AdhkikAri: Qualifications for AtmavidyA

That adhikaritvam or competence is necessary for jnana is wellknown . Perhaps it is worth reiterating. More than "tat tvam asi" it is these qualifications that really need a lifetime or perhaps even several lifetimes of effort.

The main requisite (besides viveka and vairagya) which are requirements for a "uttama adhikari" are the shamaadi shatsampat or sixfold virtue - Shama, Dama, Uparati, Titiksha, Shraddha and Samadhana. Selfknowledge is a "mirage" without a fairly intense degree of acquisition of these qualities.

Shama is equanimity of mind or mind control. This is the first and at the same time quite easily the most difficult to attain. It demands intense selfeffort and selfobservation.
We only have to examine ourselves honestly for an hour or so to see how much shama we have or more appropritaly how much we lack? The Kathopanishad draws the famous and beautiful analogy of the charioteer being the intellect, the reins being the mind and the horses being the sense orgnas. Without a tught hold on the reins and without the horses being under control and used to the intellects benefit, the intellect can do nothing worthwhile.

Dama is sense-control - not allowing the organs of perception and our organs of action to run riot. The Vivekachudamani has the beautiful examples of how just by one sense organ running riot different animals like the fish, the elephant, etc bring about their own death, what to speak of a human whose ruin is certain by not adequately retaining all the sense organs. Again selfeffort is the key here. In his short but beautiful treatise Sadhana panchakam Shankara begins with "Treat hunger like a disease and do not relish your food" Before each and every meal are we truly able to consistently bring this attitude to the food and eat simply as a medicine to appease our hunger?? Same with every other senseorgan besides the tongue.


Uparati comes next. It is a sense of cheerful acceptance of our lot in life - a noncomplaining attitude. With adequate dama, whatever enjoyments come unasked to us we should be satisified with, and grateful to Ishwara. Upariti when it matures has to result in sannyasa. For atmabodha a graduation in one's ashrama from grhasta or vanaprastha to sannyasa becomes necessary.


Titiksha is power of endurance, an ability to patiently bear the pairs of opposites such as heat and cold, pleasure and pain and the rest. How much pain - physical or emotional - are we able to take with a pleasant attitude? How much of a pleasant (intrinsic) disposition do we harbor for most of the day. During a fast, when we detect hunger pangs, am I able to say i am the consciousness that is witnessing this hunger sensation in this body or do we simply give in and say "I am hungry" and so on for other afflictions as well. No selfdevelopment can proceedfrom a lack of bhramacharyam and tapas. Bhagwan Shankara starts the atma bodha with the verse - "this teaching is meant only for those who have developed austerity".

In the words of Bhagwan Krishna, The austerity of the body consists in this: worship of
the Supreme Lord, the brahmanas, the spiritual master, and superiors like the father and mother. Cleanliness, simplicity, cellibacy and nonviolence are also austerities of the body. Brahmacharyam in addition to sexual celibacy also includes avoidance of revelry in other sense pleasures.

Austerity of speech consists in speaking truthfully and beneficially and in avoiding speech that offends. One should also recite the Vedas regularly. This perhaps may be our greatest barrier- having control of our tongue. Swami-ji used to comment that in reality austerity of speech is part of austerity of the body alone, but this is this one austerity that is so profoundly lacking yet so important that Bhagwan mentions it separately and again re-repeats it as maunam in the next sloka!!

And serenity, silence (control of the mind with regard to speech),self-control and purity of thought are the austerities of the mind.

Samadhana is mental awareness and focus, and mental equipoise. This is the fruit of the above three practices. Whenever a mind engaged in Sravana and the rest wanders to any worldly object or desire, and finding it worthless, returns to the teaching, such returning is called Samadhana.

Shraddha is intense faith in the words of the Guru and in the saying of the Vedantic scriptures and, above all, in one's own self.

If we examine (in a NONJUDEGEMENTAL way) ourselves with the above qualifications, we will readily appreciate what is lacking in us from being a uttamaadhikari.

If all of these qualities accrue to us in due course, with selfeffort, and by Grace of Guru and Ishwara, then tat tvam asi will bless us with certitude.

Brahma Sutra; Shankara Bhashya 4

The questions posed by the purvapakshin are answered (more in-depth answers will be seen as the bhashyA proceeds).
“Yes Atman is something that is not unknown – it is prasiddha – well-known to everyone as “I am” – no conscious entity ever harbors any doubt about “I am” - no one ever says "i am not" - But at the same time there is erroneous notions about it, - various schools of thought exist as to what the atman as - as we shall see very soon as we begin our enquiry – Self is evdient - but Self is Brahman is not at all evident - hence athAto brahma jijnAsa.

Yes, knowledge by itself does not yield any result – unless – -
unless "Absence of that knowledge 'atmanavabodha' causes problems, leads to anartha."
In this case what is needed is right knowledge – and especially so because the vastu is very much self-established – nothing special needs to be done to achieve this.

And this knowledge is a unique jnana because it talks about aikyam. Knowledge "this is apple" - no vichara needed; Knowledge "this is consciousness, this is brahman" - no vichara needed; Knowledge "you are brahman" - aikya-jnana - vichAra is needed. So in this peculiar case knowledge has a direct effect, because and only because the bondage is not "real" - it is adhyasta - i the atma is taken to be something else, and the result of this mistaken notion, this superimposition is the entire problem of beginigless samsara.

This now sets the stage for one of Adi Shankara’s most important works – the adhyasa bhashya which systematically lays the very groundwork of advaita. No study of advaita can ever begin without an attempt at understanding adhyasa and no study of advaita can ever end without a complete and comprehensive understanding of adhyasa. One can never hope to reach the portals of Advaita without passing through the corridors of Adhyasa.

