Advaita Cartoons

Advaita Cartoons is a blog that has cartoons on Advaita. Here are a couple:





Go see all of them here. Read the rest of this entry >>

Some references by Adi Shankara in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya

I am reading the book "Vedanta Explained (Sankara's (Shankaracharya's) Commentary on the Brahma-sutras" by Prof. V.H Date (Here is the reference.). Prof. Date is a student of Shri Ranade.

At the end of second volume, Prof. Date gives a listing of the original verses of which references have been made by Adi Shankara his Brahma Sutra Bhashya and the particular verse from Brahma Sutra where the reference has been made from. Here are the numbers of the specific verses (I am leaving out the big ones like Brihadaranyaka, Chandogya because of their sheer number.).

1. Aitareya Aranyaka: 2.1.6, 2.2.4-6, 2.4.2-4
   
   
2. Aitareya Upanishad: 1.1.1-2, 1.2,2-3, 1.3,11-13, 3.3
   
   
3. Bhagavad Gita: 2.24, 2.25, 3.17, 3.35, 3.42, 4.37, 5.17, 6.11, 6.45, 7.21-22, 8.6, 8.10, 8.23, 8.26, 10.4, 10.5, 13.12, 15.6, 15.7
   
   
4. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: ...
   
   
5. Chandogya Upanishad: ...
   
   
6. Isavashya Upanishad: 2 and 7
   
   
7. Jabalopanishad: 4.1, 5
   
   
8. Kathopanishad: 1.2.6, 1.2.7, 1.2.14, 1.2.15, 1.2.18, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.9, 1.3.10-11, 1.3.12, 1.3.13, 1.3.15, 2.1.1, 2.1.10, 2.1.11, 2.1.15, 2.2.8, 2.2.11, 2.3.2, 2.3.13, 2.3.16
   
   
9. Kausiki Upanishad: 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 2.9-14, 3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 3.8, 4.18-19
   
   
10. Kenopanishad: 1.3
    
    
11. Manusmriti: 1.21, 2.87
    
    
12. Mundakopanishad: 1.1.3, 1.1.5, 1.1.6, 1.2.11, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.8, 2.1.10, 2.2.6, 2.2.8, 2.2.10, 2.2.11, 3.1.1., 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.8, 3.1.9, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 3.2.8. 3.2.9, 3.2.10
    
    
13. Prashnopanishad: 2.3, 3.6, 3.9, 3.10, 4.9, 5.2, 6.5
    
    
14. Rig Veda: 2.12.2 10.129.2
    
    
15. Satapatha Brahmana: 1.3.1.26, 10,5.4.16
    
    
16. Shvetashvatara Upanishad: 1.11, 1.12, 2.10, 3.8, 3.9, 4.3, 4.19, 5.8-9, 6.9, 6.11, 6.19
    
    
17. Taittariya Upanishad: 1.11.2, 2.1, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9
    
    

Read the rest of this entry >>

A correspondence on dreams

Some time back, a friend mailed me about dreams. I replied in the usual Vedantic fashion. Here is the correspondence.


> Good Morning ...,
> Can you please help me find the answer to the following:
> What are dreams? What do dreams mean? Why do we dream?

Dear S,

[Great to hear from you.]

"I want to know more about my dreams" is a beautiful and deep
question. Many people before us tried to find about dreams before us.
Ancient Indian philosophers, some of whom created the system of
Vedanta tried to explain dreams at least 5000-7000 years ago. The
Vedanta answer to this is pretty deep. Vedanta says that the dream
places, dream objects and dream time are nothing but mental
projections and do not exist with respect to the waking-world.

Many psychologists beginning at the turn of century, led by famous
scientists like Frued tried to answer these questions using many
experiments. Their experiments were as extensive as you can imagine
and they investigated where the mental projections came from. It is
interesting that they also came to the same conclusions that all
dreams can be explained using the past-memory/future-imagination
theory.

Think about it. For many of the things you "see/hear/feel" in a dream
have some source in your past experiences or future imaginations.
There are some dreams -- I agree *some* dreams -- that seem difficult
explaining using the past-memory/future-imagination theory. I truly
believe that they too can be explained using analysis.

Please answer this question for me: "How much time did it take for you
to realize that a dream was a dream and in a way, non-existent with
respect to the waking world?" How long did you have to think to state
for yourself, "Ah, it was all a dream!"? I would think, not more than
a short-moment. The moment that realization dawns in, all the tigers
that were about to jump on you, all the beautiful place you have gone
to seem non-existent. Is it not? Think about it.

==

The Vedantic philosophers, classified something called levels of
reality. They stated the following: "when compared to the
waking-world, the dream-world has lower level of reality". The
teachers of Vedanta, brilliant as they were, did not stop there. The
conjectured about the idea of a higher level of reality that
waking-world. In other worlds, they asked the question "what if this
whole life was a dream?" It seems like a funny idea, but it is true.

Did you watch the movie Matrix? If NOT, please watch it again (at
least 2-3 times. I am talking about Matrix-part-1 only, not 2 and 3.).
It has good special-effects, but great philosophy too. Please
concentrate on the philosophy of the movie, at least once. What
happens to Neo when he wakes up in Morpheus's cabin? He is initially
afraid, but then realizes that all his waking life was a dream. The
funny situation is when he goes back to the matrix and says: "I used
to eat in that restaurant? ..." It is funny because he *knows* that
his eating was non-existent.

