Who gets liberated?

November 24, 2001

Many of you may not have heard of Swami Brahmanada Siva Yogi of Anandashrama ,

Alathur, Kerala.He was of the firm opinion that Gnana is a meaningless pursuit

of Mukthi unless it takes recourse to the High way of Yoga(Raja Marga).In the

following conversation translated from his book, Moksha Pradeepam, he tries to

prove that Gnani is doing an incomplete pursuit and does not know what he is

talking about.I thought it is an interesting thought process.I request your

comments.

Q:Mukthi or Liberation is to whom-Atma(soul) or to to the Manas(mind)?

A:Mukthi is for Atma.

Q:Athma is Nithyamuktha(ever liberasted) and Nirvikara.(ever feeling less) To

whom is Mukthi?

A:Mukthi is to to the mind.

Q:Mind or Manas is an Anathma(non soul) .How can there be Mukthi to it?

A:Mukthi is to the Jeevathma.

Q:There are only Atma and Anathma.To which does Jeevatma belong?

A:Jeevatma is the reflection of Paramathma in the mind of an individual.

Q;A reflection does not have existence. Also only that which has shape and

existence can produce a reflection.Anyway it is some thing which does not

exist.What is Jeevatma?

A:Jeevatma is like the Guda Akasa(Pot sky or sky as seen from inside the pot).

It is separate when you are inside the pot but does not have separate existence

if you are outside the pot.So Jeevatma is an inseperable part of Paramatma.

Q; An inseperable part of Paramatman is Paramatman. How can Jeevatma be

liberated?

A:Atma under Maya thinks that it is the body or the mind.When it realizes that

it is not so, then it attains Mukthi.

Q;Atma is different and body is Anatma. It is ridiculous to say Atma thinks it

is Anatma..To whom is Mukthi?

A:when we are in the train , we think that the trees on the road are

running.Similarly The Atma thinks it is doing everything though only body does

it.

Q:Vedanta says that Atma is Nirvikara (Feelingless).How can Atma think that it

does some thing?Who is thinking or feelig?Is it Atma or Anatma?

A:No answer

November 24, 2001

>Many of you may not have heard of Swami Brahmanada Siva Yogi of

>Anandashrama , Alathur, Kerala.He was of the firm opinion that Gnana

>is a meaningless pursuit of Mukthi unless it takes recourse to the

>High way of Yoga(Raja Marga).In the following conversation

>translated from his book, Moksha Pradeepam, he tries to prove that

>Gnani is doing an incomplete pursuit and does not know what he is

>talking about.I thought it is an interesting thought process.I

>request your comments.

With all due respects there are self-contradiction in the statements.

If the problem rests on ignorance the solution to the problem can

only be knowledge. Not only Shankara even Ramanuja who emphasizes

Bhakti also emphasizes j~naana as the means of liberation. In his

model, what he calls j~naana is bhakti ruupaka j~naana - the

knowledge of the dependence on Lord. There is no other high way

other than knowledge of ones own self.

Here is Shankara statement:

na yogena na saakhyena karmananona vidyayaa|

brahmaastaika bodhena moksha sidhyati na anyatha||

Neither by yoga (which includes the above so called High way path)

nor by saakhya nor by karma nor by erudition one can get liberation.

Only by the knowledge of the identity of aatma and paramaatma one

attains liberation. -

Unless Shree Swamiji is trying to imply the same in different words!

The answer to the last question -" Q:Vedanta says that Atma is

Nirvikara (Feelingless).How can Atma think that it does some

thing?Who is thinking or feelig?Is it Atma or Anatma?

A:No answer"

is the right answer since the problem is beyond the intellect. Hence

Shankara says 'anirvachaniiyam" inexplicable - since explanations

falls within the realm of intellect and the problem and solution are

beyond the intellect. It is true 'j~naana' does not mean intellectual

knowledge - it is as JK puts it "understanding as understanding as a

fact and not understanding as an understanding as a thought".

Hari OM!

Sadananda

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

November 24, 2001

> With all due respects there are self-contradiction in the

statements.

> If the problem rests on ignorance the solution to the problem can

> only be knowledge. Not only Shankara even Ramanuja who emphasizes

> Bhakti also emphasizes j~naana as the means of liberation. In his

> model, what he calls j~naana is bhakti ruupaka j~naana - the

> knowledge of the dependence on Lord. There is no other high way

> other than knowledge of ones own self.

> Here is Shankara statement:

> na yogena na saakhyena karmananona vidyayaa|

> brahmaastaika bodhena moksha sidhyati na anyatha||

>

> Neither by yoga (which includes the above so called High way path)

> nor by saakhya nor by karma nor by erudition one can get

liberation.

