Jivanmukta

[Guest guest]

advaitin , "Vivekananda Centre" <vivekananda@b...>

wrote:

> An interesting question from the Ramakrishna List.

> Perhaps the members can send a reply and a copy to me

> (jay) at vivekananda@b...

>

> 04 June 2000 10:21

> RE: [ramakrishna] Digest Number 458

>

>

> > What you say is very true, that time is very short.

> >

> > I have 2 general doubts : Once a person has realised his Self, will he

> have

> > interest in the worldly 'stuff' ? Or would he like only to enjoy the

> Bliss?

 

The bliss that comes with realization is not necessarily always

experienced as happiness. Satchitananda is completely outside of

this world. Happiness is within the world. One can know themselves

as bliss but not always experience this as relative happiness.

> > Again, if he decides to come into the world, should he have any fear of

> > falling from his exalted state, due to his activities in the world?

 

When Moksha has occurred, there can be no turning back. The essential

identification with the relative sense of self is lost forever, even

while the sense of the relative self remains. That is, one will never

be limited to knowing themselves as individual beings *only*, even

while the sense of themselves as an individual remains intact.

 

--jody.

 

[snip]

[Guest guest]

advaitin , "Anand Natarajan" <anandn@m...> wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> Satchidananda is not outside the world for a Jnani. Here is an

illustration by Ramana Maharshi. - "Now (meaning in ignorance) you

think you are in the world , Then (after realization) you will find

the world is within you".

> We view Satchidananda through coloured glasses and hence we see the

world. On transparency that which was the world becomes Satchidananda.

>

> Anand

 

Thank you Anand, I agree.

 

The point I was trying to make was that bliss does not

equal happiness in every case. Happiness happens to the

relative self, the Self *is* bliss.

 

I would also like to point out that realization does not

automatically confer the blessing of seeing the Self

in all. That is, one can know themselves *as* the Self,

experientially and simultaneously with an experience of the

world as the world.

 

--jody.

> On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 17:26:51 jody radzik wrote:

> >Satchitananda is completely outside of

> >this world. Happiness is within the world. One can know

themselves

> >as bliss but not always experience this as relative happiness.

>

>

> A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World

Technology Network.

> Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com

[Guest guest]

 

Sunder Hattangadi [sunderh]

Tuesday, June 06, 2000 9:06 AM

advaitin

Re: Re: Jivanmukta

 

 

Namaste,

 

These statements are not in accord with the experiences described in

the Upanishads, Gita, or the biographies of Jivanmuktas.

 

As Sri Ramana pointed out, 'mano-laya' is a valid stage, but

'mano-naasha' supercedes it. Then the jivanmukta sees the world as a dream,

mirage, &c (still only an approximate analogy), and not as world.

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

Mano-Laya corresponds to Kevala Nirvikalpa Samadhi. It gives the direct

experience of the Self. Ramana Maharshi has indicated that Self-enquiry then

carries a deep conviction based on Self-Knowledge. Until vasanas loosen

their hold the Jnana is said to be unsteady. Sri Ramana has pointed out that

it takes time for Jnana to steady itself. When vasanas are weakened beyond a

point, then spontaneously, Sahaj Samadhi ensues.

 

Seeing the world as a dream or a mirage that occurs in consciousness is a

useful method. Sri Shankra has said that the Self is Real and the World is

Unreal. But then goes on to say that the Self is the World. All this is

That.

 

Maya is the great veiling power that makes the worlds appear and disappear.

Yet She arises out of the Self only. Taking, the mind, and all the worlds

when She merges in the Heart, She Reveals Herself to be the Self and the

Heart. All dichotomies end in the Self.

 

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

The Gita has tens of verses describing a brahmaj~naanii, in answer to

a specific question by Arjuna [iI:54], spread over all the chapters. We need

not know or judge, we can just merge in THAT - body, mind, and soul.

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

>Ram Chandran <ramvchandran

>advaitin

>advaitin

>Re: Re: Jivanmukta

>Tue, 6 Jun 2000 12:51:28 -0700 (PDT)

>

>Hari Om:

>

>We have no means to know who is a Brahma Jnani and who

>is not. There are no intellectual scale to measure and

>judge.

______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Hari Om:

 

When we wake up from our dreams in the morning and we

look forward to go to sleep for more dreams. In

between our sleeps, we want to think and act and this

cycle continues without any break. Vedanta books

discuss about the roaring tiger in our dreams, being

instrumental for us to wake up. When we wake up, we

temporarily realize that what we experienced was

unreal. Unfortunately we discard our night dream as

unreal and refuse to believe illusive day dream. A

Jivamukta on the other hand wakes up permanantly from

night and day dreams simultaneously.

 

According to the Upanishads, the Jivamukta is THAT IT

IS. Upanishads didn't speculate (Ramana also refused

to speculate) the nature of Jivamukta. But we

determine to make our speculation for clear

intellectual understanding. This speculation is the

purest form of mAyA and has created more

misunderstanding than understanding! The sages and

saints of Upanishads and also Shankara and Ramana were

quite careful and have given sufficient subtle

warnings to avoid confusion. The more we try to spell

out the nature of Jivamukta, we are more likely to be

confused!

 

Jivamukta is THAT IT IS

IT IS

IS

I

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

advaitin , "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh@h...> wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> These statements are not in accord with the experiences described in

> the Upanishads, Gita, or the biographies of Jivanmuktas.