The Vedantic philosophers tried to define the higher level of reality
and gave it the name Brahman. They found that it was full of Ananda or
Bliss and stated that our true nature was Brahman. In other words,
they stated that out true nature was happiness. Can you imagine the
beauty of this? Our true nature is infinite-bliss!!!

On a practical scale, they advised us to be happy all the time. That
is what I would advise you too. Happy not because we accomplished
something, happy not because something good happened by chance or
choice, but because "Happiness is our true state". Feel this and think
about it. Our true nature is nothing but Infinite bliss.

If you have more questions, please mail/call me.
regards to your family. Read the rest of this entry >>

Ranade: Bhagavad Gita and Upanishadic references

I am reading Shri Gurudeo R.D. Ranade's classic "A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy" (more about the book here and here). Note that the book was written in 1926! The book is very good and scholarly (if someone like me can dare use such a qualification) and has deep philosophy explained in a clear way.

On pages 142-146, Shri Ranade makes connection between Bhagavad Gita and Katha Upanishad. To students of Vedanta, it is not a new fact that there exists heavy similarity between Katha Upanishad, but Shri Ranade being the scholar-philosopher he is, makes an exact correlation which is thorough. Further, he compares the passages in Bhagavad Gita with different Upanishads. This post is a summary of the references with some excerpts and notes. Firstly, Shri Ranade make the following note:

There is an amount of truth in the famous verse that "The Upanishads are like a cow, Krishna is like a milk man, Arjuna like the calf that is sent to the udders of the cow before milking, and the Bhagavad Gita like the milk-nectar that is churned from the udders of the cow."

Here are the comparisions that Shri Ranade makes between various Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita

• Ka.Up 1.2.18 and BG 2.20 [Exact]
  
• Ka.Up 1.2.19 and BG 2.19 [Exact]
  
• Ka.Up 1.2.17 and BG 2.29 [Paraphrased and Adopted.]
  
• Ka.Up 1.2.15 and BG 8.13 [Imperishability and significance of Om. Almost word for word]
  
• Ch.Up 5.10.1-5 and BG 8.24 to 8.25 [Same concepts of Deyayana and Pithruyana. He notes that the former itself is from Vedas.]
  
• Is.Up 2 and Karma Yoga of BG:
  

  The verse from Isavashya Upanishad (IS. 2) which tells us in a spirit of apparent contradiction that "a man should spend his life-time only in doing actions, for it is only thus that he may hope to be untainted by action" has supplied Bhagavad Gita with an idea so prolific of consequences that the Bhagavad Gita has deemed to fit to erect a whole philosophy of Karmayoga upon it.
  ...
  This passage supplies us with the means as well as the goal of moral life, without giving the connection between them. As we shall see later, the principal theme of Bhagavad Gita is teach a life of activity coupled with the effects of actionlessness through the intermediate linkage of un-attachment to and indifference to the fruits of action.
  

  
  
• Mun. 2.1.4 and Cosmic vision of Arjuna in BG Chapter 11. He refers that Mundaka itself may have taken its concepts from Purusha Sukta.
  
• Ka. Up. 1.3.10-11 has the hierarchy: senses < objects < mind < intellect < Mahat < Avyakta < Purusha, with nothing being beyond Purusha. The hierarchy in BG 3.42 is senses < mind < intellect < Purusha, which he feels is crisp.
  
• Asvattha of Bhagavad Gita and Katha Upanishad: Shri Ranade sas this about the Asvattha tree example in the Ka. Up and BG.
  

  
  In one important respect, however, the Bhagavad Gita takes a position antagonistic to the position advanced in the Upanishads. In the Ka. Up 2.6.1, we are told that Asvattha tree is the Brahman itself, and that it is imperishable. On the other hand, the Bhagavad Gita in 15.1-4 (BG 15.1, BG 15.2 and BG 15.3-4) tells us the opposite. We shall not consider the contradictions that are introduced in this description, but we are concerned here only to find out how far this description from Bhagavad Gita agrees with the description of the Upanishad. It may be noted at once that there is an agreement between the Upanishad and the Bhagavad Gita so far as the Ashvattha tree is regarded as having its root upwards and its branches downwards. But, while the Upanishad teaches that the Ashvattha tree is real, and identical with the Brahman and therefore impossible to cut off, the Bhagavad Gita teaches that the Ashvattha tree must be regarded as unreal, and as unidentical with the existence, and therefore that it is necessary to cut off this tree of existence by the potent weapon of non-attachment.
  

  
  I am sure at a peripheral level, the difference are huge and bound to confuse the beginner. But I have a simple question: Is not the method of defining things using contradictions, exactly the method employed by Vedantic teachers? If we define Brahman as something, does it remain brahman anymore? If the anirvachaniya maya is tried to define as something, does it not escape that definition? Points to ponder (for me, that is!).
  

Krishna in Chandogya and Mahabharatha: Later, Shri Ranade analyses the references of Krishna, Son of Devaki and disciple of Ghora Angirasa in Chandogya (Ch. Up. 3.17.1-6) with Lord Krishna of Bhagavatha/Mahabharatha and says that they are different characters.

