real jivanmukti

[Guest guest]

I think westerners underestimate mukti. I have seen dozens of ordinary

egos be

told by American gurus "there! you've got it -- you *are* it", whatever.

Next

week the student starts "playing guru" and soliciting donations. Reading the

books of such people I find my own experience at least equivalent but I don't

consider that mukti.

 

I thought real mukti implied you also automatically had *all* the siddhis

(powers) and your state wasn't affected in any way by sleep, physical death,

etc. No, I don't think siddhis are valuable in themselves but if you don't

have them you are not a jivanmukti in the same way a $1000 bill must have the

little watermarks to be genuine. Is this not true? What do the Vedas say

about it? (not a rhetorical question)

 

I include a quote by someone who has *demonstrated* the truth of it... I

respectfully suggest this is rare and we are selling ourselves short (and

possibly harming others in the process) if we imagine we've attained this

(mukti) if we actually haven't.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When you are established in that real center, you do not move. You are

established there forever. And at the same time you can move without limit, in

infinite ways, without ever leaving the center. You become God and God can

move

infinitely. There are no limits.

Once you are established in the center of existence, you can ignore everything

if you wish; or, if you want to smile at everything you are free to do so. If

you don't want to sleep or eat at all, there is no need for it. On the other

hand, you can eat what you like, and if you prefer to sleep for a whole year,

that is also possible. But you will be awake within - wide awake. Though you

may appear to be sleeping, you are not sleeping at all, and though you may

appear to be eating, you are not eating anything.

If you want to remain in your body, that is possible. Or, if you wish to leave

your body, that, too, can be done. And, having left your body, whenever you

wish to re-enter the body, you can do so. Or, if you do not want to return to

the body, you can remain where you are. You can choose the womb that you will

enter and what type of body you will have. Anything is possible.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Guest guest]

At 02:04 PM 7/29/99 , a c wrote:

>I think westerners underestimate mukti. I have seen dozens of ordinary

>egos be

>told by American gurus "there! you've got it -- you *are* it", whatever.

>Next

>week the student starts "playing guru" and soliciting donations. Reading the

>books of such people I find my own experience at least equivalent but I don't

>consider that mukti.

 

 

Hi a c,

 

 

I have seen these guys too! I could tell you some hair-raising stories

about some of the things they have done with the guru game. And this is

with groups of latter-day seekers who supposedly know about the excesses of

Jim Jones-type teachers, etc. What these teachers say about their state

sounds more like:

 

I am Napoleon.

 

than

 

I am THAT.

>I thought real mukti implied you also automatically had *all* the siddhis

>(powers) and your state wasn't affected in any way by sleep, physical death,

>etc. No, I don't think siddhis are valuable in themselves but if you don't

>have them you are not a jivanmukti in the same way a $1000 bill must have the

>little watermarks to be genuine. Is this not true? What do the Vedas say

>about it? (not a rhetorical question)

 

Many people do think it has defining characteristics. There is an

Upanishad-ic quote that says that Brahman has no mark. I can find it at

home, I'm at work now.

 

But the problem is in the equivocation of "you" and "I". Just who IS this

one who has the siddhis? (i) Ramana as the body/mind with cancer, or (ii)

Ramana as Consciousness? If it's the former (i), then we have the notion

of the enlightened individual. Ramesh Balsekar deals quite well with that

notion - the individual is what is seen not to be. Not that individual,

not any. One quote is attributed to Buddha, that when he was enlightened,

the entire cosmos was enlightened. So all those impressive things listed

in your quote (which I'm omitting here) is now being done by

Consciousness. One of the things it is "doing" is appearing as a c, Greg,

list-readers everywhere.

 

If the one having the siddhis is Ramana (or whoever) as Consciousness, then

Consciousness has all the siddhis even now. Everything attributed (in

ignorance) to any siddha is actually being done by Consciousness in the

eternal present. And no one lacks the right to say that they are

Consciousness, since Consciousness is all that there is. It is never

something that can be gained or lost. It (is all there) is.

