01-27-2005, 07:25 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Those who do japa and dhyana of Sagun Brahman do not like Shankara's model. After all why should anyone do japa of an ultimately unreal Saguna Brahman? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The spiritual infants practise Japa, Pooja, Dhyana, Mudra, Pranayama, Prathyahara etc because they have not realized their identity as the Universal Consciousnness. The reason kids play with barbie-dolls is not because Barbie is a living person. The imagination of the child brings the doll alive. The child imposes her thoughts on 'Barbie' and speaks for her, walks her, dresses her etc. Shodasa-Upachara pooja is similar. The Jeeva imagines the Brahman and invites the Universal spirit into a confined moorthy. Ahvaanam (invitation), Praana-Prathishta (breathing life into the idol), and upasthaanam (sending it back), and visarjanam (dissolving the idol.) is common. This does not prove the realness or falseness of anything.
Now, as an Advaitin, I say that the Japa/Pooja and Dhyana are all Samvadhi Bhrama (leading errors.) Instead of my repeating it here, I shall post the link and quote a small portion here. http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/panch/panch_09.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Meditation on Brahman leads to its realisation, as in the case of Samvadi-bhrama, or erroneous notion of a thing leading to a successful result in relation to that thing. Hence in the Upanishads various kinds of Upasanas, or meditations, are described. Take the instance of a person seeing from a distance the ray of a light, situated within the walls of a room. He sees a gleam of light passing through the window of a house and getting reflected outside, and mistakes the ray of the light seen outside for a gem shining. He commits this error in his mind because he has not seen the source of the light, but only its reflection outside. Suppose this person runs after that reflection thinking that it is a gem. We can imagine the mistake that he is making in cherishing that notion. But, suppose, at another place, there is a gem kept inside a room at a distance and the light emanating from it through an aperture is also reflected outside. If this reflection of light outside is mistaken for the gem itself, there is, naturally an erroneous perception, for the light of the gem is not the gem. In the two instances cited, where one person sees the gleam of the lamp and takes it for a gem, and another where one sees the ray of light emanating from a gem and thinks it is the gem itself, though there is similarity in so far as there is a mistaken notion regarding the gem, yet, there is a difference in the results that they would achieve in pursuing the objects of their quests. While the one who has mistaken the light of the lamp for the gem would not acquire the gem by approaching it, the other who has mistaken the light of the gem for the gem itself would, by going near it, obtain it. This is an illusion in perception called Samvadi, because, though initial perception is a mistake, the end reached is the desired one. Where the end reached is something quite different from the desired one, the mistaken perception is called Visamvadi-bhrama.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As an aside we all know the advatic explanation of TAT TWAM ASI.
Ramanujacharya says that this mahavakya means: Narayana with individual jivas as body = Narayana with the entire universe as the body.
Madhavacharya says that the Advaitists and Vishsitadvaitists have gotten the Mahavakya completely wrong. Actually it is ATAT TWAM ASI. It means Vishnu (Brahman) is eternally different from Jiva. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How does this even attempt to explain Tath Thvam Asi? This occurs in the Chandogya Upanishad NINE times. Yes, Aruni tells this to Svethakethu nine times. If you go thru each example, the "individual cellular-bodies making up a universal body" theory does not even come close to fitting the case. Take the pippala seed example or the saltwater example (ref Chandogya), and you will see there is no two. There is only ONE.
BTW, I never said "Brahman is ALL". I maintain that Brahman alone exists, or... not even that. (Quote Chandogya chapter 7, bhaumavidhya.)
The spiritual infants practise Japa, Pooja, Dhyana, Mudra, Pranayama, Prathyahara etc because they have not realized their identity as the Universal Consciousnness. The reason kids play with barbie-dolls is not because Barbie is a living person. The imagination of the child brings the doll alive. The child imposes her thoughts on 'Barbie' and speaks for her, walks her, dresses her etc. Shodasa-Upachara pooja is similar. The Jeeva imagines the Brahman and invites the Universal spirit into a confined moorthy. Ahvaanam (invitation), Praana-Prathishta (breathing life into the idol), and upasthaanam (sending it back), and visarjanam (dissolving the idol.) is common. This does not prove the realness or falseness of anything.
Now, as an Advaitin, I say that the Japa/Pooja and Dhyana are all Samvadhi Bhrama (leading errors.) Instead of my repeating it here, I shall post the link and quote a small portion here. http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/panch/panch_09.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Meditation on Brahman leads to its realisation, as in the case of Samvadi-bhrama, or erroneous notion of a thing leading to a successful result in relation to that thing. Hence in the Upanishads various kinds of Upasanas, or meditations, are described. Take the instance of a person seeing from a distance the ray of a light, situated within the walls of a room. He sees a gleam of light passing through the window of a house and getting reflected outside, and mistakes the ray of the light seen outside for a gem shining. He commits this error in his mind because he has not seen the source of the light, but only its reflection outside. Suppose this person runs after that reflection thinking that it is a gem. We can imagine the mistake that he is making in cherishing that notion. But, suppose, at another place, there is a gem kept inside a room at a distance and the light emanating from it through an aperture is also reflected outside. If this reflection of light outside is mistaken for the gem itself, there is, naturally an erroneous perception, for the light of the gem is not the gem. In the two instances cited, where one person sees the gleam of the lamp and takes it for a gem, and another where one sees the ray of light emanating from a gem and thinks it is the gem itself, though there is similarity in so far as there is a mistaken notion regarding the gem, yet, there is a difference in the results that they would achieve in pursuing the objects of their quests. While the one who has mistaken the light of the lamp for the gem would not acquire the gem by approaching it, the other who has mistaken the light of the gem for the gem itself would, by going near it, obtain it. This is an illusion in perception called Samvadi, because, though initial perception is a mistake, the end reached is the desired one. Where the end reached is something quite different from the desired one, the mistaken perception is called Visamvadi-bhrama.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As an aside we all know the advatic explanation of TAT TWAM ASI.
Ramanujacharya says that this mahavakya means: Narayana with individual jivas as body = Narayana with the entire universe as the body.
Madhavacharya says that the Advaitists and Vishsitadvaitists have gotten the Mahavakya completely wrong. Actually it is ATAT TWAM ASI. It means Vishnu (Brahman) is eternally different from Jiva. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How does this even attempt to explain Tath Thvam Asi? This occurs in the Chandogya Upanishad NINE times. Yes, Aruni tells this to Svethakethu nine times. If you go thru each example, the "individual cellular-bodies making up a universal body" theory does not even come close to fitting the case. Take the pippala seed example or the saltwater example (ref Chandogya), and you will see there is no two. There is only ONE.
BTW, I never said "Brahman is ALL". I maintain that Brahman alone exists, or... not even that. (Quote Chandogya chapter 7, bhaumavidhya.)