While no mention is made whatsoever of Ghora Angirasa who was the teacher of Krishna in Chandogya. Such a fact cannot be easily ingored in a work like Mahabharatha which is expected to give us everything about the divine warrior Krishna, and not not leave the name of the teacher unmentioned. If the Krishna of Chandogya is identified with the Krishna of Mahabharatha, for that matter why should not we identify the Harischandra of the Aitareya Brahmana who had a hundred wifes with the Harishchandra of mythology who had only one wife? Mere similarity of name proves nothing. It fills one with humour that new facile philosophy of identifications brahmana-wise should have been instituted in modern times by a host of critics of no small calibre when they would raise a huge structure of mythico-imaginary identifications by rolling together the god Vishnu of Vedic repute, Narayana the Cosmic God, Krishna the pupil of Ghora Angirasa, and Vasudeva the founder of a new religion, and thus try to prove that the sources of religion of Bhagavad Gita are found in the teaching of Ghora Angirasa! There would seem to be some meaning, however in the attempted identification of the Krishna of Chandogya with Krishna of the Bhagavad Gita when in verse 4 of the passage we are discussing [Ch. Up. 3.1-6], we are told that the gifts which such a sacrificier should make to priests are those of the following virtues: Tapas, Danam, Arjavam, Ahimsa and Satyavachanam. This list is closely similar to the list of virtues enumerated in BG16. 1-2 where the same virrtues are enumerated along with a number of other virtues, and almost the same order. But this fact proves nothing, because, as we have pointed out in the preceeding paragraphs, the Bhagavad Gita is a congeries of quotations, phrases and ideas borrowed from the Upanishads, and it is only by accident, as we may say, that the five virtues mentiones above should have been enumerated in the Upanishadic passage where Krishna, the son of Devaki is mentioned. There is a stoty about the Delphic Oracle that a number of trophies were hung round about the temple in praise of the god who had saved so many souls at different times from shipwreck in the midst of waters. A philosopher went to the temple and asked, Yea, but where are those that are drowned? Similarly we may say about the virtues in the Chandogya passage which are identical with the virtues in the passage from Bhagavad Gita. True, that the virtues enumerated in the Chandogya almost correspond to the virtues enumerated in the Bhagavad Gita: but, why, for the world, should not the essence of teachings of Ghora Angirasa have been incorporated, when the Upanishadic passage tells that at the last moments of a man's life, he should take the resort to these three thoughts: Thou art indestructible, Thou art Unchangeable, Thou art the very edge of life? Why should not the Bhagavad Gita have profited from these three expressions: Akshita, Achyuta and Pranasamsita? Why shoud it have left us merely with advise that a man should utter Om at the time of his death and meditate upon God? Finally we may say that the burden of proof of the identification of the two Krishnas falls upon those who make the assertion and so fas as their arguments have gone, we donot think that they have, in any way, proved identification at all.

He is a great scholar indeed, to point out such seeming inconsistencies with that great authority. My simple mind however, has a simple question: Doesn't Om answer the definition of Akshita, Achyuta and Pranasamsita (indestructible, unchangeable, very edge of life)? What is wrong in thinking that the concepts in Chandogya have been put more precisely in the Bhagavad Gita? If a student has already been imparted with the knowledge of the pranava, does she not immediately associate the notions of infiniteness in space and time and beyond causality, beyond life to it because all the finite characterizations are anyway meaningless when compared to it?

Note that this passage is in serious disagreement with Shri. S.Radhakrishnan's introduction to his translation of Bhagavad Gita. In particular, Shri. Radhakrishnan uses the same argument to validate the historical aspect of Krishna. That will be covered in a later post. For now, I take a deep bow at a scholar as great as Shri. Ranade. Read the rest of this entry >>

Sruti Gita and Other Links

Here are a few links:

Sruti Gita: In chapter 10-87 of the Bhagavatham, Vedas sang the praise of the Lord in his nirguNa state at the beginning of creation, even before the creator Brahma had been created. It is called "Sruti Gita" or "Veda Struti" from Bhagavatham. Here is a good introduction and translation from Prof. VK Here is a link from Vedabase.

Sanatsujatiyam: Shri. S. N. Sastry, a reputed scholar and regular poster to advaitin mailing list has completed part 2 of his translation of Sanatsujatiyam. Here are the pdf links (part 1 and part 2.) Here is Prof. VK's translation of Sanatsujatiyam.

RigVeda and the Indian Systems of Approach to the One: I was searching at advaitin archives/files for any translations of verses from Rig Veda verses in light of Advaita. Shri Himanshu Dave (in 2000) posted a series of excellent articles with the title "RigVeda and the Indian Systems of Approach to the One". Included are excellent explanations to many famous verses from Rig Veda. Here is the link to those files. More links to posts which talk about Vedas are in this post by Shri. Ram Chandran. Also, to a question by Dr. Sadananda, "Why should we read Rig Veda and why should we inquire so much into the symbolism within, when at the same time Upanishads (clearly the flowers from Vedas) and are easier to understand and talk to us more directly?", the reply by Prof. Dave is worthwhile reading.

PS Also worth reading is this article.