Critics and scholars have often felt that Adi Shankara begins his bhashyas with adhyasa bhashya which seems to be hoisting his own philosophy onto the brahma sutras. They claim there is no sparsha no connection between the brahmasUtra and adhyAsa. They point out that Bhagwan VyAsa begins his Sutra with "athato brahmajijnAsa" and the bhashyakAra instead of staring to talk about Brahman or some related topic, starts talking elaborately about superimposition or adhyAsa! In fact, the truth of the matter is, without this adhyasa bhashya there can be no meaning to the very opening lines of the brahmasutra - athato brahmajijnasa. A thorough reading of the adhyasa bhashya makes this crystal clear. How so?
As we noted earlier, if bondage is real, then knowledge by itself cannot achieve liberation; and so any enquiry in an attempt to gain knowledge will not achieve anything of consequence - it is precisely because we are dealing with a bondage which is notional, due to a superimposition of what is apparent on what is real, that this enquiry needs to be done, and when accomplished bears fruit. Only when we can prove that there is adhyasa can there be any possibility of moksha by means of enquiry and shastra can be a pramAna.

If jiva as a separate entity is real, abhaditam satyam, then limitation is real, then that real limitation can never be eliminated, it can only be temporarily forgotten (like in deep sleep), there cannot be moksha (anirmoksha prasanga). Only a notional limitation due to adhyasa can be sublated by knowledge.

So Shastravishayaprayojanam is not there unless adhyAsa siddhi is established.

Adi Shankara begins with what seems to be a very valid and powerful objection aakshepa:

Yushmatasmatpratyaya gocharayoho
Vishayavishayeenoho
TamahprakAshavatviruddhasvabhAvayohoh
itaretarabhAvAnupapattau
SiddhAyAm TaddharmAnAmAmapi
Itaretara bhavanupapatti
Ityatah asmatpratyagochare vishayini
Chidatmake
Yushmatpratyaya gocharasya
taddharmanAmcha adhyAsah
tadviparyayena vishayinah
tad dharmanAm cha vishaye adhyasah
mithyeti bhavitum yuktam

[youshmat - you, (in the plural)
asmat - i
pratyaya - that which is known - prateeyate iti pratyaya
gocahara- object Vishaya - object of the subject - witness,
vishayee - the subject
TamahprakAshavat - like darkness and light
vir uddhasvabhAvayoh oh - being of opposite polarity, being totally opposed to each other
itaretarabhAvAnupap attau - one cannot become the other, cannot be taken or "mis"taken for the other
SiddhAyAm - it is obvious, it is wellknown, it is very clear
TaddharmAnAmAmapi - also their qualities
Itaretara bhavanupapatti - one cannot be taken or mistaken for the other
Ityatah asmatpratyagochare vishayini - the subject, I, the witnesser,
Chidatmake - by nature a conscious entity,
Yushmatpratyaya gocharasya - and the non-subjects which are jada, the objects, taddharmanAmcha - their qualities also
adhyAsah -be mistaken for each other।
tadviparyayena vishayinah - tad dharmanAmcha vishaye adhyasah -
mithyeti bhavitum yuktam - it is but proper that this cannot be (possible).]

Now, whenever any major work is begun, there is always a prayer, a remebrance of the Lord - mangalam. Here in the very opening line, prthyagAtma, the ParamAtman, is talked about and this prthyagAtma smaranam itself is the mangala suchitam here according to the tikAkAra.
The very first word yushmatpratyaya - the you-sense or the sense of object, and asmatpratyaya - the I-sense are talked about.
Why not say "this" sense instead of saying "you"sense to refer to objects - because while "this" on occasion may be used in place of "i" - "you" can never be taken for "i" - so in the very opening lines it is made clear that what is talked about is two distinct entities of opposing polarity - "i" the subject, vishayee, and "you" the object, the vishaya. All objects, all the non-"I" - is included in the term yushmat.
That which is self-evident is the subject।That which is evident to self, i.e. objectifiable is the object.
To use an analogy one can consider the light in the room and the pot that is illumined by this very light.
Now this is the problem.
When you say something is superimposed like a snake on a rope, there are a few factors that need to be present.
There are two real entities - real rope and real snake, one of which has to be pratyaksha - an object of perception i.e.rope. Morover the rope should not be fully known - i.e. there should be possibility of an error.
The cognizer has to have prior experience or samskAra(pUrva anubhava janya samskArA) of both these entities
Both these entities have to a sAdrshyam - i.e. you cannot mistake a pot for a mountain.
Only because the rope is of certain appropriate length, is coiled in a certain way, and one has seen a very similar snake before, or carries the memory of the same, can this superimposition take place, and whn one sees rope - one recoils with fear thinking "its a snake!"
Now in this case, one is dealing with entities that could not be more divergent - viruddhasvabhAvayoh
Atma or asmat pratyaya is self evident, and hence ignorance of the Atma is impossible.
In addition, there are no similarities between atma and anatma for a misconception to take place. Atma being the conscious, chaitanya, changeless subject, vishayee, and anaatma the insentient jada, object, vishaya, subject to modifications.
Adhyasa requires the previous experience of a real object in order to create a samskara of the superimposed entity. Anatma being unreal, a previous experience of Anatma is not possible. Therefore, no vasana or samskara of Anatma is created.
Here mithyeti - the word mithya has two meanings - one meaning is anirvachaneeyam - i.e. that which cannot be categorically stated - the other meaning is apahnuvArte or abhAva - i.e. nonexistence - it is this latter sense that mithya is meant here - i.e. such a adhyAsa is not possible at all.
As an example we can take sunlight illumining a pot.
The light is the illumining entity. The pot is what is illumined.
The pot can never illumine.
The light itself is non-objectifiable.
So one cannot mistake light for pot. One also cannot mistake the pot for light.
The pot cannot acquire luminosity.
The light cannot also acquire the colours of the pot, etc
The quality of the pot cannot be assumed by the light, much less the quality of the light assumed by the pot.
So light cannot be mistaken for pot. (This mixing up of 2 subtantives is called “dharmi adhyasa”.) At the same time the qualities of light and the qualities of the pot cannot also be mutually superimposed or mistaken for one another. (This is called “dharma adhyasa”.) Anatma is always composed of gunAs and in the case of Atma being nirgUna it cannot assume the qualities of any one gunA - so this is also not possible.
For example - "I am blind" - defect belonging to the eye is superimposed on the Atma I - this is an example of dharma adhyAsa.
Not only can the pot never become light nor can the light become pot, but there is no possibility of the pot being mistaken for light nor can the light ever be mistaken for the pot.
What the pUrvapakshin is intending to say is that when one says "I am a man" there is a gauna-prayoga (from a "real" association) - just like when we say blue flower - the blueness is a quality of the flower, similarly, the guna of shareera is assumed by the atma for real, in other word
Just like blueness of the sky is not bramA (illusion) but pramA(knowledge) similarly pramAta of atma is not a adhyAsa not a bhramA but a pramA - why not adhyAsa - ? because viruddhasvabhAvayohoh as we have already seen.
This Akshepa, very well articulated no doubt by the opponent, is actually mangalam for us. It is not a dUshanam but a bhUshanam.
How? Shankara negates the objection by fully ing with it - yes - such a thing is really NOT possible.

