Guest guest Posted May 16, 2001 Report Share Posted May 16, 2001 >From the postings of Shree Ram Chandran in adviatin and Shree Vivek Anand Ganesan in adviata-L >Article reproduced from "The Hindu", Indian newspaper, >Religion section. It is a treat. >=========================================================== > Self-realisation, a matter of experience I wonder if it is really an experience! - But "I do understand" words are limited to express. Baghavaan Ramana puts this beautifully in his first sloka of Sat Darshan - "sat pratyayaa kinnu vihaaya santam --" since it is the very nature of ones own existence itself - where experience, experiencer and experienced merges into one. - (Hence Lord is called tripuraantaka!) > >................ > In his discourse, Sri Goda Venkateswara Sastri said that >the Upanishads explained that the mind was not eternal in >nature. For instance during > sleep it ceased to function. But, the consciousness of the >Self (I) never ceases to be. A person after waking up says, >``I slept well.'' From this it also > becomes clear that the mind and the Self are different. >The mind functions in the waking and dream states but not >in sleep, whereas the ``I'' > consciousness is there in all the three states of waking, >dream and sleep. The Self is often referred to as the >fourth state of consciousness. ................ It is the waking mind that answers saying that "I slept well?" - Yet it was not there to sleep well in the deep sleep state. Then who experiences the deep sleep? Or is it an experience at all? Interesting questions to ponder about. Any experience involves three aspects - expriencer, experiencing and experienced. From the mind's point it was present in the dream-state but not in deep sleep state for it to be a vehicle for an experience. Hence from the mind's point "I slept well" is only an inferential statement and not an experiential statement. Consciousness is akartaa and abhoktaa, neither a doer nor an enjoyer - being consciousness it is ever present. Then who really sleep? Perhaps nobody, since no-body consciousness is there! It is one of the nature's Jigsaw puzzles to teach that the truth lies beyond the mind and intellect - nishaa tarkena mati raapaneya - one cannot arrive at the truth by logic! Actually it is "explained" as the consciousness identifies with kaaraNa shariira or causal body or vaasana, which is pure ignorance or state of non-apprehension. Misapprehension as "I am this or that" comes only later when the mind becomes operative. Hence without the mind and intellect, the plurality is not there - yet ignorance is still there in the deep sleep state, since I still do not know "who I am" in that state. Hence avidya or ignorance is associated with two aspects - aavaraNa and vikshepa, non-apprehension and misapprehension. Since non-apprehension is there even before mind becomes active, avidya is also anaadi and anirvachaniiyam - beginningless and inexplainable since beginning and end are concepts of time, or cause-effect, hence of the mind and explanations are also part of the intellect and mind. Hari Om! Sadananda -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2001 Report Share Posted May 16, 2001 On Wed, 16 May 2001, K. Sadananda wrote: > From the postings of Shree Ram Chandran in adviatin and Shree Vivek > Anand Ganesan; in adviata-L > > > Article reproduced from The Hindu, Indian newspaper, > Religion section. It is a treat. > =========================================================== > Self-realisation, a matter of experience > > I wonder if it is really an experience! - But I do understand; words > are limited to express. Baghavaan Ramana puts this beautifully in > his first sloka of Sat Darshan - "sat pratyayaa kinnu vihaaya santam" > since it is the very nature of ones own existence itself - where > experience, experiencer and experienced merges into one. - (Hence > Lord is called tripuraantaka!) > > "In his discourse, Sri Goda Venkateswara Sastri said that > the Upanishads explained that the mind was not eternal in > nature. For instance during > sleep it ceased to function. But, the consciousness of the > Self (I) never ceases to be. A person after waking up says, > ``I slept well.'' From this it also > becomes clear that the mind and the Self are different. > The mind functions in the waking and dream states but not > in sleep, whereas the ``I'' > consciousness is there in all the three states of waking, > dream and sleep. The Self is often referred to as the > fourth state of consciousness. > .............. > > It is the waking mind that answers saying that "I slept well?" - > Yet it was not there to sleep well in the deep sleep state. Then who > experiences the deep sleep? Or is it an experience at all? > Interesting questions to ponder about. Any experience involves three > aspects - expriencer, experiencing and experienced. From the mind's > point it was present in the dream-state but not in deep sleep state > for it to be a vehicle for an experience. Hence from the mind's point > "I slept well" is only an inferential statement and not an > experiential statement. Consciousness is akartaa and abhoktaa, > neither a doer nor an enjoyer - being consciousness it is ever > present. Then who really sleep? Perhaps nobody, since no-body > consciousness is there! It is one of the nature's Jigsaw puzzles to > teach that the truth lies beyond the mind and intellect - nishaa > tarkena mati raapaneya - one cannot arrive at the truth by logic! > > Actually it is "explained" as the consciousness identifies with > kaaraNa shariira or causal body or vaasana, which is pure ignorance > or state of non-apprehension. Misapprehension as "I am this or that" > comes only later when the mind becomes operative. Hence without the > mind and intellect, the plurality is not there - yet ignorance is > still there in the deep sleep state, since I still do not know "who I > am" in that state. Hence avidya or ignorance is associated with two > aspects - aavaraNa and vikshepa, non-apprehension and > misapprehension. Since non-apprehension is there even before mind > becomes active, avidya is also anaadi and anirvachaniiyam - > beginningless and inexplainable since beginning and end are concepts > of time, or cause-effect, hence of the mind and explanations are > also part of the intellect and mind. > namaste shri Sadananda garu, That is a very good question and the only answer I can think of is "There is no one (that slept well)". You observed that brahman is not the one that has "slept well". The jIvA of the wake-up state is not there while the deep-sleep is going on, hence the jIvA of the wake-up state is not the one that has slept well. The one that is there in all the three states (of wake-up, dream and deep-sleep) is not speaking and is of course not the one that is sleeping. I think it can be argued that the jIvA of the wake-up state is not the same even throughout the wake-up state. Thus, a statement like "I am such and such ..." is not a defensible statement. -------- On a related matter, shri Sadananda garu, you have said in the thread "Re: brahman - a word of cautionJust a word of caution- -Discusser's are discussing from different reference states - all disagreements are resolved if one is aware of this. ..." What is the "boundary", or is there a "boundary" between the vyavahArika and paramArtha? For example, it has been argued above (correctly in my understanding) that there is no entity that is sleeping. Is that statement in paramArtha or vyavahArika? If we say it is in paramArtha, the counter-argument can be "There is no statement or speaking in paramArtha. Any speaking has to be relegated to vyavahArika." Then, if the statement is in vyavahArika, at the general day-to-day proceedings, that statement is not correct because jIvA X is usually identified to be the same in sleep, wake-up and dream states. That is, vyavahArika is stretched right from complete ignorance to the complete Knowledge of the paramArtha. Then, is there a "boundary" (either sharp or blurred) between vyavahArika speaking and paramArthika mounam? [implicit in this argument is the thinking that it is the same jIvA that is 'going' from complete ignorance to full Knowledge as avidyA is removed layer by layer - that argument may not be absolutely correct]. Another question - In the "explanation" which you presented - there is non-apprehension in deep-sleep and mis-apprehension in the wake-up state and the consciousness identifies with the kAraNa sharIra (the subtle body) and that consciousness identifying with the subtle body answers during the wake-up state that "I slept well". The difference between a jnAni and an ajnAni - isn't it only in the wake-up state?. Mis-apprehension is there for the ajnAni and mis-apprehension is not there for the jnAni and that is only in the wake-up state. The non-apprehension in the deep-sleep state is the same for both jnAni and ajnAni. The jnAni does not identify with the deep-sleep state and hence will not do the mis-apprehension in the wake-up state. The ajnAni, because of consciousness identifying with the subtle body, mis-apprehends and says "I slept well" during the wake-up state. Still, the non-apprehension during deep-sleep is still there and common for both jnAni and ajnAni. Am I correct in saying that? > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > -- Regards Gummuluru Murthy ---- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2001 Report Share Posted May 17, 2001 Murthy gaaru thanks for your input. Underlying in your response is the need for a clear understanding of the concept of Jiiva to answer whether Jiiva is there or not in the deep sleep state. I am sure you are aware of this but I will put my understanding in words for clarification. Jiiva is Brahman himself or itself but identified with the upaadhii's, that include kaaraNa shariira, suukshma shariira and sthuula shariira, the causal, subtle and the gross bodies respectively. In the waking state all the three bodies are being identified in one form or the other but gross body becomes an important vehicle for transaction or vyavahaara. In the dream state the identification with the gross body ceases but identification with subtle and causal body remains. In the deep sleep state the identification with subtle body ceases but identification with the causal body remains. During the death, the gross body is left behind hence identification with that particular gross body ceases leaving the subtle body and causal body identification in tact. As this proceeds to different fields of experiences (loka-s or bhoga bhuumii-s), the mind gets cleansed off and jiiva returns back to the karma bhuumi (kshene punye martyu lokam