Guest guest Posted January 30, 2002 Report Share Posted January 30, 2002 Dear Gummuluru Murthy, You ask,: " Isn't Jnani, Jnananishta from an ignorant's viewpoint only?". But this is exactly what I said in my post: "Ultimately, even the empirical distinction between Jnanis and Ajnanis(i.e.Jnananishtas)is only in the realm of ignorance." When you state " If we call 'anyone' a Jnani, that is more an exhibition of our ignorance only." Of course, that is exactly the point of my entire post, except for the additional fact that if 'anyone' claims himself to be a Jnani, it merely betrays his own ignorance. Shankara makes clear in has Adhyasa Bhashya that: 1) Jnani-Ajnani 2) Bondage-iberation 3) Guru-student 4) THE SHASTRA BEING THE ONLY MEANS TO KNOWLEDGE Are all only in the realm of ignorance. Hari Om Atmachaitanya -- In advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > > namaste shri Atmachaitanyaji, > > That was an excellent post. The arguments are compelling and > your facts are straight. You made a distinction between > jnAni and jnAnaniShTa and have even categorized shri shankara > as a jnAnaniShTa. I have comment/question on this aspect of > your post. > > Isn't jnAni, jnAaniShTa from an ignorant's viewpoint only? > We are saying X is a jnAni, Y is a jnAnaniShTa. We are seeing > a difference between X and Y. As either X or Y see it, there > is no difference. > > Further, isn't the word jnAni a contradiction in terms? I am > assuming you are calling jnAni as the embodiment of jnAnam. > But jnAnam is never embodied. Hence, there cannot be anyone > called a jnAni. That is, if we call anyone a jnAni, it is > more an exhibition of our ignorance only. JnAnaniShTa is > all there is. > > This may be just semantics only. But I would be grateful for > your viewpoint. > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2002 Report Share Posted January 30, 2002 Namaste: Let me join Gummuluruji and congratulate you for the excellent post. I fully agree with the statement, "if anyone claims himself/herself to be a Jnanai, it merely btrays his/her own ignorance." This interesting quotation by Colton is quite in support of what you have said: "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." Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote: .. > .... > When you state " If we call 'anyone' a Jnani, that is more an > exhibition of our ignorance only." Of course, that is exactly the > point of my entire post, except for the additional fact that if > 'anyone' claims himself to be a Jnani, it merely betrays his own > ignorance..-------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2002 Report Share Posted January 30, 2002 ramvchandran [rchandran] Wednesday, January 30, 2002 10:23 PM advaitin Re:Vedantic Scholar and Spiritual-Realization Namaste: Let me join Gummuluruji and congratulate you for the excellent post. I fully agree with the statement, "if anyone claims himself/herself to be a Jnanai, it merely btrays his/her own ignorance." This interesting quotation by Colton is quite in support of what you have said: "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." Warmest regards, Ram Chandran This is wonderful Ramji. Perhaps we have covered all our bases here. :-). Mathematicians like exact formulas! If only the truth could be reduced to an If - Then statement. Well, why not? If this, then that. If not this, then not that. If that and that, then this and this. This, this, that, that! I wonder what category sage Yagnavalkya (spelling) fits into according to the humility and modesty analysis? :-). Love to all Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2002 Report Share Posted January 30, 2002 advaitin, "Harsha" wrote: > > ramvchandran [rchandran@c...] > Namaste: > > Let me join Gummuluruji and congratulate you for the excellent > post. I fully agree with the statement, "if anyone claims > himself/herself to be a Jnanai, it merely btrays his/her own > ignorance." This interesting quotation by Colton is quite in support > of what you have said: "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." > > Warmest regards, > > Ram Chandran > > > > > This is wonderful Ramji. > Perhaps we have covered all our bases here. :-). > Mathematicians like exact formulas! If only the truth could be reduced to an > If - Then statement. > > Well, why not? > If this, then that. If not this, then not that. If that and that, then this > and this. This, this, that, that! > I wonder what category sage Yagnavalkya (spelling) fits into according to > the humility and modesty analysis? :-). > > Love to all > Harsha Namaste. These are wonderful indeed. Humility and modesty must be natural charactersitics to a seeker. Otherwise their lack they become bondage because one tries to belong to the non-Self. In Chandogya Upanishad, Uddalaka says, 'His father said to him: "O Svetaketu, my dear! Since you are haughty and puffed up, regarding yourself as well-versed in the Vedas, did you ask for that instruction by which the Unheard becomes heard, the Unthought- of becomes thought of, the Understood becomes understood?"' May all be humble !!! Guru brahma guru Vishnu guru devo maheshwara ...