Guest guest Posted July 25, 2002 Report Share Posted July 25, 2002 Just some clarification on the nature of karma and its role. First Karma or action is the intrinsic nature of the prakRiti that is essence of creation and manifestation of life itself. No karma - no life. nahi kaschit kshaNamai jaatu tushhTasya karam kRit .. says Krishna - Second jiiva does not perform karma in the true sense of the word. akartaaham abhoktaaham. neither I am a doer not enjoyer. But actions are getting done in the presence of the conscious entity by the prakR^iti itself. This is true at the creation level or Iswara level or at microcosmic level or jiiva level. Hence KrishNa declares - prakR^iti evaca kramaani kriyamaanaani sarvashaH - yaH pasyati tat aatmaanam akartaaram sa pasyati . All actions are being done by prakRiti itself and one who sees or realizes this and realizes that he is ever non-doer, he alone see (the truth). Primordial ignorance materializes in the identification by chaitanya vastu, I, with achaitanya vastu- praKR^iti. I think I am this (this being prakRiti or object which is jadam or inert). Hence due to ignorance, the action that is being done by prakRiti is misunderstood as being done by jiiva – hence the consequence of that assumption. Nature of jiivanmukta : He understands that he is not this but he is the one because of which this and this can even exist. Hence he has no more notions that I am this body, mind and intellect which perform the actions. He understands that he was never a doer either in the past, in the present or in the future. But all actions are being done in His presence by PrakRiti - like electricity - by itself does not function but flowing through fan or light will enliven the equipments. If bulb is broken or if the fan makes the jarring notes one cannot blame the electricity. Hence jiivan mukta knows that he was never a kartaa nor any results belong to him – They all belong to the prakRiti only and he is not prakRiti. When one realizes that he is beyond these notions he alone becomes a jiivan mukta - it is not that sanchita karma gets destroyed - it is only that it has no locus to which it belongs other than to the PrakRiti. Hence one should be clear - it is not destruction of sanchita karma but there is no specific jiiva that can claim the bank balance. Since prakRiti is part of the totality - the sanchita karma of that jiiva (when he was jiiva) now belongs to the totality. It can find target to which it belongs if given an opportunity. It has been said in the scriptures that it will find a place - the good karma will find a locus on to the disciples of that jiivan mukta who cherish his noble values and bad karma will find a locus on to those who curse him( since they could see bad even in such mahaatmaa). That is why it is said that one should treat mahaatma-s reverentially. Remember with in vyavahaara that which exists can never cease to exist and that which is non-existent can never come to existence. Prarabda karama - even prarabda karam does not belong to jiivan mukta - since he was never a doer anyway – not even in the past. That he was doer was only a notion and that notion is now droped when he realized. Since the results are already germinated in the local equipments that belonged to jiivan mukta (his body, mind and intellect), those equipments or prakRiti will experience the results of those that already sprouted. Hence others see that jiivanmukta's body may be suffering - like Ramakrishna paramahamsa had throat cancer, Bhagavaan Ramana maharshi had problem in the hand etc. In principle they being jiivan mukta never experienced - yet their praakRitika shariira-s undergo natural transformation that is destined to them. We in our ignorance only sees the prakRiti modification and say that mahaatma is experiencing the prarabdha krama. No if he is a jiivan mukta - he can never experience anything - he is ever akarthaa and abhokta - non-doer and non-enjoyer. Now a finally straw – even one who has not realized – jiiva also does not experience either the prarabda or sanchita. These belong to prakRiti only. The problem is out of ignorance, jiiva takes the modifications (or sufferings or enjoyment) of prakRiti as his modifications and suffers through the consequence of that identification with the prakRiti. Hence even in a~naana kaale api – ahma akarthaa abhooktaa. - KartRitvam and bhoktutvam that I am a doer and I am enjoyer etc are only notions in the mind. When the mind folds as in deep sleep – there is no notions of these either. I hope the nature of action and results of action are clear. Hari OM! Sadananda --- capanellius <capanellius wrote: is that the "realization of > Brahman" > destroys > all thosepast karmas (i.e., samskaras) that have not > yet begun to > produce effects, but not those that have already > ripened (i.e., > prarabdha-karmas) and producing effects in the > current life (ref > note: BSSG 4.1.19). Any clarifications on this > statement are welcome. > Health - Feel better, live better http://health. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2002 Report Share Posted July 30, 2002 namaste. I have enjoyed shri Sadananda garu's analysis of the role of karma. A few questions, some of them may be semantics and some of them are requests for clarification of understanding. On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, kuntimaddi sadananda wrote: > Just some clarification on the nature of karma and its > role. > > First Karma or action is the intrinsic nature of the > prakRiti that is essence of creation and manifestation > of life itself. No karma - no life. nahi kaschit > kshaNamai jaatu tushhTasya karam kRit .. says Krishna > - > > Second jiiva does not perform karma in the true sense > of the word. akartaaham abhoktaaham. neither I am a > doer not enjoyer. > > But actions are getting done in the presence of the > conscious entity by the prakR^iti itself. This is > true at the creation level or Iswara level or at > microcosmic level or jiiva level. When we separate prakr^iti from puruSha, or separate the insentient apart from Consciousness, then, action automatically comes into being. But I am not sure that we can apportion or assign action to prakr^iti. When we say akartaaram, abhoktaam, we are not talking of the jIvA but of the Consciousness. What I am saying is: a jIvA cannot say I am akartA, abhoktA. When we say there is action, there has to be a jIvA who is doing the action. By accepting the presence of action but not accepting the doer of action, we may be creating a semantics problem. > Hence KrishNa > declares - prakR^iti evaca kramaani kriyamaanaani > sarvashaH - yaH pasyati tat aatmaanam akartaaram sa > pasyati . All actions are being done by prakRiti > itself and one who sees or realizes this and realizes > that he is ever non-doer, he alone see (the truth). > Yes, I realize the significance and implication of BG 13.30; yet, are the actions done by prakr^iti itself, specifically, prakr^iti separated from the puruSha ? So, basically, the question comes to; is jIvA prakr^iti or puruSha? > Primordial ignorance materializes in the > identification by chaitanya vastu, I, with achaitanya > vastu- praKR^iti. I think I am this (this being > prakRiti or object which is jadam or inert). Hence due > to ignorance, the action that is being done by > prakRiti is misunderstood as being done by jiiva – > hence the consequence of that assumption. > > [...] > When one realizes that he is beyond these notions he > alone becomes a jiivan mukta - it is not that sanchita > karma gets destroyed - it is only that it has no locus > to which it belongs other than to the PrakRiti. Hence > one should be clear - it is not destruction of > sanchita karma but there is no specific jiiva that can > claim the bank balance. Since prakRiti is part of the > totality - the sanchita karma of that jiiva (when he > was jiiva) now belongs to the totality. Here, shri sadananda garu seems to be saying: there is some unclaimed karma and the jIvA that is responsible for the karma is absent, being realized. How can that be possible? Let me present some arguments why such scenario is not possible. 1. The jIvAhood comes into being because of the karmaphala. As long as the unexpended karma is present, the jIvA is there. The jIvA vanishes when the karma vanishes and there is no more karmaphala. Of course, both the jIvAhood and the karmaphala are illusory and all vanish at the same time when the ego (which is also illusory) vanishes at the dawn of jnAnam. 