>

> As Sri Ramana pointed out, 'mano-laya' is a valid stage, but

> 'mano-naasha' supercedes it. Then the jivanmukta sees the world as a dream,

> mirage, &c (still only an approximate analogy), and not as world.

>

> Regards,

>

> s.

 

A more adequate statement might be "these statements are not

in accord with the experiences *I have read about so far* in

the Upanishads. . ."

 

To know oneself as the Self, and to see everything else as

the Self, are two different states. That is, one can know

themselves experientially as the Self, and still know the

world as the world. It may be that at some point the jnani

will come to see the world as the Self also, but this will

be after the initial realization of Self has occurred.

 

To stick to the shastras is a good strategy for those who

have yet to be blessed with realization. However, an even

better source of information is the direct and firsthand

descriptions given by living brahmajnanis. There are quite

a few available on the Nonduality Salon mailing list. My

description of realization conforms to the experiences

they have shared with me there and in private email.

 

I would like to point out that expectations about what

realization is like are the biggest hindrances to Its

being experienced directly.

 

--jody.

 

[snip]

[Guest guest]

Just a note ...

 

If "Brahma Jnanis" contradict the Shastras, then follow Sri Ramakrishna's

statement,

"Test me like a goldsmith tests his coin before you accept me".

 

Anand

 

 

On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 17:53:59 jody wrote:

> However, an even better source of information is the direct and firsthand

>descriptions given by living brahmajnanis. There are quite

>a few available on the Nonduality Salon mailing list. My

>description of realization conforms to the experiences

>they have shared with me there and in private email.

 

 

A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology

Network.

Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com

[Guest guest]

advaitin , "Anand Natarajan" <anandn@m...> wrote:

>

> Just a note ...

>

> If "Brahma Jnanis" contradict the Shastras, then follow Sri

Ramakrishna's statement,

> "Test me like a goldsmith tests his coin before you accept me".

>

> Anand

 

There is no contradiction, there is only an omission in the

reading, or a misinterpretation of what is read.

 

--jody.

> On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 17:53:59 jody wrote:

>

> > However, an even better source of information is the direct and

firsthand

> >descriptions given by living brahmajnanis. There are quite

> >a few available on the Nonduality Salon mailing list. My

> >description of realization conforms to the experiences

> >they have shared with me there and in private email.

>

>

> A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World

Technology Network.

> Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com

[Guest guest]

Hari Om:

 

We have no means to know who is a Brahma Jnani and who

is not. There are no intellectual scale to measure and

judge. Ramana or Ramakrishna never said, "I am a

Brahma Jnani." We are neither qualified to say who is

a Jnani and who is not.

 

Those of us who don't have the spiritual vision need

glasses (the World)to visualize Brahman. A Brahma

Jnani with the spiritual vision could discard the

glasses and see the Brahman. If we pretend to be a

Brahma Jnanis and discard the world (glasses)we will

only have a blurred vision of Brahman!

 

The above statements are essentially pure conjectures

and we have no means to state qualifications of a

Jnani. The sages of Upanishads said it beautifuly,

"Those who claim to be realized are definitely not!"

 

The following quotation by Colton beautifully

summarizes the same point: "There is this difference

between happiness and wisdom that he that thinks

himself the happiest man really is so; but he that

thinks himself the wisest is generally the greatest

fool."

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: I believe that more discussions on this topic

will likely bring more confusion and suffering!

Self-Realization is similar to an experience of "black

hole." Those who are in the black hole can't explain

their experience to others!

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Ram Chandran <ramvchandran> wrote:

 

[snip]

> The sages of Upanishads said it beautifuly,

> "Those who claim to be realized are definitely not!"

 

What "force" is it that prevents the realized from

claiming their realization?

 

--jody.

 

[snip]

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Judy:

 

It is ego that makes the claim, "I am a realized person." The presence of ego

indicates that he/she is not realized which is a self contradiction!

 

It appears that you seem to believe that "Self-realization" can be verified

scientifically (intellectually). Self-realization is a personal experience and

the only way to know it is through experience! I can explain an apple using

the attributes such as sweetness, color, texture, etc. Those who have

knowledge about the attributes of apple can understand and appreciate.

 

According to Advaita, Brahman is without attributes (Nirguna Brahman). How to

explain an experience with no attributes? Any explanation of my experience of

Brahman is a contradiction!

 

Self-realization is not to make claims and that is very fundamental.

 

At the most, we can say that someone is more knowlegeable (on relative

magnitude) and even this is restricted to a specific time. When my son was a

child, I was more knowledgeable about computers and at present, he is more

knowledgeable about computers than me.

 

The experience of Brahman is beyond time, space and consequently beyond the

intellect! All claims belong to the intellect. i(ego) is never be equal to I

(Brahman)!

 

regards,

 

--

Ram Chandran

Burke, VA

 

 

jody wrote:

> What "force" is it that prevents the realized from

> claiming their realization?

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Sundarji:

Hari Om Sundarji:

 

Thanks for bringing the relevance of Shastras in the

realization of the Brahman. We need to keep strong

faith in the Shastras to follow it in order to merge

in THAT.

 

We (Jivas) are the fallen angels inside the deep well.

We learn to use the ladder (Shastras) to get out of

this well. When we get released from the bondage, we

no more need the ladder. We neither need any support

nor do we need to make any claim!

 

Ram Chandran

 

--- Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> The Gita has tens of verses describing a

> brahmaj~naanii, in answer to

> a specific question by Arjuna [iI:54], spread over

> all the chapters. We need

> not know or judge, we can just merge in THAT - body,

> mind, and soul.

