s1va

This is not about guilt in any of the posts I made here. May be that is where the misunderstanding and differences are from. As per the subconscious, I get that part. I wrote about the likes/dislikes in relation to that in my last post above.

I can partially agree to what is stated here. I think there will be subconscious likes and dislikes for everyone as long as they are a separate entity or an individual. Even a Buddha or enlightened person may have liking to certain food or be married and engaged in sex. This does not mean he is addicted to those. Just by engaging in those acts, we can't one is necessarily caught up in the act. It can be spontaneous acts, the food, sex, etc., not the addiction to substances. We cannot confuse addiction with just engaging in any of those acts. There is a clear difference in my opinion. The likes and dislikes are also okay in my view, as long as long as they do not turn into cravings or aversions as how Buddha described in his noble truths. The moment they change to cravings or aversions (due to attachments) it becomes problematic.

Addictions should be removed in my view. Some people may use addictive substances and not get addicted to them. It is alright in this case. But, it is not possible to realize emptiness while being addicted to any substance. By definition addiction is obsessive attachment towards something in my opinion, that a person struggles to overcome.

Their books are in plain English and available for anyone to read and understand on the topic of cessation or anything else for that matter. While I have great respect and tremendous gratitude for all of those masters (some of them are no more in their physical form as you may know), I still go and listen to some lectures and interact with some teachers at various levels in these organizations. Their view, definition of cessation is different from what you are explaining here. I can quote several passages from the books written by these Swamis, explaining in plain and simple terms what cessation means with examples. But there is no point, so I won't do it. Thanks for responding to my comments. I will take leave from this thread now

Can you please explain how this relates to addiction? In my opinion those who are addicted are attached towards their object of addiction and also obsessive. Here, we are talking about the complete opposite, acts that are done without attachments or desires, just done in the spirit Wu Wei. One can smoke and still be realized. If a Buddha smokes a cigarette, I doubt if his Realization will go away when he is smoking a cigarette. But one can't be addicted and realized in my opinion and these are entirely 2 different things.

I have addressed some of this in the previous post. I will only talk about the highlighted portion here. Yes, the practical results of actions will come back and manifest themselves in the world. Krishna is not denying any of this in Gita. But, such results won't bind the doer of those actions mentally, if the said person was engaged in the act without attachments. Krishna himself had many wives and children as the result of his marriages . But he was not bound by those acts or ever felt trapped by these karmas, unlike others who were also engaged in the same acts with him.

This made me think for a bit. Yes, there are karmic implications at a broader level. The way it is implied in Gita towards the accrual of karma is all geared towards a person's (individuals) moksha or liberation. Therefore in my view, such karmas can be further classified as binding and non-binding karmas. The ones that I stated are non-binding karmas to that person at individual level, but from the aspect of others (other beings), it is binding to them. (I think while I was typing this you made another post above. I just read that and I think I have addressed the answer for that also here)

Not everything I said in that post was from Gita. Gita does not use the word 'pleasure' in this context. It is my personal choice of words and description. The prior part about any action done as a 'means' with some 'ends' in mind, those are Krishna's words translated from Gita. With respect to actions, Krishna talks about surrendering and doing all actions in communal spirit (compassionate, sharing or giving away, without the notion of '"I" doing it), as if all of those actions were done to the divine. But no action, just by itself can be classified as meritorious or sinful.

Pleasure need not be an achievement. It can just be what a person experiences like the sheer joy, or like any other experience. I think my choice of words, 'pleasure' here means something else to some others. But I stand by the gist of what I stated.

Karma and repercussions are different from each other. I think you are confusing them here. A person can engage in an act that does not create any impression for that person, all the while others (partners) engaged in the act may accrue karma because they were in it because they were attached. It doesn't just have to be sleeping with a woman, it can be anything. A ruler can declare war on another country and even go fight in the war without any attachments in his mind. He won't accrue any karma no matter how many he kills in the war and in which ways. All his subjects may not have the same mindset as him, they may be fighting for a reason and with attachments. They will incur karma. Once again, this is why Gita is the best example in my opinion on this. Krishna is engaged (in some capacity) in the war. But, his actions which caused many peoples death did not result in generating karma. To have a deeper understanding of this, I would suggest reading the Gita.

To me, the psychopath example is a different case . There are doctors and surgeons who cut open the physical body of others with sharp knife and other objects. Some of the patients, these doctor's operate on die in surgery. Their action technically can be termed as opening someone's body with a sharp knife and resulting in the person dying. That definition would fit exactly. But, the doctor is not a killer. I think the example that you are taking of psychopath may not be the right one for what is stated here. A psychopath by the very definition of the word is someone who is mentally disturbed and in my view certainly acting with some ends/goals. Which psychopath has acted without an end goal in their mind? What I defined as pleasure here is the sheer joy and bliss of engaging in the action and not the mental thrill that comes from torturing others. Such actions (chasing some thrill) are always the result of attachments and done with some "ends", the end here being the physical or some type of gratification of the one commiting the act of harming others. Engaging in pleasurable acts is by no means a bad thing in and of itself. It becomes a problem only when there is an obsession due to the attachment of something a person desires.

