Creation theories (was Re: What is the exact meaning/significance of this?)

[S Jayanarayanan]

--- kalyan chakravarthy <kalyan_kc at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:

[..]

> 3.What exactly is meant by unmanifestation or
> manifestation when there is
> only a single entity?
>

There has been a discussion of the above in the past
in this list, and here's my understanding of what was
discussed then:

According to strict advaita-vedanta, creation never
happened, period. This is called "ajAti-vAda"
(doctrine of non-generation), and is the final Truth
realized by the GYAnI. Therefore, there is no
(un)manifestation whatsoever, since there exists but
the Self. This is as per the mANDUkya upanishhad and
GauDapAda's kArikA on the same.

Therefore, all creation theories are only for the sake
of the ignorant who perceive the world as separate
from the Self.

For the spiritually mature disciple, it is taught that
the objects of the world are created by the Self as in
a dream, and this teaching is called
"dR^ishhTi-shR^ishhTi vAda" (doctrine of creation
after perception). For the less mature disciple, it is
taught that creation is an act of the Ishvara, and
perception of the world is by the living one (jIva).
This is known as "shR^IshhTi-dR^ishhTi vAda"
(perception after creation).

> Best regards
> Kalyan
>

Regards,

Kartik

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com

>From  Sun Apr 20 21:35:16 2003
Message-Id: <SUN.20.APR.2003.213516.0700.>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 21:35:16 -0700
Reply-To: sanjay1297 at yahoo.com
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
From: Sanjay Verma <sanjay1297 at YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Dharmic questions
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-378117130-1050899716=:44084"

--0-378117130-1050899716=:44084
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


Pranam to all,



Here is some more food for thought on the issue of dharmic duties and who is a [genuine] renouncer…



“A religious man is a religious man in all situations. To him his first priority is his religion which requires that he should always be honest, kind, and just. Prayer and other religious practices do help, but they are not the criterion by which they should be judged. What kind of people they are is the only criterion.” [Vedanta in Practice by Swami Lokeswarananda, page 44]



Lest the above be deemed iconoclastic, Swami Lokeswarananda also writes on page 200:



“The best thing to do is to cherish our traditions, even if this means cherishing things which have outlived their utility. Things we do not need will die out automatically. But we need not be in a hurry to replace old things just because they are old. Maybe they appear out of place in the context of our present-day life, but if we look closely we will find their intrinsic merit is still intact. We should respect our old traditions even if we are not able to live up to them.”



Also, BG 6:1 was quoted in a recent posting regarding renunciation. The following is Adi Shankaracharya’s commentary [from Srimad Bhagavad Gita Bhashya of Sri Shankaracyarya as translated by Dr. A.G. Krishna Warrier] to fully elucidate the meaning of this verse. It should be evident from the commentary below that one cannot determine merely by another person’s name whether he is a renouncer.



“6:0.1 At the end of the preceding chapter were set forth verses 5:27 – 29 that constitute the basic aphorisms of the Yoga of Meditation, the direct means of right perception. No is commenced the chapter that forms the gloss on them. Since the preliminary accessory of the Yoga of meditation is work, till one becomes fit to embark on meditation, the eligible householder must do work. So it is commended in verse 6.1.



“6:0.2 Objection: Why is the fitness to undertake the Yoga of meditation made the limit of the period for doing work? Work prescribed by the scriptures must be performed as long as life lasts.



“Answer: No; vide the qualification in 6:3. Work has causal force for the ascetic who seeks to scale the peak of Yoga; he who has scaled it is concerned only with quietude. If both he who seeks to scale Yoga’s peak and he who has done it have necessarily to cultivate quietude and do works, according to the Lord, pointless indeed would be the qualifications and the distinction based on the difference between ‘seeking to scale’ and ‘having scaled Yoga’s peak’. It may be argued that among the occupants of life’s stations, some may seek to scale Yoga’s peak and another may in fact do it, while others may neither care to scale nor succeed in scaling. In relation to these, the qualification and the distinction are applicable. But this won’t do. For, the expressions yogarudhasya tasyaiva mean that the very person who sought to scale Yoga’s peak is he who has achieved it: he, then, has only to cultivate that quietude which contributes to the final fruit of yoga. Therefore no kind of work has to be performed throughout life by him.



