astika vs. nastika

[elmec]

Vaidya Sundaram wrote:

> elmec at GIASBG01.VSNL.NET.IN wrote:
>
> > the first one is surely a necessity. Only when
> > one has  faith in the existence of a supreme energy which is all
> pervasive,
> > does one ponder over its nature and strive to realise it.
>
> I have seen some authors think other wise. The argument apparently is not
> so straight forward that only when you can conceptualize and accept an all
> powerful, all pervading conscious entity (God) full of benevolent
> attributes, will you strive to realise it. In fact, aspiring to realise the
> Brahman consciousness as you own self goes against the very grain of saying
> that there is this "other" entity (God) who is to be known and realised ...
> yet, H.H brings it up as an essential element in a sadaka so that he may be
> considered fit for pursuing atmajNana - why?

Hari Om,

When I say that I want to realise my true self which is all pervasive, the very
effort of mine to realise something shows that I am aware of my ajnaana and
that I want to know the truth. There has to be someone who shows me the way,
initially. It is then that I look up to God. When he shows me the path coming
down in the form of a Guru, and when I sincerely follow him, he leads me to the
ultimate when the Ishwara, Guru and self are realised to be one and the only
one . Till that Goal is realised I do need to believe in God and my Guru.

>
>
> > But one who wants only the Brahman and
> > nothing less than that need not bother about other realms of existence, I
> feel.
> > However, irrespective of the faith one has in those lokas, one should
> revere
> > the karma kandas also and pay due respect to what is stated there as it
> is part
> > of the veda.
>
>  In as much the existence of other lokas matters to only one who is still
> materialistic in his/her outlook, H.H brings it up!! Would it be His way of
> ensuring that the sadhaka does not take it for granted that once the
> "pursuit" of the Supreme Reality is begun he is "free to do as he sees fit"
> and ensure that the sAdhaka does not abandon the foundation of the karma
> kaandas's?

Yes, very true. Specially those who tread the jnaana maarga have excess of
"Aham" and feel they do not need the support of Bhakthi at all. But this jnaana
would be only "Shushka". Only when Jnaana is mixed with Bhakthi does it become
"Rasamaya". For this one needs to respect every aspect of the vedas.

Regards,
Latha Vidyaranya

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </archives/advaita-l/attachments/20000712/637b4b07/attachment.html>