> Only by the knowledge of the identity of aatma and paramaatma one

> attains liberation. -

>

Namsate Shri Sadananda-Ji,

When Shankara made this statement, in all probablity he was

close to perfection in yoga. This instruction of his may be

the most appropriate advice for an highly advanced student

of yoga. But for anyone else this is a highly misleading

statement.

Given a choice between yoga and Jnana what should one choose ?

Yoga and Jnana go hand in hand and reinforce one another. One

without the other is incomplete. Isn't it incorrect to

emphasize Jnana over Yoga ? If based on such statements one

were to reject and look down upon yoga what a great mistake

it would be. Does Gita not hold yoga highly ?

Best regards

Shrinivas

November 25, 2001

>

>Namsate Shri Sadananda-Ji,

>

>When Shankara made this statement, in all probablity he was

>close to perfection in yoga. This instruction of his may be

>the most appropriate advice for an highly advanced student

>of yoga. But for anyone else this is a highly misleading

>statement.

>

>Given a choice between yoga and Jnana what should one choose ?

>Yoga and Jnana go hand in hand and reinforce one another. One

>without the other is incomplete. Isn't it incorrect to

>emphasize Jnana over Yoga ? If based on such statements one

>were to reject and look down upon yoga what a great mistake

>it would be. Does Gita not hold yoga highly ?

>

>Best regards

>Shrinivas

>

Shrinivas

Greetings. It is not the question of a choice between yoga and

j~naana - and it is not based on how advanced a person is either.

The problem remains the same wither one is Shankara or one is not as

advanced as Shankara. It is what is known as 'adhyaasa' or error due

to superimposition due to ignorance. Here we are looking at the

problem and the solution to the problem.

If the problem is due to ignorance the solution as to be antidote for

the problem. Please read the notes on adhyaasa bhaashya - ch. III of

the notes on Brahamsuutra in the Brahmasuutra folder of the archives.

Role of yoga has to be understood too. Bhagavad Geeta is taught to an

army man who is trained to do something to solve a problem at hand.

What yoga does is not the solve the fundamental problem but prepare

the mind that is not ready for knowledge. This is called chitta

suddhi - or purification process. Purification of the mind involves

making it free from the pressures of vaasana or raga and dweshha-s

(likes and dislikes)and that is the role of yoga. yoginaH karma

kurvanti sagham tyaktvaa aatma suddhaye - the yogi-s perform all

actions with detachment for the purification of the mind. Yoga does

not unite aatma and paramaatma. It prepares the mind so that

ignorance that aatma is separate from paramaatma is removed by

knowledge of the shaastra. Hence shaastra statements - aham brahma

asmi -tat tvam asi - ayam aatma brhma - praj~naanam brahma - become

a factual rather than just intellectual information.

Any sadhana involves action - It is meant for purification of the

mind. A mind free from agitations is the conducive mind for

contemplation and to receive the knowledge.

There is no rejection or looking down on yoga. One has to have

correct perceptive what is the role of each one so that one does not

get carried away that one is rayal path and the other is not. All

paths and all yoga-s are for purification and type of purification

process depends on the type of dirt one has. All paths lead

ultimately via - purified mind to the same goal. If I want to

summarize the whole sequence - all yoga-s lead to one state -

purified mental state. From that to absolute is by j~naana in terms

of understanding factually that there is nothing other than the self.

Nature of vaasana-s will determine the nature of the purification

process and in that there is no superiority and inferiority in the

paths since the very need of a path is the due to ignorance.

I hope I am clear and not given you the impression that I am

undermining any yoga or sadhana. My objection is only to the

statements that Raja yoga is the Rayal path - it may be for a Royal

Pain - but for ordinary pains other yoga-s will do as well. If you

examine, Krishan glories each yoga when he is discussing that yoga -

What yoga is best depends on the individual saadhak and his mental

state. For Arjuna, Krishna emphasizes karma yoga while for Uddhava

(in Uddava Geeta) he emphasizes Bhakti and j~naana since Uddava has

already gained a state of purified mind by surrendering to Krishna.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

November 25, 2001

Dear Sadananadaji;

Thank you for sharing this beautiful message; It remains in my heart.

Hari Om

Rajudas.

-

K. Sadananda <sada

Not only Shankara even Ramanuja who emphasizes

> Bhakti also emphasizes j~naana as the means of liberation. In his

> model, what he calls j~naana is bhakti ruupaka j~naana - the

> knowledge of the dependence on Lord. There is no other high way

> other than knowledge of ones own self.