 

Best,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

 

a c [ac]

Thursday, July 29, 1999 2:05 PM

advaitin

real jivanmukti

 

a c <ac

 

I think westerners underestimate mukti. I have seen dozens of ordinary

egos be

told by American gurus "there! you've got it -- you *are* it", whatever.

Next

week the student starts "playing guru" and soliciting donations. Reading

the

books of such people I find my own experience at least equivalent but I

don't

consider that mukti.

 

I thought real mukti implied you also automatically had *all* the siddhis

(powers) and your state wasn't affected in any way by sleep, physical death,

etc. No, I don't think siddhis are valuable in themselves but if you don't

have them you are not a jivanmukti in the same way a $1000 bill must have

the

little watermarks to be genuine. Is this not true? What do the Vedas say

about it? (not a rhetorical question)

 

I include a quote by someone who has *demonstrated* the truth of it... I

respectfully suggest this is rare and we are selling ourselves short (and

possibly harming others in the process) if we imagine we've attained this

(mukti) if we actually haven't.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When you are established in that real center, you do not move. You are

established there forever. And at the same time you can move without limit,

in

infinite ways, without ever leaving the center. You become God and God can

move

infinitely. There are no limits.

Once you are established in the center of existence, you can ignore

everything

if you wish; or, if you want to smile at everything you are free to do so.

If

you don't want to sleep or eat at all, there is no need for it. On the other

hand, you can eat what you like, and if you prefer to sleep for a whole

year,

that is also possible. But you will be awake within - wide awake. Though you

may appear to be sleeping, you are not sleeping at all, and though you may

appear to be eating, you are not eating anything.

If you want to remain in your body, that is possible. Or, if you wish to

leave

your body, that, too, can be done. And, having left your body, whenever you

wish to re-enter the body, you can do so. Or, if you do not want to return

to

the body, you can remain where you are. You can choose the womb that you

will

enter and what type of body you will have. Anything is possible.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Thank you for your very informative post. You make some excellent points.

Perhaps there indeed are many people teaching, who are ego based and mired

in delusion and themselves ignorant of reality. It is fortunate indeed that

you know of someone or have found someone who has demonstrated to you that

he is a Siddha. I do not know much about siddhis but Ramana Maharshi has

said that siddhis can only be exercised by the mind to perceived "others".

Self-Realization, however, implies the state of Absolute Unity where there

are no others. You say "Anything is possible" (for the siddha). You might be

right. There indeed may be infinite possibilities, and yet for a Jnani, it

can be said that all possibilities have come to an end.

 

Harsha

[Guest guest]

At 02:47 PM 7/29/99 -0400, you wrote:

>"Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar

>

> I do not know much about siddhis but Ramana Maharshi has

>said that siddhis can only be exercised by the mind to perceived "others".

>Self-Realization, however, implies the state of Absolute Unity where there

>are no others.

>

>From Absolute Unity, Ramana somehow managed to speak to you (through

others) about the fact there "are no others". The more I see this

argument the more I like Visistadvaita! :-))

>You say "Anything is possible" (for the siddha). You might be

>right. There indeed may be infinite possibilities, and yet for a Jnani, it

>can be said that all possibilities have come to an end.

>

 

I didn't say "anything is possible". I was quoting someone who did. I

said they were a jivanmukti (in my opinion and according to my

understanding). They may be a siddha but I didn't say so.

 

If so-called jnanis do not have power over the "illusion" of space/time

then I'm saying it has power over them and therefore they are not

jivanmuktis (in my opinion). Anyone who realizes they are God (or beyond

God if there were such a thing) can act like it (omniscience, control over

physical events, etc.). Anyone who can't demonstrate this hasn't realized

God. People who claim to be Brahman (beyond God) should be able to do at

least as much as God. If they can't do this but still insist they are

jnanis I think they are deluded. Arguments like "there is no universe in

which to demonstrate anything" are nonsense (in my opinion). The universe

in which they can't demonstrate *being* Brahman is the same universe in

which they are claiming to be jnanis.