>

> Regards,

>

> s.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Ram Chandran <chandran@t...> wrote:

> Hari Om Judy:

 

That's Jody, Ram.

> It is ego that makes the claim, "I am a realized person." The presence of ego

> indicates that he/she is not realized which is a self contradiction!

 

What you are calling ego is absolutely necessary to the survival

of the body. Upon realization, ego is not lost. If it was, we

wouldn't be able to eat, or discuss. If RM or RK didn't have any

ego left, we never would have heard of their lives as they wouldn't

have been able to give any teachings. Ramakrishna used to say that

after realization, one will still find themselves in possession of

the "ego of knowledge" or the "ego of the devotee."

 

Now, the thing that is lost via realization isn't the ego per se,

it is the exclusive attachment to the ego as our primary identity.

That is, upon realization we recognize who we really are, the Self,

even while we find that we are still the individual we knew ourselves

as before realization.

> It appears that you seem to believe that "Self-realization" can be verified

> scientifically (intellectually).

 

Not true, I agree with your statements below.

> Self-realization is a personal experience and

> the only way to know it is through experience! I can explain an apple using

> the attributes such as sweetness, color, texture, etc. Those who have

> knowledge about the attributes of apple can understand and appreciate.

 

Agreed.

> According to Advaita, Brahman is without attributes (Nirguna Brahman). How to

> explain an experience with no attributes? Any explanation of my experience of

> Brahman is a contradiction!

 

Not true. One who is realized has access to the state. While

the state Itself cannot be described, it still leaves an impression

on the mind of the jiva. This is how those who are realized *know*

it to be true. While they can experience realization but not

describe it, they retain a memory of Its existence.

> Self-realization is not to make claims and that is very fundamental.

 

Again, what force exists that prevents the realized from confessing

their realization?

> At the most, we can say that someone is more knowlegeable (on relative

> magnitude) and even this is restricted to a specific time. When my son was a

> child, I was more knowledgeable about computers and at present, he is more

> knowledgeable about computers than me.

>

> The experience of Brahman is beyond time, space and consequently beyond the

> intellect! All claims belong to the intellect. i(ego) is never be equal to I

> (Brahman)!

>

> regards,

>

> --

> Ram Chandran

> Burke, VA

 

Thank you Ram. However, you have not really made a case I'm

afraid. RM and RK certainly had intellects which continued to

exist after their realization, and RK went much further than claiming

mere realization, he claimed to be an Incarnation of God!

 

The fact is, those who are realized possess minds and personalities,

and those minds and personalities are quite capable of making true

claims as to their disposition regarding their realization.

 

--jody.

>

> jody wrote:

>

> > What "force" is it that prevents the realized from

> > claiming their realization?

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Jody:

 

I respect your understanding of Jivanmukta which is

based on your beliefs and background. Just like you, I

have my own notions and understanding with different

sets of beliefs and background. We seem to disagree on

our ideas and thoughts and I am not surprised. Still,

they are useful conversations for developing the mind

for further contemplation. Thanks for your time and

efforts.

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: In an excellent article, Swami Sivananda

describes the essential qualities of a "Jivanmukta."

Mathematically speaking, these are necessary but not

sufficient qualities.

 

Webpage:

<http://www.SivanandaDlshq.org/saints/jivanmukta.htm>

[Guest guest]

Hi Ram.

 

Thanks for staying with this. By the definition provided

on the webpage cited, Ramakrishna was not a Jivanmukta.

Do you agree with this?

 

--jody.

 

advaitin , Ram Chandran <ramvchandran> wrote:

> Hari Om Jody:

>

> I respect your understanding of Jivanmukta which is

> based on your beliefs and background. Just like you, I

> have my own notions and understanding with different

> sets of beliefs and background. We seem to disagree on

> our ideas and thoughts and I am not surprised. Still,

> they are useful conversations for developing the mind

> for further contemplation. Thanks for your time and

> efforts.

>

> regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

> Note: In an excellent article, Swami Sivananda

> describes the essential qualities of a "Jivanmukta."

> Mathematically speaking, these are necessary but not

> sufficient qualities.

>

> Webpage:

> <http://www.SivanandaDlshq.org/saints/jivanmukta.htm>

[Guest guest]

Here is a poem that I wrote on this topic awhile ago, offering my 2

cents!

 

Dreaming

 

Dream inside the light of day

Listen close to what they say

Teachings burden. Let them go

Only then, will you know

 

Begin each sun, with a dream

Use the day, as night would seem

Search within and dream aloud

Don't be burdened by these clouds

 

Know that dreams are what they are

Your hopes and wishes from a far

Dreams are what you live in life

Not only what you dream at night

 

So when you wake, be sure to see

What you saw within your dream

Use them as your guiding star

No longer wishes from a far

 

 

Concetta

 

 

Ram Chandran [ramvchandran]

Tuesday, June 06, 2000 9:05 AM

advaitin

Re: Jivanmukta

 

 

When we wake up from our dreams in the morning and we

look forward to go to sleep for more dreams. In

between our sleeps, we want to think and act and this

cycle continues without any break. <snip>

[Guest guest]

--- jody <jodyr wrote:

>

> The point I was trying to make was that bliss does

> not

> equal happiness in every case. Happiness happens to

> the

> relative self, the Self *is* bliss.

>

 

hariH OM!

 

yes, this is true for all emotions. since we are,

before

and after Self-realization, karmically on auto pilot,

due

to prarabdha.