“6:0.3 This follows also from the reference to the lapse from yoga in 6:38. If in chapter VI Yoga is prescribed for the householder who has to do works, despite his lapse from yoga, he is bound, as a matter of course, to reap the fruits of his works; the fear that he may perish does not stand to reason. Indeed, inevitably, the works he has done have to be either desire-prompted or obligatory, which will bear their appropriate fruits. (Liberation being eternal, is no product of work). We have already stated (vide BG 4:18) that the obligatory work, prescribed by the authoritative Vedas, must bear fruit; otherwise, the Veda would prove to be merely futile. So long as there are works to the credit of the householder, all talk of his lapse from both heaven and Yoga is senseless; works cannot reasonably cause such lapse. The suggestion that the work done, having been dedicated to God, may not bear any fruit is improper; indeed such dedication should make work more fruitful. Futile is the argument that dedication of works to God promotes liberation, but won’t yield other fruits. So the fear that the agent of works may perish is not in place. Verses 6:10 and 14 enjoin renunciation of works. ‘Alone’ in 6, 10 (ekahi) does not refer to the practitioner of Yoga, the Yogi being unaccompanied by his wife; there is no room for any help at the time of meditation that a wife may render. That the reference here is not to the householder follows also from the expressions ‘free from yearnings’ and ‘rid of all possessions’ in verse 6:10. This view is strengthened by the unreasonableness of Arjuna’s reference in 6:38, to lapse from both the path of works and meditation.



“6:0.4 Unsound is the argument that 6:1 with its expression ‘not depending on the fruits of works’ refers to a householder who also renounces and meditates. Renunciation and meditation have been ruled out for one who does not maintain the household fires and who does not work, because 6:1 just commends the renunciation of cravings for the fruits of works that constitutes an external means to Yoga of meditation. The sense is: Not he alone, who has renounced the household fires and works is a renounces and meditator, but also he who works without attachment to the fruits of work – i.e., who performs Karmayoga in order to purify the mind. Verse 6:1 is only a commendation of such an agent. Once and the same sentence cannot both praise renunciation of attachment to the fruit of works, and also repudiate the fourth station of life. The Lord does not thereby repudiate the status of being a  real renounces and Yogin to the man who has rejected the household fires and works. For, such a status has been recognized by Shruti, Smriti, Puranas, Itihasa and the authoritative texts on Yoga. Were He  to do so, He would contradict His very words such as 5:13, 12:19, 2:71, and 12:16, which reveal His doctrines, and with which the repudiation of the fourth life station will come in conflict. Therefore, in the case of the ascetic who seeks to scale yoga’s peak and who is occupying the station of the householder, works like fire sacrifice, performed without desire for fruit, prove, due to their power to purify the mind, to be a means to rise to the heights of the Yoga of meditation. Hence the commendation in the words: ‘He is a renouncer and a Yogin.’



“6:1 The Blessed Lord said: Not depending on the fruits of it, whoever performs the work that has to be done is the renounces and Yogin; not he who has rejected the household fires and is a non-worker.



“6:1.1 not depending on what? ‘The fruit of work’, i.e., he who is free from the craving for the fruits of works. One who craves for the fruit of work depends on it. The renounces in question is different; so he does not depend on it. As such, he does what has to be done – obligatory rites like the fire-sacrifice that are other than desire-prompted works. Such a worker excels other workers, says the Lord: he is the renounces and the Yogin. Renunciation consists in giving up; one who gives up is the renouncer. Yoga is mind’s concentration: one who has it is the Yogin. One who has such attributes as these is to considered a renouncer and a Yogin, and not the person who has merely given up the sacred household fires that are auxiliaries to rituals. Rid of works is he also who is free from activities like penance, charity, etc., that are not associated with the sacred fires.



“6.2.0 Now in Shruti and Smriti and authoritative Yoga texts he only is declared to be a renouncer and Yogin who has discarded the sacred fires and who works not. Why then is declared here this unheard-of doctrine, viz., that he who maintains the sacred fires and performs works is a renouncer and Yogin? This is no flaw; for the doctrine sought to be established is secondary only. How? The renouncer is secondarily said to be one who has discarded mental clinging to works’ fruits; such a person too is a Yogin, as he performs works as part of the discipline of Yoga and as he has given up the distracting addiction of the fruits of works. Thus these two are secondary; they are not to be taken in their primary signification. To set for this idea the Lord says:



“6:2 That which they call renunciation, know to be Yoga, O Pandava Prince! None indeed who has not discarded mental constructions can become a Yogin.



