Friday, May 18, 2007

ISKON slide show

Picasa has a new feature using which we can embed slideshow link for one or more album from Picasa . So here i am posting slideshow of some pics of Bangalore and other ISKON temples.

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Jab tumse itafaakan

jab tumse itefaakan jab tumse itefaakan

meri nazar mili thi

ab yaad aa raha hain

shayad woh janwary thi

tum yu mili dubara

phir maahe farwary mein

jaise ke hamsafar ho

tum raahein zindagi mein

kitna hasi zamana

aaya tha march lekar

raahein wafa pe thi tum

waadon ki torch lekar

baandha jo ahde ulfat

aprail chal raha tha

duniya badal rahi thi

mausam badal raha tha

lekin mayi jab aayi

jalne laga zamana

har shaks ki zabaan par

tha bas yahi fasana

duniya ke darr se tumne

badli thi jab nigaahein

tha june ka mahina

lab pe thi garm aahein

jully mein jo tumne

ki baatchit kutch kam

thein aasman pe baadal

aur meri aankhein purnam

mahe agast mein jab

barsaat hoo rahi thi

bas aasuon ki baarish

din raat ho rahi thi

kutch yaad aa rahi hain

woh maah tha sitambar

bheja tha tumne mujhko

tarke wafa ka letter

tum gair ho rahi thi

octubar aa gaya tha

duniya badal chuki thi

mausam badal chuka tha

jab aa gaya navamber

aaisi bhi raat aayi

mujhse tumhein chudane

sajkar baraat aayi

bekhaif tha december

jasbaat mar chuke thein

mausam tha sard usmain

armaan bikhar gaye the

lekin yeh kya batau ab haal dusra hain

arey woh saal dusra tha yeh saal dusra hain

Black and White

When i was young i used to think a lot about good and bad . Most of my definitions about good and bad were absolute.I know what was right and what was wrong .But that made my perception uni-dimensional .

When i first came to Dehradoon , i did a test on myself. I decided that i was 70% good and 30 % bad . I wanted this to be 60/40 %.

When i left Dehradoon , i was at minus infinity .

Now i don't have any definition of good and bad . There are things i like .There are things i don't like .But i don't have any illusion of myself doing something good.

Now I can not define good and bad .I have become amoral.I can feel positive and negative energy .Sometimes i can distinguish between them also .But now i can see many views. Sometimes this create a problem because i have many views on a subject and many people can not understand existence of many contradictory views simultaneously .But then all this nature is contradictory .We all are cosmic joke .