> I would also like to point out that realization does

> not

> automatically confer the blessing of seeing the Self

> in all. That is, one can know themselves *as* the

> Self,

> experientially and simultaneously with an experience

> of the

> world as the world.

 

harshaji addressed this cleary/definitively.

 

i'd like to elaborate: the path toward

Self-realization is

a gradual one; although some have said it's a sudden

event. this, in my view, is only at the final

threshold of

moksha [i.e. sahaja nirvikalpa samadhi]. the

buddhists

also postulate a gradual shifting into the final

nirvana,

beginning with glimpses (kensho), and moving then

into visitations into nirvana (satori), which precedes

final paranirvana (equivalent to the mahasamadhi of

the vedantins).

 

therefore, to yet experience world as world, indicates

 

one of the various preconditions to jivanmukthi.

where

jivanmukthi itself can only see the world as brahman,

despite occasional lapses even in the brahmajnani's

awareness that such world appears to hold isolated,

separative fragments [apart from the substratum

brahman Self]. however, such appearances are

instantaneously recognized as mithya and non-abiding.

 

the entire story is not divinable or translatable

regarding

the relative condition of [the *eternal reality*] of

maya.

for example, the idea of a permanent release from

one's

embodiment [in one form or another] within brahman's

leela, is not ultimately true...is premature on the

ineffable

Absolute's [purely incomprehensible] projection into

its

manifestation in space-time. again, as ramji so

clearly

pointed out, *nothing can be said re the sthithaprajna

 

(wisdom state) of the jivanmuktha*! that the more we

attempt to describe it the more delusory the results

and,

worse, the more we're in fact hindered by the ideas

[now turned traps/obstacles] of the relative,

tyrannical

mind-game.

 

also, trying to figure out who is or isn't a jnani is

really a

waste of time. as buddha made clear by in effect

saying,

"accept nothing i say on faith; rather test its

efficacy for

yourself, using the innate wisdom in your Heart."

 

moreover, who or what is the jnani, finally? at best

we

could say its an ego sublimated to the point of being

capable of transmitting satchidananda. yet the ego

itself is not the issue. it's only a conduit for the

Real.

 

now, every word just uttered here is pure nonsense

in the face of moksha. as are all words and ideas!

 

namaste

 

 

 

Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!

http://photos.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

That is your spontaneous humility, Frankji!

 

Would it not be equally or more encompassing to say that from the view

of moksha "whatever is, is perfect! sense or nonsense", in accordance with

the verse: " puurNamadaH puurNamidam.h " ?

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

>"Dave Sirjue" <dsirjue

>advaitin

><advaitin >

>Re: Re: Jivanmukta

>Wed, 7 Jun 2000 08:22:21 -0400

>

>

>-

>f maiello <egodust

><advaitin >

>Wednesday, June 07, 2000 1:01 AM

>Re: Re: Jivanmukta

>

>

> >

> > now, every word just uttered here is pure nonsense

> > in the face of moksha. as are all words and ideas!

> >

> > namaste

> >

>Well said Frankji -

______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Hari Om:

 

Those definitions just indicate general guidelines and

the answer is subtle! I am still empowered by the

force of mAyA and I have no means to determine who is

a a Jivamukta and who is not!

 

According to Ramana (which is consistent with the

position of the scriptures) that "Self-realization" is

a personal experience and it is beyond human intellect

to grasp. When the intellect is subdued, Self reveals

itself!

 

There is nothing wrong for me to believe RM and RK as

Jivamuktas and faith is a fundamental ingredient for

finding the Truth. My faith will ultimately help me to

see what I believe. Even this statement is my belief!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

--- jody <jodyr wrote:

> Hi Ram.

>

> Thanks for staying with this. By the definition

> provided

> on the webpage cited, Ramakrishna was not a

> Jivanmukta.

> Do you agree with this?

>

> --jody.

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Concertta:

 

That was a nice poem on dreaming. The concept of mAyA

plays a significant role in Shankara's Advaita

Vedanta. Since this list focuses on Shankara's

Advaita, it is a good time to state the concept of

mAyA according to Advaita.

 

Shankara illustrates the two powers of mAyA -

aavarana sakti and vikshepa sakti using his famous

example -the snake and the rope. When we mistake a

rope for a snake, our inability to recognize the rope

is because of aavarana sakti (concealing power) of

mAyA. The appearance of snake instead of rope is due

to the vikshepa sakti (projecting power) of mAyA. It

is this dual cosmic power of mAyA that brings about

the presentation of the physical universe concealing

the totality (Brahman). MAyA is one of the most

misunderstood terms of Advaita. MAyA means that which

is not absolutely real but which has the power to

appear as real. The root word for MAyA is maya (with

both vowels short), which has very much to do with

magic. Sankara explains MAyA as yaa maa saa MAyA,

meaning, ‘that which is not is MAyA.' According to

Sankara, the world is a myth, infact a total dream.

To whom is a dream a dream? A dream is a dream only to

a person who has awakened from the dream. So the world

is not a dream to me or you who are still dreaming!

Sankara's conception of mAyA is from the absolute

point of view.

 

Swami Atmananda of Vedanta Mission, India, explains

beautifully the meaning of the statement, "Jagat

Mithya." Swamiji correctly compares the distinction

between the permanent experience of Brahman

(Self-Realization) and the transient experience of the

World.

 

URL Address:

http://members.tripod.com/vedantamission/Pub/VSapr99.htm

 

Source: Vedanta Sandesh: The Free Monthly Electronic

Magazine of Vedanta Mission April 99:

Article: The Three basic tenets of Vedanta … by Swami

Atmananda " Jagat Mithya : The word Jagat

embraces in itself this entire world, this cosmos. All

that which is or can be an 'object' of our knowledge.