A beautiful story about Radha and Krishna: Krishna - Nitya Brahmachari retold by Shri P. R. Ramachander, who posts to the advaitin mailing list. Also here is my post on the same topic, which was excerpted from Raja Rao's Serpent and the Rope. Read the rest of this entry >>

Happy Ganesh caturthi!

May the Ganesh, who is the lord of all Ganas dance to stomp away your obstacles and make you see the light that you truly are beyond the senses, truly beyond the emotional mind and truly beyond the perception of intellectual discrimination of the mind.

May give you the right knowledge and the wisdom beyond it. May the one who is beyond the four layers of speech make you understand all of them.

rtam vacmi satyam vacmi! (from Ganesh Atharvasirsha Upanishad)! Read the rest of this entry >>

sushupti and brahman

Om Gam Ganapathaye Namah!

There is some excellent discussion in advaitin yahoo group about Avasthya Traya that is worth following closely.

1. To answer some questions, Dr. Sadananda eloquently explains the avasthya-traya.



2. The question, comes up (in the follow-up mails): "What is the source of happiness that one experiences after sushupthi?" If a person says after sushupti "I feel happy", what is the souce of the happiness? Is it union with Brahman? If it is union with Brahman, is the union with Brahman complete? If so, why? If not a complete union with Brahman, where is the happiness coming from? sushupti is clearly a state of ignorance. What happens to the adjuncts during the sushupti? [I have an ancillary question regarding this: How can the happiness experienced during sushupthi be compared with the union of a sense-organ with the desired object? Simple examples for these are satisfaction of hunger after eating food.]
   
   
3. One "Sampath from Hyderabad", a 20 year old (!!!) with the tag "paramahamsavivekananda" explains the relevant passages from Brahma-sutra Bhashya of Shri Shankara. [Refers to B.S.B 3.2.9, M.Up.S.B 5, M.Up.7, ]
   
   
4. The topic shifts to the other thread, titled "The three states".
   
   
5. Br. Vinayaka asks some questions and Shri Sampath answers them withr reference to Adi Shankara's Brahma Sutra Bhashya. [The post has quite a few interesting points.] [New references: M.Up.6,7, B.G. 14.19]
   
   
6. More questions by Br. Vinayaka and more answers by Shri. Sampath. [New references: Br.Up.4.3.32.S.B, B.S. 2.3.29, Mun.Up. 3.1.9, B.S.2.3.30, Ch.Up.6.8.1, B.S. 2.3.31, Kh.Up. VI,9,2;3, Pai.Up. 2.8, 2.9, 2.13, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17, B.S. 1.3.42, Br. Up. 4.3.7, B.S.1.3.8, ]
   
   
7. Worthwhile reading posts: by Dr. Sadananda: "absence of duality may be bliss but there is no knowledge ones real nature in that sushhupti state. Otherwise everybody will get up with knowledge after deep sleep state."
   
   
8. Prof. VK refers to Shri Sampath an "Abhinava-Shankara" and blesses him saying "As one much elder to you let me bless you with 'vedoktA AshiShaH'." [Read the post for an important excerpt.]
   
   
9. Shri. S.N. Sastri clarifies that nowhere did he say that "there is no ignorance in deep-sleep" and Shri. Ram Chandran points to some passages from Atmabodha (verses #53-57). [References: B.S. 3.2.9]
   
   
10. Shri. S.N. Sastri also points to the references in Shankara's commentary where there is an apparent contradiction. "In Br. Up. 4.3.21 *The above passage is in the context of deep sleep and says that the jIIva is freed from avidyA during deep sleep.*" seems to contradict the following "In Ch.up. 8.3.2 it is clearly said that there is avidyA in deep sleep". [References: Br.Up. 4.3.21, Ch. Up. 8.3.2, Br.S.B. 3.2.9, S.S.3.123-3.125, B.S.B. 1.4.18]
    
    
11. Br. Vinayaka has more questions and Shri Sampath answers, with a punch line: "the temporary union with Brahman is because of the obliteration of vishepa shakti of avidyA and coming back into the world is because of its avaraNa shakti." [Ch. Up 6.8.1, B.S.B. 2.3.31, Br.Up. 4.3.32, 4.3.22, 4.3.7,4.3.[17-18], 4.3.23]
    
    
12. Some clarification asked by Shri Bharkarji and some replies by Shri Sampath. [Ch.Up. 8.3.2]
    
    
13. Some questions by bhagni Nivedita on the rope-snake illusion and some apt answers by Shri Sampath. [References: Ch.Up. 6.2.2-3, Ait.Up 1.1.1]
    
    
14. Br. Vinayaka brings up some verses from Upadesha Sahasri (with the quote "Some Swamis like Sri SSS, Swami Dayananda Saraswati opine that it is the only prakaraNa grantha written by shankara.") and Shri Sampath answers, with an interpretation of a description of Br. Up and with an brilliant observation "Sri Bhaskarji in his post said that the non cognition of multiplicity is due to the union with Brahman. This is "NOT FALSE". In some way, it is true, but the actual thing must be IMHO, ** The union itself occurs because of the cessation of multiplicity.**". [References: Br.Up. 4.3.19: hawk analogy]
    
    
15. Br. Vinayaka summarizes some points with an intent to conclude the thread. He does not agree with avidya in deep-sleep. Also, he states that (i) there is complete union of the jiva with brahman in sushupthi and (ii) there is no contradiction in the passages that Shri Sampath quotes above ("I don't see any contradiction in the first palce. Like other shruti passages shruti is telling here that, you hugged brahman itself you don't know after you woke up.").
    