“6:2.1 Know that what is genuine renunciation, according to the scholars of Shruti and Smriti, characterized by the rejection of all works and their fruits, is Yoga, and performance of works, O Arjuna. On the basis of what common characteristic are identified these two opposed states, Karma Yoga, a state of activity, and real renunciation, a state of cessation there from? The answer follows: Indeed there is similarity between real renunciation and Karma Yoga in respect to the agent. The real renouncer discards craving, the cause of activity and mental construction as regards works and their fruits. These, at the back of all-works, he has discarded. The Karma Yogin, too, while performing works, gives up mental constructions as regards their fruits. This is the idea set forth in the second half of the verse; for, an agent of activity, who has not discarded mental constructions and attachment to the fruits of activity, cannot be a Yogin, a concentrated man. This is the sense of the passage. Mental clinging to the fruits of works distracts. Therefore any doer of works who has given up mental clinging to the fruits of works is a Yogin; his mind is concentrated, not being distracted. He has discarded the cause  of distractions, viz., mental clinging to the fruits of works. This is the idea.



“6:3.0 Thus as a commendation of Karma Yoga, its parity with renunciation has been affirmed in 6:2 on the basis of the common element of ‘rejection’ by the agent – common to genuine renunciation and Karma Yoga. Now, Karma Yoga characterized by unconcern for fruits is an external auxiliary of the Yoga of meditation; so Karma Yoga has been commended and its relation to the yoga of meditation is set forth:



“6:3 Work is said to be the cause [i.e., means] in the case of the silent sage who seeks to scale the peak of Yoga; as regards this very sage who has scaled it, quiescence is said to be the cause [i.e., means].



“6:3.1 For the sage seeking to scale – but who has, as yet, not scaled – being unable to establish himself in the Yoga of meditation – work is the cause. Of this age, who seeks to scale Yoga’s peak and who has discarded the fruits of his works, work is said to be the cause, i.e., the means. Of the same sage who has scaled the peak, ‘quiescence’, cessation, or withdrawal from all works is said to be the cause or means. In the measure in which an unperturbed sage, who has conquered his senses, has withdrawn from works, to that extent his mind becomes concentrated. Quickly thus he reaches Yoga’s peak. Vyasa has affirmed this: A Brahmana has no wealth equal to unity, equality and truthfulness; character, firmness, amiability, gentleness and withdrawal from works of all kinds (Shantiparvan 175:38)”