It includes not only the gross but also the subtle

'objects'. The thoughts, emotions, the energy all

come under this word 'Jagat'. That which is near or

far, inside or outside, now or later, good or bad

everything is part of this Jagat. This word has been

described as reffering to that which is 'Jayate

gachati iti jagat', i.e. that which is born & dies is

jagat. Birth & death are movements in time. That which

is in time constantly changes, there is a constant

flux. Something starts this process of activation &

manifestation of time and thus we see this dynamic

flux. A realm of experience presents itself in front

of us. What exactly starts this process is a

different matter, but the point here is that all what

is thus brought about is ultimately transient, is not

ultimately there. It is comparable to being in a

dream world. Something activates the process of

dreaming, and when it does get activated we see a

realm of experience which is not ultimately there.

Mithya is that which is not there in all three

periods of time. That which had a birth at a

particular time and that which will certainly die at

some point of time. It is there in this present

moment, because of some reason - known or unknown.

The above aphorism of 'Jagat Mithya' thus implies that

all what is available for experience is transient.

 

Mithya also implies that which does not have the

capacity to give us that which we basically seek. It

is certainly beautiful, in fact very beautiful, it is

also true that 'objects' of the world alone are

useful for our worldly needs & purposes, but at the

same time this is also a fact that we basically

remain where we were. It is like eating a dream food,

with which we never satiate our hunger. However much

we eat the dream food, we will still remain basically

hungry. Whatever we have sought in this world may have

helped our life to get comfortable & organized, but

has certainly not helped us in eliminating the

fundamental desire 'to seek' something more. Like

hunger the seeking still remains as it is. The only

difference is that it now manifests differently. That

which is Mithya does not have any independent

existence, thus it is not really dependable, for the

simple reason that it itself is perishable. What ever

our heart basically seeks will never be got from this

Jagat. That is the implication of this sutra. It is

something to be seen in a detached way & not taking

too seriously. Whatever happens in the world never

really matters, knowing this a person should not plan

to aggrandize & enjoy, he should rather serve & give.

This philosophical tenet, which is a fact of life

provides us a logic & basis for our religious values,

culture & even the real goal of life."

=================================================

[Guest guest]

-

f maiello <egodust

<advaitin >

Wednesday, June 07, 2000 1:01 AM

Re: Re: Jivanmukta

 

>

> now, every word just uttered here is pure nonsense

> in the face of moksha. as are all words and ideas!

>

> namaste

>

Well said Frankji - but for those of us who are

a far cry from moksha, I remember Chotyam Trunpa,

the late exiled Tibetan Master, in his work "Meditation

in Action", insisting that first a well organised framework

be developed (ie read and contemplate everything one

can place their hands on) since this is only platform

from which one can make this jump - beyond words.

 

Regards

~dave

[Guest guest]

--- Dave Sirjue <dsirjue wrote:

I remember Chotyam Trunpa,

> the late exiled Tibetan Master, in his work

> "Meditation

> in Action", insisting that first a well organised

> framework

> be developed (ie read and contemplate everything one

>

> can place their hands on) since this is only

> platform

> from which one can make this jump - beyond words.

 

i couldn't agree more. my concluding

statement in that post was something

to keep on the mind's backburner, so-

to-speak, as a constant reminder that

indeed the *naturally inhereing* jnana

state [as we *intellectually* already

surmise] is beyond logic or theory.

 

OM shaanthi

 

 

 

 

 

Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!

http://photos.

[Guest guest]

Ramji i was going through the 2nd chapter of Bhagvad Gitaa.

 

and there Shri Krishna advises Arjuna not to get caught in the

Alankaarmayi language of Vedaas.

 

I think Shri Krishna means to say don't hold on even vedas.

 

Can you or Madhavji shed more light on it. Its a turn from this discussion

but i wanted to know this and soemthing similar has popped up. So i

thought i will interfere in btw.

 

love,

Anurag

 

 

On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Ram Chandran wrote:

> Hari Om Sundarji:

> Hari Om Sundarji:

>

> Thanks for bringing the relevance of Shastras in the

> realization of the Brahman. We need to keep strong

> faith in the Shastras to follow it in order to merge

> in THAT.

>

> We (Jivas) are the fallen angels inside the deep well.

> We learn to use the ladder (Shastras) to get out of

> this well. When we get released from the bondage, we

> no more need the ladder. We neither need any support

> nor do we need to make any claim!

>

> Ram Chandran

>

[Guest guest]

Interesting discussions on Jivanmukta. In an answer to the original

questions from the Ramakrishna list, here is my understanding of jivanmukta

state.

 

> I have 2 general doubts : Once a person has realised his Self, will he

have

> interest in the worldly 'stuff' ? Or would he like only to enjoy the

Bliss?

>

> Again, if he decides to come into the world, should he have any fear of

> falling from his exalted state, due to his activities in the world?

>

> Could anyone pls advise me what the Scriptures tell about this.

>

> regards,

> Hari

 

1. When we are discussing about the state that is beyond our intellectual

comprehension (beyond the mind and intellect), and at the same time if we

donot want to rest our understanding completely on the statements of a

particular person or persons, we have to resort to 'a pramaana' or a means

of knowledge that is not illogical and at the same time that which

everybody can agree upon including those individuals on whom we have our

personal trust and whom we think are realized. Hence Shaastra becomes a

more valid pramaana or valid means of knowledge of such states. This is

one of the reason why all our 'achaaryaas' have dealt exhaustively on

epistemological issues before they discussed on the ontological aspects.