2. If there is unclaimed bank balance of karma and the jIvA responsible for it being absent, the converse must also be there; i.e. a jIvA can be present with no karma balance. Such cannot be the case. 3. So, who or what is performing the action? First, the body is needed to perform the karmA-s. So, the jIvAtma is to co-exist with the body. In this coexistence, the jIvAtmA or the jIvA acts because the body can perform action only when backed by the jIvAtmA. Moreover, as there is continuity in action because of its being attached in our memory, and because memory is an attribute of the jIvA, so the jIvA (or jIvAtmA) remains the performer of action. If shri Sadananda garu's usage of the word 'jIvA' refers to one who has no ego or feeling of individuality, then there is no difficulty. But, if not, we have to assign the doer of the action to the jIvA. I would be most grateful for any comments/corrections. > [...] > > > Hari OM! > Sadananda > Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2002 Report Share Posted July 30, 2002 I am enjoying both the posts of Sadanandaji and of Murthygaru. Murthygaru writes (July 30 2002) (in reply to Sadanandaji's post), > > > When we separate prakr^iti from puruSha, or separate the > insentient apart from Consciousness, then, action automatically > comes into being. But I am not sure that we can apportion or > assign action to prakr^iti. > > When we say akartaaram, abhoktaam, we are not talking of > the jIvA but of the Consciousness. What I am saying is: > a jIvA cannot say I am akartA, abhoktA. When we say there > is action, there has to be a jIvA who is doing the action. > By accepting the presence of action but not accepting the > doer of action, we may be creating a semantics problem. > > So, basically, the > question comes to; is jIvA prakr^iti or puruSha? > > This semantics problem has to be solved the following way. If jIva has identified itself with the body mind intellect then it has all the doer-enjoyer status. If on the other hand, jiva, through the mind to which it is attached at present, can throw away the identification with the body mind and intellect and identify itself with the jivAtmA which is its spiritual essence, then it is not the doer or the enjoyer. The whole problem reduces to this identification. Identification of what with what? There is an Inner Self (jIvAtman = parmAtman). There is an outer self (body mind intellect). In between there is the jIva. The Inner self is akartA and abhoktA. The outer self is inert. But the outer self appears to be doing everything. It acts in the presence of the Inner Self. The action itself is a mAyic action by prakRti and all its ramifications. So prakRti in the presence of the purusha, acts. jIva is not prakRti. jIva takes the role of kshara purusha when it is one with the body mind intellect and therefore becomes the slave of prakRti. Again, jIva takes the role of akshara purusha if instead of being one with the outer self it leans back and is one with the Inner Self. And in this case it is one with the paramAtman and so prakRti cannot enslave it. This I think answers your question, Murthygaru, whether jIva is prakRti or purusha. praNAms to all advaitins Yours, profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2002 Report Share Posted July 30, 2002 Namaste This jIvan-mukta question has earlier found its place in a discussion under the thread 'Atma-jnaana and vyavahara'. I refer to my own posting #10578 on 16th August 2001. In that posting, four kinds of jIvan-muktas (=brahma-vit) are mentioned. Under that thread there are very enlightening postings by stalwarts of our group. I took some time to locate this posting of mine, because by some quirk of software-logic, many of my postings have gone under the name of 'profvk'. I have no way of telling the advaitin archive that 'profvk' and 'V. Krishnamurthy' are the same! praNAms to all advaitins profvk ===== Prof. V. Krishnamurthy My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/ You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site. Health - Feel better, live better http://health. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2002 Report Share Posted July 31, 2002 Namaste. I do not know if I am qualified to intrude. Anyway, here is my two cents worth as I see it (in parentheses). ________ advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: Murthyj wrote: "When we say akartaaram, abhoktaam, we are not talking of the jIvA but of the Consciousness. What I am saying is: a jIvA cannot say I am akartA, abhoktA. When we say there is action, there has to be a jIvA who is doing the action. By accepting the presence of action but not accepting the doer of action, we may be creating a semantics problem." ___________________ [Jeeva `realizes' that he is akarta, abhokta etc. Even this realization shines after Consciousness. Action (I mean yogic) can, therefore, co-exist with this realization of non-doership.] ___________________ Murthyji quoted Sadanandaji: "Hence KrishNa declares - prakR^iti evaca kramaani kriyamaanaani sarvashaH - yaH pasyati tat aatmaanam akartaaram sa pasyati . All actions are being done by prakRiti itself and