[Guest guest]

On 7/29/99 at 11:04 AM a c wrote:

>a c <ac

>

>I think westerners underestimate mukti. I have seen dozens of ordinary

>egos be

>told by American gurus "there! you've got it -- you *are* it", whatever.

>Next

>week the student starts "playing guru" and soliciting donations. Reading the

>books of such people I find my own experience at least equivalent but I don't

>consider that mukti.

 

The term "Westerners" is a generalization. Some Westerners still have the

knowledge that apparently has disappeared from parts of the East as well.

Indeed, for some, "enlightenment" means "to be arrived", whereas it only means

the start of a lot of "homework".

 

>I thought real mukti implied you also automatically had *all* the siddhis

>(powers) and your state wasn't affected in any way by sleep, physical death,

>etc. No, I don't think siddhis are valuable in themselves but if you don't

>have them you are not a jivanmukti in the same way a $1000 bill must have the

>little watermarks to be genuine. Is this not true? What do the Vedas say

>about it? (not a rhetorical question)

 

Siddhis are of two kinds. the "fickle" ones are a side-effect of Kundalini

rising; they are not under control and will most probably leave the way they

came. The "real" siddhi is being established in Self; ultimately one will have

experiential knowledge that everything is Self.

>I include a quote by someone who has *demonstrated* the truth of it... I

>respectfully suggest this is rare and we are selling ourselves short (and

>possibly harming others in the process) if we imagine we've attained this

>(mukti) if we actually haven't.

[...]

The quote could be made by a student playing guru There is neither leaving

nor returning to body; being unconditionally awake, body doesn't matter anymore.

Of course this means that the "feeling" quality of sense perception has been

severed, so one is no longer linked to "the fate of the body". Duality could be

called the first layer of ignorance; when it is gone one has Knowledge; the

"feeling" quality of perception could be called the second layer; when it is

gone, (remaining) sense perception will unconditionally reveal Self. This

"state" is what the Buddha referred to as a microcosm, where the "normal" laws

of physics no longer apply. That explains the origin of myths and legends about

realized ones. It will be clear it concerns a microscopic minority of them...

 

 

Jan

[Guest guest]

At 02:36 PM 7/29/99 -0400, you wrote:

>Greg Goode <goode

>

> What these teachers say about their state

>sounds more like:

>

> I am Napoleon.

>

>than

>

> I am THAT.

>

 

Nope, the ones I meant say exactly "I am THAT" etc. etc. I won't mention

their names because I'm sure they are revered by many.

>

>Many people do think it has defining characteristics. There is an

>Upanishad-ic quote that says that Brahman has no mark. I can find it at

>home, I'm at work now.

>

 

hmm.... Brahman may have "no mark" but I was referring to jivanmuktis and

how they appear. Can anyone help us as to what the Vedas say about the

qualities of the jivanmukti?

 

>But the problem is in the equivocation of "you" and "I". Just who IS this

>one who has the siddhis? (i) Ramana as the body/mind with cancer, or (ii)

>Ramana as Consciousness? If it's the former (i), then we have the notion

>of the enlightened individual. Ramesh Balsekar deals quite well with that

>notion - the individual is what is seen not to be. Not that individual,

>not any. One quote is attributed to Buddha, that when he was enlightened,

>the entire cosmos was enlightened. So all those impressive things listed

>in your quote (which I'm omitting here) is now being done by

>Consciousness. One of the things it is "doing" is appearing as a c, Greg,

>list-readers everywhere.

>

>If the one having the siddhis is Ramana (or whoever) as Consciousness, then

>Consciousness has all the siddhis even now. Everything attributed (in

>ignorance) to any siddha is actually being done by Consciousness in the

>eternal present. And no one lacks the right to say that they are

>Consciousness, since Consciousness is all that there is. It is never

>something that can be gained or lost. It (is all there) is.

>

 

Great! good for Consciousness! Consciousness has no problem,

Consciousness was never born and will never die.

 

- but what about us ?