(to be continued)

A rare video of the Sage of Kanchi.

"The Bhagavatpada has taught us that we should realise bodilessness even while the body is there. This is immortality (amritha), release (moksha).
tadethat asarirathvam mokshakhyam --Sutrabhashya (I, I,4)
This is what he has said. You may have many friends. So long as you think they are yours you will regard what are their happiness and misery as yours. Let us suppose that at some time later they themselves become our enemies, then we will not have any relation with their happiness and misery. May be, we may think that they should experience some misery. Why is it so? In regard to them, the conceit “mine” has gone. In the same manner, we must treat our body. Here before us there hangs a plantain/stem. If that dries up do we dry up? We must often think of our body as a piece of flesh, which is tied up, nearer than the plantain/stem. Because we have the conceit “I”, “I” it has taken root in us. We must constantly reflect thus. Desire, anger, hatred, fear, all these belong to the mind and not to me. Hunger, thirst, etc. belong to the body, they are not mine. If we do so then the deep-seated conceit will disappear little by little. In the Upanishads it is taught that our Self is extremely pure. Iswara is the one Reality that is all-pervasive, pure and blissful. Everyone should realise that we are truly that Isvara. The body, etc. that are seen by us are different. We are different. Thus we must know the distinction. "

Happy Easter!

I entered into unknowing,
and there I remained unknowing
transcending all knowledge.

1. I entered into unknowing,
yet when I saw myself there,
without knowing where I was,
I understood great things;
I will not say what I felt
for I remained in unknowing
transcending all knowledge.

2. That perfect knowledge
was of peace and holiness
held at no remove
in profound solitude;
it was something so secret
that I was left stammering,
transcending all knowledge.

3. I was so 'whelmed,
so absorbed and withdrawn,
that my senses were left
deprived of all their sensing,
and my spirit was given
an understanding while not understanding,
transcending all knowledge.

4. He who truly arrives there
cuts free from himself;
all that he knew before
now seems worthless,
and his knowledge so soars
that he is left in unknowing
transcending all knowledge.

5. The higher he ascends
the less he understands,
because the cloud is dark
which lit up the night;
whoever knows this
remains always in unknowing
transcending all knowledge.

6. This knowledge in unknowing
is so overwhelming
that wise men disputing
can never overthrow it,
for their knowledge does not reach
to the understanding of not
understanding,
transcending all knowledge.

7. And this supreme knowledge
is so exalted
that no power of man or learning
can grasp it;
he who masters himself
will, with knowledge in
unknowing,
always be transcending.

8. And if you should want to hear:
this highest knowledge lies
in the loftiest sense
of the essence of God;
this is a work of his mercy,
to leave one with
understanding,
transcending all knowledge.

(St.John of the Cross)

ASH : spiritual significance

"When any object is consumed by fire, it becomes charred। If that black residue is burnt again, it becomes white ash। White ash continues to remain white even when burnt again. This shows that white is the ultimate and black is proximate to it. Science tells us that diamond and coal are basically one. White and black are not colours. The primary colours get separated from the objects to which they are attached when subjected to the test of fire and ultimately white. Similarly, in the mental and spiritual place, the Ultimate Reality is Siva, who is white and proximate to Him is Parvati, who is dark. When we test everything in the fire of Jnana, or true knowledge, the residue is Siva. Ash in the material plane corresponds to Siva in the spiritual plane. We smear our bodies with the sacred ash to remind ourselves of Siva and the fact that the ultimate goal of life is Siva."
in the words of the Sage of Kanchi.

Hasten slowly!