    
16. Shri Bhaskarji asks asks couple of *VERY* important questions ("you are saying *avidyA*, in sushupti, is granting the permission to jiVa to unite with brahman!! ... Is the turIya what you are referring is something specially designed exalted state like *nirvikalpa samAdhi*?? Though you have not specifically mentioned *turIya is nirvikalpa samAdhi*, prabhuji, I think I've valid references from your recent mails to infer that you are advocating the 4th state called turIya as something strange state which is exclusive of our normal three avasthA-s") and Shri Sampath answers ("mahASaya, IMHO, turIya iss NOT AT ALL A STATE. It can be a state to the ajNAni who observes a sage experience it. This idea of attributing "State" to everything we see itself denotes that we are conditioned by avidyA. So, I feel, turIyA is not a state and it is the true nature of Brahman beyond all the three states which can only be reached by a sAdhaka through apavAda leading to the Conscious identity with his own true Self.") and asks the question that started the whole thing ("What is the cause for the "UNION with Brahman" to occur in Deep Sleep? ")
    
    
17. Shri Shyam explains in a beautiful post, in simple words (using upanishadic concepts like panchakosha etc, and upanishadic examples like uddalaka/aruni, indra/prajapathi) the meaning of the three states. Shri Sampath responds, with a couple of examples -- small pot immersed in a big pot -- and restates his question ("tell me the reason for such a merger (or) ceasing from the not-self identification which is said to occur in the deep sleep."). Here is more.
    
    
18. *MUST READ* Shri Sadananda explains in an eloquent post many things. His post corrects many statements made by other posters and has some gems. *MUST READ*.
    
    
19. Shri Ananda Wood responds and summarizes ("it is the thinking mind that sleeps, not knowing consciousness"). Shri S. N. Sastri points to an (apparent) difference of opinion and Shri Ram Chandran also adds in.
    
    
20. Shri Sampath brings in more references to enforce his POV ("Here is a very important and conclusive evidence from SrI Sankara's own words in Brahma Sutra Bhashya where he has explicitly said that avidyA exists in a potential form during Deep Sleep.") [B.S.B. 2.1.8, 2.1.9]. Shri Baskaran brings references from Swami Nikhilananda's book on Mandukya, chapter 1 verse 5 ("In deep sleep all the diversified experiences of waking and dreaming, which are nothing but the activities of the mind reach the state of non discrimination
    ... This unified experience of deep sleep is different from the unity experienced from the knowledge of Brahman; for in the waking and dream state that follows it, one again takes multiplicity to be real. In deep sleep no specific knowledge is present. ... and .. friction caused by subject-object relationship is absent. All efforts disappear and one in deep sleep experiences bliss, said to be happy. This bliss is quite different from that of Brahman.""). He also brings in his notes from Swami Paramarthananda ("In shusupthi, a nirvikalpa rupa everything gets resolved into one, an experience through kaarana sariram. In this state the jagrat and swapna states are negated and jeeva is ignorant of himself in that state. The basic difference is that in nidithyasanam he is aware of himself as "aham brahma asmi". In fact in jagrath avastha also he is asleep to his nature. The Kshetragna is same in all the three states. Even though the pramata, prameyam and pramanam are not experienced they get resolved as unmanifest condition –a maya aspect. There is no absence since they come back again on waking up. It is saturated with ananda associated with the experiencer –karana sariram, where duality, ragadveshas are all resolved. The very experience of absence of experience in which there is sukham the thriputies are not clearly defined/felt. It is also to be understood that in all the three stages there involves withdrawal and entry in to the stages."")
    
    

==

Some references
Shankara's commentaries on Mandukya, Chandogya and Brihadaranyaka. Translations by Nikhilananda. [I used Dr. Radhakrishnan's Upanishads/Brahma-Sutra commentary for cross-checking.]
Specific references:

Looks like people also used these translations of Brahma-Sutra.

Note: This post will be updated when more posts come up. Read the rest of this entry >>

A Great Mystic

Tagore has been written as a beautiful poet and mysic and nature lover. But who else but a great advaitin, one who can meditate for hours on the nature

`Every morning at three---I know, for I have seen it'---one said to me, `he sits immovable in contemplation, and for two hours does not awake from his reverie upon the nature of God. His father, the Maha Rishi, would sometimes sit there all through the next day; once, upon a river, he fell into contemplation because of the beauty of the landscape, and the rowers waited for eight hours before they could continue their journey.' [link]

Who else, but a great self-realizer can immerse himself into the wonder that is mother nature?

Thanks to Shri Sadandaji whose reference lead me to read the book after a long time. The conversation on advaitin list that lead to this comment ("You should read Gitanjali by Tagore") is also worthwhile, with its subject ("Why is Krishna not visible to us?") Someone was asking on the advaiting list, There were some, who gave the harsh reply. But Shri. Sadanandaji who (along with Prof. V. Krishnamurthy) coined the term "Advaita inspite of duality" gives the above reply and the following one too:

It is like asking, closing my eyes - how come I do not see the light - better yet wearing think dark glasses and asking why it is very dark here.