 

Your question about "who are we talking about" is easily answered -- we are

talking about whoever claims to *be* Consciousness. If illusory persons

have truly been seen through and truly disappear in the understanding "only

Consciousness is" then what's left can say "I am Brahman" -- BUT...

whatever's left can also demonstrate this fact and that's my point -- true

Self Realization automatically carries tremendous power which can be

demonstrated easily. If whoever claims to *be* Consciousness can't

demonstrate power over the illusion of space/time they are ipso facto not

*fully* realized beings (in my opinion). Merely saying "there is no

other" or "I am not the body" is nothing at all like picking up a wild

cobra and kissing it on the nose to say nothing of omniscience, etc. etc.

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, a c wrote:

> Your question about "who are we talking about" is easily answered -- we are

> talking about whoever claims to *be* Consciousness. If illusory persons

> have truly been seen through and truly disappear in the understanding "only

> Consciousness is" then what's left can say "I am Brahman" -- BUT...

> whatever's left can also demonstrate this fact and that's my point -- true

> Self Realization automatically carries tremendous power which can be

> demonstrated easily. If whoever claims to *be* Consciousness can't

> demonstrate power over the illusion of space/time they are ipso facto not

> *fully* realized beings (in my opinion).

 

But why on earth *fully* realized beings would want to *demonstrate*

whatever to *you* or anyone? Does the elephant worry about what monkeys

would think about him? Even if they refuse to call him an elephant unless

he demonstrates an ability to use his tail to hung from a palm tree?

 

Love,

[Guest guest]

At 09:37 PM 7/29/99 -0500, you wrote:

>Lilia Stepanova <ls691035

>

>But why on earth *fully* realized beings would want to *demonstrate*

>whatever to *you* or anyone? Does the elephant worry about what monkeys

>would think about him? Even if they refuse to call him an elephant unless

>he demonstrates an ability to use his tail to hung from a palm tree?

>

 

Great beings might demonstrate the fact to put our very reasonable doubts

to rest because so many well intentioned but false claimants abound.

There is a world of difference between not bothering to demonstrate one's

"elephant nature" and not being able to do so. If great beings are as

different from me as an elephant is from a monkey then they should be able

to do something a monkey cannot do -- what would hanging from a tree prove?

-- any monkey can do that. What's your point?

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, a c wrote:

> a c <ac

> Great beings might demonstrate the fact to put our very reasonable doubts

> to rest because so many well intentioned but false claimants abound.

> There is a world of difference between not bothering to demonstrate one's

> "elephant nature" and not being able to do so. If great beings are as

> different from me as an elephant is from a monkey then they should be able

> to do something a monkey cannot do -- what would hanging from a tree prove?

> -- any monkey can do that. What's your point?

 

Monkey's opinions about the "elephant nature" could be absurd from the

point of view of elephant, while appear very reasonable from monkey's

point of view. Who cares about monkey's doubts? Even if it makes a world

of difference for them?

 

Love,

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Lilia Stepanova wrote:

> Lilia Stepanova <ls691035

 

I am sorry. I did not mean to sound nasty.

 

Love,

[Guest guest]

a c wrote:

> I thought real mukti implied you also automatically had *all* the siddhis

> (powers) and your state wasn't affected in any way by sleep, physical death,

> etc. No, I don't think siddhis are valuable in themselves but if you don't

> have them you are not a jivanmukti

 

 

i submit to you, siddhis are illusions.

to wit: if your omnipotence can alter

your prediction that the tree will fall

tomorrow, where went your omniscience?

 

om. bliss is the lone sadasiddhi!

stop the mind and it flows like life.

 

namaste

[Guest guest]

>Greg Goode <goode

> >

> > What these teachers say about their state

> >sounds more like:

> >

> > I am Napoleon.

> >

> >than

> >

> > I am THAT.

> >

>

>Nope, the ones I meant say exactly "I am THAT" etc. etc. I won't mention

>their names because I'm sure they are revered by many.

 

 

I have probably seen these same people. They SAY "I am THAT," but then act

like someone who thinks they're Napoleon.