Q। Appalled by my lack of spirituality and purity of thoughts and actions someone within me burst out with the below appended poem
I searched for God couldnt find proof for existence of one
Longed for a guru but found none
Read many books and confused myself and my brethren
Became skeptic and argued about everything from tantra to zen
Nothing seemed to be right and no one in flesh seemed realized
In my hunt for enlightenment i got demoralized
Why do i want liberation,
How can i be a bhaktha if god is a myth
The questions are huge and so is my frustrations width
Greed came in under the guise of survival essential,
Then anger, lust and every sin you can name seemed inconsequential
Bah Karma is a bluff and we are but specks in a large universe
I did tell myself and reread richard dawkins every atheist verse
But oh mother i feel ashamed of myself when i see your picture on the wall
Although every claim of your presence a bluff i would call
What am I going through and where am I headed
What do i do to get my ego shreded
Bhagawan Ramana said so do vichara and I tried
But the mind resists and every few seconds i cried
Am i filled with so much filth that purification is impossible
Or am i such a genious that abating my thought storm is not feasible.
Nah this mind should be silenced and the thoughts stopped
All that destroys calmness and equanimity must be dropped
I might not believe in god nor in realization
But there is a better way to go through life and thats through de-ramification
What do i do to maintain the calm
When for bread and existence I ship in the storm
I dont want to give up and say realization is through prarabdha or destiny
If i cant calm my mind now, my having sown seeds in a previous birth to calm it seems funny. Guide me oh masters and my mother, if you do exist
I dont want intellect or siddhis through which i can persist
Just one boon i need and all the evils of this world i will resist
Tell me how my when thoughts arise upon them silence i can insist.
A
Will start with the opening line, "appalled by my lack of spirituality"।
There are two qualities which are best avoided by a seeker - one of course is abhimana or an exaggerated sense of self- worth, but at the same time, the other is atma-ninda or self- depreciation. What Vedanta stresses is a healthy does of self-esteem. Abhimana or Ahankara is related to external features- real or imagined (– as in the case of vanity). Self-esteem and self-worth are attributes that have for their basis माय own view of myself. It is an intrinsic self-acceptance, unrelated टू anything I possess materially. Self-image is enhanced by a life लिवेद with values. So "dharma" becomes extremely important. Now, with regards to our attitude when we fail to meet up to our ideals - what is stressed is three things - objectivity, non- judgementality and cheerfulness. IN the words of the Bhagawad Gita Uddhared atmanatmanam natmanam avasadayet - By your Higher Self, buoy your lower self, your ego.
Swami Chinmayananda-ji would say - the spiritual path is a process of evolution and not revolution - so hasten slowly! Be non-judgemental about your ego's slip-ups. Be forgiving - most of all of yourself. And no - this is NOT complacency but objectivity, and there is a world of difference between the two।
So there is really no room for despondency in Vedanta. There has to be a very healthy dose of cheerfulness - prashantachittaya - is the expression in the Mundaka Up to describe this very important quality. If Vedantic or spiritual pursuits are leaving someone feeling frustrated, dejected, and despirited, then it is most unfortunate - samsara can do this job much more effectively! A well-known parable Swami Chinmayananda would talk about is about a young lad who finds a letter written by his grandfather, telling him about a grand treasure buried deep in one of the rooms in the old family farmhouse. The letter is very detailed, all the descriptions of the house are accurate and there is no doubt in his mind that was written was true. SO he starts digging, and then some. After three days of digging day and night, there is nothing. Just dirt. What should this boy now do? Simple - gird up and dig! The story may be simplistic but the message is clear. Another example Swamiji would give for this would be about a person who is tightly holding onto a tree and shouting - "I am bound; help!". A passerby sees him wailing in agony and very goodnaturedly asks him what is the problem. "I am stuck to this tree. Please save me." this guys sobs. The passerby smiles and says "- my good friend, you are not really stuck to this tree - it is simply your notion that there are some ties that are binding you to this tree." "What!" - exclaims the man - somewhat indignant - "cant you see all these ties, these numerous ropes, - it easy for you to say - after all you have no fetters that bind, you are standing a safe distance away from the tree, and naturally do not quite understand my difficulty" The passer- by replies "Sir, trust me, the only things binding you are in your mind. Let go" The simile I am sure is quite clear. These relationships we have cultivated to this world, are simply notional binding ties. "tyagenaike amrtatvam anasuh" the Upanishad thunders - yet we lament. If not external, at least internal sannyasa to begin with, has to be slowly cultivated. Now someone else asked - "I understand I am awareness - now what? what do i do now?" Someone else talked about how "understanding" I am Brahman"can be compatible with, in the same breath, "getting irritated at my colleague" or someone else
This is where there is basically a mixing up of levels in this. If understanding that I am not a karta/bhokta is clear, then "what do i do now?" is a meaningless question;
What is needed is to further anchor that very understanding, ingrain it - only then does it result in a transformation of one's personality।

Swami Paramarthananda-ji gives a beautiful example - you put a spoon of sugar in a cup of your morning coffee. Now the cup of coffee has sugar in it - you taste it and to your surprise it is not sweet! Perhaps it is needs more sugar and so you add two more spoons - it is still not sweet. Very frustrating. What is needed is "stirring" ("kalarufication Swamiji will say smilingly) - The very first spoon of sugar was enough. What is needed is to stir it - till the sweetness is amalgamated into every drop of the beverage।

Similarly, tat tvam asi once understood has to be internalized. There should be no room for complacency - one has to do mananam and nidhidhyasanam to make sure that one gains "nishta" in that very Jnanam, and perfunctory modes of thought/action are nullified. And for this, shatsampatti becomes very crucial - building up of qualities such as shama, dama, etc - which will enable the mind to dwell on this teaching, and not get distracted. Now - most effective of all is prayer. Our Mother ParAshakti is no myth - She is as Real as You are - dont look for proof of Her existence - know She IS because You ARE - the "search" is only to understand that you are nonseparate from Her - so dont suppress your thoughts - you can't - but instead channel them to Her - Surrender to Her in action and in thought -- it is the veritable "Brahmastra" in the war you are waging on samsara - the benevolent Mother IS verily the Mukthi Nilaya!

Brahma Sutra; Shankara Bhashya 3

You are telling me you want to enquire into Brahman.
Please tell me, Sir, Is this Brahman known or unknown?
Suppose we say it is unknown. Like gagabubu. Now please tell me how you are going to enquire into it. Even if foolhardily persist in such an enquiry, how will you how will you perceive it. Even if you perceive it how will you recognize it to be Brahman.
So unknown object like Brahman can never be enquired into.
Ok, now suppose you say it is known, then why waste both our time? If it is known, the let it be. Why all this mimamsa, all this words and analysis, and such. Even if it is known and you want to know it better then what has Shastra got to do with this?
Either way, Sir, your enquiry is useless.

Also, a subject matter like you are talking about, about identity between jiva and Brahman, simply does not exist – there is no vishayam here – there is no object here.
Why?
It is everyone’s common experience that he is a doer/enjoyer, a karta-bhokta.
No one has any doubt in his mind that when he talks, he is indeed a talker, when he writes that he is indeed a writer. And the Shruti says, Brahman is akarta, saakshi, etc.
How can doer and non-doer BOTH be the same entity?
I am solidly comprised of matter, of properties, of Gunas. And Shruti says Brahman is Nirguna.
I see mountains I cannot even imagine I could ever climb, I see the moon, stars and galaxies in a benumbing stretch of time and space - i couldnt be more insignifcant, and you say I am jagatkAranam Brahman?

So you are dealing with two things that could not be MORE opposed. viruddha dharmatvAt.

What you are postulating is similar to someone saying heat and cold are the same – there is no difference between them – I cannot accept this even as a hypotesis. So please, Sir, let us not begin this kind of ridiculous enquiry.