To see Krishna is to recognize Krishna in what I see, or his presence, not looking for Krishna. It is seeing Krishna present everywhere and in everything, starting from himself.

We get carried away with forms and names and forget
the substantive Krishna that is there in all names and
forms.

...

How can I not see Krishna? Where can I not see Krishna?

Read the full reply!

Post script (a couple of weeks later). Bhaskarji started reading ""Collected Works of Bhagawan Ramana Maharishi", thinking about "Who am I" and posted the following. Is the result a surprise? "Seek and Ye Shall Find" Read the rest of this entry >>

Hans Rosling

Whatever you do, please watch the talks by Hans Rosling at TED. First, the talk he gave in 2006. Then the talk he gave in 2007 (with a surprise ending!).

The tool he is built for this talk -- with his family-members is http://tools.google.com/gapminder/. My recommendation, play with it to compare India with other countries. [The software was later bought by Google.] Read the rest of this entry >>

Bye Bye Livermore, thanks for the sweet memories!

Read the rest of this entry >>

The Lost Years of Lord Rama?

Lord Rama in the initial years of his vanavaasa (exile) spent with Bharadvaaja, Sarabhanga, Sutikshana. These add up to no more than one year. [Source Vaalmiki Ramayana].

The last part of his exile started with his moving to Panchavati, where He fought with Khara-Dushana and ended with the killing of Maricha and abduction of Sita. This last part is no more than 6-8 months (source Vaalmiki Ramanaya).

It does not hurt our main thesis, even if we add up the total time of the above two periods to be around two years. The question remains: What did he exactly do during the intervening years? What Sadhana did he do? It can be assumed that He (with Sita and Lakshmana) went around in the Ashram's of Maharshi's. What did Rama learn during those years? What did he teach during those years? What did he do during those years? The question is important in a Vedantic perspective. Assuming a Vishnu incarnation, who chooses to bear the difficulties of "ordinary men", assuming that the killing of Asuras was easy for him (because of his incarnation as well as his previous learning from Vishvamitra et al) and needed no prior preparation and particular sadhana, What did the supreme being do in human form do?

Kind reader: please help me answering these questions.

The Vaalmiki Ramayana does not talk much about these years. All it says is "He spent time with Maharshis for 10 or so years." What else happened?

The Adhyatma Ramanaya may talk, but in a way is contradictory to the premise of the question. This is because, in Adhyama Ramayana, Rama is Vishnu, the para Brahman himself. Applying doership of Karma -- however sacred it is, like Sadhana and learning -- is far from contraditions (my opinion). So my question stands. [I would however verify more on this, the moment I get a copy of Adhyama Ramayana in my hands.] Read the rest of this entry >>

Advaita Practise

The noise must be interrupted for some practical links on practise of Advaita! A reader asks on advaitin mailing list:

What does practise of Advaita mean? Is is just understanding that Jiva is Brahman? What does that understanding mean in practical life? How does an Advaitin live?.

Beautiful question indeed! As replies to the question, great Advaitins -- whom I respect a lot for their writings -- have replied and the replies deserve to be read in full. Read the reponses by Shri. Kuntimaddi Sadananda and the one by Prof. V. Krishnamurthy. Read the rest of this entry >>

Aavarana, the non-vedantic that is,

Mandukya says that the Self (that) is "unseen, beyond unseen, beyond empirical dealings beyond the grasp (of the organs of action), uninferable, unthinkable; whose valid proof consists in the single belief in the Self; in which all phenomena cease; and that which is unchanging, auspicious and non-dual." [Mandukya.]

The same can be said about the Sanatana Dharma, the one that cannot be covered by a million years of aavarana of Islam. The reason being that Islam was never there. All is needed for its disapperarance to become a practical-reality (in vyavahaara) is for people to realize the Truth! Any imperialist religion would fall as an aberration in the abysmal time the moment the realization occurs. Just like Avidya. The people of Bharat should meditate on "yosavasou purusha sohamasmi" [Isha] to realize their true nature.


Thanks for the great post Sandeep! Read the rest of this entry >>

Random Acts of Violin

[Regular programming of silence would be interrupted for the following piece about of course, music.]

If a great musician plays great music but no one hears it . . .

Go read the wonderful essay titled Pearls Before Breakfast in the Washington Post. It will make you wonder.

[Link -- and as noticed by me later, material too -- thanks to Atanu's post.] Read the rest of this entry >>

Sridakshinamurtistotram Stotram (Part XI) at Advaitin -- Conclusion

Shri V. Subrahmanian concludes his beautiful exposition of Sri Dakshinamurthy Stotram in his Part XI. Here, he explains the 10th shloka, the phala sruti, of the stotra:


sarvAtmatvamiti sphuTIkRRitamidam yasmAdamuShmin-stave
tEnAsya shravaNAt tadartha-mananAt dhyAnAccha sankIrtanAt |
sarvAtmatva-mahA-vibhUti-sahitam syAdIshvaratvam svataH
siddhyEt tat punaraShTadhA pariNatam chaishvaryam-avyAhatam ||


Here is the link to previous ones. Read the rest of this entry >>

Ramana's Dakshinamurthy

"The carving of Dakshinamurti over the Patalaling Siva shrine, where Ramana Maharshi spent much time doing sadhana."