-- let these be the fundamental principles in our seeking. With Love, Raghava Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2002 Report Share Posted January 30, 2002 Namste Atmachitanyaji, I am left without words to thank you enough for your clarifications. So instead I offer my 'Namaskarams' to you which in any case is the most appropriate thing to do to a Guru. Sir, here was one area of our 'Ignorance' we stumbled upon in all our emails which then you cleared the way only you could have done. Sir, we could all be harbouring several such areas of 'ignorance' without even knowing we are doing that or worse still we may even be, as in the present case cleared by you, mistakenly assuming them to be 'Knowledge?'. In your 27 years of teaching experience, sir, you will have come across many such 'quick sands' in to which an unwary seeker gets sucked in. May I request you to take such 'trouble spots' one by one in your future posts and by throwing the light of 'Right Knowledge' on such spots dispel them. I have one more request to make. I might already have become a bit of a pain in the neck for list members through my repeated pleas for a strong refutation of the 'Buddhist' doctrine of 'Anatta'. The reason is simple sir. After 15 years of studying Advaita vedanta, I somehow concluded that while it very admirably described the destination (final ideal) for me, it did not show the way to it. (How can it when the fact is I was already there and only I did not know that - these are problems, I suppose of pursuing knowledge without the guidance of a Guru). So most accidentally I found my way into Buddhism, and thought here was a path which showed the way. But intuitively I could not accept the 3 pillars on which Buddhism stood - Dukkha, Anitya and Anatman. While the first two may have some truth in the 'vyaavaharikaa' world, the third one, I feel in the very core of my 'being' is absolutely false. But the Buddhists argue their case very well and there arguments are intellectually quite satisfying.I am absolutely sure that there are flaws in their arguments which I am not able to put my fingers on. I am also sure that Shankara would have torn these arguments to pieces in his Bhashyas and that is where I should look to find a solution to my 'intellectual' problem. Butthe affairs of my day to day life do not afford me the time to undertake such a study immediately. Hence this humble request to you sir - please summarise for me Shankara's arguments against Buddhism. List members may even think why is this fellow wasting his time in such 'intellectualism' or what Shankara himself has called 'Chittasya Laalanam'. In my opinion what I am trying is a very essential part of the 'Manana' process by which arguments against what I believe to be true, are quelled. Since in my own attempts to do this I have failed in the past, I am requesting Atmachaitanyaji to help me. Take your time sir, but please do oblige me with your response to the two requests I have made. Once again my namaskarams to you. Venkat. advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote: > > When you state " If we call 'anyone' a Jnani, that is more an > exhibition of our ignorance only." Of course, that is exactly the > point of my entire post, except for the additional fact that if > 'anyone' claims himself to be a Jnani, it merely betrays his own > ignorance. > > Shankara makes clear in has Adhyasa Bhashya that: > 1) Jnani-Ajnani > 2) Bondage-iberation > 3) Guru-student > 4) THE SHASTRA BEING THE ONLY MEANS TO KNOWLEDGE > > Are all only in the realm of ignorance. > > Hari Om > Atmachaitanya > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2002 Report Share Posted January 31, 2002 Shree Atmachaitanyaji First my praNaams and we thank you for your participation in the lively discussions. We all will benefit from your wisdom. If I may venture my understanding : I concur with your response to Shree Murthy gaaru -the distinctions between the J~naani and J~naananishhTa is itself in the realm of ignorance. But I am not sure I agree with the classification of JnaananishhTa under the category of ignorant state. This is