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

A step by step first exposure to advaita - 3

252. G: Wonderful. Shall we resume now the topic of the BMI and the Atman, the Self?

253. S: Is there a connection between them?

254. G: No. The Atman is unattached and unconnected to anything. It is alone.

255. S: Then why do we have to talk about it, when we are on the topic of BMI?

256. G: Because it is the Atman which gives life to BMI.

257. S: In what sense? In the sense that the Atman is life?

258. G: Let us not use the word ‘life’ in this context.It has already too many connotations.

259. S: Then what does the Atman do to the BMI?

260. G: It gives sentience.

261 S: What! Consciousness?

262. G: Yes, the mind will not be conscious but for the Atman.

263. S: What about the body?

264. G: A mysterious knotting of the BMI and the Atman takes place at the birth of the body.

265. S: Why do you call it mysterious?

266. G: Because even Vedanta says it cannot explain it.

267. S: But do they know why it takes place?

268. G: The why, probably. But the why and how of this knotting are both difficult questions to answer.

269. S: But this knotting is a fact?

270. G: For if not, we would have an impossible situation – of an inert BMI with a sentience borrowed from nowhere.


271. S. Does not sentience mean consciousness ?

272. G. In a sense, yes.

273. S: What is the Atman conscious of?

274. G. That the Atman is conscious of something is a wrong statement in advaita.

275. S: Why so?

276. G. Atman is Consciousness. There is no second object for it to be conscious of.

277. S. First my question is: What is Consciousness without the concept of ‘being conscious of’?

278. G. Let me try an analogy. Have you seen light, without any object that is lighted?

279. S. Do you mean light per se, without any object that is lighted?

280. G. Exactly. Whenever you say there is light, you mean only that objects are lighted.



281. S: But light produces a visual sensation alright.

282. G: Our problem here is whether objects have to be there or not for the presence of light.

283. S. Coming to think of it, yes, you are right. Light is independent of the lighted objects.

284. G: So do you accept that there can be light without any lighted objects?

285. S. Yes, if it is just a question of existence of light.

286. G. So also Consciousness exists without the necessity of objects to be conscious of.

287. S. Guruji, You have really given me a profound truth.

288. G. And Consciousness, say the upanishads, is Atman!

289. S: Earlier we concluded that Atman, the Self is Bliss.

290. G: Thus it is both: Consciousness and Bliss.

291. S: You also said there is no second object in the context of Atman. What is the idea?

292. G. Yes. Atman is one and one only, without any second. This is a statement from the Upanishads.

293. S: Does ‘one’ mean, it cannot have parts?

294. G: Right. Also, ‘Without any second’ means there is no object other than Atman.

295. S: What does ‘one only’ mean?

296. G: It means there is no second Atman.

297. S. What about the Atman in you and the other Atmans in the other bodies?

298. G: Your problem is because you are considering Atman as a finite package sitting in the body.

299. S. No. I understand Atman is pervading the entire body. But there may be other Atmans also.

300. G. Here is where you have to go back to the declaration: Consciousness is Atman.

301. S: Why can’t there be two Consciousness entities?

302. G: Consciousness has no boundaries of space or time.

303. S: So the Consciousness within me and the Consciousness within you are the same?

304. G: That is the point. Let the mind in me and the mind in you be not confused. It may lead to absurd conclusions.

305. S. Does it mean then that the Atman in all bodies is the same?

306. G: In all animate bodies, yes.

307. S: What about the inanimate? What about the universe of matter?

308. G: They are all Atman.

309. S: What! Is matter also Consciousness? That cannot be.

310. G: You are able to see, now, that advaita is not just a dinner conversation matter!



311. S. In fact earlier you said BMI is not Atman and now you are saying all matter is Atman.

312. G. Very smart. Now I have to extend your horizon of knowledge before I answer this.

313. S: I thought we are coming to the end of the discussion.

314. G: We are just beginning. Let us look at the universe around us.

315. S: I see a vast expanse of space and multifarious objects in it.

316. G: How long do they last?

317. S: Well, some of them last my lifetime; but some of them, like the stars, last for ever.

318. G: Don’t say ‘for ever’. You know even stars have a lifetime.

319. S. But the universe lasts.

320. G. Here we have to go back to our scriptures. It is said the universe itself has a lifetime.


321. S: What if?

322. G: So nothing lasts for ever. Everything passes away.

323. S: I am prepared to accept it as an innocuous truth.

324. G: It is not innocuous if you think further about it.

325. S: Please guide me which way to think.

326. G: The universe not only passes away but in the course of its life, it keeps on changing.

327. S: Of course, everything is undergoing a change.

328. G: What is change?

329. S: Change is something that occurs when one state of existence transforms into another.

330. G. How do you become aware of it?



331. S: I become aware of it by measuring it against the backdrop of a constant state.

