Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

[SaiK]

It could be, but I was wondering what could Carl ji bring out about for a JOINT matrix?

May be he would take inputs from that, or he may come up with entirely different sets of measures.

[brihaspati]

Any attempt would be forced to turn towards dialectical logic. Both A and not-A are "true". We often try this because one guru has told some audience that A must be true, and another guru has told another audience that A is not true. But both might have had to deal with A because another guru previous to them had tried to decribe X through the property A - which that guru felt was necessary to describe X.

The very need to give shape, concretize, describe creates artefacts over which generations then fight. In the end based on that artefact A, if you want to keep A and still reconcile two fighting scholls over it - you then need some kind of a dialectical logic.

[Varoon Shekhar]

While searching for references to time travel in ancient texts, the Mahabharata was the first one that came up! There is a story in the MB about a king who traveled to the domain of Brahma, and then returned to his own kingdom, finding that it was in another age. No time travel 'machine' mentioned of course, but the concept of time travel was implicit. Pretty impressive, for way back then.

Please do quote the story and would like our Physics experts to comment on it.

This is the brief description given: In ancient Hindu mythology, the Mahabharatha mentions the story of the King Revaita, who travels to a different world to meet the creator Brahma and is shocked to learn that many ages have passed when he returns to Earth.

[niran]

the story goes like this:
Raivat a king could not find proper groom for his daughter, so he traveled to Brahamlok
when the father daughter duo reached brahmlok, Lord Brahma was enjoying a song and dance
from HuHu and HaHa, dutifully they waited for the end, King Raivat told his problem(after proper namaskaram chamatkaram of course) and requested the all knowing Brahma to point a suitable groom
to which the Lord replied
-but but while you two are here very many yug have already elapsed on Earth your family your family name is already forgotten let alone your kingdom, all is wail for you two now?
-why? melord
-oh! Brahmalok time is slow in comparison to Earth time, here in 24 hours 10 chatur yug cycle(hope i got the correct figure) will have already passed on Earth.
-buhuhohaha! wat to do? pliss to be helping

to that Lord Brahma told him about Lord Balram brother of Lord of Lords Shree Krishna and declared Lord Balram to be most suitable Groom.

[Varoon Shekhar]

Thanks. I believe the story also involves King Raivat traveling back to his kindgom/land, to find that things have changed quite dramatically. He does actually find himself in another age; it's not merely Brahma telling him that will happen.

[ramana]

Oh that is the background of Revathi the wife of Balarama in Dwapara yuga.

[SaiK]

Any attempt would be forced to turn towards dialectical logic. Both A and not-A are "true". We often try this because one guru has told some audience that A must be true, and another guru has told another audience that A is not true. But both might have had to deal with A because another guru previous to them had tried to decribe X through the property A - which that guru felt was necessary to describe X.

The very need to give shape, concretize, describe creates artefacts over which generations then fight. In the end based on that artefact A, if you want to keep A and still reconcile two fighting scholls over it - you then need some kind of a dialectical logic.

A's domain here is Advaitic science.. where Carl ji explained that Vaishnavite logic differs from genuine Adi Shankaracharya's definitions, and I was more interested what he would end up.. I want him to concertize the A, B and... Z of what subtleties and differences, variations, and their relationships so that it helps mango minds like me.

[Yagnasri]

Apart from that there was a detailed discribtion of how time passed slowly to Indra, Bramha and so on. Details i do not remember but strange concept.

[brihaspati]

There were two angles : it was assumed that the chief entities lived in domains where time counts were slower in comparison to earth. But it has a ready explanation. The whole padma-yaoni Brahma arising from the navel of ananta-sajya sleeping Vishnu - is a very good description of at least one possible current astrophysical theory.

There is a hypothesis - that on the other side of supermassive blackholes, mass is "digested" into "white" holes/cones from which new universes emerge. Or that the massive "intergalactic" filaments actually connect and sweep galaxies dying into central supermassives - other universes.

Around the centre of these "singularities" - time will slow down, a phenomenon that can be showed even for simple classical blackholes.

I think the creation -brahma -navel-black/white hole-time dilation analogy should be obvious.

[SaiK]

so which story is that or slokhas that talks about brahma re-birth from vishnu's naval every 4.x billion years or 8.y billion taking day and night brahma times?

Is there anything how the lotus gets destructed?
what causes the lotus to re-appear?
when was the time this story was written or earliest time told?

[Agnimitra]

We "Hindus" fight over these constructions of individuals and think we are fighting to establish the best, the most comprehensive "hinduism". This is a false fight.

Its better to study and read up all the texts available, in every coming or future period. It is crucial to remember that texts or supposed sermons or bhashyas are all limited by the severe loss in translation that happens when one tries to express what he feels or conceives of in his mind - and then expressing them.

True. Mahabharata, Vana-parva 313.117 :

tarko 'pratisthah shrutayo vibhinna
nAsav munir yasya matam na bhinnam
dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhAyAm
mahAjano yena gatah sa panthaH

"Dry arguments are inconclusive, and based on different scriptures. Someone ain't considered a philosopher (muni) unless he presents a theory differently from all previous theories onlee. The Truth, however, is hidden in the heart of a true self-realized personality. One should follow the Path established by such great personalities."

Its not about comparing arguments from two different past philosophers in order to establish the supremacy of one over the other.

However, these past philosophers, Acharyas, scriptures, etc can be treated as transparent via media to the Philosophia Perennialis (sanAtana dharma).

SaiK ji, I will put down some initial thoughts below. Maybe we can do a table later.

Correct organization of tattvas is the main task of philosophy, not just discovery of tattvas.

Something like understanding that only a hen (or a he hen ) can come after the egg and only an egg can come after the hen, instead of wasting time on researching over what came first. Am I right?

That's one example. Organization of tattvas would be w.r.t. -
1. Time Ordering
2. Selection of Relative Importances
3. Reducing appeals to extraneous mental "Authority"
4. Increasing self-determinism and cognition
etc.

But I was convinced by an Advaitists writings about the need for bhakti. He never said anything to imply that bhakti was useful only for its tamasha value.