The above photograph is part of a collection of Atmajyothi's tour to Ramana Ashram at Arunachaleshwara. Read the rest of this entry >>

Sridakshinamurtistotram Stotram (Part X) at Advaitin

Shri V. Subrahmanian continues the exposition of Sri Dakshinamurty Stotram. In part X he translates the verse 9 of the stotra:


bhUrambhAmsyanalo-`nilo-`mbaramahar-naatho himAmshuH pumAn-
ityAbhAti charAcharAtmakamidam yasyaiva mUrtyaShTakam |
nAnyat-kinchana vidyate vimRRishatAm yasmAt-parasmAd-vibhO-
stasmai shrIguru-mUrtaye nama idam shrIdakShiNaa-mUrtaye ||

Link to previous ones. Read the rest of this entry >>

Swami Prabhavananda and Swami Nikhilananda

This post is about two of my beloved monks of the famed Ramakrishna Order. Online links to their biographies: Swami Nikhilananda (1 and 2) and Swami Prabhavananda (1 and 2).

Lives: The similarities in their lives simply cannot be missed. Swami Prabhavananda was born in 1893, while Swami Nikhilananda was born in 1895. Swami Prabhavananda was an initiated disciple of Swami Brahmananda, the spiritual son of Ramakrishna while Swami Nikhilananda was a initiated disciple of Sarada Devi, the spiritual wife of Ramakrishna. (It is interesting that both have the same Ramakrishna-number -- similar to Erdos number in Mathematics -- 2.) Both of the Swami's were sent at a very young age to USA to continue the work started by Swami Vivekananda.

Both of the Swamis established their Vedanta centres (as Ramakrishna Maths outside India are called) in the west at Los Angeles by Swami Prabhavananda and in the east at New York by Swami Nikhilananda. They both became famous in the modern world for their books and lectures mainly centering around Vedanta. Swami Nikhilananda was well known for his translations of Shankara's works while Swami Prabhavananda was well known for his collaborations and interactions with people like Aldous Huxley, Frederick Manchester and Christopher Isherwood (the latter two are his collaborators). They both continued to be the presidents of the centres they started till the day they left this world. Swami Nikhilananda left this world at 1973, while Swami Prabhavananda left this world in 1976.

Works: I think that Prabhavananda gives a simple from the heart commentary, while Nikhilananda gives a more scholarly translation (I wanted to, but did not use the phrase more-accurate for Swami Nikhilananda).

• Upanishads: Upanishads: Breath of the eternal by Swami Prabhavananda was simple, refreshing and introductory. Swami Nikhilananda wrote two translations of the Upanishads. One of them a 4-volume edition (amazon-link) is considered a master piece in itself and also has the commentary on the Upanishads by Adi Shankara. It also has a near 100 page introduction. So that lesser souls like us can read the Upanishads, The Swami has also written one volume abridged edition. Even the latter has a detailed introduction (mostly taken from the introduction to the former). Both of these introductions are a great introduction of the Vedanta to any serious student. A major portion of the introduction -- in both the 4 volume and 1 volume editions -- is aptly titled "Discussion of Brahman in the Upanishads".
  
  
• Bhagavad-Gita: The Song of the Lord Bhagavad Gita by Swami Prabhavananda was very simple and beautiful. The translation by Swami Nikhilananda included a translation of the commentary by the Great Adi Shankara. It also includes a great introduction.
  
  
• Biographies of their Parama Acharya: Swami Nikhilananda is well known for his translation for the excellent translation of Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna (which I have not read) and its abridged version (which I have read). Swami Prabhavananda's disciple Christopher Isherwood has written Ramakrishna and his Disciples which is enchanting. I put it in the category of Swami Prabhavananda because of he is a disciple of Swami Prabhavananda. In the introduction of the book, he begins with the striking words: "this book is about Ramakrishna, the phenomenon".
  
  
• Other Works by Swami Nikhilananda: Swami Nikhilananda has translated Mandukya Upanishad including Gaudapada Karika (book not available online in USA. Only in RK mission book shops in India.), Drg-Drsya-Viveka and Adi Shankara's Self-Knowledge (Atma-Bodha). The latter book is commendable for its introduction that has a good introduction to Vedanta Philosophy, and its appendix that has a beautiful translation of many devotional hymns written by Adi Shankara.
  
  
• Other works by Swami Prabhavananda: The Swami has translated Adi Shankara's Viveka Chudamani Crest Jewel of Discrimination as well as Patanjali's Yoga Sutras: How to Know God. Swami Prabhavananda's Sermon on the Mount according to Vedanta is a book I would recommend to any Christian for the simplicity with which the core of Christianity (the Lord's prayer) echoes Vedanta.
  

May you read the works of the great men and progress towards realizing Brahman within Your Self.

[This post is another in admiration of Ramakrishna Math in spreading Vedanta in the west. Previous one is here.

About spreading of Vedanta in India, there is a third monumental figure, Swami Ranganathanananda. Describing him would be attempted in another post. Until then, read these wiki-entry, quotations from Ranganathananda, his obituary (he passed away in 2005) review of his biography.] Read the rest of this entry >>

Articles by Arun Shourie

A pointer to some articles written by Arun Shourie. His clarity of thought, preciseness and knowledgeability and the honest to call a spade as such, make each of his writings a piece in itself.

