[Advaita-l] How can prANa be Brahman?

[Sujal Upadhyay]

Namste Sri Venkatesh ji,

I agree :) - but as I have mentioned - to whom you shall surrender.

What you are talking about can, in reality, be practiced only very few
purified souls. No disagreement.

Nothing can bring Brahman. If you are not that - ashtavakta Gita says,
there is no need ot remove anything, nothing is truth except Brahman - but
this is for very advanced sAdhaka, not for neophytes. Each verse need not
be applied to all of us. There is always adhikAra-bheda.

On a lighter tone ...

When things begin to go above head, it is better to ... bhaja govindam,
bhaga gonvindam ... :)

and...

Let those who wish to meditate on nirguNa Brahman, but my heart always
dwells on thy auspiscious form, dark blue complexioned.

btw, always remember the situation that made Adi Sankara BhagavadpAda
spontaneously compose moha-mudgara (bhaga Govindam) out of compassion, to
ensure spiritual progress of those whose consciousness is deeply rooted in
physical body, but still keep talking about Brahman. They cannot
practically practice neti-neti.

OM

Sujal Upadhyay

"To disconnect from the self and to become Aware of anything else is
nothing but unhappiness" - Bhagawan Ramana Maharshi

He who has faith has all
He who lacks faith, lacks all
It is the faith int he name of lord that works wonders
FAITH IS LIFE, DOUBT IS DEATH - Sri Ramakrishna

