[Advaita-l] APerspective 17-2

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

Dear Anbuji,
 
Don't you agree that the personal guru can also be Dvaitavadi or Advatavadi? So the goal may be different depending on whether the Personal Guru is Dvaitavadi or Advaitavadi.
 
Regards,
 
Sunil K. Bhattachjarjya

--- On Wed, 2/3/10, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] APerspective 17-2
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2010, 9:15 AM


Dear Sunilji,

How many interpretations are there on Bhagavad Geetha from dwaithic view to
advaithic view and all in-between?

A book is inert though it would help to seek.  But liberation is only
through the Chaithanyam,  the personal Guru.

Regards,
Anbu

On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dear Anbuji,
> What about considering the Bhagavad Gita as the Guruvakya and Lord Krishna
> as the Guru.
> Vande Krishnam Jagadgurum
> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya
> --- On Wed, 2/3/10, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] APerspective 17-2
> To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2010, 1:27 AM
>
> Sunilji,
>
> In addition to what I have said above, I think it is relevant to bring in
> the mutual superimposition (adhyaasa) that I have mentioned in my reply to
> Bhaskarji.
>
> The relation between the Aathman and the kosas is adhyaasa.  (If you want
> me
> to explain on this I will do that.)
>
> *This adhyaasa can be broken only by Guru Vaakya not by any self-analysis
> however correct it may be.*
>
> Perhaps these self-analysis and public discussion might induce one to
> surrender to a Guru.  That is the hope.
>
> *Surrender is the key to liberation.*
>
> Sri GurubyO Namaha.
>
> Regards,
>
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Sunilji,
> >
> > If there were no rays of the sun then the clouds cannot be formed so
> there
> > can be no identity for the cloud apart from the sun yet the clouds cover
> the
> > sun.  Likewise the smoke originates from the fire and therefore it cannot
> > have a different identity from the fire yet it covers the fire.  Likewise
> > all the kosas though spoken of as covering the aathman as sword and its
> > sheath, these kosas have no existence different and apart (such as the
> sword
> > and the sheath) from the aathman.
> >
> > Therefore the kosas are allegorical rather than material.
> >
> > We thus know of the manas and buddhi and chittha and ahamkara but cannot
> > point them out to anyone.
> >
> > So in waking state when the buddhi is alive the mind is under control of
> > the buddhi (unlike during dream time when the buddhi is absent) except
> under
> > the power of the vaasanaas the mind overpowers the buddhi during the
> waking
> > time.
> >
> > If everyone has no buddhi then how would the waking state be different
> from
> > the dream state?
> >
> > (I am aware that you and I talked of the existence or otherwise of the
> > buddhi in dream time before and we differed on this account.)
> >
> > Thus in waking time buddhi tries to rule while the manas, aided by the
> > vaasanaas, tries to overpower the buddhi.
> >
> > So when buddhi is predominant then you can say that the mind has sunk
> into
> > the buddhi ( in your parlance the manomaya kosa is sunk into vignanamaya
> > kosa).  When the sleep overtakes with both manas and buddhi absent then
> your
> > allusion that manomayakosa and vignanamaya kosa has sunk into aanandamaya
> > kosa can be a correct description.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Anbu
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <
> > sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Anbuji,
> >>
> >> Does not the Katha Upanisahad tell us that we have to still the  mind
> (or
> >> call it dissolve the Manomaya kosha) in the Jnanatmana (or the
> Vijnanamaya
> >> kosha or the Buddhi), which in turn is to be dissolved in Mahat (the
> >> Ananadamaya kosha)? Don't you think that Lord Yama knew his subject
> well?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya
> >>
> >> --- On Tue, 2/2/10, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] APerspective 17-2
> >> To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <
> >> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> >> Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2010, 3:09 AM
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Sadanandaji,
> >>
> >> Your line of arguments have been quite logical.  I am not disagreeing.
> >>
> >> The mind is always there.  As Ramana says, one has to sink it into
> aathman
> >> for it to lose its virulence.  To use his own words, the mind then
> becomes
> >> a
> >> burnt rope that cannot tie.
> >>
> >> Many came to him, and very many out of them were non-intellectuals, even
> >> animals and birds, and they all easily attained Moksha and perhaps the
> >> world
> >> never even knew of them except a few.  However it were the giants of
> >> intellects including Ganapathi Muni who brought Ramana to light of the
> >> world.  But they all had so much of sankalpas and they were happy with
> >> their
> >> intellectual delights.  Ramana said that Naayana would be born again.