In Weak to the Strong, Strong to the Weak, he argues how partisan has been the practise of extreme-liberalism in India, atleast in the depiction of pictures of Dieties:

...
"But nude representations are a part of our tradition. Look at Konark, look at Khajuraho," the advocates have been shouting.
...
What basis is there for declaring the women portrayed there are Saraswati or Sita or Lakshmi ?
...
Many Hindus also notice the other thing -- the one I mentioned as the reason as against the rationalization for no artist ever being galvanized by the creative urge when it comes to painting the features of the Prophet. They notice that the artists do not do so, not because these masters cannot do so, nor because their muse never goads them in this direction, but because they know that, were they to do so, they would be set upon.
...

On Anne Besant and the current president of the congress. (This article was written in 1999, when the congress sychophants raised a hungama for the window of Rajiv Gandhi to become their president.)

Every act, every thought had been in the public domain for forty years in Mrs Besant's case. Every act, every thought has been shrouded behind the speech-writer's script, the PR advisor's sheen today.
...
The Congress-presidency came after twenty years' unremitting labour in the service of India in Mrs. Besant's case. It has come as a measure of desperation by persons who have no other way of acquiring office today.

==

Many more at http://arunshourie.voiceofdharma.com/articles.htm. The pointer was found in a comment to an excellent post (read it) on Atanu's blog. [Thanks to him, and the blogger.] Read the rest of this entry >>

Drg-Drsya-Viveka available online

Thanks to a post on advaitin mailing-list, I discovered a complete online edition of Drig-Drsya-Viveka by Swami Nikhilananda.

This short work of 46 verses, whose title means "Wisdom of the Seer and the Seen" talks about the Self as Consciousness (pragyanam-brahma) and perceiver/witness of everything. That the translation has been done by Swami Nikhilananda, who is well known for his translation of many wonderful books (my favorites: Self-knowledge and Bhagavad Gita) adds credit to this book. Even Shri. Subrahmanya Iyer says in the introduction:

The Swami's great literary merits are already so well and so widely known that this work of his needs little introduction from laymen like me. It is a time-honoured belief, a belief as old as the oldest Upanishads, that Vedantic Truth is best taught by those that live it, not by those that merely talk about it. Bhagavan Sri Ramakrsna Paramahamsa, the 'Real Mahatman' of the late Prof. Max Muller, was one such rare and great teacher. And the Vedantic works that are published by the reverend Order of Sannyasins founded by such a Guru have so great a spiritual charm that they make these works most welcome to all earnst seekers after Truth.

Here are a couple of verses:

Verse 1: The form is perceived and the eye is the perceiver. It (eye) is perceived and the mind is the perceiver. The mind with its modifications is perceived and the Witness (the Self) is verily the perceiver. But It (the Witness) is not perceived (by any other).

Verse 2: The forms (objects of perception) appear as various on account of such distintions as blue, yellow, gross, subtle, short, long, etc. The eye, on the other hand, sees them, itself remaining one and the same.

Verse 3: Such characteristics of the eye as blindness, sharpness or dullness, the mind is able to cognize because it is a unity. This also applies to (whatever is perceived through) the ear, skin, etc.

Verse 4: Consciousness illuminates (such other mental states as) desire, determination and doubt, belief and non-belief and non-belief, constancy and its opposite, modesty, understanding, fear and others, because it (Consciousness) is a unity.

Verse 5. This Consciousness [eternal Witness of all changes] does not rise [meaning birth] nor set [death]. It does not increase; neither does it suffer decay. Being self-luminous, it illuminates everything else without any other aid.

In veses 13-15, the book talks about the two powers of Maya: avarna (one that viels/conceals Brahman) and vikshepa (one that projects something else as Brahman). The next verses describe the differences between Nirguna and Saguna Brahman and the modes of attaining each of these.

Note on Saguna Vs. Nirguna Brahman: It is perceived by many that the Upanishads are ambivalent about Saguna vs. Nirguna Brahman. They have case because MahaNarayana Upanishad seems to declare Brahman as Naarayana, Svesavatara Upanishad declares Rudra as Brahman and Ganesha Atharva Sirsha Upanishad declares Brahman as Ganapathi. On the other hand, Mandukya Upanishad and verses from BrihadAranyaka and Chandogya seem to declare Brahman as Nirguna. The learned Swami points out in his introduction to Upanishads that many Upanishads are very clear about which Brahman they are talking about by the use of pronoun "He" for Saguna Brahman and "It" for Nirguna Brahman.

A recommendation: I found that reading Ramana Maharshi's commentary on Drg-Drsya-Viveka helped in understanding it. His commentary is in the book "The Collected works of Ramana Maharshi" and also available online from the Ramana-Maharshi.org website under downloads.

[The original post at advaitin mailing-list also links a classic Advaita text: Yoga Vasistha. I am yet to read it.]

Read the ancient text (including the commentary by Swami Nikhilananda and Ramana Maharshi) and contemplate on the nature of the Self!

Postscript: The following link is also relevant. Read the rest of this entry >>