vishanti). I am giving this in detail to insure that we understand that Jiiva is the notion that arises with the identification with the Upaadhiis and kaaraNa shariira included as a subtle upaadhi. In the realization that I am Brahman, upaadhi-s do not cease until death occurs (to put it one way the praarabda karma associated with those upaadhi-s or to put it differently the forces of samishhTi vaasana-s such as in the case of avataarapurusha-s cease), but identification with the upaadhi-s - I am that upaadhi-s ceases. That is the correct understanding of "I am Brahman" or aham brahmaasmi. Hence the states and changing of the states which have always been associated with prakR^iti remain but understanding that I am that PrakR^iti ceases. The new understanding (or should I say correct understanding) is that in my presence the prakR^iti manifests is realized. mayyadhyakshaena prakR^iti suuyate..... Now we can answer whether j~naani sleeps or not. The correct understanding is in each of the states, waking, dream and deep sleep states, the part or parts of the systems are as though taking rest - gross body to subtle body etc. and this happens to everybody. But for j~naani, realizing that he not being upaadhi-s, understands that they are in him but he is not them. Hence even though the perceptions through the body, seeing, touching, tasting etc goes on, he also has the correct understanding that he does not see, touch or taste. The sleeping also comes under the same category. He as though sleeps but he does not sleep. He awakes, but in reality he is not awaken since he never slept to start with. He dreams but he does not dream. Upaadhi-s function in his presence but he is not upaadhi-s. This is actually true for both j~naani-s as well as aj~naani-s. The only difference is that j~naani knows that he is not the upaadhi-s while aj~naani thinks he is the upaadhi-s. Vyavahaara arises in the identification or adhyaasa. For others, they see that j~naani is transacting like everyone else. But understanding of each is different. j~naani knows that all actions are done by the prakR^iti in his presence - prakR^iti eva ca karmaani kriyamaanaani sarvashaH - and one who realizes this realizes that he is akarthaa and abhoktaa. The issues that you have raised get clarified if one reads your post with the above understanding. If there are still unresolved issues let us discuss. Hari Om! Sadananda > >namaste shri Sadananda garu, > >That is a very good question and the only answer I can think of is >"There is no one (that slept well)". > >You observed that brahman is not the one that has "slept well". > >The jIvA of the wake-up state is not there while the deep-sleep is >going on, hence the jIvA of the wake-up state is not the one that >has slept well. > >The one that is there in all the three states (of wake-up, dream >and deep-sleep) is not speaking and is of course not the one that >is sleeping. > >I think it can be argued that the jIvA of the wake-up state is >not the same even throughout the wake-up state. Thus, a statement >like "I am such and such ..." is not a defensible statement. > > >-------- > >On a related matter, shri Sadananda garu, you have said in the >thread "Re: brahman - a word of cautionJust a word of caution- >-Discusser's are discussing from different reference states - >all disagreements are resolved if one is aware of this. ..." > >What is the "boundary", or is there a "boundary" between the >vyavahArika and paramArtha? For example, it has been argued >above (correctly in my understanding) that there is no entity >that is sleeping. Is that statement in paramArtha or vyavahArika? The apparent (underlined the apparent) boundary between vyavahaara and paramaarthika is the ignorance. Trying to understand the nature of this boundary is the same as trying to understand the nature of ignorance. Shankara left it for a good reason as anirvachaniiyam. The answer is obvious since "understanding" is with the intellect which itself is the by-product of ignorance. Your questions borders in this boundary line! For j~naani everything is paramaarthika and aj~naani everything is in vyavahaarika. Actually this is nothing in between! One knows or one does not know and obviously a mere intellectual understanding is not understanding in the true sense- hence kena sloka - one who says he understands understands it not!. >If we say it is in paramArtha, the counter-argument can be >"There is no statement or speaking in paramArtha. Any speaking >has to be relegated to vyavahArika." > >Then, if the statement is in vyavahArika, at the general >day-to-day proceedings, that statement is not correct because >jIvA X is usually identified to be the same in sleep, wake-up >and dream states. That is, vyavahArika is stretched right from >complete ignorance to the complete Knowledge of the paramArtha. >Then, is there a "boundary" (either sharp or blurred) between >vyavahArika speaking and paramArthika mounam? [implicit in >this argument is the thinking that it is the same jIvA that >is 'going' from complete ignorance to full Knowledge as >avidyA is removed layer by layer - that argument may not be >absolutely correct]. I think the boundary aspect is itself is within aj~naana. These questions get resolved when one realizes or they get sublimated! Any intellectual answers along with the questions are all