> >>
> >> How useless is the intellect!
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Anbesviam
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 5:44 AM, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Kuntimaddi Sadananda <
> >> > ksadananda108 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Dear Sadanandaji,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > PraNaams.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Quote: "Falsification is complete only when the underlying truth
> >> behind
> >> >> > both
> >> >> > knower and the known is recognized."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Logically correct but practically never feasible for only one
> exists
> >> in
> >> >> > time
> >> >> > (or out of it) - not both!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You need *TWO* to say that one is real and the other is false.  The
> >> >> > intellect will never apprehend the Reality, can it?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > shree Anbuji - PraNAms
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> What was discussed in the original post and the pervious ones as well
> >> is
> >> >> exactly what you have stated. I request the post be read again,
> perhaps
> >> >> again by those who are really want to know.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Mind (intellect) is needed to say that I am not the intellect. Hence
> >> the
> >> >> declaration quoted earlier..manaeva.manushyaanaam ..from amRitabindu
> >> Up.
> >> >> The
> >> >> all pervading reality need not have to realize and the inert
> intellect
> >> >> cannot realize. Realization is re-cognition that I am the existence
> >> >> consciousness that I am, currently identifying with the Intellect,
> >> >> understand that I am not the intellect, but that which is substantive
> >> of
> >> >> both the subject and the object vRittis or thoughts that arise in the
> >> >> intellect. This has to be done with the intellect only. With the
> >> intellect
> >> >> alone one can apprehend the truth. Hence the statement – tat
> >> vigijnaasasva
> >> >> or  brahma jignaasaa etc, where Brahman or atman has to be inquired,
> >> with
> >> >> the only available instrument - the intellect only.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Realization is to reject the superficial names and forms of the
> >> contents
> >> >> of
> >> >> the vRitti that arise in the intellect and shifting attention to the
> >> sat
> >> >> and
> >> >> chit that is substantive for both the subject and the object. This
> >> shift
> >> >> has
> >> >> to be by the intellect - that is what viveka means - nitya anitya
> vastu
> >> >> viveka - where intelligently shift ones attention for that which is
> >> >> permanent and eternal substantive truth from the superficial fleeting
> >> >> names
> >> >> and forms or attributive contents of the vRittis or thoughts.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> It is like I need the mirror and looking at the image in the mirror I
> >> >> recognize that I am not the image but the original because of which
> the
> >> >> image is there. without the mirror I cannot see my face. Using the
> >> iamge
> >> >> in
> >> >> the mirror I recognzie the orginal. Using the reflected consciousness
> >> in
> >> >> the
> >> >> intellect I recognize that I am the original consciousness. Using
> what?
> >> -
> >> >> The intellect only. That is what viveka means - original is eternal
> and
> >> >> permanent while the names and forms keep changing as attributive
> >> content
> >> >> of
> >> >> the vRittis. Intellect acts both as the mirror as well as instrument
> >> for
> >> >> re-cognition for realization that I am not instrument of cognition,
> >> i.e.
> >> >> intellect. This has been extensively discussed in the last and
> previous
> >> >> posts. This is the subtlest part and that is why chitta suddhi is
> >> >> important
> >> >> for me to detach myself from the attributive content of the vRittis
> to
> >> >> shift
> >> >> my attention to the ever present substantive. I have to use the
> >> intellect
> >> >> to
> >> >> say that I am not the intellect. This is also one of the reasons why
> I
> >> >> need
> >> >> a sampradaaya teacher for Vedanta to explain this subtlety correctly.
> >> >> Shraddhaa is the prerequisite. With this I remain.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Hope this helps
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> With praNAms to all
> >> >>
> >> >> Hari Om!
> >> >> Sadananda
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >> >> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >> >>
> >> >> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> >> >> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >> >>
> >> >> For assistance, contact:
> >> >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> >> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >>
> >> For assistance, contact:
> >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> >> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >>
> >> For assistance, contact:
> >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org