I guess the word "tamasha" was too polemical. Advaitists (or any other sAdhakas) are quite "sincere" in their performance of bhakti, but then every emotional dramatization is also "sincere". Question is, what subconscious and conscious desires color it. Advaitist definition of "bhakti" is semantically almost synonymous with "mumukshatva" (desire for release). But this is quite different from the Madhva idea of "bhakti":

In the nice table you posted in response to SaiK ji, there were some problems with the Madhva column. For instance, under "Soteriology: How to obtain?", the answer given is "devotion (bhakti)" under Madhva Vedanta. But this is inaccurate. Madhva emphasizes that the answer is nuanced, and phrases it as "jnAna-pUrNa-bhakti" -- bhakti full of knowledge. Here, it is knowledge (jnAna) that is operative in obliterating ignorance and freeing the soul from entanglement. It is bhakti that creates space for jnAna, and it is also the evolving product of jnAna. Both assist one another, but bhakti is senior and causeless. (Also, bhakti is characterized as devotional service, and therefore includes "action" (karma-yoga) as a subsidiary element.)

So in the sense of "creating space" for jnAna, the Advaitin utility of "enhancing affinity for obtaining release" can be correctly admitted only as a preliminary, "first-round" expression of "bhakti". Now here it is important to note that Bhakti is not considered a means-to-an-end in Madhva Vedanta; jnAna may be. Rather, bhakti is the very substance and natural function of the soul. It is present in the beginning, the middle and the end of sAdhana. It is present in this world and after moksha. Therefore the natural ultimate property of the soul is to be an enthusiastic, unmotivated, liberated, eternal servant.

It is in this sense that the Advaitin conception of bhakti seems an artificial and motivated ego-drama. Moreover, because their doctrine starts by identification of soul with God at the very outset, the psychological narcissism of the ego-condition tends to be reinforced; or otherwise the obverse happens and Advaitins pursue a self-effacing kind of selflessness. OTOH, Madhva Vedanta would simply prescribe a chivalrous and selfless service to God and Dharma in such a phase; no need for self-effacement, but also not synonymous with mumukshatva in the sense that Bhakti is its own reward (Narada Bhakti Sutras).

For anyone in any school of thought, there is usually a progression of stages from -
1. ignorant exhibitionism of objective purity, (Pakiness)
2. to mental masturbation about subjective purity, (New Agey, wishy washy mental speculation)
3. to stable meditation (not just seated methodical meditation, but as a general state of mind)
...and so it is necessary to have a stable and balanced philosophical guidance to keep oneself on track, instead of becoming too inward-looking and self-focussed. Its possible one may go down a rabbit hole, and while that can be fascinating and all, it could just also be a waste of time.

The relationship between bhakti and jnAna in Madhva Vedanta is very interesting, and quite different from the typical sentimental ideas put forward by many "Vaishnavas" or other "bhakti" cults. Without being facetious, here's a Bruce Lee interview that may explain things in a nutshell. When I first heard this 3-minute clip, I was surprised how part of it was almost verbatim with a gloss by Shriman Vadiraja-tirtha on a commentary by Shriman Jayatirtha (whose annotations to Madhva's commentaries are indispensable). Sri Vadiraja was defining "jnAna-pUrNa bhakti" in his gloss to Sri Jayatirtha's annotations to Madhva's commentary to Vedanta-Sutra 3.2.19 (OM ambuvad agrahaNat tu na tathAtvaM OM).



Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_R0W1TcB1s

Madhvacarya is the only bhAshyakAra to find a definition of bhakti directly in the Vedanta-sUtras. This is significant, if one were to admit that bhakti (love) is the intrinsic function of consciousness. The MAdhva commentaries compare Bhakti to water, and JnAna to the way water is consumed (or "used", "channeled"). I think that's why this jnAna is said to be eternally in the form of jijnAsA ("seeking", "thirst"). First watch the video, then read the following rough translation of a passage from the commentary to that Brahma-sutra:

Bhakti is defined as the innate quality of intense love and attachment to ViSNu, in full knowledge of His Greatness (mAhAtmya-jnAnapUrvaka-snehO hi bhaktiH). Sentimental affection without sound understanding or in false doctrine is not real bhakti (snehenAjnAnAd iti kutO nOktaM). Ref. also Bhagavad Gita 10.7.

Bhakti expresses itself in different ways according to whatever circumstances the Pure Devotee is placed in, just like water (ambuvat), which flows into different vessels or canals, or has different velocities under different pressures. The devotionally Pure human being's Nature is supple and dynamic, without rigid, static moods or styles ... or rigid, egotistical opinions or reactions to mundane matters (like physical "ahiMsa" or flinching from "money and women" as absolute principles, for instance).

Instead, the Pure human being's consciousness (jnAna) is emptied of conventional roles and mental identities, solely seeking to be a medium for the Pleasure of Godhead. Water can flow serenely and patiently, or it can rush fearlessly with surprising force. As a flexible instrument, he is easily moulded according to the wishes of his Spiritual Authority (which is not a mental interjection of extraneous "authority" in the form of some master or text).

Jnana is like the strong and pure channel, vessel, or environment that firmly directs the course and speed of the flow of the water (jnAne'pi dArDhya-sUcanAya 'grahaNaM' ityuktaM). Without the water, a channel/vessel has unfulfilled purpose. On the other hand, without a vessel, hose, canal or gradients in the environment, or if the vessel has cracks, then water remains stagnant or dissipates without being harnessed.

Bhakti is intrinsic to consciousness, and is spontaneous (instinctive). All states of consciousness, ranging from shraddhA to saMkalpa are only different grades of development of that fundamental characteristic of consciousness - as intention. Acharya RAmAnuja was the first to reinstate this definition of consciousness as part of the VaiSNava renaissance - replacing the meaningless talk of "pure consciousness" that Advaitins were using at that time.

Jnana represents control and restraint, and gives shape and form (svarUpa-nirUpaNArthaM) to the expression of Bhakti.

Pure bhakti flows spontaneously, just like water flows spontaneously whenever there is some gradient or impulse, as long as it is clear and in liquid state. Sometimes our conditioned state is compared to water being frozen. To flow again, it should thaw. Also, pure Bhakti brings complete self-discipline in the jIva w.r.t. spiritual instructions, because there is no more self-resistance to directed flow (within the jIva's own nature).