one who sees or realizes this and realizes that he is ever non-doer, he alone see (the truth). " ___________________ [The semantic problem cannot be avoided. It began with the first sound that was uttered or heard, i.e. with the very origin of duality. Even Lord Krishna (Vyasa) was prey to it as is evident from the verse quoted above. The "yaH pasyati" (he sees or realizes) in there is an action. The best way of expressing Truth would be not to talk about it! That is why the knowledgeable called It "silence". Semantic inadequacies are the bane of expression. It is more so when we are forced to juggle with profound terminology.] ___________________ Murthyji wrote: "Yes, I realize the significance and implication of BG 13.30; yet, are the actions done by prakr^iti itself, specifically, prakr^iti separated from the puruSha ? So, basically, the question comes to; is jIvA prakr^iti or puruSha?" ___________________ [There is no separation possible. How can there be a manifestation without the essential substratum. Jeeva is the deluded entity suffering from amnesia of his real nature. Prakriti represents the cause or mechanics of this amnesia. When the amnesia is cured, the jeeva no more asks the question "Who am I?". The question is answered for him as self-evidence – jeeva is none other than purusha.] ___________________ Shri Murthyji wrote: "1. The jIvAhood comes into being because of the karmaphala. As long as the unexpended karma is present, the jIvA is there. The jIvA vanishes when the karma vanishes and there is no more karmaphala. Of course, both the jIvAhood and the karmaphala are illusory and all vanish at the same time when the ego (which is also illusory) vanishes at the dawn of jnAnam. 2. If there is unclaimed bank balance of karma and the jIvA responsible for it being absent, the converse must also be there; i.e. a jIvA can be present with no karma balance. Such cannot be the case. 3. So, who or what is performing the action? First, the body is needed to perform the karmA-s. So, the jIvAtma is to co-exist with the body. In this coexistence, the jIvAtmA or the jIvA acts because the body can perform action only when backed by the jIvAtmA. Moreover, as there is continuity in action because of its being attached in our memory, and because memory is an attribute of the jIvA, so the jIvA (or jIvAtmA) remains the performer of action." ___________________ What is to be understood with regard to para 1 is that karmaphala continues to operate but the jeeva who has realized that he is none other than the purusha has no sense of "ownership" over it. It is like one having a million dollars in one's bank account but not caring to operate it as one does not have any more wants. The money belongs to the Lord; He has placed it there and He knows how to take care of it. This is contrary to what happens with most rich people. Their money exists just on paper, they don't actually need even a fraction of it but, in their delusion, they are so possessive and insecure about it that the paper drives them crazy. Then, do we have to talk about their karmaphala!? If this is understood, there is no need to dwell on para 2. This applies to para 3 also. Besides, the Bhagwath Geetha has dealt with yogic action without attachment so abundantly. What more can I add to it? ___________________ Murthyji concluded: "If shri Sadananda garu's usage of the word 'jIvA' refers to one who has no ego or feeling of individuality, then there is no difficulty. But, if not, we have to assign the doer of the action to the jIvA." [You have verily answered yourself, Murthyji! I don't see any more of the amnesia! Did it really exist? Where was it?] [i may kindly be pardoned for this intrusion and any mistakes in my amaeteurish interpretation.] Pranams to all. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2002 Report Share Posted July 31, 2002 Namaste Murthy gaaru and thanks to the excellent posts of Profvk and Madathil Nair – Both have addressed the questions of Murthy gaaru beautifully. I am going to add only my understanding. Most of this Bhagavaan Shankara has answered in his Adhyaasa Bhaashya- since aham kartaa, aham j~naata and aham bhoktaa etc are degenerate states of the same – primordial ignorance. Akartaaham abhoktaaham are realized states or jiivan mukta states where primordial ignorance is gone. Profvk has addressed this – jiiva-hood and kartR^itva bhaava are simultaneous – Let us not dwell into which comes first since it is anirvacaniiyam and is beyond the concept of time. Since the topic came in terms of whether arjuna