Hence Shree Sunder Hattangadi's reference to B.G - 'StitapraJNalakshna' is

extremely relevant to the topic of the discussion.

 

2. Who is Jiivanmukta and what is the state of realization? - Recognizing

that the root cause for bondage is the 'ignorance' - either ignorance of

'one-self' or 'ignorance of the nature of the Lord' depending on how one

interprets it; then realization is removal of that ignorance or clear

understanding of 'who one-self' is or 'what is the nature of the reality'

is. From Advaita point - 'I donot know my self as my-self and I take

my-self as other than myself. I am being 'the subject' the knower I -

takes myself the object that which I am aware of - as myself. Here

ignorance plays as two aspects - one is taking object is different from

subject (for example - this is my body, my mind, my intellect and this is

my world and I can see this world and the world is different from me and

this world is a creation and creator is different from me since I did not

create this world, etc.). The second is taking the object as the subject -

that is this is my body translates next as I am the body, mind and/or

intellect - when I take object as subject then limitations of the objects

become my limitations - I suffer the consequence of these limitations and

all the life struggles in terms of 'pravRitti' and 'nivRitti' - trying to

gain what I like and get rid of what I dislike - become a means to solve

the self-ignorent problem based on my misunderstanding about myself.

 

3. Self-realization or state of jivanmukta is then realization of one self

as the 'true self'. But what is that true self ? - First, that self is

the subject and not an object of any means of knowledge - all means of

knowledge are valid because of the subject and therefore is a self-evident

entity - or self- conscious entity - that is it is chit - and has to be

existent entity since we cannot talk of non-in existent self -hence it is

'sat' and since free any limitations since it is pure bliss and hence it is

unlimited or infinite or anantam - therefore one without a second (since

limitations come from the presence of the second). Hence knowledge of the

self is the knowledge that "aham Brahmaasmi" - 'I am the Brahman' - or the

'I am the Infinite Consciousness' -a notion of finite consciousness is

illogical since that gives rise to a logical question of what is there

beyond that finite consciousness? - if there is something then who is

conscious of that - If one is conscious of that then that 'beyond thing'

is not really beyond since it is within the consciousness - hence

consciousness has to be infinite and there is nothing beyond consciousness.

 

 

4. A Jivanmukta is one who is a mukta while body is alive - that is he is

liberated while living and liberation is liberation from all

misunderstandings that he is an not an object and is the very subject for

all objectification - He has understood that his true nature is 'aham

Brahmaasmi' or 'ayama atma Brahma' - This is realization as JK puts

'understanding as understanding as a fact' 'not as a thought'. Hence is

'self-realization' - realization of 'who one-self is' - and that oneself is

the - existent - conscious and infinite self that one is.

 

Krishna declares about this in B.G. Ch 6.

sarvabhuutastam aatmaanam sarvabhuutanica aatmani|

iikshate yogayuktaatmaa sarvatra samadarshaNaH||

'my-self is in all beings and also all being are in myself' - one who sees

or understands such a yogi everywhere (at all times and places) has

equanimity or sees the same everywhere.

 

Interestingly Krishna reiterates the same message in the very next sloka

even from a Bhaka point -

yo mam pasyati sarvatra sarvanca mayi pasyati|

tasyaaham na praNasyaami sa ca me na praNasyati||

he who sees Me everywhere and everything in Me - he can never be away from

Me nor I can be away from him -

 

Hence there is no more misunderstanding of oneself - Please note that in

the very understanding of one-self or his-self -there is also a

simultaneous recognition that there is no other 'self' other than

'one-self' - since the self I am is unlimited and infinite. This

understanding also includes ' not only I am in all of them but all are in

me - that is they are not different from me. Hence the world is in my

consciousness - I am not separate from the world and I am in the world and

the world is in me - Just as clay saying I am in all pots and all pots are

in me. Yet the 'nama and ruupa' the superficial entities which are just

projections as well as the consequences of those projections - that is

'individual notions' - I am a mud pot or I am a honey pot etc., belong not

to me only to the superficial names and forms.

 

This is stated by Krishna in Ch. 9

mayaatata midam sarvam jagadavyakta muurthinaa|

mastaani sarva bhuutani na ca aham tesvavastitaH||

 

I pervade this universe in an unmanifested form and all manifestations are

in me but I am not accountable or responsible for the sufferings of these

beings due to their misunderstandings. Those belong to them and not to me.

 

Hence one is Jivanmukta when one has not just intellectual but clear

'understanding' of who one is and there is no more misunderstanding taking

'I am this or that'. That one 'individual' who has realized is 'no more' -

he is dissolved. His true nature after realization is that 'I am Brahman'.

Hence the correct understanding the 'ego' what was identifying that I am

this body etc. is no more - that ego is replaced by a correct understanding

"I am the totality' or 'aham Brahmaasmi'.

 

Since the original 'ego' (based on ones misunderstanding that one is an

object) is completely dissolved - Since he is no more, there is no more a

question of talking about 'him' as an individual. The correct question is

how does that 'Brahman' operates that 'body or uses that body' - Krishna

gives an elaborate answer in the 'stitapraJNa LakshNa' which we have

discussed elaborately when Shree Madhava presented that part of B.G. for

discussion.