 

> >If the one having the siddhis is Ramana (or whoever) as Consciousness, then

> >Consciousness has all the siddhis even now. Everything attributed (in

> >ignorance) to any siddha is actually being done by Consciousness in the

> >eternal present. And no one lacks the right to say that they are

> >Consciousness, since Consciousness is all that there is. It is never

> >something that can be gained or lost. It (is all there) is.

> >

>

>Great! good for Consciousness! Consciousness has no problem,

>Consciousness was never born and will never die.

>

>- but what about us ?

 

There are lots of folks you might count as jnanis who say that the body

dies but you don't die. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says this to Arjuna,

getting Arjuna to do his duty as a warrior.

>Your question about "who are we talking about" is easily answered -- we are

>talking about whoever claims to *be* Consciousness.

 

People may make this claim insincerely, but never falsely. Even the

I-Am-Napoleon teachers can say this truely.

>If whoever claims to *be* Consciousness can't

>demonstrate power over the illusion of space/time they are ipso facto not

>*fully* realized beings (in my opinion).

 

 

I know you giving your opinion - but let's say you DID find and meet

someone who had the siddhis you speak of. Would that be all you'd need to

think they are enlightened? I can think of one famous teacher widely

thought to have just the miraculous powers you speak of. But he is ALSO

thought to have some downright scandalous, immoral and harmful character

attributes, things that would get him put behind bars for years if it

happened in the U.S., with proof, etc.

 

So are the siddhis sufficient or just necessary?

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

 

a c [ac]

Thursday, July 29, 1999 6:24 PM

advaitin

RE: real jivanmukti

 

a c <ac

>From Absolute Unity, Ramana somehow managed to speak to you (through

others) about the fact there "are no others". The more I see this

argument the more I like Visistadvaita! :-))

 

 

Harsha: Everyone follows the spiritual practice that they are inclined

towards. In truth, the Guru is only the Heart, One's Own Self. Therefore, no

external medium is required for contact. However, without perfect

recognition of the Self, there is duality and maya appears as something

happening outside. The Guru then appears as part of that Maya and instructs

the devotee to be aware of his true nature. The Sage of Arunachala has

beautifully stated that just as an elephant wakes up upon seeing the fierce

lion in his dream, the devotee upon seeing the Guru in his dream wakes up.

[Guest guest]

>a c wrote:

> I thought real mukti implied you also automatically had *all* the siddhis

> (powers) and your state wasn't affected in any way by sleep, physical

death,

> etc. No, I don't think siddhis are valuable in themselves but if you

don't

> have them you are not a jivanmukti

 

>i submit to you, siddhis are illusions.

>to wit: if your omnipotence can alter

>your prediction that the tree will fall

>tomorrow, where went your omniscience?

>om. bliss is the lone sadasiddhi!

>stop the mind and it flows like life.

 

namaste

 

Hello,

 

Every once and a while one encounters someone who has the sadasiddhi of

bliss. Just being in their presence works to uplift. I do not wonder if they

are jivanmuktis but do appreciate the bliss they emanate. The experience of

someone with 'siddhis' can be very different. I have to agree with the

above comment about siddhis being illusions as many with these 'siddhis' are

so wrapped up in the ego illusion of their greatness that it is obvious they

are not any closer to being a jivanmukti than the vast majority of people.

 

Namaste,

Linda

 

--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

 

GET WHAT YOU DESERVE! A NextCard Platinum VISA: DOUBLE Rewards points,

NO annual fee & rates as low as 9.9 percent FIXED APR.

Apply online today! /ad/nextcard1

 

------

Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available at:

/viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin

[Guest guest]

At 11:13 PM 7/29/99 -0500, you wrote:

>Lilia Stepanova <ls691035

>

>Monkey's opinions about the "elephant nature" could be absurd from the

>point of view of elephant, while appear very reasonable from monkey's

>point of view. Who cares about monkey's doubts? Even if it makes a world

>of difference for them?