Lastly Sir, even if for a moment I grant you that there might be a subject such as what you are talking about, there is no prayojanam for this knowledge – there is no benefit of such a knowledge. Why? How can any knowledge directly produce any result? Suppose I have knowledge about how to make a aeroplane. Will a aeroplane get made simply like that? Suppose I have knowledge of engineering? Will I get any wealth without putting this to use?
Also, a bondage that is real does not go away simply by some form of knowledge. Imagine you have iron chains that are clasped onto your hands and feet – now by simply imagining that “I am free” will these chains go away. Some other “upaya”, some other means must be there for you to get free – you have to “do” something.
In this world, there is real hunger, real pain, real death, real sorrow, - it is pratyaksha – it is obvious to me and to everyone else on the planet. At an individual level I have physical and emotional pain. At the level of society there is dharma and adharma, there is punya-pApa, there is very real karma-phala which the VEdas themselves talk about. Just touch fire and you will know how real it is. - in fact a tiny mosquito-bite itself is enough. And you say by knowledge - by an analysis of words in a text, all this will be rendered invalid, all THIS will be sublated! How can this be possible Sir? - please be reasonable. Knowledge can certainly be a useful entity, can be a help to you - sahakAri - I will grant you that.
For example one school of thought says, Satyam Jnanam, etc are kalyana gunas - divine qualities of Bhagwan – you have to know these qualities to do upasana or meditation.
Another school will say even by knowing “I am Brahman” is not enough. One has to put this knowledge to use – i.e. one has to meditate on this knowledge and then in the “white heat of meditation” one will be able to see that indeed my innermost self is Brahman.
So knowledge they say is like a cookbook – one then has to use this knowledge to make the meal. Or it is a instruction manual, one has to use this knowledge to then meditate or focus the mind. Or it is a roadmap – one then has to travel that route to reach the Atma.
In all of these instances, due to all of these reasons, we can see that merely jijnasa, mere knowledge of jiva being Brahman does not have any use; does not bear any fruit - phala asambhavAt.
Hence why undertake a detailed enquiry into this? You say “Atma is Brahman” – OK – let it be so it is already a siddha vishaya – like saying God is Great – how can such a knowledge ever negate anything? jNAnamAtrAt nivrtti ayOgAt - why enquire into shAstra to gain some knowledge which has no prayojanam – no utility . Let us look instead look into what other means may be there for me to gain everlasting happiness.

steps to liberation

Q.

naiShkarmyasiddhi 1.52 describes the advaitic path:nityakarmAnuShThAnAt dharma utpattiHdharma utpatteH pApa hAniHtataH citta SuddhiHtatah saMsArayAthAtmi AvabodhaHtataH vairAgyaMtataH mumuxatvaMtataH tat upAya paryeShaNamtataH sarva karma tat sAdhana sannyAsaHtataH yogAbhyAsaHtataH cittasya pratyag pravaNatAtataH `tat tvam asi' Adi vAkyArtha parijnAnamtataH avidyA ucchedaHtataH cha svAtmani eva avasthAnam

The performance of nityakarma yields dharmadharma destroys pApa (sin)

then comes citta Suddhi

then the understanding of saMsAra

then vairAgya

then mumuxatvaM

then the search for the means (of liberation)

then the renunciation of karma through sannyAsa

then *yogAbhyAsa*

then concentration of the citta

then the understanding of statements like 'tat tvam asi'

then the destruction of avidyA

then being settled in the Self alone.

My questions:

why is mumukshatvam so far down the line (in this list)? I would havethought mumukshatvam is an essential requirement and only after acquiringthat intense desire for liberation does a sadhaka strive for purity in allaspects?

A.

When we fulfil our wordly duties and desires, but in a manner that is keeping with dharma, a relative purityof mind ensues. Why? Because we are avoiding mental agitations of greed, guilt, etc that invariably accompany treading the path of adharma.

Once we are blessed with this relative quietitude and purity of mind, our minds acquire a capacity to beginto discern the ephemerality of the joys of the world. It begins to dawn on us that the so-called joys of theworld that we mortals hanker after such as wealth, progeny, power, position, fame, etc are non-lasting and in reality are sources of immense sorrow. Every oasis is a mirage. We are now able to see through Maya's game as it were! This capacity to discriminate is viveka. This is also what understanding of samsara means.

Only by true acquisition of viveka do our inner equipments develop in them vairagya or dispassion.

Vairagya is not the deliberate turning away from objects we think are or may be valuable, but a natural dispassion towards things we have no doubt have zero value. It is similair to an older childs attitude towards the toys he had as a three year old. These were the very same toys he had cried for, begged and cajoled for, pined for, derived some temporary wonderful joy from, but now is mature enough to nothave any taste for them whatsoever. This vairagya can and usually does take years to firmly develop.

Only when vairagya is firmly and lastingly entrenched in our minds is mumukshutvam truly possible. Because mumukshutvam represents an intense desire to be full, to end my seeking nature, to find an eternal peace, tofind my true nature, to know Ishwara.

Every other desire or even a trace of it that we might entertain will have to be swallowed up by adequate viveka and vairagya, else true mumukshutvam is not possible.

Hence it is that it comes lower on the list. Not that it is less important - you are right - it is the most essential ingredient for a seeker - but each one ofthe steps mentioned comes in a logical sequential order.

Really speaking everyone is a mumukshu - who does not want freedom from a sense of limitation? - only thing is only some people are blessed with recognizing it for what it is.

Abhangs of Sant Tukaram

a.
Existence is lifeless without realization of the Lord,

Even as a corpse, though adorned with jewels.
Futile are words that speak not of the Lord,
Even as the jokes of a frivolous clown.
Practice bereft of the Lord is nothing but deception,
Like the beguiling softness of a serpent's skin.
What more need I say? O Tuka,
Truly luckless is one devoid of devotion.
___________________

b.
Thou art more kind than mother dear,
More soothing than the rays of moon
Thy love an ever flowing tide,
Sinks deeper than a common stream
I know of none that equals Thee -
Thou best of all immortal Gods
I wave my name above Thy head,
And part it at thy holy feet.
Ah! Sweeter than sweetest things,
And mightier than all the elements,
Those rulest O'er the Universe,
And seest that it goes all right,
In silence do I lay my head
upon thy feet , and pray "Forgive"
_____________________________
c.
Tuka is less in size than an atom, yet is as large as
space.
I have swallowed and passed the body
That has the form of this illusory worldly existence.
I have swallowed and passed the Group of Three*
(gunas)
And the light shines in my body.
Says Tuka, "Now nothing remains of me,
Except sufficient for benevolent deeds."

Dealing with relationships.

Dealing with relationships.
I think the number one problem for everyone is dealing with relationships. One
is forced into dealing with people as a active member of society. And
unfortunately (and seemingly always!) suprisingly people do not behave the way
you want them to. They do not subscribe to your value structure, your
priorities, your viewpoints. And guess what - this is precisely the way "they"
feel about "you"!!
What does this mean? Who we are, our thoughts, our personas, are shaped by a
million factors - our vasanas, our upbringing, our parents, our environment, our
education, and so on.