 

Since That one who was living there in that body is dead and gone is

replaced by the one who has clear understanding that He is the Brahman, in

reality it is the 'Brahman' the infinite consciousness 'living there' and

uses the readily available equipment (body, mind and intellect - since the

tenant has left) for the benefit of the universe - (either to fulfill the

vaasanas of the samishTi who need a living teacher for their realization -

or sitting in a remote cave meditating on the universality of the self -

for the good of all). Unlike someone pointed out, - he does not really eat

- sleep or do things - since there is no more 'he'. - From the total self

point - ' akartaaham abhoktaaham ahamevaaham avyayaH" - I am neither doer

nor the enjoyer - I am all by myself and unlimited and inexhaustible -.

Then who eats and sleeps - Krishna again answered that -

prakrityevaca karmaani kriyamaanaani sarvashaH|

All actions are done by prakriti itself - of course under my president ship

- But that prakriti is only my lower nature -not different from me.

>From the point of the realized souls It is suffice to understand at this

stage to take that Lord himself manifests in the body of the Jivanmukta and

operates for the benefit of all mankind. Hence we pray -

'Gururbrahma gururvishnuH gururdevo maheswaraH' - essentially the

guru is the manifestation of the Lord himself - since He is nothing but

Brahman and he has the true understanding that 'I am Brahman'.

>From these discussion we understand that there is no more 'ego' as we

understand operating in the Jivanmukta, and Jivanmukta is the one who has

clear understanding of himself as oneself.

 

5. The definition of clear understanding is that is there is no more

misunderstanding. If after one has clear understanding if one gets

misunderstanding then that understanding is not clear!

yad gatvaa na nivartante taddhaama paramam mama|

Once one has reached my state - or clear understanding of oneself or

understanding of Brahman (brahma vit bramhaiva bhavati - the one who knows

Brahman becomes Brahman) there is no more return - no more misunderstanding

again. Realistically if one get into misunderstanding again then we have a

real problem - the liberation can never be real since there is always a

chance that the misunderstanding can be occur again and we are back to the

base all the struggles start again - then what good is that realization? )

Hence one understand as a fact there is no more notions left for

misunderstanding.

 

6. As long as there are equipment's, through the equipments (and

depending on the limitations of the equipments), jivanmukta can 'see' and

'act' in the world (with clear understanding that he is not really the

actor but prakriti itself acts in his presence). Hence plurality can still

be there but he does not have a notion or misunderstanding that the

plurality is a reality or separate from him! Hence we see that he sees,

acts etc. like normal being but he knows he is not the seer or actor but

appropriate seeing and acting is going through those equipments in His

presence). He may use not to confuse the rests - I am hungry or I am

sleepy etc. but that is for vyavahaara or convenience for transaction but

true understanding is different - just like we all know the Sun does not

raise or set yet we can operate even with that understanding enjoy saying

that - look at that beautiful sun set. - This is the difference between

atma rati and atma kreeda - Jivanmukta can revel oneself, in oneself by

oneself - atmanyeva atmanaa tushTaH - Yet can enjoy his own glory -

aisvaryam - the creation projected as plurality.

 

To answer the question if he decides to come back - he is no more as he was

but he is now as 'I am Brahman' hence what is 'coming back' is with clear

understanding that I am Brahman - when he comes back - it is Brahman that

is operating through the equipments - not the old ego that was there before

realization. Since He is Brahman, one without a second - what is there to

be afraid off. He does not act - but divine actions comes forth from those

equipments since He is full of divinity. All actions are for the benefit

of the entire world, since world is Him and He is the world.

 

A note - there is nothing wrong in believing in any individual that one

feels he is realized soul and his words are the reference. That rests on

how much one has faith in that individual. But for the benefit of all, who

may or may not have the same degree of faith in a particular individual or

individuals, we need to resort to Shaastra as the appropriate means of

knowledge otherwise we may not a have a norm to go by. Fortunately all

most all our masters only confirm what the scriptures say and therefore

there is no problem. But here even though they may confirm, the

difiniteness comes from the Shaastras. But as "Brahmasuutras' emphasizes -

'shaastra yonitvaat' - because the shaastras as pramaana - as well as all

our great acharyaas reemphasize what is said in the shaastras - ultimately

we need to go back to shaastra as the real pramaana for those that cannot

be logically deduced or intellectually comprehended.

 

Lastly about the gradual versus sudden - Swami Chinmayanandaji used to tell

us a story of Mr. Jones and the cat. Mr. Jones somehow got the feeling or

understanding that 'he is a rat and not a man' - So he was always trying

to avoid any cat nearby and runs away from one, since he being a rat is

afraid of his safety. His wife learned about his problem and takes him to

a doctor - after many sittings and repeating reinforcement - 'I am man and

I am not a rat' - he 'understood' that he is man and not a rat. After

paying the doctor fees he goes back home, but after a hour he came back

running to the doctor gasping for his breath - when confronted by the

doctor - Mr. Jones said - ' I know very well I am man and I am not a rat'.