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste
>
> We cannot see Light because with Light we can see other things. Light
> cannot be seen. We have to open windows and doors for Light to come in
> and then Light automatically comes. There is no effort for us to make
> Light come in the room. Similarly we should not try to meditate on
> Brahman but we have to remove obstacles not allowing Brahman to shine.
> When obstacles are removed Brahman knowledge will shine automatically.
> No effort has to be put for that.
>
> Ignorant person will think Light or Brahman has to be gained by
> meditation. But wise person knows Light cannot be gained or lost. It
> is always there. He has to only remove obstacles. What are obstacles?
> Wrong understanding. I am the body. I am so and so. These are mine.
>
> Yoga and meditation can be useful for removing obstacles. It can make
> mind calm and allow proper understanding. But Yoga and meditation
> cannot bring Brahman to us. That is a silly argument.
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > //Yes, advaita way is pure and direct way. there is no need of any other
> > means *if* one is able to contemplate on Brahman with ease.//
> >
> > But this is precisely the point sir. Brahman is never an object of
> > contemplation - it is not something that one contemplates "on" - it is
> the
> > one contemplating! That is why the Upanishad uses elliptical language to
> > describe Brahman, in order to stop the mind's tendency to objectify and
> > conceptualise! (नाहं मन्ये सुवेदेति,  etc.)
> >
> > Whatever is experienced is never an attribute of the experiencer, it as
> an
> > attribute of the experienced. If the mind experiences bliss in samAdhi,
> > such a bliss is located in the mind and it is an experiential, reflected
> > koshAnanda, and not the non-experienceable AtmAnanda.
> >
> > Coming to your comment on bhoga, even if the experience of koshAnanda is
> > what is desired, the Upanishad says the means to experience all the bliss
> > of all the words (सोsश्नुते सर्वान् कामान् सह) is by vairAgya born out of
> > viveka, wisdom (श्रोत्रियस्य चाकमहतस्य)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Venkatraghavan
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Sujal Upadhyay <sujal.u at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Namaste Venkararaghavan ji,
> >>
> >> I also agree with you that the attainment of Brahman by jnAna is
> >>> essentially prAptasya prApti - it is simply the eradication of
> ignorance
> >>> that I am not Brahman. In fact, I think jnAnam is both necessary and
> >>> sufficient for mokshA. That is, 1) only jnAnam can lead to moksha 2)
> >>> nothing other than jnAnam is required at all.  This is where I differ
> from
> >>> the various yogic upanishads you quote that cite the requirement for
> jnAna
> >>> and yoga.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, advaita way is pure and direct way. there is no need of any other
> >> means *if* one is able to contemplate on Brahman with ease. However, not
> >> all want just yoga (Jnana), most of us want yoga+bloga. Advaita is only
> for
> >> selected few purified souls.
> >>
> >> There are different paths. Yoga is one of them. I personally believe in
> >> old days it used to be tightly integrated to any spiritual progress even
> >> advaita. That is why rishis like agasthya, vasistha, vishvamitra could
> >> perform miracles. they were adept yogis and tatvajnanis. Even today we
> find
> >> traces of yoga in daily rituals like sandhyAvandanA.
> >>
> >> Each upanishad will sing hymn. Since these are yoga upanishads like Yoga
> >> chudamani, yoga shokha, etc, they glorify yoga. There is no need to
> follow
> >> them.
> >>
> >> By "destruction of mind" I thought you implied a 'physical destruction'
> of
> >>> the mind (if I have misunderstood your views, please clarify. This is
> >>> something that I do not consider is necessary - in fact this is
> >>> undesirable, without a mind where will jnAna arise? A clear
> understanding
> >>> that the mind, being anAtma, is mithyA is sufficient. That is, use the
> mind
> >>> to claim that I, the witness consciousness am Brahman, while saying
> that
> >>> the mind is mithyA, dependent on me, the witness.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Jnana and agnana are opposite of each other and they arise in mind. When
> >> we are told of rising above jana and ajnana, beyond dvaita and advaita,
> >> then it is this Jnana and advaita sthiti that mind experiences - I am
> >> witness, I am infiinite, I am ever expanding (if one tries to find
> >> boundaries of his body, one fails to do so and keeps extending his
> vision
> >> as far as it can go. Then such experience happens), I am limitless, etc
> -
> >> all arise in mind only.
> >>
> >> The final advaita sthiti is beyond this advaita sthiti i.e. experience
> of
> >> oneness -- as it is also an experience and hence is inside mind and
> hence
> >> under the control of mAyA.
> >>
> >> In advaita sthiti i.e. jnana, there is no other to say -I am infinite' -
> >> Non-duality cannot be experienced as a separate entity. Hence it is
> >> indescribable.
> >>
> >> All else that happens, any thought, feeling, experience, be it of
> oneness,
> >> completeness, deep peace, etc, it is all experienced by mind. There is
> >> still a separate entity that is experiencing something.
> >>
> >> These experiences though not final state are for sure driving force in
> one
> >> sAdhanA.
> >>
> >> After one enters into non-dual state, nothing else exists. But when mind
> >> again is activated, same as in case of deep sleep, duality is perceived.
> >> It is the nature of mind to retain pleasant experiences keep longing
> them.
> >> Hence mind tries to retain this deep peace which is experienced in deep
> >> meditation state and the feels stays throughout the day. Also mind keeps
> >> longing for this deep peace and bliss and is no more interested in
> worldly
> >> happiness.
> >>
> >> Mind is nothing but continuous flow of thoughts. Mind, jIva-bhAva, ego,
> >> etc are used interchangeably. they do not exist if any one of them
> >> perishies. If ego dies, duality dies, there cannot be any thoughts. How
> >> will think about what?
> >>
> >> Sri Ramakrishna explains, Mind of Jnani is like a burned rope. Rope even
> >> after it is burnt retains the shape, but cannot be used for tying.
> another
> >> examlpe is that a sword after being touched by pArasmaNi, transforms
> into
> >> Gold. Now it cannot be used in fighting. It is for show purpose only.
> >> Similarly, in order to retain physical body, mind is necessary. Hence
> >> Jnanis- either keep ego of knowledge (like Shankaracharya) or ego of a
> >> bhakta or they keep interest in delicacies, cooking or any other
> activity
> >> like gardening, etc. Mind connects consciousness and physical body. It
> is
> >> the bridge between them. Sri Ramakrishna says that mother (Kali Maa)
> asked
> >> him to stay inbetween normal consciousness and nirvikalp samadhi. If one
> >> always stays in sarvAtma bhAva, then for him, no one is bound. All are
> >> free. All are one. Such a person cannot give any upadesha to anyone.
> When
> >> Vivekananda realized this truth, he quit his body with the power of
> Yoga.
> >>
> >> Kind Regards
> >> Sujal
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Namaste Sujal ji
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for your reply.
> >>>
> >>> I agree with you in that yoga can help attain shama, samAdhAnam etc
> >>> required as part of sAdhana catusthTayam in order to purify and focus
> the
> >>> mind to enable it be an efficient receptacle for jnAna. That is it
> serves a
> >>> purpose before jnAna sAdhana.
> >>>
> >>> Yoga also serves a purpose during nidhidhyAsana for those who despite
> >>> shravaNam and mananam are beset with viparIta bhAvana (deep set mental
> >>> obstacles that prevent one from claiming one's status as Brahman) -
> that is
> >>> despite jnAna arising in their mind, they are unable to reconcile that
> >>> jnAna with everyday reality. For such people, nidhidhyAsanam
> (yoga-based
> >>> vedAnta nidhidhyAsanam)  can be helpful to get rid of notions of
> viparIta
> >>> bhAvana, through a process of mithyAtva nishchaya.
> >>>
> >>> I also agree with you that the attainment of Brahman by jnAna is
> >>> essentially prAptasya prApti - it is simply the eradication of
> ignorance
> >>> that I am not Brahman. In fact, I think jnAnam is both necessary and
> >>> sufficient for mokshA. That is, 1) only jnAnam can lead to moksha 2)
> >>> nothing other than jnAnam is required at all.  This is where I differ
> from
> >>> the various yogic upanishads you quote that cite the requirement for
> jnAna
> >>> and yoga.
> >>>
> >>> By "destruction of mind" I thought you implied a 'physical destruction'
> >>> of the mind (if I have misunderstood your views, please clarify. This
> is
> >>> something that I do not consider is necessary - in fact this is
> >>> undesirable, without a mind where will jnAna arise? A clear
> understanding
> >>> that the mind, being anAtma, is mithyA is sufficient. That is, use the
> mind
> >>> to claim that I, the witness consciousness am Brahman, while saying
> that
> >>> the mind is mithyA, dependent on me, the witness.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Venkatraghavan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> -Venkatesh
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>