How then do deal with people I am forced to deal with who may not be on my
wavelength without allowing my emotions to get me carried away. These could
include my spouse, my children, my parents, my in-laws, my work-colleagues(boss,
employer, employee, etc), my friends, etc

Method one is acceptance.
This is often misunderstood to be martyrdom.
The former is cowardice, unhealthy and constitutes violence to oneself.
Acceptance is a mature and pragmatic approach to life.
Try to achieve an objective viewpoint about your situation. The first step is to
try and understand the other person's standpoint - believe it or not there
always IS one! Understand that the way the other person behaves or talks is
exactly how you or anyone would have behaved had you been in the exact same
position, with the exact same baggage, - why? Because human behavior is also
part of the very-same infallible Order as everything in the Cosmos. Why you are
you and no one else and why you are where you are and no where else and why you
are how you are and no how else is exactly and completely applicable to the very
other person you are dealing with, and is exactly as it was "meant to be"
(Of course in the heat of battle this understanding may be impossible, hence
withdraw from the scene if possible and reflect on the situation in a more calm
frame of mind.)
This attitude of understanding builds compassion, empathy and most importantly
objectivity. Try to see how you could change to better align yourself with this
person's wavelength without compromising on your own ethics and integrity. Also
see where you could be less judgemental about the other person. One cardinal
rule- you can never change another person, never ever. Only the other person can
change himself and that too ONLY when he or she perceives a value in that
change. So reinforce this rule in your own mind - nothing that I do or say is
ever going to effect one iota of change in this person - the one and only
consequence of such a misguided effort on my part will be fostering more
tempests of agitation in my own mind.
After an objective analysis try to change either your own attitudes, or
expectations, or the circumstances contributing to the problem.
If this is not successful or sufficient, pray.
"O Lord grant me the strength and capacity to change what I can change, and the
fortitude to endure what I cannot and the wisdom to know the difference!"

And most importantly be understanding of the one person who is likely to be your
only companion till he or she dies - your self! Being self-judgemental instead
of being self-analytical is also a sure recipe for mental tribulations.

Method 2 is role-play.
Compatmentalize your entire life into roles. Just like a Bachan or a De Niro
carries every role with such conviction, constantly and prior to every action
remind yourself of which role you are currently being asked to play.
When you start your day with a prayer always remind yourself that all that you
will be called to do today, all your interactions, are your offerings to the
Supreme- just as we chant when ending the daily Sandhya ritual - karomi yad yad
sakalam parasmai Narayana yeti samarpayami.
So if I am interacting with a errant son, let me act, and not react. Let me
fulfil the role with full conviction, let my emotions not get me too carried
away lest I forget myself in the role. So if a particular role at a particular
time calls on me to play a "bad cop", then I do that with de-liberation. Not as
a knee-jerk angry or upset reaction but as a matter-of-fact aware action. This
way I am better able to switch between roles. I move from studio A where I play
a beggar to studio B where I play a King to studio C where I play a dying
patient to studio D where I play a brave soldier. My make-up my costumes and my
lines all have to change. And so it is from employee-me to husband-me to son-me
to father-me and so on.
The only me that is a constant is the devotee-me and so have His name on your
lips as often as you can remember to.

Lastly, remember that only by rubbing against metal does a knife get sharpened,
only by burning in fire does a coal become a diamond. If everyone was loving and
caring and not being a pain-in-the-neck, would you have a ghost of a chance at
self-development?? So be grateful not only to Ishwara but also to those very
people who are aggravating you that they are very much present in your life and
what's even better - they are not going to go away anytime soon, nor are they
going to change their ways!!. So with aggravation upon mounting aggravation do
you truly get to practice शमा, practice kshama, fathom the depths of your own
fortitude and forebearance, discover how (un)attached you truly are to your own
feelings, and emotions. Imagine yourself in a solitary forest - how would you
possibly evolve? And how would you mark your progress? And in return for this
huge favor these individuals are bestowing upon you, what are they going to get
in return ( if they are adharmic?). - nothing but future pain and suffering as
their karmaphala. Is it right then on your part to get angry with them?
SwamiDayanandaji gives a wonderful example by drawing a line on a board। Without an
eraser how can you make this line smaller? Draw a bigger line next to it!. If we
draw a big line of self-realization next to these so many small lines consisting
of the various roles that we are called to play then we gain a very valuable and
useful commodity for our sadhana - and that is Perspective.

Swami Dayananda-ji's satsang

1st talk in 3 segments of 30min each:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwL30dZrLZg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKfSfynccA8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L90x3pRthc0&feature=related

And another one - again 3 segments of 30min each:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUsrcqVuJRw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgKZq2yoH3U&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac1qX1UIFm4&feature=related

Hari OM.

Brahma Sutra; Shankara Bhashya 2

Athato Brahma Jijnasa

Therafter(now) Therefore an enquiry into Brahman.

Now we shall briefly try to understand what is referred to as thereafter and therefore.

The Vedas in general deal with ways and means for achieving specific desirable ends. The Purvamimamsa Dharmasutras by Jaimini start with Athato Dharma jijnasa. In this work what is analyzed is the entire karmakanda portion of the Vedas, what is dharma/adharma, the correct performance of various rituals – both principal rituals, and satellite rituals, and utpatti, karmaphalas, apoorva etc.

However the Vedas themselves acknowledge that any karma can only produce anitya phalam – finite result. And this law applies to the entire srshti – it is not that if one is able to get to a better loka, perhaps Vaikuntha, that these laws may not apply, that somehow in another place such as heaven I can enjoy unlimited unalloyed bliss for eternity.

Yat yathaa iha karmachitolokakshiyate tat tathaa amutrapunyachitolokakshiyate

What is true “here” on earth also hold good “there” in the Heavens. The Smrti also supports this – Krishna Himself in te BG talks about

“te tam bhuktva svarga-lokam visalam ksine punye martya-lokam visanti

evam trayi-dharmam anuprapanna gatagatam kama-kama labhante”

So now then, the question is, is there anything that can give you permanent happiness? Something besides karma and heaven-going or loka-travelling that is talked about in the Vedas. And the answer is yes. The very Shruti that details all of these rituals and their results, also talks about a special kind of seeker, and a special kind of result or fruits for him - mukti, which is unobtainable by any action – nAsti akrtah krtena.