Vishnu is the impetus and reservoir of all rasa (spiritual aesthetic and relationship). But the quality of the jnAna of the jIva (dharma-bhUta-jnAna) determines how we wish to accept and express that fundamental current that flows thru us, either directly connecting back to Him in communion, or indirectly thru the sink of Maya. In fully blossomed self-realization (vikAsa), we realize our svarUpa w.r.t. KRSNa.

Ultimately, jnAna-pUrNa bhakti is about honestly and fully expressing one's Affection (sneha) for the Supreme Personality of Godhead in great freedom and without resistance - "ahaituki, apratihatA" (Shrimad BhAgavataM 1.2.6)

In order to reach the above described quality of a Pure Devotee, we need to train every part of our being by a complete process involving all faculties, and by knowing the proper function and importance of all faculties and tattvas. I like it when Bruce Lee says, "well then baby you better train every part of your body."

Advaita it is said did bind the various bhakti traditions. If they did (and i would like a confirmation from you if they did), would it have been possible without their being a genuine understanding of the bhakti traditions.

Depending on what the power-equation and social indicators are, we can agree or disagree on the political utility of Advaitism as a standard. I don't think Advaita "bound" any bhakti traditions, except as a political compromise. As a spiritual rule, when there is conflict, one must retreat towards an impersonal common-ground. In that sense, yes, Advaita does provide that basis of agreement, and of techniques for self-discovery, etc. But beyond that it can be dangerous when it tries to politically monopolize the Vedic tradition. Because then it leads to mental speculations that try to artificially "reconcile" conflicts, and therefore necessarily derogates concepts that are key to higher degrees of bhakti. Given that political authority, it will naturally drag and keep everything down to its own denominator, instead of providing a scaffolding for higher evolution. We know that down south the Advaitists actually encouraged and allied with non-Vaishnav bhakti movements in order to sow conflict and confusion, and then prove themselves as a worthy "reconciler" of conflicts (e.g. Appaya dikshitar). This is mischief, given that few people in the past had the education or even access to resources to gain better philosophical understanding. So it was easy for Advaitists to blow smoke and create confusion in order to then regain political influence as guarantors of social harmony.

So, the general co-ordinates of Advaita can legitimately serve as a foundation and preparation for sAdhana. But when you create a religious-political establishment around that, and in a less-educated and philosophically immature social context, then it prevents higher degrees of Veda from becoming realized.

[Agnimitra]

ravi_g and SaiK ji,

Another problem with the comparative table is under the "Ontology- Nature of Reality" section, for the row "monistic, dualistic, pluralistic?". For the Madhva column, the answer given is "pluralistic". But this may give the wrong impression.

Madhva Vedanta is emphatic that there is only One Independent Reality. All other scopes of reality and elements of reality are dependent realities, i.e., they have no existence in the absence of attention units from the Independent Reality.

Thus, the variegated plurality of the material and spiritual universes are emanations from the One Independent Reality. The analogy Madhva uses is of bimba-pratibimba-bhava - image and reflection. E.g. light passing through mist causes the variegated rainbow (except that in the case of the Absolute, there is no "separate" mist to pass through). So the One Absolute does not require anything separate or outside of itself to manifest the variegatedness.

Moreover, Madhva has undertaken the task of defining Difference via the term vishesha (uniqueness differentiator). This vishesha is a property of the Absolute, which is unimaginable, since we do not see difference as a property in this material world, but only talk of difference as existing between two objects. Madhva explains that the perception of difference is merely signalized by this vishesha. This is a subtle but important difference from simply saying that "difference exists".

IMHO, the above is a very good and useful way of understanding all scopes of reality including our conditioned material reality. Without this important definition, other schools such as Acharya Shankara's had to resort to saying things like "maya exists and does not exist", which is like defaulting to sham profundity. It is of no use to our mango minds. It may even be harmful to understanding, which is best undertaken on a gradient. Once a gradient stretch is accomplished on one platform of reality, then quantum leaps of understanding become possible. Otherwise not.

[SaiK]

Carl ji.. bear with me.. I need a lot to understand here.. Lot of things to read. 'll be back later on with questions from these (if any).

--
Ok just understood one para so far..

It is in this sense that the Advaitin conception of bhakti seems an artificial and motivated ego-drama. Moreover, because their doctrine starts by identification of soul with God at the very outset, the psychological narcissism of the ego-condition tends to be reinforced; or otherwise the obverse happens and Advaitins pursue a self-effacing kind of selflessness. OTOH, Madhva Vedanta would simply prescribe a chivalrous and selfless service to God and Dharma in such a phase; no need for self-effacement, but also not synonymous with mumukshatva in the sense that Bhakti is its own reward (Narada Bhakti Sutras).

I think you have confused me or not answered to certain spheres of dumb neurons in me. I am seeing a bias towards madhva here.

Reading between your lines, are you saing advaitins are actually following a false "selflessness" where as madhva vedanta prescribes a true sense of selfless service.

Now, soul itself an undefined mango word to a larger extent for me..so, when we say "selfless", it is normally meant to be without ego, and nothing to do about ego at all. ego-drama seems to me that it is a representation of ego in wrapper called false-bhakti. but madvanites seems to have a theosophy that prescribe no such drama, cause just by being in the madhava thought,is enough to remove any such drama.

It is my understanding that ego is because of our living in Earth, and everything we attribute by acquired human behavior within this impure human environment having the 6th sense devoted towards selfish attitudes. Adi shankara says any living is endowed with ego. So, anything without it is omniscient. So, in the sense ego is something defined in my mango mind as bad attribution to real spirituality/knowledge.

Again the spheres are pure spiritual vs physical for me.

May be I have to catch up with so many other things you are saying.. mango is running low on battery. I'll read more later.

[brihaspati]

Are we sure that "service" to "God" is not automatically distinguishing between two entities - one of which serves the other? Or is it analogous to the hand and fingers which raise food to the mouth? But with "devotion" as food, since devotion originates from the same body that has the hand and the mouth - the more correct analogy would then become - cutting part of our other hand, and then using the remaining good hand to put it back into the mouth.