a jiivan mutka – it is answered in that spirit – jiivan mukta is different from Brahman state in the sense that in the Brahman state nothing else is there –ekam eva advitiiyam as Cha. Up that Murthy gaaru discussing says. In the jiivan mukta state – the plurality appears to exist and at the same time there is a realization with the vanishing of the primordial ignorance. I am not any more a jiiva but I am a conscious entity with the apparent plurality – Hence jiivanmukta state is more close to Iswara status – I have understood that I am not an individual and therefore as a individual I do not own or bound by the karma that I have never done to start with! But since I am still there – what I am I? I am the totality or now equivalent to Iswara - As I discussed the karma now belongs to the totality with the vyavahaara level since locus of jiiva who claimed as doer is no more – but in that locus the representation of the totality – Iswara is there – and as I mentioned the karma belongs to the totality. As both profvk and Nair have mentioned that this karma cannot bind the totality – that is what Iswara means – mayantu prakRitim vidyaat mayinantu maheswaram – prakRiti is maaya and maayavi or the wielder of maaya is Iswara. He is unaffected by the prakRiti. (hence liila or play is different from action or karma that we understand) Now if one examines this total vyavahaara principle everything perfectly fits. Jiiva is only in a deluded state and in that state has notions that he is kartaa and bhokta as Shankara discusses in his adhyaasa bhaashya. Once realized he realizes that ‘aham brahma asmi’ – and brahma vit brahma eva bhavati – He is the totality but yet operating the ready available equipments of (previous) jiiva who we can say has left (for all practical purposes). Karma phala etc are operating only at jiiva level – at paramaatma level – it is only leela vihbuuti as vibuuti yoga points out. That is the status of jivanmukta level too as Krishna points out. sarva buutastam aatmaanam sarvabhuutanica aatmani Ikshate yoga yuktaatmaa sarvatra samabuddhayaH| - all beings are in me and I am in all beings – is the nature of that self-realization of jiivan mutka state. (Here I go Dennis quoting one more time the 6-29). Nair ji as you also recognize here when Krishna says sah pasyati– seeing is implied not at an action. Seeing is spontaneous – one cannot but see as soon as eyes are open and thing is there. It is essentially a self-evident fact. Action involves effort, which is different. It is in that sense Krishna uses the word – just as seeing as seeing a fruit in ones own hand. As long as we are discussing vyavahaara state that includes jiivan mutka and Iswara, then – Krishna statement is also equally valid – naasato vidyate bhaavo naabaavo vidhyate sataH – that which exists can never cease to exist and that which is non-existent can never come to existence – principle of conservation applies too. Hence my statement that sanchita karma cannot get lost without operating – it now operates at totality level – has no power to bound Iswara – hence it is now part of his liila. I hope I am clear – I did not go point by point of your post since others have done that already. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Health - Feel better, live better http://health. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2002 Report Share Posted August 6, 2002 namaste profvk-ji, madathilnair-ji and sadananda garu, Thanks very much for the clarifications. My apologies for being late with my response and also persisting through with this further. May be, I cannot catch up to a point easily (may be one of the ants of the other thread). I hope you will bear with me. Before I express further on this topic, an explanation of the terminology that I am using. Atman = brahman Atman is the word used in the context of Consciousness or stratum in an individualized sense whereas brahman is the word used in the context of substratum of the jagat. jIvA is the word that I use in the context of Atman, in ignorance confining itself to be limited by the body, mind, intellect and ego. So, jIvA is Atman mired in ignorance. The ignorance may be deep or very thin, but still, Atman viewing itself to be limited is jIvA. jIvo brahmaiva naH paraH: jIvA is identical with brahman, but when shri shankara said this, He meant jIva stripped or devoid of ignorance. tat tvam asi: tat is That, the brahman; and tvam is You. Again, tvam is stripped off all ignorance [dehendriya manaH prANAhmkr^itibhyo vilakshaNaH ... tvam padAbhidaH] Now, coming