muddled with the same problem - they are aj~naana janakam. born of ignorance. >Another question - In the "explanation" which you presented - >there is non-apprehension in deep-sleep and mis-apprehension >in the wake-up state and the consciousness identifies with the >kAraNa sharIra (the subtle body) and that consciousness identifying >with the subtle body answers during the wake-up state that "I >slept well". The difference between a jnAni and an ajnAni - >isn't it only in the wake-up state?. Mis-apprehension is there >for the ajnAni and mis-apprehension is not there for the >jnAni and that is only in the wake-up state. The non-apprehension >in the deep-sleep state is the same for both jnAni and ajnAni. This I have clarified above. j~naani does not have non-apprehension. He apprehends that he is Brahman and not the upaadhi-s, hence we call him a j~naani. Ones he understands that there is no more ignorance left and no more mis-apprehension either. It is not the sleep that is the problem that is in a way the nature's role - but identification with the upaadhi-s as I am that is the aj~naana and that is not there for j~naani. Hence waking dreaming and sleeping can go on but aj~naani thinks he is waker, dreamer and deep sleeper while j~naani knows the fact that he is neither a waker, nor dreamer nor deep-sleeper. Hope this is clear now. >The >jnAni does not identify with the deep-sleep state and hence will >not do the mis-apprehension in the wake-up state. Yes that is the correct. The fact that he does not identify is because he has realized or he has no more non-apprehension that he is upaadhi-s. >The ajnAni, >because of consciousness identifying with the subtle body, >mis-apprehends and says "I slept well" during the wake-up state. >Still, the non-apprehension during deep-sleep is still there >and common for both jnAni and ajnAni. Am I correct in saying that? The last statement is not right. For a j~naani there is no more non-apprehension. Here the apprehension is I am Brahman and not I am samsaari which arises with the adhyaasa that I am these upaadhi-s. It is a good idea to read the adhyaasa bhaasya again. You can see Shankara's brilliance in presenting the adhyaasa bhaashya before he presents the suutra bhaashya. I urge everyone to read that section again and again. Hari Om! Sadananda > >> >> Hari Om! >> Sadananda >> -- > >Regards >Gummuluru Murthy >---- > >===============================================================================\ = >"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam" > >To from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to >listserv with >body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L >If you need any other help please contact listmaster >===============================================================================\ = -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2001 Report Share Posted May 17, 2001 advaitin, "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote: I really like your post Sadananda :-))) Good stuff. I found it helpful too. Love, Col > Murthy gaaru thanks for your input. > > Underlying in your response is the need for a clear understanding of > the concept of Jiiva to answer whether Jiiva is there or not in the > deep sleep state. I am sure you are aware of this but I will put my > understanding in words for clarification. > > Jiiva is Brahman himself or itself but identified with the > upaadhii's, that include kaaraNa shariira, suukshma shariira and > sthuula shariira, the causal, subtle and the gross bodies > respectively. In the waking state all the three bodies are being > identified in one form or the other but gross body becomes an > important vehicle for transaction or vyavahaara. In the dream state > the identification with the gross body ceases but identification with > subtle and causal body remains. In the deep sleep state the > identification with subtle body ceases but identification with the > causal body remains. During the death, the gross body is left behind > hence identification with that particular gross body ceases leaving > the subtle body and causal body identification in tact. As this > proceeds to different fields of experiences (loka-s or bhoga > bhuumii-s), the mind gets cleansed off and jiiva returns back to the > karma bhuumi (kshene punye martyu lokam vishanti). > > I am giving this in detail to insure that we understand that Jiiva is > the notion that arises with the identification with the Upaadhiis and > kaaraNa shariira included as a subtle upaadhi. > > In the realization that I am Brahman, upaadhi-s do not cease until > death occurs (to put it one way the praarabda karma associated with > those upaadhi-s or to put it differently the forces of samishhTi > vaasana-s such as in the case of avataarapurusha-s cease), but > identification with the upaadhi-s - I am that upaadhi-s ceases. That > is the correct understanding of "I am Brahman" or aham brahmaasmi. > Hence the states and changing of the states which have always been > associated with prakR^iti remain but understanding that I am that > PrakR^iti ceases. The new understanding (or should I say correct > understanding) is that in my presence the prakR^iti manifests is > realized. mayyadhyakshaena prakR^iti suuyate..... > > Now we can answer whether j~naani sleeps or not. The correct > understanding is in each