Without a separation of the various active and participating components, one cannot have "devotion". I do not feel it would be possible to fit into this framrwork the "oneness".

[SaiK]

The mango problem for me is, devotion/bhati itself a concept only attributed to humans. I can be lost in my mind into a world of totally devoted work.. self less to whatever ends the devotion is towards.. now I can only see/visualize/realize two abstract realms for analysis - devotion toward animate and devotion towards inanimate objects. In both cases, the act is same devoid of distortions or distractions towards anything else.. can we call this bhakti?

Or bhakti has to be only towards certain well defined concept/soul/object/notion only when which the ego is lost, and becomes selfless? something that is neither lifeless or full of life, that is where mango struggles to comprehend and becomes uncharted always.. whereas people like the religious greats and gurus were able to comprehend, and realize the 3rd realm..or even more like 11 dimensions of unified theory.?

[Agnimitra]

Are we sure that "service" to "God" is not automatically distinguishing between two entities - one of which serves the other? Or is it analogous to the hand and fingers which raise food to the mouth?

The latter. Just as all the limbs work to feed the stomach, etc.

Without a separation of the various active and participating components, one cannot have "devotion". I do not feel it would be possible to fit into this framrwork the "oneness".

Yes, separation is there, but Madhva condemns the misconception of "extreme duality" (atyanta-bhinnam). So there is oneness, but there is also individuation within that oneness (advaita and ekatva).

SaiK ji, I need to run. Will respond later.

[johneeG]

Thanks. I believe the story also involves King Raivat traveling back to his kindgom/land, to find that things have changed quite dramatically. He does actually find himself in another age; it's not merely Brahma telling him that will happen.

Is it the same story where the King returns to the earth and is told that he will die in next few hours and the King mentally renounces everything and achieves liberation? If thats the story, then IMHO, it its not about time travel but relativity of time. (Because, the King cannot travel back in time. And strictly speaking, he did not travel into future either).

1 day in Heaven == 1 year on Earth.
or
1 year in Heaven == 360 years on Earth.
or
1200 Devata(Divine) years = 4,32,000 years of Humans == 1 Kali Yuga.

[johneeG]

Are we sure that "service" to "God" is not automatically distinguishing between two entities - one of which serves the other? Or is it analogous to the hand and fingers which raise food to the mouth? But with "devotion" as food, since devotion originates from the same body that has the hand and the mouth - the more correct analogy would then become - cutting part of our other hand, and then using the remaining good hand to put it back into the mouth.

Without a separation of the various active and participating components, one cannot have "devotion". I do not feel it would be possible to fit into this framrwork the "oneness".

A famous saying in this regard(addressed to God):
Deha Buddhya tu daso ham-
Jiva Buddhya tvad amsakah
Atma Buddhya tvam evaham
Iti me nischita matih:

If I associate with body—I am Your servant.
If I associate with Jeeva- I am a portion of You.
If I associate with Atma- I am You (Aham Brahma Asmi).
This is my conviction..

Madhusudhana Saraswathi has spoken of 3 stages of devotion that a devotee goes through with regard to God/Goddess:
a) I am Yours.
b) He/She is Mine.
c) I am He/She.

[SaiK]

may be that is where the mega mango confusion arise.. the word "atma". Though atma can be very easily understood (or misunderstood) be part of Jeeva, which in turn runs my physical presence.

Did all these great gurus confused us with all these musings on atma? The inner self, and what is me, and that I am, you and me, and him... to mangoes, is like life forms. when we add the 6th sense definitions of atma, is the play word and theories flourish with various -isms.

I am pretty positive that paramatma itself a concept of dvaita in trying to say, you and him are different. an Universal him suddenly becomes ONE, so the confusion is this separation so, on the whole all is him, including you, so the word atma to associate with paramatma.. and then takes the birth of advaita in that satisfies the inclusion theory.

If I am understanding it right, then.. if we qualify or quantify anything other than your atma with other atmans, then the paramatman gets qualified. And that is not what people like to hear, that equating the god particle to qualified and quantified..

I see the reasoning in Adi shankara's removing all things physical, egos etc are part of the effort to separate the unwanted evil aspects of diversions and focus on the pure science of one-ness.

let us see what cern data comes out on whatever they find.

[Agnimitra]

Now, soul itself an undefined mango word to a larger extent for me..so, when we say "selfless", it is normally meant to be without ego, and nothing to do about ego at all.

1. Ego and its symbiotes are necessary for survival in this world. Nothing intrinsically wrong with it. So Madhva's Vedanta recognizes all the koshas as potentially legitimate dependent realities once they are freed of perversions.

2. The task of reversing perversion is to dovetail the ego and all its symbiotes. Its like a horse. The task is to (a) train the horse, fit it with a saddle, etc., and then (b) ride the horse. Now if the horse is untrained, then its going to be a not-so-merry rodeo ride for the Self. There will be no direction, and no possibility of taking aim for the archer that is riding the horse (the target being Remembrance of the Lord as we pass the momentary window of death - psychological or physical deaths). But if the horse is trained, then it takes one to the destination that much quicker and safer, leaving one's other limbs free to perform other crucial tasks. IOW, the ego-horse becomes one's greatest potential asset. (See Bhagavad Gita 6.5)

3. So "selflessness", etc are not about negationism, nihilism, escapism, desire for release, etc. as per Madhva. Its just about dovetailing things towards a target in the spirit of a serviceman.

4. Of course, in due course, as the heart is purified, the different scopes of reality begin to telescope into one another. For instance, they first seem like a burden, then they become a jocular affair, then seem like a past dreamlike extension. Also, along the course of co-creative meditation on service, there can possibly be loss of self-awareness, but that's a different issue.

5. So from point #4, now we can see that the Madhva angle ultimately converges with the Adi Shankara characterization in terms of end phenomena. The difference is in terms of process modelling, understanding, and methodology.

Or bhakti has to be only towards certain well defined concept/soul/object/notion only when which the ego is lost, and becomes selfless? something that is neither lifeless or full of life, that is where mango struggles to comprehend and becomes uncharted always.. whereas people like the religious greats and gurus were able to comprehend, and realize the 3rd realm

See above. Sadhana requires (a) right philosophy (b) right understanding/methodology (c) and suitable service (to dovetail). These 3 provide the context for a Complete Meditation that involves all parts and extensions of the self.