Yes, you are right on both. Such person will accrue no karma. No action is considered as merit (punya) or sin (pApa), just by the virtue of that action alone. Many kill others in war or in justifiable situation where it is the right course of action for them. Perhaps you are giving a different meaning for pleasure here than what I implied. But, no matter what, if a person engages in sex just to enjoy the sheer joy and bliss of the act and is not attached to it, he/she will incur no karma.

Some of the best definitions for karma can be found in the Bhagavad Gita. Krishna says any action done with the expectation of a result will incur karma. Any action that is done as a means to achieve (any) ends, no matter how noble they are, will fall under this. Action done just for the sheer pleasure of engaging in those actions and not for any other reason, will not accrue karma.

Yes, my teachers and the Masters that I have learned from such as Swami Tejomayananda, Swami Chinmayananda, Swami Dayananda Saraswati and some others, were all very clear when they explained what cessation meant in Advaita. I also happened to have direct discussion in Advaita with some of these. There is no doubt in my mind as to what cessation means in Advaita. Plus, for discussions about topics from such texts in forum, we can only go with the generally accepted definitions. If each person claims, I am mature and have a higher definition of my yown for this or that, these discussions lose meaning. Also, in your last post, you talked about adhikara, who is qualified to read texts such as Yoga Vasishta, Tripura Rahasya, etc. I can understand such hierarchy and qualifications within a tradition, based on religion, caste, being a male and based on one's education, etc. This is all understandable if it is announced and enforced within the tradition, like how it is done generally. Just curious, if it is such protected text, which only few are allowed to read and only very few can understand with their teachers, is there a point in sharing portions of such restricted texts in posts like this on open forum and having discussions with others, who may clearly not be qualified under the said tradition?

Somethings are simply what they are! Just want to say, it can also become dangerous to introduce new meanings and interpretations to what has been clearly stated and explained. You may have good intentions here in broadening the scope and definitions, but such precedence could open the flood gates to some (any) claiming to be 'mature' and give whatever meaning they like to scriptural texts.

With respect to any one philosophy or tradition, we can only go with what is stated in the fundamental tenets of the tradition. This cessation is stated clearly and emphasized time and again in almost all major Advaita texts and with examples. I am not sure how else to give a different interpretation to something that is explained clearly in the bashyas (commentaries) and original texts. If it is something that one has to learn from a realized saint or brahmajanani, I would expect the text to say so and not call it as 'cessation'.

Many Advaidic texts directly contradict what I highlighted above and state the opposite. Including Vivekachoodamani by Adi Shankara. Like how a dreamer wakes up from the dream, it is clearly stated as cessation. I will just leave it at that since this is not the core subject matter of this discussion.

There are other examples of great Brahma Rishis who have created their own universe or realms, by the sheer will of their power. One such is the story from Ramayana in which Vishwamitra creates a heaven realm for King Trishanku. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trishanku But,. I do get the point you and Jeff are making about the ego trap in creating such new bubbles. Vishwamitra is said to have become unstable and lost some of his powers after he engaged in this act of creating this world. It took him a long time to get back to where he was, as per the story.

Whether it is good or bad is one thing. It should not be a big deal from what I am reading. But worrying about this (or worry in general) can do more damage than most of the underlying issues that we worry about. It can constrict the flow of qi. Best thing is to let go while still looking for a way to understand what is going on.

I have great respect for the philosophies and teachings of Sri Ramanuja. Even when I subscribed completely to Advaitic views, I still held Sri Ramanuja and his vedantic works in highest regard. He was a leader who led from the front, his life and the way he lived were an example and illustration of his teachings. In this post, I want to share Sri Ramanuja's views on Vedanta, Brahman, Atman and certain Upanishads that I find very interesting. Not just Ramanuja, there are so many other greats from the Sri Vaishnava tradition that have contributed so much to Vedanta and to Hindu thoughts in general. So often their thoughts and views get completely neglected or overlooked because of the perception that Advaita is the only explanation to Vedanta in the west. Interestingly Sri Ramanuja himself studied Advaita Vedanta for several years with the teacher Yadava Prakasa, who was considered the most advanced Vendantin during that period. Rest assured Ramanuja knew and understood what he was talking about and found as different. Brahma Sutras authored by Veda Vyasa is considered as the foundation and authority of Vedanta by everyone. Ramanuja's commentaries on Brahma Sutras called Sri Bhashya is considered as one of his major contribution to Vedanta. We can get into how Ramanuja justifies his interpretation of Vedanta as accurate in a little bit. Let's first take a look at Brahman and Atman as explained by Sri Ramanuja. This quoted part above feels like the core difference in Ramanuja's philosophy from that of Advaita teachings. The Ultimate or universal is not the same as the parts it comprises. Sounds quite simple and nice. It is actually as simple as it sounds. All individual or local jivas constitute modes or are qualities of the universal body of Brahman. So there is the local body, mind and intellect collectively as 'jiva' which is not exactly the same as the universal collective body, mind and intellect of all, aka 'brahman'. Read further and he states that jiva or local is identical with the ultimate or universal self (paramatman). Identical does not mean they are essentially the same. Here lies the major difference in the views. The word 'self' can be also misleading in this context. Our likeness with Brahman does not imply we are that entirely. In Vaishnava tradition, one can become like or in the image of Vishnu, but not exactly as the same one exact Vishnu. To continue.... Edit: Forgot to mention that Ramanuja's teacher Yadava Prakasa later changed his views and become one of Ramanuja's disciples accepting his explanation of Vedanta.