to the point of discussion: On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, profvk-ji wrote: > > This semantics problem has to be solved the following way. If jIva > has identified itself with the body mind intellect then it has all > the doer-enjoyer status. If on the other hand, jiva, through the > mind to which it is attached at present, can throw away the > identification with the body mind and intellect and identify itself > with the jivAtmA which is its spiritual essence, then it is not the > doer or the enjoyer. The whole problem reduces to this > identification. Identification of what with what? There is an Inner > Self (jIvAtman = parmAtman). There is an outer self (body mind > intellect). In between there is the jIva. The Inner self is akartA > and abhoktA. The outer self is inert. But the outer self appears to > be doing everything. It acts in the presence of the Inner Self. The > action itself is a mAyic action by prakRti and all its > ramifications. So prakRti in the presence of the purusha, acts. > jIva is not prakRti. jIva takes the role of kshara purusha when it > is one with the body mind intellect and therefore becomes the slave > of prakRti. Again, jIva takes the role of akshara purusha if instead > of being one with the outer self it leans back and is one with the > Inner Self. And in this case it is one with the paramAtman and so > prakRti cannot enslave it. This I think answers your question, > Murthygaru, whether jIva is prakRti or purusha. > I agree fully with what is said above except the statement "...But the outerself appears to be doing everything..." which, I think, requires further expansion. Is that statement really correct? The outerself (as profvk-ji defines above) is inert and cannot do anything. It is only the jIvA associated with the outerself that appears to be doing the action. A. When the jIvA is associated with the outerself, he/she is in the realm of vyavahArika and is in ignorance. He/she sees action taking place, and he/she, the jIvA, considers itself to be doing the action. B. When the jIvA is associated with the innerself, he/she is akartA, abhoktA. Further, there is no action either. In case A, there appears to be action and there appears to be the doer. In case B, there is no action and there is no doer either. I do not see another stage or case where prakr^iti (apart from the Self) is *doing* the action while jIvA is witnessing the action. The point is quite clear if we use the advaitic terminology of the jIvA and avidyA, but gets quite muddled if we start using prakr^iti and puruSha. The separation of prakr^iti and puruSha (which is wrong but somehow meant or implied, which started this discussion) is the starting problem and is implied in the statement that prakr^iti *alone* is doing the action. Now let me put forward an example. example: i (GM) is conducting a yajna. In vyavahArika, an action has taken place. The doer is GM, the Consciousness associated with the outerself (the body, mind, intellect, ego). The body, mind, intellect, ego is inert and is not capable of taking action. It is only when associated with Consciousness, then only, the body, mind, intellect, ego can claim to take action. Now, if jIvA is associated with the innerself, there is no GM, no action, no saMkalpa, no yajna. I see only these two stages. Where is the case of prakr^iti taking action, while puruSha stays aside and witnesses the action? So, the argument in vyavahArika: "I see the action of yajna, I see saMkalpa for the yajna, but I did not do the saMkalpa for the yajna; it is prakr^iti, my body, mind, intellect, ego which did the action while I witness. Obviously, that would not hold. That argument is not true in the absolute either. Finally, a repeat from my previous post, which was not commented on: the conditions for performance of action. Firstly, the body is needed to perform action. The jIva is to exist with the body and the jIvA is to identify with the body for any action to be performed. Secondly, there is continuity of action and hence is attached to the memory. Memory is an attribute of the jIvA, so action, if any, has to be associated with the jIvA (the Atman mired in ignorance). Now, coming to BG13.29: my understanding of 13.29 is as follows: Lord Krishna is saying that action is *caused* by the prakr^iti, the change of guNA-s; the origin of action is in prakr^iti. The Consciousness is untainted and unaffected by this change of guNA-s that are responsible for the action. I do not think 13.29 is saying that it is prakr^iti that is *doing* the