Doctor asked then what is the problem? Mr. Jones said "I am afraid

because, I know that I am a man and not a rat, but the cat on the street

may not know that I am man and not a rat" - Understanding we are talking

about is the understanding as a fact - not any more a thought - That

understanding is complete and once and for all - That occurs only once and

that is the end of all misunderstandings. Till then what Frank calls as

gradual is only vague understanding or the glimpses of our true nature and

that understanding does not stay with us due to lingering vaasanas that

propel us back to our old notions about ourselves. When the mind is clear

of all misunderstandings then the self is self-revealed. Till then, even

as of now for everyone, one has glimpses of the self, but the

misunderstanding still prevails. The happiness that one gains during the

sensuous enjoyments is also 'glimpses of the self' - 'vishyaanade

paramaanadaH' - says Vidyaranya in 'Pancadasi'. Clear understanding of the

nature of reality is what Bhagavaan Ramana calls as 'sat darshan' as

'dRiDaiva nishTa' - firm understanding of the self. There are no

gradations in the self-realization - but there is gradation is the

purification of the mind - as the mind is getting purified - clearer the

screen - the more light of self -illumination beaming through. I am that

self is total, complete and firm and occurs only when the 'ego' falls down

since it is false.

 

By the by the dissolution of the mind is not understanding - it is only

temporary elimination of the mind that - that can occur in meditation or by

medication. but understanding or realization is occurs when there are no

more 'notions' in the mind and mind is free from ignorence of oneself. It

is knowledge - all are in me and I am in all of them - then mind is not the

problem or the body nor the world - since they are all in me and I am in

all of them - they are not separate from me. I am the totality - aham

brahmaasmi. That is the teaching from the scriptures and that is the true

understanding of jivanmukta.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, jody wrote:

> advaitin , Ram Chandran <chandran@t...> wrote:

> > Hari Om Judy:

>

> That's Jody, Ram.

>

> > It is ego that makes the claim, "I am a realized person." The presence of

ego

> > indicates that he/she is not realized which is a self contradiction!

>

> What you are calling ego is absolutely necessary to the survival

> of the body. Upon realization, ego is not lost. If it was, we

> wouldn't be able to eat, or discuss.

 

 

 

 

I think we are discussing about the point when one goes in to total

Samadhi. Meaning will soul leave the body ?. This says that we are thiking

that there is something that entered the body and there is something that

will leave the body.

 

 

What about it that nothing enetered and that nothing will leave. For what

will it leave and where will it go.

 

 

Lets think that conciousness is present everywhere. As soon as the human

body is ready, conciousness manifests in to this body at the level of this

body. Conciousness will leave when body becomes degraded (Leave in the

sense that body is no more there). Conciousness is everywhere but

depending on the existence of different framework it expresses to

different degrees of expression.

 

 

i don't know if the quote of Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa which says that

"conciousness frozes in to different forms just for the love of devotee"

goes to some extent in to this thought or not.

 

 

A yogi doesn't need to eat and do all these things. Yogi is free from any

kind of dependence. Its just that one does to live a life of ordinary

person among the ordinary ones.

 

 

I guess what keeps one in ones body is the only aim that one has to do.

Nothing else plays part. Once done the game is over.

 

 

 

 

> If RM or RK didn't have any

> ego left, we never would have heard of their lives as they wouldn't

> have been able to give any teachings. Ramakrishna used to say that

> after realization, one will still find themselves in possession of

> the "ego of knowledge" or the "ego of the devotee."

>

> Now, the thing that is lost via realization isn't the ego per se,

> it is the exclusive attachment to the ego as our primary identity.

> That is, upon realization we recognize who we really are, the Self,

> even while we find that we are still the individual we knew ourselves

> as before realization.

>

>

> > According to Advaita, Brahman is without attributes (Nirguna Brahman). How

to

> > explain an experience with no attributes? Any explanation of my experience

of

> > Brahman is a contradiction!

>

> Not true. One who is realized has access to the state. While

> the state Itself cannot be described, it still leaves an impression

> on the mind of the jiva. This is how those who are realized *know*

> it to be true. While they can experience realization but not

> describe it, they retain a memory of Its existence.

>

 

 

 

True that feeling is retained. But one will always have to explain to

other person only in the words which he/she can understand and something

which is infinite can't be described in its entirety within the bounds of

language. Language is a lower manisfestation of That WHAT IS. Anything

described in language will still be an approximation to THAT WHAT IS.

 

 

> > Self-realization is not to make claims and that is very fundamental.

>

> Again, what force exists that prevents the realized from confessing

> their realization?

 

 

 

 

What will one confess, Who will confess and To whom will one confess.

 

 

If one confesses then when one says that i am that then one will go in to

extereme state of Samadhi and to talk to him again one has to come back to

the level of conciousness of this world. Now it depends on the sayer to

wat extent he can say that i am that and again come back.

 

 

The other thought is the one who knows that everything is THAT WHAT IS.

then by saying that one is Brahma Gyani one is saying to "THAT WHAT IS"

is "THAT WHAT IS" is.

 

 

>

> > At the most, we can say that someone is more knowlegeable (on relative

> > magnitude) and even this is restricted to a specific time. When my son was a

> > child, I was more knowledgeable about computers and at present, he is more

> > knowledgeable about computers than me.

> >

> > The experience of Brahman is beyond time, space and consequently beyond the

> > intellect! All claims belong to the intellect. i(ego) is never be equal to I

> > (Brahman)!

> >

> > regards,

> >

> > --

> > Ram Chandran

> > Burke, VA

>

> Thank you Ram. However, you have not really made a case I'm

> afraid. RM and RK certainly had intellects which continued to

> exist after their realization, and RK went much further than claiming

> mere realization, he claimed to be an Incarnation of God!

>

> The fact is, those who are realized possess minds and personalities,

> and those minds and personalities are quite capable of making true

> claims as to their disposition regarding their realization.

>

> --jody.

>

> >

> > jody wrote:

> >

> > > What "force" is it that prevents the realized from

> > > claiming their realization?

>