of the states, waking, dream and deep sleep > states, the part or parts of the systems are as though taking rest - > gross body to subtle body etc. and this happens to everybody. But > for j~naani, realizing that he not being upaadhi-s, understands that > they are in him but he is not them. Hence even though the > perceptions through the body, seeing, touching, tasting etc goes on, > he also has the correct understanding that he does not see, touch or > taste. The sleeping also comes under the same category. He as > though sleeps but he does not sleep. He awakes, but in reality he is > not awaken since he never slept to start with. He dreams but he does > not dream. Upaadhi-s function in his presence but he is not > upaadhi-s. This is actually true for both j~naani-s as well as > aj~naani-s. The only difference is that j~naani knows that he is not > the upaadhi-s while aj~naani thinks he is the upaadhi-s. > > Vyavahaara arises in the identification or adhyaasa. For others, > they see that j~naani is transacting like everyone else. But > understanding of each is different. j~naani knows that all actions > are done by the prakR^iti in his presence - prakR^iti eva ca karmaani > kriyamaanaani sarvashaH - and one who realizes this realizes that he > is akarthaa and abhoktaa. > > The issues that you have raised get clarified if one reads your post > with the above understanding. > > If there are still unresolved issues let us discuss. > > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > > > > > > > > >namaste shri Sadananda garu, > > > >That is a very good question and the only answer I can think of is > >"There is no one (that slept well)". > > > >You observed that brahman is not the one that has "slept well". > > > >The jIvA of the wake-up state is not there while the deep-sleep is > >going on, hence the jIvA of the wake-up state is not the one that > >has slept well. > > > >The one that is there in all the three states (of wake-up, dream > >and deep-sleep) is not speaking and is of course not the one that > >is sleeping. > > > >I think it can be argued that the jIvA of the wake-up state is > >not the same even throughout the wake-up state. Thus, a statement > >like "I am such and such ..." is not a defensible statement. > > > > > >-------- > > > >On a related matter, shri Sadananda garu, you have said in the > >thread "Re: brahman - a word of cautionJust a word of caution- > >-Discusser's are discussing from different reference states - > >all disagreements are resolved if one is aware of this. ..." > > > >What is the "boundary", or is there a "boundary" between the > >vyavahArika and paramArtha? For example, it has been argued > >above (correctly in my understanding) that there is no entity > >that is sleeping. Is that statement in paramArtha or vyavahArika? > > The apparent (underlined the apparent) boundary between vyavahaara > and paramaarthika is the ignorance. Trying to understand the nature > of this boundary is the same as trying to understand the nature of > ignorance. Shankara left it for a good reason as anirvachaniiyam. > The answer is obvious since "understanding" is with the intellect > which itself is the by-product of ignorance. Your questions borders > in this boundary line! For j~naani everything is paramaarthika and > aj~naani everything is in vyavahaarika. Actually this is nothing in > between! One knows or one does not know and obviously a mere > intellectual understanding is not understanding in the true sense- > hence kena sloka - one who says he understands understands it not!. > > >If we say it is in paramArtha, the counter-argument can be > >"There is no statement or speaking in paramArtha. Any speaking > >has to be relegated to vyavahArika." > > > >Then, if the statement is in vyavahArika, at the general > >day-to-day proceedings, that statement is not correct because > >jIvA X is usually identified to be the same in sleep, wake-up > >and dream states. That is, vyavahArika is stretched right from > >complete ignorance to the complete Knowledge of the paramArtha. > >Then, is there a "boundary" (either sharp or blurred) between > >vyavahArika speaking and paramArthika mounam? [implicit in > >this argument is the thinking that it is the same jIvA that > >is 'going' from complete ignorance to full Knowledge as > >avidyA is removed layer by layer - that argument may not be > >absolutely correct]. > > I think the boundary aspect is itself is within aj~naana. These > questions get resolved when one realizes or they get sublimated! Any > intellectual answers along with the questions are all muddled with > the same problem - they are aj~naana janakam. born of ignorance. > > > > >Another question - In the "explanation" which you presented - > >there is non-apprehension in deep-sleep and mis-apprehension > >in the wake-up state and the consciousness identifies with the > >kAraNa sharIra (the subtle body) and that consciousness identifying > >with the subtle body answers during the wake-up state that "I > >slept well". The difference between a jnAni and an ajnAni - > >isn't it only in the wake-up state?. Mis-apprehension is there > >for the ajnAni and mis-apprehension is not there for the > >jnAni and that is only in the wake-up state. The non-apprehension > >in the deep-sleep state is the same for both jnAni and ajnAni. > > This I have clarified