332. G: Wonderful. That constant state – does it ever change?

333. S: Well, everything changes – in the context of eternal time.

334. G. So let us understand it correctly. There must be something that is constant always.

335. S: I do not understand the ‘always’.

336. G: Behind all sorts of all changes, there must be something that is constant, that is invariant.

337. S: What is that invariant constant?

338. G: That must be something that is independent of time and space.

339. S: Maybe, you are right. For otherwise, it will also change.

340. G: Good. We postulate therefore a basic entity that exists all the time and everywhere.

341. S: It is only a postulate.

342. G: No. The Vedas and Upanishads cry from the housetops that it is the Truth.

343. S: Either way it does not matter to me.

344. G: My dear, you cannot slight the Vedas like that.

345. S: Pardon me, Guruji. Then let us come back to that postulated basic entity.

346. G: Shall we give a name to that entity, for purposes of communication?

347. S: I have no objection.

348. G: Let us call it ‘It’ or ‘That’.

349. S: May I submit that you may think of a more descriptive name?

350. G: The Upanishads speak of it as ‘It’ and ‘That’. But they also call it ‘Brahman’.



351. S: Well, this is better!

352. G: What have you postulated about this Brahman?

353. S: That It never changes and It is everywhere and all the time.

354. G: One thing more.

355. S: Something more to be postulated?

356. G: No. From your own postulate it will follow.

357. S: What is it?

358. G. That It is infinite.

359. S: What happens if it is not so?

360. G: The postulated changeless character will not hold good.

361. S: Can you explain?

362. G: If It is finite, then addition of something from outside It will change the original ‘It’.

363. S: So Brahman is infinite. O.K.

364. G: It is also the all-pervading Consciousness.

365. S: How come?

366. G: We have still to see quite a lot of that basic entity, ‘Brahman’.

367. S: You have still to tell me about the meaning of Brahman.

368. G: I shall tell you what it stands for and you will get the meaning yourself.

369. S: By our own postulation it is the basic entity that exists always and everywhere.

370. G: It stands for the One Reality that pervades everything, animate or inanimate.



371. S: I would like an analogy for this pervasiveness.

372. G: Like gold in a golden ring.

373. S: Because of this pervasiveness, shall we say it is the Cause of all that exists?

374. G. Not only that. It is itself Causeless, nameless and formless.

375. S: Why nameless? We have already named it Brahman.

376. G. We only followed the Upanishads. Any other name would have suited it also.

377. S: But it exists. Everything that exists has to have a name and a form.

378. G: Everything that exists belongs to the category of pictures painted on a screen; while, ...

379. S: I see, Brahman belongs to the category of the screen.

380. G: So Brahman is like the ocean and everything else is a wave on the ocean.

381. S: But the ocean itself has a base, the surface of the earth.

382. G: That is why, analogies have to be used carefully. No analogy should be extended unwisely.

383. S: So is the ocean-wave analogy as also the screen-picture analogy only to tell me what supports what?

384. G: Yes. Brahman is the substraturm which never changes while everything else changes.

385. S: Like the movie screen which is the base for all the drama enacted on it.

386. G: That is a beautiful example. Hold on to it. We shall use it later.

387. S: Can we give a better analogy?

388. G: Brahman is beyond all analogies. It cannot even be imagined.

389. S: Is it because there is nothing else other than Brahman?

390. G: It is because it is beyond space.



391. S: I get the idea, but still I would appreciate an explanation.

392. G: Imagine space without earth, without water, without fire and without air. Can you?

393. S: Certainly, I can.

394. G: Now can you imagine something outside of space?

395. S: That is pretty difficult.

396. G: That is what I meant. Earth to water, to fire, to air, to space is a passage from the grossest to the subtlest.

397. S: The negation of each grosser entity is possible within the framework of the more subtle one.

398. G: Certainly. But once we reach AkAsha, space, the negation of that cannot be done by the finite mind.

399. S: And AkAsha is to be merged in something more subtle, that is, Brahman?

400. G: The Vedas only declare the existence of this entity and call it ‘sat’, that is, Existence!

401. S: Shall we therefore say that Brahman is the commonality of everything there is?

402. G: Now go back to the Atman, the Consciousness in all that is animate.

403. S: I see where you are leading me. You are going to connect this Atman with that Brahman?

404. G: You have just missed the mark. Not just ‘connect’; I am going to say They are the same.

405. S: What! Atman and Brahman are the same?

406. G: Exactly. This is the fundamental conclusion of the Upanishads.

407. S: It is too much!

408. G: What is your reservation?

409. S: Atman is our inner essence. Brahman is what is everywhere. How can they be the same?

410. G: What is everywhere can be in your core also!



411. S: That doesn’t seem to be enough logic for me.

412. G: That is why our elders resort to the authority of the Upanishads for this.

413. S: But the concept of Brahman is then again unclear.