Om Shanti,

Sanjay


_______________________________________

The journey of a thousand miles begins
with a single step.--Chinese Proverb

_______________________________________


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
--0-378117130-1050899716=:44084
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial>Pranam to all,</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial>Here is some more food for thought on the issue of dharmic duties and who is a [genuine] renouncer…</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial>“A religious man is a religious man in all situations. To him his first priority is his religion which requires that he should always be honest, kind, and just. Prayer and other religious practices do help, but they are not the criterion by which they should be judged. What kind of people they are is the only criterion.” [<U>Vedanta in Practice</U> by Swami Lokeswarananda, page 44]</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial>Lest the above be deemed iconoclastic, Swami Lokeswarananda also writes on page 200:</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial>“The best thing to do is to cherish our traditions, even if this means cherishing things which have outlived their utility. Things we do not need will die out automatically. But we need not be in a hurry to replace old things just because they are old. Maybe they appear out of place in the context of our present-day life, but if we look closely we will find their intrinsic merit is still intact. We should respect our old traditions even if we are not able to live up to them.”</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial>Also, BG 6:1 was quoted in a recent posting regarding renunciation. The following is Adi Shankaracharya’s commentary [from <U>Srimad Bhagavad Gita Bhashya of Sri Shankaracyarya</U> as translated by Dr. A.G. Krishna Warrier] to fully elucidate the meaning of this verse. It should be evident from the commentary below that one cannot determine merely by another person’s name whether he is a renouncer.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial>“6:0.1 At the end of the preceding chapter were set forth verses 5:27 – 29 that constitute the basic aphorisms of the Yoga of Meditation, the direct means of right perception. No is commenced the chapter that forms the gloss on them. Since the preliminary accessory of the Yoga of meditation is work, till one becomes fit to embark on meditation, the eligible householder must do work. So it is commended in verse 6.1.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial>“6:0.2 Objection: Why is the fitness to undertake the Yoga of meditation made the limit of the period for doing work? Work prescribed by the scriptures must be performed as long as life lasts.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial>“Answer: No; vide the qualification in 6:3. Work has causal force for the ascetic who seeks to scale the peak of Yoga; he who has scaled it is concerned only with quietude. If both he who seeks to scale Yoga’s peak and he who has done it have necessarily to cultivate quietude and do works, according to the Lord, pointless indeed would be the qualifications and the distinction based on the difference between ‘seeking to scale’ and ‘having scaled Yoga’s peak’. It may be argued that among the occupants of life’s stations, some may seek to scale Yoga’s peak and another may in fact do it, while others may neither care to scale nor succeed in scaling. In relation to these, the qualification and the distinction are applicable. But this won’t do. For, the expressions yogarudhasya tasyaiva mean that the very person who sought to scale Yoga’s peak is he who has achieved it: he, then, has only to cultivate that quietude which contributes to the final fruit of yoga. Therefore no kind of work has to be performed throughout life by him.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial>“6:0.3 This follows also from the reference to the lapse from yoga in 6:38. If in chapter VI Yoga is prescribed for the householder who has to do works, despite his lapse from yoga, he is bound, as a matter of course, to reap the fruits of his works; the fear that he may perish does not stand to reason. Indeed, inevitably, the works he has done have to be either desire-prompted or obligatory, which will bear their appropriate fruits. (Liberation being eternal, is no product of work). We have already stated (vide BG 4:18) that the obligatory work, prescribed by the authoritative Vedas, must bear fruit; otherwise, the Veda would prove to be merely futile. So long as there are works to the credit of the householder, all talk of his lapse from both heaven and Yoga is senseless; works cannot reasonably cause such lapse. The suggestion that the work done, having been dedicated to God, may not bear any fruit is improper; indeed such dedication should make work more fruitful. Futile is the argument that dedication of works to God promotes liberation, but won’t yield other fruits. So the fear that the agent of works may perish is not in place. Verses 6:10 and 14 enjoin renunciation of works. ‘Alone’ in 6, 10 (ekahi) does not refer to the practitioner of Yoga, the Yogi being unaccompanied by his wife; there is no room for any help at the time of meditation that a wife may render. That the reference here is not to the householder follows also from the expressions ‘free from yearnings’ and ‘rid of all possessions’ in verse 6:10. This view is strengthened by the unreasonableness of Arjuna’s reference in 6:38, to lapse from both the path of works and meditation.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial>“6:0.4 Unsound is the argument that 6:1 with its expression ‘not depending on the fruits of works’ refers to a householder who also renounces and meditates. Renunciation and meditation have been ruled out for one who does not maintain the household fires and who does not work, because 6:1 just commends the renunciation of cravings for the fruits of works that constitutes an external means to Yoga of meditation. The sense is: Not he alone, who has renounced the household fires and works is a renounces and meditator, but also he who works without attachment to the fruits of work – i.e., who performs Karmayoga in order to purify the mind. Verse 6:1 is only a commendation of such an agent. Once and the same sentence cannot both praise renunciation of attachment to the fruit of works, and also repudiate the fourth station of life. The Lord does not thereby repudiate the status of being a<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>real renounces and Yogin to the man who has rejected the household fires and works. For, such a status has been recognized by Shruti, Smriti, Puranas, Itihasa and the authoritative texts on Yoga. Were He<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>to do so, He would contradict His very words such as 5:13, 12:19, 2:71, and 12:16, which reveal His doctrines, and with which the repudiation of the fourth life station will come in conflict. Therefore, in the case of the ascetic who seeks to scale yoga’s peak and who is occupying the station of the householder, works like fire sacrifice, performed without desire for fruit, prove, due to their power to purify the mind, to be a means to rise to the heights of the Yoga of meditation. Hence the commendation in the words: ‘He is a renouncer and a Yogin.’