“Pareekshy lokan karmachitAnbrAhmana: nirvedamayatastiakruthkruthena,

Ta vignanartham s gurumevabhigached samidpani: srotriyambrahmanishtam.”

An viveki, a person endowed with a discerning intellect, and who is gunataha Brahmin, in other words has a sattvic disposition, should discover by analysis, by vichAra, that even the heavens, etc that one obtains even by the highest type of karma are only ‘anitya’ (impermanent); they do not provide any lasting or eternal happiness, - and he should get the knowledge of that Brahman which is actionless - cannot be obtained by any action; and thus get *nirvedaM* , that is, he should get vairAgyaM. Thereafter he should seek a Guru, and get himself this teaching.

So the conclusion is that there indeed is something more that the Vedas are pointing to that is yet left uncovered – something that does not involve karma or rituals, - and the whole purpose of the karmakAnda is to help this particularly blessed seeker, this viveki, to develop vairagya or dispassion – nirvedam kuryAt – why? Nasti akrtah krtena – whatever can be gained is anityam – will be lost -the only thing that can give permanent freedom would have to be swayamsidha, something already gained. Hence alone the Shruti mentions about a veda-vid like Narada, who tells Sanatkumara

“So'ham, bhagavah, mantra-vid-evasmi na'tma-vit;

srutum hyeva me bhagavad-drsebhyah, tarati sokam, atmavid-iti;

so'ham bhagavah, socami, tam ma, bhagavan, sokasya param tarayatviti;

“I have a lot of information about every aspect of the Vedas. I have heard that knowing the Self alone gives one freedom from sorrow. But I do not know the Self and I am a specimen of sorrow. Take me across this sea of sorrow."

Another example is also given of Shvetaketu who after a study of the entire vEdhas under a scholar for several years returns to his father's house, fluffed with pride - he thought that he has finished studying everything. On seeing this nature of the son, his father called him and thoughtfully asked a question - "O my son! Have you studied that thing (Adesa) through which the unheard of becomes heard, the unthought of becomes thought of, and knowing which everything becomes known?" Swetaketu was of coursed surprised that after all this study, there could be such a important thing he had yet not yet heard of and replied "Father! In what way is that instruction imparted?!" The Kaivalya Up also talks about the same thing - “Na karmana na prajaya …tyage naike amrtatvamanushu”.

So it is clear that beyond the subject matter of the karmakanda portion of the Vedas there is still something vital that is left unsaid, something still to be taught. So therafer and therefore, alone, with viveka, with vairagya born out of such viveka, such a special seeker, a mumukshu, becomes fit for this portion of the Vedas – the Jnanakanda or Vedanta and, he becomes a jijnasu, a adhikari. This jnatum iccha is very important – merely having dispassion or nirvedam is not enough – the word jijnasu reflects a total commitment on the part of the seeker towards seeking this knowledge.

So we have a special adhikari, we have a phalam – in the form of mukti – that too the ultimate purushartha or moksha – which alone leads to dukha nivrtti – freedom from sorrows; and we have a vishayam – a subject matter – which is jiva-ishwara aikyam – it is a subject that requires vichara – because like any other aikya-jnanam – it deals with entities which appear different.

Hence alone “therefore” “therafter” – athato – may there be an enuiry into Brahman - brahmajijnasa –with the help of the pramana which is the Shruti. Let the adhikari mumukshu do vichara. Hence let us begin our study – shastram Arambhaniyam. At this point the purvapakshi or the opponent throws up a interesting question.

To be continued..

Emotional Pain

Hurt is a form of emotional pain. How does one deal with emotional pain?

To understand this let us examine what constitutes physical pain. You are slicing some onions and your finger comes in the way of the sharp blade and there is pain. “Ouch” you scream and you immediately withdraw your hand. You examine how bad the cut is and deal with it – put a antiseptic and dress it after applying pressure to stop the bleeding. There is no expectation from you that the pain not be there – you understand that if your finger got cut, it is quite natural for there to be pain. In a matter of minutes the pain has receded and in a few days the scar as well.

This pain has served its purpose. It is another of Ishwara’s vibhutis; it is another part of the Order that is Ishwara. Your body came into a situation that was inherently putting a portion of your body at risk, and hence there was “pain” – it made you withdraw, it forced you to avoid further contact with that situation and allowed you space to examine the situation a bit closely, and finally, hopefully learn from it – perhaps you were cutting too fast; perhaps you started cutting without paying any attention;

Now in reality emotional pain should also be similar. Emotional pain is also part of the very same Order. So if someone behaves with you in a particular way that is offensive, hurtful, crude, insensitive, them immediately there is bound to be an emotional pain.
So far so good. There really is no “problem” upto this point. If this was similar to physical pain what would your response be?

You would recognize that your mind is hurt, similar to your finger is cut. Just as the hand may bleed, your eyes may perhaps shed some tears. You would back-off from that situation if possible, give yourself space to examine your mind, and figure out the damage, and hopefully learn from that episode. Did you choose to be in that relationship with adequate care? Did you trust the person too soon? Was your expectation from that relationship or person realistic?

Instead what happens is we superimpose the pain on ourselves. While it is easy for us to objectively examine our finger – is it turning blue? has it stopped bleeding? Etc – because of the proximity of our mind to our I-sense – our identity with emotional pain is complete – not I see that my mind is disturbed, but I am hurt, I am angry, I am devastated, etc
So what? The problem is now, the intellect is unavailable for any decisive, dispassionate response. We allow the mind to freely get carried away in its ways. Furthermore, we resent the pain. We are unprepared to embrace it with the same acceptance that we apply to the physical pain. Not only that, the mind now decides to fortify its resources by invading the ghosts of the past. It reminisces on all that happened with that particular, and even other similar, situations, people, and relationships in the past. Now the boat has lost anchor, and is simply going to go wherever the raging waters will take it downstream. And as part of this we react, often without thought, and then beget the results thereof as well, creating a vicious vortex of hurt and further emotional pain.

What is the solution to this?