JMT, hope it helps. The point here is that there is no such thing as "Madhva bhakti" versus "Shankara bhakti". Everyone has some kind of bhakti, even if its desh-bhakti. And everyone's bhakti undergoes the same manifestations and mental processes. The point is to fill in the gaps of the grades and problems of Work and fundamentals of Thought, so as to best manage and cultivate the bhakti-process. In doing so, we should reach deep into the Indic traditions from all the munis and rishis. Madhva is singularly under-rated so far, even though he is the one who helps bring things full circle, IMHO.

In my personal life, I contribute with service, money etc to more Advaitist groups than Vaishnava. And I learn from both types too. The intersection of understanding, meditation-method and service is within the individual, IMHO, not out there in some group or sect, or monopolized by the name of an acharya. Some people take the opposite of syncretism, and find their understanding by a ruthless critique of all pre-existing teachers and their followers! E.g. Arya Samaj founder Swami Dayananda. To some extent we all have to do this, too. If the result is correct, and if not too much damage is done along the way, then its OK, IMHO. So this discussion about creating a Common Word on Vedanta could be undertaken with that understanding (and not a sectarian debate).

[Agnimitra]

Madhusudhana Saraswathi has spoken of 3 stages of devotion that a devotee goes through with regard to God/Goddess:
a) I am Yours.
b) He/She is Mine.
c) I am He/She.

But we should not confuse epistemology with ontology. Atman is at the convergence point of the two, and so its that much more tricky to talk about it, and such simplistic characterizations are not helpful, maybe harmful.

Even in a non-self-realized state, or even a depressed, dissociated mental state, one can experience identification with objects, people, etc. Doesn't mean anything ontologically - in fact the ontological and psychological diagnosis may be rather unflattering.

A good start would be
(a) to take cognition as the fundamental factor for talking about something, and
(b) sound grasp of philosophical tools as a fundamental requirement for speculating and teaching it to others.

So if we don't know atman, then we need not speculate too much about it, even if it sounds really cool. We shouldn't mentally speculate on what we have not cognized, and we shouldn't speculate and teach about what we have cognized without gaining a grasp of philosophical tools. This last point is particularly fascinating. Madhva emphasizes a difference between moksha-adhikAra and veda-adhikAra. Qualification for moksha is human birth. Qualification to teach veda is NOT moksha. Rather, even a non-liberated person who has thorough grounding in philosophy and the requisite systems of knowledge (a "brahmana") can be a bona fide teacher of Vedanta...whereas a liberated person who does not have that qualification cannot be a bona fide teacher! At first this sounds weird and counter-intuitive, but when you re-consider carefully, it is a fantastic exposition.

To summarize - The bridge between the spiritual semantics of the liberated soul and the material semantics of the unliberated student must be bridged by semantic structures that the liberated soul may have completely lost awareness of. This is very important to understand. so the liberated soul (or any other person who wants to teach) must have a command of the philosophical systems necessary to translate cognitions to the appropriate semantic level of ordinality.

Even the person who may be the medium of revelation, or the compiler of revelation, is not necessarily qualified to teach it to another. Its like this statement attributed to Lord Shiva:

aham vedmi shukO vetti, vyAsO vetti na vetti vA...
"I know the meaning (of the Bhagavatam), Shuka knows it too; whereas Vyaso may or may not know it."

...even though Vyasa is the compiler of the large parts of Vedic literature. So with all due respect to Shriman Madhusudana Saraswati and others, without a thorough use of a semantic bridge, it can be problematic to teach higher cognized truths at a general level using such words as reproduced above.

There are two parts to knowledge:
1. Education - which is to draw cognitions out from within the student himself/herself.
2. Instruction - to give structure to what has been draw out.

JMHO.

[member_20317]

Carl ji you are prolific. I had not finished reading the last post and you have already posted a new one. Hell its two now.

But WTH, I have taken an hour to write it so here goes.

Carl ji, I personally don’t think the Bruce Lee interview was flippant or out of place.
And kindly bear with me, for I am no philosopher I am quite willing to delay progression in philosophy/spirituality in favour of achieving a better worldly life for the general population that practices living. Also a caveat, there are a lot of first person references below, which I have placed in the belief that I am not so much of an exception to the general rule.

I do agree with you when you try to strike a balance between JnAna and Bhakti. When I was first read Gita half way through I too felt a need to strike that balance. Luckily for me Gita in its entirety strikes that balance just right.

The MAdhva commentaries compare Bhakti to water, and JnAna to the way water is consumed (or "used", "channeled"). I think that's why this jnAna is said to be eternally in the form of jijnAsA ("seeking", "thirst").

Also would be entirely spontaneous in acknowledging your contribution in balancing Karma/ Action in the equation too as you do with your quote.

(Also, bhakti is characterized as devotional service, and therefore includes "action" (karma-yoga) as a subsidiary element.)

Re.

I don't think Advaita "bound" any bhakti traditions, except as a political compromise.

But you have to realize that while there may have been historic incidents of competition between Advaitists and Madhva Vedantists in certain regions and in certain times, it may not actually have been so, in certain or even most other times and most other parts of India.
I mean South India may have seen some machinations by Advaitists but the other three Sankaraa Mathas, it is said did help out the one in my home state which needed such help from time to time. For perhaps the gifted the political may be dispensable but for the lay person it is important too. Further the Mango Gangudin of India never really saw these Acharyas as being in a competition for harvesting the souls. The attitude in most time and places has been more or less of ‘let good thoughts come to us from all sides’, an idea just as old and well entrenched as any other propounded by/in Vedanta. There is enough space for any theory/philosophy to gain a critical mass and explore its own natural growth.
In addition to that I hope you do realize that most of our people have not had a deeper experience of these philosophies. 15 to 20% of our population thinks Sharia etc. (etc. includes everything else that is ‘secular’) are philosophy and another 30% are quite ok with this view. Another 30% would not exert too much in any organized manner to get rid of it even if they don’t agree with it. So at the moment the concern that Advaita can keep everything down to its own denominator may not demand a larger part of our attention.
The balance of practicality lies in letting the people decide what best suits their peculiar circumstances, which are already too much.