>

 

Mahatmas (great beings) routinely exhibit extraordinary care for lesser

beings like ourselves - and yes they often remove just such silly doubts

*because* it makes a world of difference to us. I doubt very much a

Mahatma would share your unconcern for lesser beings -- but perhaps you

have some special reason not to care about our welfare. If so, I don't

need to know about it. Thanks for your input...

[Guest guest]

Dear "a c",

 

I've taken the liberty of stringing together a few of your recent comments

and offering responses to them. Hope you don't mind....

>Great beings might demonstrate the fact to put our very reasonable doubts

>to rest because so many well intentioned but false claimants abound.

 

 

Not a chance. Such a demonstration would put no one's doubts to rest, and

would only stir up a new host of phony imitators. The "great beings" you

refer to are wiser than that.

> No, I don't think siddhis are valuable in themselves but if you don't

> have them you are not a jivanmukti

 

Where did you get such an idea as this?

> Mahatmas (great beings) routinely exhibit extraordinary care for lesser

> beings like ourselves -

 

Mahatmas are Mahatmas precisely because they don't acknowledge the existence

of "lesser beings". They see everyone and everything as their very Self.

It's natural to want to take good care of your Self, right? :-)

> I can't display siddhis....

 

What do you think you're doing right now? ;-)

 

Ramana Maharshi: "People see many things which are far more miraculous than

the so-called siddhis, yet do not wonder at them because they occur every

day. When a man is born he is no bigger than this electric bulb, but then he

grows up and becomes a giant wrestler, or a world-famed artist, orator,

politician or sage. People do not view this as a miracle, but they are

wonderstruck if a corpse is made to speak."

> .... because I am neither a jivanmukti nor a siddha --

 

These are merely assumptions. With respect, I think someone somewhere has

fed you a line of bull.

> You also mentioned anyone can truthfully claim to be Consciousness whether

> or not they actually realize it.

 

Who doesn't realize it??? Do you exist or not?

>That may be true but my concern was with

> false claims to the realization of truth

 

Here's my simple rule of thumb. Anyone - anyone at all - who claims to have

"realized" something ("truth" or whatever), or claims to have "siddhis", is

a phony. Period. That whittles the field down quite a bit, now doesn't it?

> I'm leaning toward the

> Visistadvaita interpretation at the moment. It doesn't offend my respect

> for God as much as what I hear from some Advaitins (not necessarily

anyone

> here). In my opinion, many mere "friends of God" have exhibited more

> power, love, and knowledge than a whole room full of intellectually

> oriented minor mystics who have a little attainment and a LOT of gall. It

> seems some Advaitins imagine God is imaginary but they themselves are

> Brahman (beyond Isvara). In my opinion, this is a huge overestimation of

> their own attainment and an equally huge underestimation of the reality

and

> power of God. God makes the universe and they gainsay its existence.

I'm

> embarassed for them and concerned for anyone who takes them at their word.

 

I've often felt exactly as you do. Advaita makes no sense to the mind or

emotions. It's an attempt to describe something that simply can't be

described. Yet, my intuition always leads me back to Advaita in the end, as

a truth I somehow sense or know is true, but can't hope to understand (with

my mind or emotions). On the mental / emotional level, Visishtadvaita (or

panentheism) is much more readily comprehensible (to me, anyway), and seems

a much "healthier" doctrine. My advice, though, is don't consign Advaita to

the trash bin just yet - I suspect you'll be paying it another visit

someday.

> My current opinion is that truth (which is God, Brahman, etc.) is realized

> by a multiplicity of qualitatively identical but numerically multiple

> Atmans who experience a God-like joy deriving from their fundamental

> inseparability from God. In this view, Atmans are neither separate from

> God nor identical to Him. While Atmans can share God's joy and knowledge

> they do not share God's power except by the special favor of God in unique

> circumstances. This suits the facts as they appear to me far better than

> Advaita (as far as I'm concerned).

 

Maybe you could think of Atman as a One-Many. Don't limit it to just a Many.

Beyond the One-Many is the One. And beyond that is something which can't be

talked about - as Meister Eckhart pointed out, anything you can say about it

is untrue.

 

Warren