You do not ignore the pain. You do not suppress the pain. You do not resent the pain, nor do you wish it away. You simply become aware of the pain. Become aware of emotional pain at the very outset just like one becomes aware of physical pain. No sooner does this pain come into your field of awareness, you notice there is a space for you to retreat into, to take stock. This allows you to recluse yourself temporarily, if possible, from that situation. Now, as your mind, by its own perfunctory modes of functioning, starts to add on flavor to the situation, the very same awareness helps you to nip this process in the bud. Empower your intellect to force the mind into simply dealing with the moment, handling just the situation at hand. For the finger cut you may need some pressure or band-aid – what about for emotional pain – is there any firstaid that can help? – yes - it is called “expression” – talk to someone about it – articulate your emotions into words with someone you trust – a friend, a partner, a parent, a teacher, if none else is available, the ever-available, ever-attentive, ever-patient Ishwara!

After having now deliberately deliberated upon these issues, you act. And what the action is, if well thought out, has to be what is required of you as a member of the society – in other words – act you must. The action, in the false sense of ahimsa, does not necessarily mean “turning the other cheek” or “becoming a doormat for other(s) to trample upon” As long as the action you are taking is not an impulse-driven reaction, is not steeped under the spell of raga-dvesha, is in keeping with Dharma, then by all means even if it something unpleasant, it needs to be done.
To avoid a confrontation, or to shirk what needs to be done in that situation, because it is unpleasant, or unpalatable, or involves the potential to cause hurt, is itself an act of omission, and is by no means praiseworthy. This was precisely Arjuna’s response to an emotional pain or the potential for the same, and Krishna fortunately was able to guide him, and us in the process.

Lastly never lose out on an opportunity to learn from the pain. After all in Ishwara’s order, everything happens for a reason, there is a lesson to be learnt from every knock; it is after-all Ishwara’s prasada – the fruits our own past actions- and their primary purpose is to help us mature, and evolve, and grow. They are certainly unpleasant, but would we pay enough attention to learn, were they not so? Learn to see how we can better equip ourselves to avoid a similar situation in the future or at the very least deal with a similar situation in the future. We can never expect to go through life without experiencing emotional pain. It is part and parcel of living in a world that is by default ever-changing – lives change, situations change, people change, people come and go, - we cannot escape getting emotional knocks – we can learn to learn from them by intelligently dealing with them.

Freedom from pain, eternally, once and for all, can only come Jnanam, from understanding Eternity to be non-different from me, the Atman.

Do the Upanishads talk about Ishwara?

Q> > Does the concept of Ishvara find its greatest support and precise in the Brahma Sutra? Can it stand in tact without this and solely on the Upanishads ?I think it is futile to look for "precise formulations". Apart from the basic equation of Atman = brahman, I doubt if there are any absolutely precise formulations (about Ishwara) in advaita-vedAnta.
A
When we say that the equation atman = brahman is the only absolutely
precise formulation, perhaps it is useful to remember that this
equation (like all equations) is talking about two seemingly
dissimilar entities. Like mass and energy.

It makes no sense at all to say Brahman = Brahman.
What Vedanta refers to as atman is the jivatman alone.

No sooner does the term jivatman come into the picture, then that very
instance the term Paramatman or ParaBrahman is immediately relevant -
the equation points to the truth or essence of these seemingly
opposing entities being nondifferent i.e. the jivatma has no reality
separate from the Paramatma.

So inherent in the very fact that Vedanta talks about a equation is a
construct or an Order that involves the jiva,the jagat,and Ishwara.
This Order needs to be accounted for in any analysis of the Scripture.

These immortal words in the Kaivalopanishad are crystal clear

"(Who is) unthinkable, unmanifest, of endless forms, the good, the
peaceful, Immortal, the origin of the worlds, without beginning,
middle, and end, the only one, all-pervading, Consciousness, and
Bliss, the formless and the wonderful. Meditating on the highest Lord,
allied to Uma, powerful, three-eyed, blue-necked, and tranquil, the
holy man reaches Him who is the source of all, the witness of all and
is beyond darkness (i.e. Avidya). He is Brahma, He is Shiva, He is
Indra, He is the Immutable, the Supreme, the Self-luminous, He alone
is Vishnu, He is Prana, He is Time and Fire, He is the Moon. He alone
is all that was, and all that will be, the Eternal; knowing Him, one
transcends death; there is no other way to freedom."

and further

"Thus realising the Paramatman, who lies in the cavity of the heart,
who is without parts, and without a second, the Witness of all, beyond
both existence and non-existence one attains the Pure Paramatman
Itself."

The Bhagawad Gita exhaustively, and categorically, talks about Ishwara
or Paramatman - terminologies and vocabulary may be different in
different chapters, but the message is both uniform and unambiguous.

I would also like to point out that the term Ishwara does not really
refer to one particular "God" such as Shiva or Vishnu or Devi but to
the Omniscient Omnipotent, Nondual One, as in "vistabhyaham idam
krtsnam ekamsena sthito jagat" "With a single fragment of Myself I
pervade and support this entire universe."

In no scripture in Hinduism whether it be the Upanishads, the Bhagawad Gita or the BrahmaSutras will you find a circumvention of Ishwara - He is innate and implicit
in each of the Shrutivakyas.

Vedas : anadi and apaurusheya

To better understand what it means when we talk about the Vedas being Eternal and Aparusheya - not created by man - let us see what His Holiness, the Sage of Kanchi has to say:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It is not possible to tell the age of the Vedas. If we say that an object is "anadi" it means that nothing existed before it. Any book, it is reasonable to presume, must be the work of one or more people. The Old Testament contains the sayings of several Prophets. The New Testament contains the story of Jesus Christ as well as his sermons. The Qu'ran incorporates the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. The founders of such religions are historical personalities and their teachings did not exist before then. Are the Vedas similarly the work of one or more teachers? And may we take it that These preceptors lived in different periods of history? Ten thousand years ago or a hundred thousand or a million years ago? If the Vedas were created during any of these periods they can not be claimed to be "anadi". Even if they were created a million years ago, it obviously means that there was a time when they did not exist.

Questions like the above are justified if the Vedas are regarded as the work of mortals. And, if they are, it is wrong to claim that they are "anadi". We think that the Vedas are the creation of the rsis, seers who were mortals. So it is said, at any rate,