</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial>“6:1 The Blessed Lord said: Not depending on the fruits of it, whoever performs the work that has to be done is the renounces and Yogin; not he who has rejected the household fires and is a non-worker.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial>“6:1.1 not depending on what? ‘The fruit of work’, i.e., he who is free from the craving for the fruits of works. One who craves for the fruit of work depends on it. The renounces in question is different; so he does not depend on it. As such, he does what has to be done – obligatory rites like the fire-sacrifice that are other than desire-prompted works. Such a worker excels other workers, says the Lord: he is the renounces and the Yogin. Renunciation consists in giving up; one who gives up is the renouncer. Yoga is mind’s concentration: one who has it is the Yogin. One who has such attributes as these is to considered a renouncer and a Yogin, and not the person who has merely given up the sacred household fires that are auxiliaries to rituals. Rid of works is he also who is free from activities like penance, charity, etc., that are not associated with the sacred fires. </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial>“6.2.0 Now in Shruti and Smriti and authoritative Yoga texts he only is declared to be a renouncer and Yogin who has discarded the sacred fires and who works not. Why then is declared here this unheard-of doctrine, viz., that he who maintains the sacred fires and performs works is a renouncer and Yogin? This is no flaw; for the doctrine sought to be established is secondary only. How? The renouncer is secondarily said to be one who has discarded mental clinging to works’ fruits; such a person too is a Yogin, as he performs works as part of the discipline of Yoga and as he has given up the distracting addiction of the fruits of works. Thus these two are secondary; they are not to be taken in their primary signification. To set for this idea the Lord says:</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial>“6:2 That which they call renunciation, know to be Yoga, O Pandava Prince! None indeed who has not discarded mental constructions can become a Yogin.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial>“6:2.1 Know that what is genuine renunciation, according to the scholars of Shruti and Smriti, characterized by the rejection of all works and their fruits, is Yoga, and performance of works, O Arjuna. On the basis of what common characteristic are identified these two opposed states, Karma Yoga, a state of activity, and real renunciation, a state of cessation there from? The answer follows: Indeed there is similarity between real renunciation and Karma Yoga in respect to the agent. The real renouncer discards craving, the cause of activity and mental construction as regards works and their fruits. These, at the back of all-works, he has discarded. The Karma Yogin, too, while performing works, gives up mental constructions as regards their fruits. This is the idea set forth in the second half of the verse; for, an agent of activity, who has not discarded mental constructions and attachment to the fruits of activity, cannot be a Yogin, a concentrated man. This is the sense of the passage. Mental clinging to the fruits of works distracts. Therefore any doer of works who has given up mental clinging to the fruits of works is a Yogin; his mind is concentrated, not being distracted. He has discarded the cause<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>of distractions, viz., mental clinging to the fruits of works. This is the idea.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial>“6:3.0 Thus as a commendation of Karma Yoga, its parity with renunciation has been affirmed in 6:2 on the basis of the common element of ‘rejection’ by the agent – common to genuine renunciation and Karma Yoga. Now, Karma Yoga characterized by unconcern for fruits is an external auxiliary of the Yoga of meditation; so Karma Yoga has been commended and its relation to the yoga of meditation is set forth:</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial>“6:3 Work is said to be the cause [i.e., means] in the case of the silent sage who seeks to scale the peak of Yoga; as regards this very sage who has scaled it, quiescence is said to be the cause [i.e., means].</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial> <o:p></o:p></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=arial>“6:3.1 For the sage seeking to scale – but who has, as yet, not scaled – being unable to establish himself in the Yoga of meditation – work is the cause. Of this age, who seeks to scale Yoga’s peak and who has discarded the fruits of his works, work is said to be the cause, i.e., the means. Of the same sage who has scaled the peak, ‘quiescence’, cessation, or withdrawal from all works is said to be the cause or means. In the measure in which an unperturbed sage, who has conquered his senses, has withdrawn from works, to that extent his mind becomes concentrated. Quickly thus he reaches Yoga’s peak. Vyasa has affirmed this: A Brahmana has no wealth equal to unity, equality and truthfulness; character, firmness, amiability, gentleness and withdrawal from works of all kinds (Shantiparvan 175:38)”</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Om Shanti,</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Sanjay</P></DIV><BR><BR>_______________________________________<br><br>The journey of a thousand miles begins<br>with a single step.--Chinese Proverb<br><br>_______________________________________<p><br><hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com">The New Yahoo! Search</a> - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
--0-378117130-1050899716=:44084--