned in my post, this has been very strongly asserted in
the anushAsana parva in the bhAratam. Anand also quoted from the manu
smR^iti sometime back.

Rama.

>From  Sun May 24 11:31:09 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.24.MAY.1998.113109.0400.>
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 11:31:09 -0400
Reply-To: ramakris at erols.com
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <ramakris at EROLS.COM>
Subject: Re: Gayatri Mantra: questions
Comments: To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sankaran Jayanarayanan wrote:

> I heard that there is a restriction on the Gayatri Mantra: that it can
> be chanted only in India, or that it is effective only in that
> geographical location. Is this true?

No. It is said gAyantamtrAyateti gAyatrI.

> Moreover, this mantra is permitted to be chanted only by Brahmins: why?
> (The Arya samaj, among others, has not followed this rule.)
>
> Lastly, is there a connection between the above two questions: that
> Brahmins are not allowed to travel outside India due to the lack of the
> efficacy of the Gayatri Mantra beyond India's boundary?

?!!

shrImad AchArya's direct disciple shivasoma migrated to Cambodia [1].
Inscriptions mentioning sha.nkarabhagavatpAda are found there. shivasoma
was the rAjaguru of a king there. H.H shrI bhAratI kR^ishhNa tIrtha
__sha.nkarAchArya of pUri__ travelled to the US in the sixties. Let's
once and for all get rid of this bogus stuff about geographical
locations.

The gAyatrI mantra is to be chanted by dvijas only, which does not mean
just brahmins. The Arya Samaj has no place in advaita.

[1] Bhagavatpada Sri Sanakaracarya, by Dr C. Sivaramamurti. He is an
eminent archaeologist. This text mentions quite a few achaeological
evidences wrt shrImad AchArya.

Rama.

>From  Sun May 24 11:43:43 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.24.MAY.1998.114343.0400.>
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 11:43:43 -0400
Reply-To: ramakris at erols.com
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <ramakris at EROLS.COM>
Subject: Re: What is adhikAra? (fwd)
Comments: To: Advaita-L <advaita-l at tamu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:

> > There is still a question in my mind - Was caste ever intended to be based
> > on birth?  Obviously, I am not questioning the practice.  Is there any
>
> Yes. As I mentioned in my post, this has been very strongly asserted in
> the anushAsana parva in the bhAratam. Anand also quoted from the manu
> smR^iti sometime back.

BTW, if anyone is interested in the exact chapter, verses etc I can slog
through the bhAratam and find it out. However it may take some time.

Rama.

>From  Sun May 24 11:53:44 1998
Message-Id: <SUN.24.MAY.1998.115344.0400.>
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 11:53:44 -0400
Reply-To: ramakris at erols.com
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <ramakris at EROLS.COM>
Subject: Re: adhikAra
Comments: To: Advaita-L <advaita-l at tamu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>OK, we've two criterions -
>1. vedaAdhikArA - one who's eligible to study the Vedas
>2. mokshaadhikArA - one who's eligible for moksha
>
>First let me state my position that no amount of arguing can contradict
>the enormous amount of evidence in the scriptures as to what makes a
>brahmana - birth.

This is EXTREMELY unfair IMO. Vidyasankar has spent valuable time in the
middle of writing his thesis as to why there is nothing called
moxAdhikAra and here it is again. Do members actually read posts or just
use the list as an opportunity to write whatever they please?

>OK, but when Vedanta is so universal in it's perspective, how can the
>study of the Vedas be restricted only to the Brahmanas?

Vedas are NOT restricted to brahmaNa-s. Please read the texts properly
and get to know what adhikAra means before applying your "logic".

>Vedantic knowledge can be had from even the smritis (Gita, Yoga >Vasishta
>etc). But the specific rituals with the hyms are present only in the
>shruti (if I'm wrong please correct me).

You are compeletly wrong.

>Brahman) and 2. One need not be a Brahmana to be a jnani. And this is
>straight from the shruti itself, which would supercede even Shankara's
>authority (if we're interpreting him correctly).

This clearly shows that you have been reading NONE of the posts. I have
clearly posted quotes from various authorities that anyone is entitled
to GYAna.

First read the texts before talking about what would "supercede even
sha.nkara's authority"  (sic).

[rest of stuff deleted]

Rama.