> Here is Shankara statement:

> na yogena na saakhyena karmananona vidyayaa|

> brahmaastaika bodhena moksha sidhyati na anyatha||

>

> Neither by yoga (which includes the above so called High way path)

> nor by saakhya nor by karma nor by erudition one can get liberation.

> Only by the knowledge of the identity of aatma and paramaatma one

> attains liberation. -

>

November 26, 2001

dear sir .

my comments on

"

if aatma is nirvikar, who feels that i have done something

answer : 'no answer'

"

comments:

there is an answer

i think it is the ' mana and ego'

am i wrong

nkbali

am i wong

On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 K. Sadananda wrote :

> >Many of you may not have heard of Swami Brahmanada

> Siva Yogi of

> >Anandashrama , Alathur, Kerala.He was of the firm

> opinion that Gnana

> >is a meaningless pursuit of Mukthi unless it takes

> recourse to the

> >High way of Yoga(Raja Marga).In the following

> conversation

> >translated from his book, Moksha Pradeepam, he

> tries to prove that

> >Gnani is doing an incomplete pursuit and does not

> know what he is

> >talking about.I thought it is an interesting

> thought process.I

> >request your comments.

> With all due respects there are self-contradiction in

> the statements.

> If the problem rests on ignorance the solution to the

> problem can

> only be knowledge. Not only Shankara even

> Ramanuja who emphasizes

> Bhakti also emphasizes j~naana as the means of

> liberation. In his

> model, what he calls j~naana is bhakti ruupaka j~naana

> - the

> knowledge of the dependence on Lord. There is no

> other high way

> other than knowledge of ones own self.

> Here is Shankara statement:

> na yogena na saakhyena

> karmananona vidyayaa|

>

> brahmaastaika bodhena moksha

> sidhyati na anyatha||

> Neither by yoga (which includes the above so called

> High way path)

> nor by saakhya nor by karma nor by erudition one can

> get liberation.

> Only by the knowledge of the identity of aatma and

> paramaatma one

> attains liberation. -

> Unless Shree Swamiji is trying to imply the same in

> different words!

> The answer to the last question -" Q:Vedanta says

> that Atma is

> Nirvikara (Feelingless).How can Atma think that it does

> some

> thing?Who is thinking or feelig?Is it Atma or Anatma?

> A:No answer"

> is the right answer since the problem is beyond the

> intellect. Hence

> Shankara says 'anirvachaniiyam" inexplicable -

> since explanations

> falls within the realm of intellect and the problem and

> solution are

> beyond the intellect. It is true 'j~naana' does not

> mean intellectual

> knowledge - it is as JK puts it "understanding as

> understanding as a

> fact and not understanding as an understanding as a

> thought".

> Hari OM!

> Sadananda

> --

> K. Sadananda

> Code 6323

> Naval Research Laboratory

> Washington D.C. 20375

> Voice (202)767-2117

> Fax:(202)767-2623

>

> Sponsor

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of

> nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

> http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to :

> advaitin

> Messages Archived at:

> advaitin/messages

> Your use of is subject to the

> Terms of Service

> .

Visit my site on 'BHAGVAD GITA', a spiritual delight.You will love it.

http://in.geocities.com/gitabykrishna

November 26, 2001

>dear sir .

>my comments on

>

>"

>if aatma is nirvikar, who feels that i have done something

>answer : 'no answer'

>"

>

>comments:

>there is an answer

>i think it is the ' mana and ego'

>am i wrong

>

>nkbali

>

>am i wong

Shree Bali,

If the answer satisfies you, then it is the right answer. How can the

blessed self be wrong!

The problem is what is normally called catch 22 situation. If one

knows that aatma is nirvikaara then the following question "who feels

that I have done something" does not arise - nirvikaara aatma cannot

ask that question or does not have any one else to ask that question.

If one is asking that question then the statement that aatma is

nirvikaara is just a verbal statement no more significance than a

tape recorder chanting mantras.

The problem is 'maya and ego' that you are referring to itself is a

statement within the real of 'maaya and ego'. One has to go beyond

it to see the truth of that statement and when one goes beyond there

is no question of doership to ask who is or who was a doer.

"akarataa aham abhoktaa aham, aham eva avyayaH" I am neither a doer

nor an enjoyer, I alone am - immutable.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

November 26, 2001

Hi to all:

Sadananda wrote:

"The problem is what is normally called catch 22

situation"

Can you send all "situations"? I don't know it.

Tank u

Pablo

Conectate a Internet GRATIS con Conexión:

http://conexion..ar

November 26, 2001

Dear Sir,

According to the sage who wrote the passages , you are wrong because mana

or ego again is Anatma(Non-Atma).With best wishes.Ramachander