414. G: Well, you cannot hope to understand Brahman purely by your intellect.

415. S: How else do I understand it?

416. G. Brahman is not an object of knowledge.

417. S: Then what is it?

418. G: It is itself pure knowledge.

419. S: You are only playing with words.

420. G: No. Brahman cannot be known in the usual way by which everything else is known.

421. S: Even by observation and experiment?

422. G: Because, Brahman is beyond cause and effect, substance and attribute.

423. S: Is it then just a void?

424. G: Not at all, because it is a bundle of consciousness.

425. S: Then how are we supposed to become familiar with it?

426. G: Why familiarity? You are It.

427. S: You mean I am Brahman?

428. G: Of course. But you have to qualify that ‘I’.

429. S: In what way?

430. G: The ‘I’ has been covered and camouflaged by so many other things.



431. S: Earlier you said there are two selves, namely the outer (BMI) and the Inner.

432. G: The Inner Self is the Atman. It witnesses all your actions but is never involved in any of them.

433. S: Is that the one which is the same as Brahman?

434. G: Yes. We shall discuss that point later in more detail.

435. S: Now that you have mentioned ‘actions’, I have several questions.

436. G: You may ask them. But remember to include your thoughts in the category of ‘actions’.

437. S: How can actions and thoughts belong to the same category?

438. G: Because thoughts are also actions -- actions of the mind.

439. S: Who is responsible for my thoughts and actions – most of which I would like to disown?

440. G: You can never disown any of your thoughts or actions. You have to be responsible for them.

441. S: In what way?

442. G: Thoughts and actions leave their vAsanAs in your mind.

443. S: What are vAsanAs?

444. G: VAsanAs are imprints of earlier tastes and tendencies. They form the cause of future birth.

445. S: And the state of no future birth is supposed to be moksha!

446. G: Moksha, release from births, cannot be attained until vAsanAs are exhausted.

447. S: How do I exhaust all my vAsanAs?

448. G: It is a good question. But let us do some organization of our discussion.

449. S: I am ready.

450. G: As you exhaust earlier vAsanAs you also acquire newer vAsanAs.



451. S: That is unavoidable.

452. G: But there is a strategy to avoid this acquisition.

453. S: I thought Vedanta is far from being a game of strategies!

454. G: But Lord Krishna is a strategist. He tells you how to avoid future vAsanAs sticking to you.

455. S: You mean in His Gita?

456. G: Yes. He says: Do your actions with detachment.

457. S: I have heard this word very often in religious expositions. Please tell me about it, Guruji.

458. G: The word ‘non – attachment’ is more expressive. Let us use it.

459. S: Does non-attachment mean that we should not be attached to anything?

460. G: It is the attitude of non-attachment that is recommended.



461. S: But if I am not attached to my work, how do I do it efficiently?

462. G: Actually only then you can do it efficiently.

463. S: It is perplexing. How can that be?

464. G: Because attachment will cloud the issues, as it did for Arjuna on the battlefield.

465. S: But how does Vedanta resonate with this idea of non-attachment?

466. G: It is Vedanta that gives the right rationale for non-attachment.

467. S: Shall I try to reason it out?

468. G: Go ahead, that is what I like.

469. S: Vedanta says that there are two selves in me: the perishable BMI and the imperishable Atman.

470. G: You have begun well.



471. S: The Atman is changeless, so does not do any action.

472. G: All action is done by the BMI.

473. S: But it is the Self that motivates the action.

474. G: No, the Self does not motivate the action. In the presence of the Self action takes place.

475. S: So who is responsible for the action: the Self or BMI?

476. G: BMI cannot act; it is inert.

477. S: Then it is the Self that is responsible.

478. G: That is where you miss a subtle point. There are two selves.

479. S: A self which identifies with BMI and a self which does not.

480. G: You be the Self which does not so identify.

481. S: But then who acts?

482. G: Action happens in the presence of You, namely the Self which does not identify with BMI.

483. S: But then I will become responsible.

484. G: No, You are only a witness, a silent non-participating, non-attached witness!

485. S: You mean: Let my mind think, Let my hand act ... Still should I remain just a witness?

486. G: Yes. That is the meaning of your identifying with the Inner Self.

487. S: This is walking on razor’s edge!

488. G: That is why a Krishna had to explain that strategy!

489. S: Looks like we are cheating ourselves!

490. G: There is no cheating here. In the presence of the Inner Self, because of that presence, action takes place.



491. S: In any case the doer is I myself, right?

492. G: No. You are not the doer. Your attitude is ‘na ahaM kartA’. “I am not the doer”.

493. S: But with this posture, I can go and kill somebody and say “I have not killed”!

494. G: First of all it is not a posture. But tell me, why would you kill somebody?

495. S: Because I need to kill. I want to.

496. G: What is the need?

497. S: Oh, it could be several things. Revenge, maybe.

498. G: That is it. By bringing things like revenge, jealousy, etc. you have brought in attachment.

499. S: Attachment to what?

500. G: Attachment to the result of your action.