Re.

As a spiritual rule, when there is conflict, one must retreat towards an impersonal common-ground. In that sense, yes, Advaita does provide that basis of agreement, and of techniques for self-discovery, etc. But beyond that it can be dangerous when it tries to politically monopolize the Vedic tradition. Because then it leads to mental speculations that try to artificially "reconcile" conflicts, and therefore necessarily derogates concepts that are key to higher degrees of bhakti. Given that political authority, it will naturally drag and keep everything down to its own denominator, instead of providing a scaffolding for higher evolution

I have not read these commentaries, but I have always suspected that it is difficult to do prose without loosing focus on the general practice of life. Poetry is somewhat better in this regard. Prose appears like a difficult thing made more difficult and poetry makes a difficult thing looks like it is easy. Perhaps the reason why Gita is household while these commentaries are not. Personally when it comes to things temporal, I prefer firsthand experience and skill to even poetry (And this preference clearly implies an acknowledgement of a gradient in the learning curve). Perhaps this is the reason why most people are willing to practice their lives then try to understand Gita better. I rather suspect, what is a limitation for me is so for most other people. People usually work under the assumption that If their understanding is wrong they will at some point fail which would be a clear indication for the need to change the ways else good only.
It is in this light that we should not be so afraid of any philosophy. Indians esp. Hindus at a personal level have resisted Abrahamisation of themselves for so long, that an underhand tactic to attain absolutist power will be easily unmasked.
The scaffolding to be provided by the polity that you talk about is something that the society will learn only somewhat later and don’t let that confuse you because postponing is not the same as giving up.

Re.

The Truth, however, is hidden in the heart of a true self-realized personality.

I am really sorry if what I wrote makes it harder for you to convince me about your viewpoint on the level of contradictions and competition between the two schools. The competition is mostly at the level of thought instead of the temporal roll out of it. The contradictions are not so much that a good jugaad cannot provide for them. I believe in what you have said above and know that you believe in it just right, to allow you to let go of the extreme focus on the differences.

[member_20317]

Re. Carl at 11 Jan 2012 22:15

Re. moksha-adhikAra and veda-adhikAra.
Its not very difficult to accept actually. Indians have employed words like Pandit, Purohit, Brahman, Brahmgyani/Brahmyogi as distinct ideas and even the most bland of persons actually will not in approval it you used these words with reasonable skill

Re. Ontology.
While I understand it only as a word and not as a discipline, would i be wrong to add that what SaiK is doing, basically waiting for the big machine to give a new light, may actually be in that very category, the one to which we have to approach with a certain degree of skepticism. God particle is not God. It may turn out to be just another level.

[SaiK]

I am thinking madwatism is more goldilock sets of theory that applies for earthly beings, and advatism is for something beyond. but, what is interesting for me is the vedas that support both these two forms of theology.. and this is where I am seeking a bliss... where we get a narration in the form of clear definitions, without too much links to details.. which could be categorized and specialized. but, such a generic data could mean lot of study like a person who knows more - a reason I am chasing behind Carl ji, to present scenarios, stories, and finally extracts that lead to such application. So, that for our future, we can tell kids how and what, and where all these apply.

[ramana]

Guys, all this is interesting, but its Hindu philosophy and not about the four topics in the thread title!

[SaiK]

dang! apologies.

[member_20317]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treatises

trea·tise noun \ˈtrē-təs also -təz\

Definition of TREATISE

1: a systematic exposition or argument in writing including a methodical discussion of the facts and principles involved and conclusions reached <a treatise on higher education>

2obsolete : account, tale

Origin of TREATISE
Middle English tretis, from Anglo-French tretiz, alteration of tretez, traitet, from Medieval Latin tractatus, from Latin tractare to treat, handle

First Known Use: 14th century

[SaiK]

ravi_g, may be we are discussion that happened before 14th century.

[johneeG]

may be that is where the mega mango confusion arise.. the word "atma". Though atma can be very easily understood (or misunderstood) be part of Jeeva, which in turn runs my physical presence.

Did all these great gurus confused us with all these musings on atma? The inner self, and what is me, and that I am, you and me, and him... to mangoes, is like life forms. when we add the 6th sense definitions of atma, is the play word and theories flourish with various -isms.

I am pretty positive that paramatma itself a concept of dvaita in trying to say, you and him are different. an Universal him suddenly becomes ONE, so the confusion is this separation so, on the whole all is him, including you, so the word atma to associate with paramatma.. and then takes the birth of advaita in that satisfies the inclusion theory.

If I am understanding it right, then.. if we qualify or quantify anything other than your atma with other atmans, then the paramatman gets qualified. And that is not what people like to hear, that equating the god particle to qualified and quantified..

I see the reasoning in Adi shankara's removing all things physical, egos etc are part of the effort to separate the unwanted evil aspects of diversions and focus on the pure science of one-ness.

let us see what cern data comes out on whatever they find.

There are 3 bodies(sheaths):
a) Physical Body(Gross Body).
b) Subtle Body consisting of Mind(not to be confused with Brain), Nadis and senses(not physical).
c) Subtlest Body.

Generally, the term chitta or manas is used to indicate both Subtle body and subtlest body. The word Aatma refers to pure consciousness. All the 3 bodies are vehicles. Ad long as an Aatma identifies itself with one of the bodies, it is not liberated. A body is the product of past actions. Subtle Body and subtlest body carry the Vasanas/Samskaras(impressions/culture). This Vasana/Samskara accounts for differing natures(and tastes) of people.

To cater to these differing tastes and qualifications, there are various ways prescribed. Broadly, there are 3 ways:
a) Gyana Marga: Suitable to people who have vairagya(disinterest) in material comforts of Heaven and Earth.
b) Bhakti Marga: Suitable to people who have liking towards the God/Goddess.
c) Karma Marga: Suitable to the rest.

First step in Gyana Marga is Sadhana Panchakam. Then, approaching a realised Guru and learning from him. Brahma Sutras and philosophical upanishads teach this marga. Vedanta is part of Gyana Marga.