above. j~naani does not have non-apprehension. > He apprehends that he is Brahman and not the upaadhi-s, hence we call > him a j~naani. Ones he understands that there is no more ignorance > left and no more mis-apprehension either. It is not the sleep that > is the problem that is in a way the nature's role - but > identification with the upaadhi-s as I am that is the aj~naana and > that is not there for j~naani. Hence waking dreaming and sleeping > can go on but aj~naani thinks he is waker, dreamer and deep sleeper > while j~naani knows the fact that he is neither a waker, nor dreamer > nor deep-sleeper. Hope this is clear now. > > >The > >jnAni does not identify with the deep-sleep state and hence will > >not do the mis-apprehension in the wake-up state. > > Yes that is the correct. The fact that he does not identify is > because he has realized or he has no more non-apprehension that he is > upaadhi-s. > > > > >The ajnAni, > >because of consciousness identifying with the subtle body, > >mis-apprehends and says "I slept well" during the wake-up state. > >Still, the non-apprehension during deep-sleep is still there > >and common for both jnAni and ajnAni. Am I correct in saying that? > > The last statement is not right. For a j~naani there is no more > non-apprehension. Here the apprehension is I am Brahman and not I am > samsaari which arises with the adhyaasa that I am these upaadhi-s. > It is a good idea to read the adhyaasa bhaasya again. You can see > Shankara's brilliance in presenting the adhyaasa bhaashya before he > presents the suutra bhaashya. > > I urge everyone to read that section again and again. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > > > > > > >> > >> Hari Om! > >> Sadananda > >> -- > > > >Regards > >Gummuluru Murthy > >--- - > > > >===================================================================== =========== > >"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam" > > > >To from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to > >listserv@l... with > >body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L > >If you need any other help please contact listmaster@a... > >===================================================================== =========== > > -- > K. Sadananda > Code 6323 > Naval Research Laboratory > Washington D.C. 20375 > Voice (202)767-2117 > Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2001 Report Share Posted May 17, 2001 > In the waking state all the three bodies are being > identified in one form or the other but gross body becomes an > important vehicle for transaction or vyavahaara. In the dream state > the identification with the gross body ceases but identification with > subtle and causal body remains. In the deep sleep state the > identification with subtle body ceases but identification with the > causal body remains. During the death, the gross body is left behind > hence identification with that particular gross body ceases leaving > the subtle body and causal body identification in tact. As this > proceeds to different fields of experiences (loka-s or bhoga > bhuumii-s), the mind gets cleansed off and jiiva returns back to the > karma bhuumi (kshene punye martyu lokam vishanti). > Namaste. Thanks to Shree Murthy Garu and Shree Sadananda Garu for a wonderful discussion. I have a question in this context. Does the jiiva necessarily have to return to karma bhuumi to workout for moksha. If a jiiva need not return, then, there is a possible moksha path in the other loka-s too. I cannot recollet the exact verses, but, the Gita seems to suggest that a jiiva does have to return to karma bhuumi to workout for moksha. With Love, Raghava Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2001 Report Share Posted May 18, 2001 > >Namaste. >Thanks to Shree Murthy Garu and Shree Sadananda Garu for a wonderful >discussion. >I have a question in this context. >Does the jiiva necessarily have to return to karma bhuumi to workout >for moksha. >If a jiiva need not return, then, there is a possible moksha path in >the other loka-s too. >I cannot recollet the exact verses, but, the Gita seems to suggest >that a jiiva does have to return to karma bhuumi to workout for >moksha. > >With Love, >Raghava > There is a discussion of different paths through satya loka, which is the embodiment of pure satva guNa. This is discussed in the Brahmasuutra in the last chapter and we will touch base when we come to that. In principle, the law of karma is such that sadhana should involve a deliberate process involving will to act since willfully one got into the mess by the accumulation of the vaasana-s. Hence what is implied in the karma bhuumi is the field of action involving the agency of action. That agency of action need to be surrendered since it is adhyaasa. Hence the intellect has to be sharp to be discriminative to understand the truth of the nature of action and the results and the role of jiiva in it. In the bhogabhuumis it is only a field of enjoyment - exhaustion of puNya and paapa or merits and demerits but intellectual inquiry to discover the truth is not there. In most of the bhogabhuumis there is no choice of action but only fun or punishment by the actions or fruits of actions that were performed earlier. At least that is my understanding. Hari Om! Sadananda -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.