essentially a jiivanmukta state who has understood that everything is false and he alone is real. For him the plurality exists but does not have misunderstanding that the existing plurality is reality. Upto this part there is no disagreement - He knows he is akarataa, abhokta and aj~naata in the sense that -" prakR^itaivacha karmaanai kriyamaanaani sarvashhaH, yaH pasyati tat aatmaanam akartaaram sa pastyati" - Hence not only he does not do anything but also knows that he does not do anything. He knows that prakR^iti does in His presence - just as KrishNa says: mayaa adhyakshena prakR^itiH suuyate sacharaa charam. He also knows that - sarvabhuutastam aatmaamana sarva bhuttanicha aatmani - hence this j~naatR^itvam is not of 'objective knowledge as j~naataa - but awareness of ones own nature - hence he revels in himself in aatma rati and aatma kriiDa. Hence I submit that even the distinction between j~naanishhTa and j~naani is also not in the mind of J~naananishhTa either. To classify the j~naaninishhTa as 'ignorant' is therefore of little validity other than to make a distinction of jiivanmukta vs a videhamukta. Thus there is no distinction at the absolute level that is j~naani level, and there is no distinction at the jiivanmukta level - and all distinctions are only at the jiiva level - which of course true since all sajaati, vijaati and swagata bheda-s are at that level only. I may point out this is one of the objections of Bhagavaan Ramanuja in his laghu puurvapaksha and siddhaanta - 'the presence of plurality - starting from a teacher and the taught - for a realized person - hence Ramanuja concludes that 1) there is no jiivanmukta and only vidheha mukta and 2) mere knowledge cannot lead unless that knowledge is reinforced by upaasana involving bhakti or prapatti till one leaves the mortal body. Hari OM! Sadananda Shree Atmachaitnya wrote: > Yet, strange as it may seem, this Jnananishta is an ignorant >person, a person bereft of 'Spiritual-Realization', and not a Jnani. >Dear Gummuluru Murthy, > > You ask,: " Isn't Jnani, Jnananishta from an ignorant's >viewpoint only?". But this is exactly what I said in my post: > "Ultimately, even the empirical distinction between Jnanis and >Ajnanis(i.e.Jnananishtas)is only in the realm of ignorance." >..... > Hari Om > Atmachaitanya -- 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 February 1, 2002 Report Share Posted February 1, 2002 yes, from my throne i humbly concur with this expression of jnanis' ----\ i am an ignorant man greetings, all. again, i believe we should meet soon. o. peshtin --- atmachaitanya108 <stadri wrote: > Dear Gummuluru Murthy, > > You ask,: " Isn't Jnani, Jnananishta from an > ignorant's > viewpoint only?". But this is exactly what I said in > my post: > "Ultimately, even the empirical distinction > between Jnanis and > Ajnanis(i.e.Jnananishtas)is only in the realm of > ignorance." > > When you state " If we call 'anyone' a Jnani, > that is more an > exhibition of our ignorance only." Of course, that > is exactly the > point of my entire post, except for the additional > fact that if > 'anyone' claims himself to be a Jnani, it merely > betrays his own > ignorance. > > Shankara makes clear in has Adhyasa Bhashya that: > 1) Jnani-Ajnani > 2) Bondage-iberation > 3) Guru-student > 4) THE SHASTRA BEING THE ONLY MEANS > TO KNOWLEDGE > > Are all only in the realm of ignorance. > > Hari Om > Atmachaitanya > > > > -- In advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> > wrote: > > > > namaste shri Atmachaitanyaji, > > > > That was an excellent post. The arguments are > compelling and > > your facts are straight. You made a distinction > between > > jnAni and jnAnaniShTa and have even categorized > shri shankara > > as a jnAnaniShTa. I have comment/question on this > aspect of > > your post. > > > > Isn't jnAni, jnAaniShTa from an ignorant's > viewpoint only? > > We are saying X is a jnAni, Y is a jnAnaniShTa. We > are seeing > > a difference between X and Y. As either X or Y see > it, there > > is no difference. > > > > Further, isn't the word jnAni a contradiction in > terms? I am > > assuming you are calling jnAni as the embodiment > of jnAnam. > > But jnAnam is never embodied. Hence, there cannot > be anyone > > called a jnAni. That is, if we call anyone a > jnAni, it is > > more an exhibition of our ignorance only. > JnAnaniShTa is > > all there is. > > > > This may be just semantics only. But I would be > grateful for > > your viewpoint. > > > > Regards > > Gummuluru Murthy > > > - > > Great stuff seeking new owners in Auctions! http://auctions. 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.