9 steps of Bhakti Marga are famous:
Sravanam: Listening to the leelas of avatars of God/Goddess,
kirtanam: Singing eulogies(Stotra) of God/Goddess,
Smaranam: Remembering the God/Goddess,
Pada-sevanam: Service of God/Goddess ,
Archanam: Worship of God/Goddess,
Vandanam: Prostrations to God/Goddess,
Dasyam: Feeling that one is Dasa(servent) of God/Goddess. (Dasoham),
Sakhyam: Feeling that one is a friend of God/Goddess. Eg: Arjuna,
Atma-nivedanam:Offering self to the God/Goddess i.e. becoming one with God/Goddess.

Karma Marga involves performing Karmas(rituals/actions) prescribed by Vedas. The category of Karmas are:
a) Nitya Karma : Obligatory Karmas to be performed every day without fail.
b) Naimittika Karma: Special Karmas for special occasions to be performs without fail.
c) Kamya Karma: Karmas to fulfill the desires. They are optional. Eg: Putrakameshti for birth of a son.
d) Nishiddha Karma: Forbidden Karmas. Eg: Murder or cow slaughter
c) Prayaschitta Karma: Karmas for atoning the sins. Sins arise due to non-performance of obligatory Karma(Nitya and Naimittika) and performance of forbidden Karma(Nishiddha).

When the Karmas are performed without any desire for returns, then it amounts to Karma Yoga. In Karma Yoga, one performs Nitya, Naimittika and Prayaschitta Karmas.

When Karmas are performed without the desire for results and as a duty prescribed by God/Goddess, it leads to purification from the sins and Vasanas(impressions in the mind). In course of time, Vairagya(disinterest) also develops.

Once the Vairagya develops, then one is eligible for Gyana Marga.

As for the various philosophies:

Atheism:
Denial of God/Goddess.
Denial of after-life(Heaven/Hell).
Belief that one is nothing more than one's body.

In short, identifying oneself with one's body only.

Goal:
Since, one is identified with body, pleasuring(and comforting) the body are the ultimate goals. Since, Heaven/Hell is denied, there is no fear of punishment for any vice or reward for any virtue. Thuds, all means to acquire the bodily pleasures and comforts is allowed.

Result:
Atheism leads to Hedonism.


Abrahamic philosophies:
Belief that God is a limited entity i.e. Belief that God is distinct from cosmos i.e. denial of omnipresence of God.
Belief that one is a combination of one's body and soul.
Belief in eternal Heaven and eternal Hell.

Features:
The bodies are buried in the belief that they are 'resting in peace' within the graves and that they will be resurrected one day. Concentration is placed on the external activities rather than internal growth of human being.

Goal:
To enjoy the pleasures of heaven and avoid the hell. The highest stage of human being proposed by these philosophies is to enjoy the pleasures of heaven which generally consist of food, clothes, wine and sex.

Result:
Encourages after-life hedonistic urges which can evolve into earthly hedonism.

Classification:
These philosophies ascribe permanence to 3 entities:
God, individual bodies, and individual souls.

So, they can be called Traita(i.e. Advocating the existence of 3 entities).


Dwaita(Dualist):
Belief that one is one's Atma(soul) which is distinct from the God/Goddess.
Belief that one's body is occupied by one's Atma(distinct from God/Goddess) and that the Atma performs all the actions.

Feature:
A particular form of God/Goddess is chosen as the correct representation. And exclusive devotion to that form is emphasized. Individual bodies are not given any prominence. They are considered perishable.

Goal:
To go to the abode of one's deity after death. The God/Goddess and the individual soul are always distinct. The closest they can come together is by staying together at one place.

Classification:
These philosophies ascribe permanence to 2 entities:
a) God/Goddess.
b) individual souls.

Eg: Many such schools exist(or existed) in India emphasizing various Gods and Goddesses. Madhva's Vaishnava Dwaita is a popular example.


Vishishta Advaita:
Belief that one is one's Atma(soul) which is distinct from the God/Goddess.
Belief that one's body is occupied by one's Atma and the God/Goddess. While, the Atma performs all the actions, it is empowered to perform those actions by the God/Goddess who is also the witness of all the actions. Atma without God is powerless.

Feature:
A particular form of God/Goddess is chosen as the correct representation. And exclusive devotion to that form is emphasized. Individual bodies are not given any prominence. They are considered perishable.

Goal:
To go to the abode of one's deity after death. The God/Goddess and the individual soul are always distinct. The closest they can come together is by staying together at one place.

Classification:
These philosophies ascribe permanence to 1 entity:God/Goddess.
And a peculiar quantified permanence is ascribed to individual souls.

Eg: Ramanuja's Vishishta Adwaita is a popular example.


Adwaita:
Belief that one is one's Atma(soul) which is same as the God/Goddess.
Belief that one's body is occupied by one's Atma which is same as God/Goddess.
The Atma/God/Goddess has absolute omni-presence.

Feature:
All Vedic forms of Gods and Goddesses are considered fit for devotion. And exclusive devotion to one form is discouraged. If only one form is worshipped, then it is seen as the amalgamation of all the forms. Individual bodies are not given any prominence. They are considered perishable.

Goal:
To realise the indistinctness of one's soul and the God/Goddess before or after death. The God/Goddess and the individual soul are never distinct. They appear distinct owing to Maya(and Moham).

Classification:
These philosophies ascribe permanence to 1 entity:God/Goddess/Atma.

Eg: Adi Shankara Bhagavatpada, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Ramana Maharshi, Sadashiva Brahmendra...etxc are popular figures to have preached Advaita.

[Agnimitra]

So, that for our future, we can tell kids how and what, and where all these apply.

Exactly. The discussion here is not about "what exists", but rather about how best the method can be taught, transmitted, and further researched. So we need a model that best serves the latter purpose.

SaiK and ravi_g ji, regarding quantum physics and Vedanta, it is worth noting that, while earlier stalwarts were more attracted towards concepts from certain Buddhist schools and Hindu Advaita Vedanta, as time has gone by they have been drawing much, much closer to Madhva Vedanta. Check out popular authors on quantum physics such as Fritjof Capra, etc. See, Advaita talks of ontological unity and epistemological pluralism, whereas Madhva's Vedanta talks about a qualified ontological pluralism and epistemological unity.