I consider that smart and as a positive asset to retain the right to change your mind. At least you are open and willing to listen to other ideas. You can listen and reject them afterwards If you are already convinced you know what is the only truth and why it is the only truth, then there is no need to reserve the right to change your mind, right?

While I completely disagree with some of the comments made in this post suggesting Ramanuja rejected Vedanta/Upanishads, I would like to address the point that was made about the rejection one of the mahavakyas (Great Sayings) and therefore the rejection of Upanishads. Did Ramanuja reject any of the mahavakyas or any of the Upanishads, does Vishishtadvaita tradition hold the Upanishads to be wrong or reject them? As far as I know, there is completely no basis for such statements. Not only no basis, many would consider such statements to be gross misrepresentation of the Vishishtadvaita tradition and it's masters who respect the entire Vedas including the Vedanta and all Upanishads, Brahma Sutras etc., and accept the authority of Vedas as the fundamental basis for their philosophy. They simply have a different interpretation for the Vedanta than the Advaita interpretation. Ramanuja has clearly explained his position on Upanishads in his work Vedartha-Sangraha. There are commentaries written for almost all major Upanishads by various great masters of this tradition. Vedanta Desikan's commentary on Isha Upanishad is one popular and exemplary example of this. The mahavakya that it was implied that Ramanuja rejected was the ‘That thou art’ (tat tvam asi) from Chandogya Upanishad. Ramanuja did not reject this anywhere, he just gave a different interpretation for this mahavakya. If someone claims Ramanuja rejected this or the Upanishads they should back up their statements with substantiation. Before someone summarily rejects the points Ramanuja makes, I think they should at least try to read and understand the Sri Bhashya, Vedartha-Sangraha or some of the other Vedantic works by Ramanuja. Try to read and see what Vedanta Desikan is trying to say in his works and commentaries on Vedanta. It is ironic that followers of Advaita think they know or understand everything because they understand this one concept of non-dual. Anything that proposes something different must be wrong and they know it even before listening to what is stated as different. Ramanuja's full exposition of the mahavakyas and Upanishads is outside the scope of this thread. But I will quote briefly from two different sources, that explain the definition or meaning Ramanuja gives to 'tat tvam asi'. It will be very interesting for some to note that Ramanuja accepts the Brahman as 'One' - something unique without a second. That is why his system is called "qualified non-dual" or Vishishtadvaita.

I am not trying to change your mind. Those were my observations. I wouldn't waste one minute on such efforts to convince someone who is attached to this or that ideology or philosophy. I hope you are not trying to convince or change other's mind also. If you do, that's entirely your business. I am not a diehard defender or believer of either Advaita or Vishishtadvaita. This post is just a presentation of Ramanuja's views on Vedanta. If you don't agree, fine, it is duly noted. No need to get really worked up over this and call someone 'silly', this or that! You have a nice evening too. More Love

Ramanuja is considered one of the greatest contributor to Vedanta by one and all. Even by the truly great Advaitic masters I know who oppose some of his philosophical views. To call his philosophy silly and to summarily reject it without any substantiation (except posting some video link) just shows ignorance and sheer arrogance. FYI: Ramanuja did not reject the Upanishads. Anyone that makes such claim should get their head checked for sanity and also should try to get some basic education in Vedanta before making posts criticizing others.

I know it won't convince those who have made up their minds already with some fixed notions. If you want to post Advaita video lectures, I would suggest that you create a new post and do it there, or do it one of the several posts that promotes advaita here. While I welcome your comments stating it is not convincing to you, I feel such videos has no place in this topic. This post as you can clearly see is about Vedanta as explained by Ramanuja. You can agree, disagree or discuss. But simply adding 1 or 2 hour lecture video that promotes the philosophy you subscribe to, is not welcome and off topic in this thread. Please remove the video.