Madhva’s philosophy envisages that scientific descriptions are generally postulated to be objective, and quite independent of the human observer, including the process of knowing. Fritjof Capra, one of the world’s foremost theoretical physicists, in his landmark book, The Web of Life writes: "The new paradigm implies that epistemology has to be included explicitly in the description of natural phenomenon..." Reason? Systems, according to Capra, are all interdependent. They also encompass, Capra adds, a web of relationships, including nature, with a corresponding network of concepts and models, none of which is any more fundamental than the others.

This is also - more or less - cognate to what noted US biologist Edward O Wilson describes as consilience - the basic unity of all knowledge. Of the proof that everything in our world is organised in terms of a small number of fundamental laws - one that also encircles the particles underlying every branch of learning.

This ‘new-fashioned’ thinking, Capra contends, recognises the fact that all scientific concepts are limited and approximate; and, that science can never provide any complete or definitive, or total, understanding. According to Capra, the process of living is not the world, but a world - one that is always dependent on interdependent structures, including the genetic information encoded in the DNA. Which also means that consciousness, in essence, is a social phenomenon - no more, no less (whence the concept of divine sociality in Vaishnavism). To be human, therefore, contends Capra, is to be endowed with reflective consciousness.

[Agnimitra]

JohneeG ji, thanks for your post. But your characterization of Dwaita and identifying it with Madhva's Vedanta is quite wrong. Your post is a good specimen of why I started posting about this subject -- the rampant disinformation and misunderstandings about Madhva's Vedanta, and how Hinduism is poorer by such false stereotyping. Your depiction above is not even close to Madhva's Vedanta, even at a superficial level.

[SaiK]

'll take time to read, but folks consider ramana's request as well.

I am looking at more substantiations rather just initiations that clutter the mango minds [it has not worked so well, and it will fail us in the longer run]. please remember, you are binging a vast area of knowledge for the aam world and the young, and not for the learned. Hence, it is vital that all concrete data should relate the abstract, and specify how, why, all the 6 basic questions that a kid might ask.

Models should have clear visions, and inter-connected in the components of thoughts that you all say. I agree, it is really hard to visualize like a mango, but there is no other way out here.

[Agnimitra]

ramana ji, is there another thread you'd rather have us use?

I am thinking madwatism is more goldilock sets of theory that applies for earthly beings, and advatism is for something beyond.

Beyond what?

For what lies beyond the horizon of our current consciousness, Madhva maintains silence. He calls that Parabrahman Class a mUla-rUpa (root form), and says that nothing should be definitively said about that at this point. Simple. Its philosophical relation with lower hypostases must be explained. That's all. Anything more said about it would be saying too much.

However, the lower order reflection of that Parabrahman that is cast within the ken of our present consciousness...things can and should be taught about that, and he does. That reflective form that is cast within the ken of our consciousness is most worthy of meditation and contemplation.

Also, there will always be a root form of Brahman beyond consciousness that we can never ever completely know. That mystery will always be there, according to Madhva. However, the individual soul will be completely fullfilled with the level of knowledge that it attains in full self-realization.

[SaiK]

beyond prithvi and life and soul. beyond human living scope. does madhava's theory work say in mars, where there is no soul or life? If life is a possibility in mars, take pluto if you may.

[Agnimitra]

beyond prithvi and life and soul. beyond human living scope. does madhava's theory work say in mars, where there is no soul or life? If life is a possibility in mars, take pluto if you may.

Madhva's theory says it 'works' wherever there is life (vAyu). This includes all of space and beyond space as well. But we need to understand the fundamentals here - how do you say there is "no soul or life" on some other planet? Your question betrays a fundamental epistemological assumption. That's what I was referring to in the previous post above, about Capra's commentary on the current state of quantum physics, etc.

Perhaps you mean "life" as a biological or energetic manifestation onlee? But as per Vedanta, any material universe has matter, energy, space, time... and life. Of these, the first 4 comprise the form of it, and in various combinations they express degrees of life's manifestation. In its lowest, 0th degree, Madhva calls it nir-Rti as per RigVedic definition, and is a degree that has no felicity of life. Madhva considers it a hellish condition, though some souls may choose that based on their intrinsic nature.

[SaiK]

interesting.. so what is the highest form of life? [meaning the 0 being death.. like that is compared on mars].. 0 is life too? that is a mango question.

so, where does soul fit in the material world? is it part or different from it? again mango because I understood soul and life are different.

[Agnimitra]

interesting.. so what is the highest form of life? [meaning the 0 being death.. like that is compared on mars].. 0 is life too? that is a mango question.

AFAIU, 0 degree of life is also life, but with no felicity. [If you recall the shoDasha-kala-puruSha in the Upanishads, the 16th kala (puShkara) is considered subsidiary to the other 15, since it is related to activity.] I'm pretty sure that Mars does not represents 0 degree life, though. There may be no materially embodied life there, but there could be other subtle forms of life. Matter is only one of the envelopes of manifestation. Energy, space and time are others.

so, where does soul fit in the material world? is it part or different from it? again mango because I understood soul and life are different.

AFAIU, Soul is a "container" of Life. It is a container class. But I will have to double check on that in Madhva's schema.

As for World(s), they are like a meditative instantiation of the experience that is created by the Soul's quality of relationship with Parabrahman. There is only One Independent Reality, but we experience and know it in different degrees and grades based on the felicity in our consciousness of God. Therefore, in any spiritual degree, the Soul is in a world that it meditates on, just like we are right now. Brahman is what the soul is meditating on in all instances, and Brahman is also the cause of that manifestation of Brahman. He is self-revealing. At this point, we can sense that this Brahman is closely intertwined with Life itself, as the source of Life.

[ramana]

Why dont you guys start a Hindu Philosophy thread and populate it? Looks like there is more than average interest in the subject.

[SaiK]

except for a small problem ramana ji.. the GDR rules denies creating religious discussion threads.

[ramana]

Is philosphy a religion?