action. Any further clarification in my understanding is appreciated. > praNAms to all advaitins > Yours, profvk > Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 6, 2002 Report Share Posted August 6, 2002 On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, madathilnair wrote: > [Jeeva `realizes' that he is akarta, abhokta etc. Even this > realization shines after Consciousness. Action (I mean yogic) can, > therefore, co-exist with this realization of non-doership.] > ___________________ > namaste shri madathil-ji, Thanks very much for your clarifications. My apologies for not being prompt in my response. Please read this along with my earlier mail of today with the same title. My difficulty with this thinking is: Any action *has to be done* by a caitanya vastu, not the inert outer-self. If jIvA sees himself/herself to be akartA, and if prakr^iti is inert and incapable of action, then there must be another caitanya vastu doing the action. That is not the case. hence, if jIvA is akartA, then there is no action. I concede that jIvA in his/her akartA visualization, may witness *things happening spontaneously*, but not action. Separating this prakr^iti from puruSha is the starting point of this whole problem. A much better way to look at it is as jIvA in ignorance, or Atman in its brilliance. I very much see the advantage of the terminology of the jIvA rather than the words prakr^iti and puruSha. > [...] > [What is to be understood with regard to para 1 is that karmaphala > continues to operate but the jeeva who has realized that he is none > other than the purusha has no sense of "ownership" over it. It is > like one having a million dollars in one's bank account but not > caring to operate it as one does not have any more wants. The money > belongs to the Lord; He has placed it there and He knows how to take > care of it. This is contrary to what happens with most rich people. > Their money exists just on paper, they don't actually need even a > fraction of it but, in their delusion, they are so possessive and > insecure about it that the paper drives them crazy. Then, do we have > to talk about their karmaphala!? > > If this is understood, there is no need to dwell on para 2. This > applies to para 3 also. Besides, the Bhagwath Geetha has dealt with > yogic action without attachment so abundantly. What more can I add > to it?] I have difficulty with the concept that a jIvA has realized, yet His karmaphala is in operation with no claim of ownership for that karmaphala. There are two attributes here: one is jIvA (Atman + ignorance); the second is karmaphala. jIvA sheds ignorance and recognizes he/she is Atman. Karmaphala concept is because of ignorance. So, once ignorance is removed, should not the karmaphala disappear along with ignorance? I do not see any bank-balance of karmaphala remaining after the owner of that karmaphala is no longer there. An example usually cited is that of shri ramaNa maharShi (post- realization of shri venkataraman but before the mahAsamAdhi in 1950). Usually it is claimed that because of the still active and unexpended prArabdha karma of venkataraman, the body still remained post-realization and even underwent the medical operations, etc. I tend to think that karmaphala of venkataraman became zero at realization and that karmaphala looses its meaning at realization. > Pranams to all. > > Madathil Nair > Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2002 Report Share Posted August 7, 2002 Namaste Shri Murthyji, You have a very strong case here and you have built it brilliantly. I can now see the point you are trying to make and cannot help agreeing with you. We are jeevas operating with our limitations imposed by ignorance. Our point of view is also, therefore, limited, from which we are trying to visualize a "limitless" situation. That is the only problem, as I see it, causing this apparent divergence in views between us. I should, therefore, think that your doubt or question will cease to exist or vanish like cotton-candy as you climb the ladder of self-realization. Till then, we can only talk and talk and surmise and surmise endlessly! Our present situation is like the dog going round and round to reach the flea on its tail or like one trying to contain an inflated balloon in one's palm. Intuitive contemplation unbefuddled by terminology only can help us. If we try to split the Whole into parts like jeeva, ignorance, prakriti, gunas, karmaphala etc. etc., and work out the mechanics of It in the form of a "terrestrial" model, we will only mire hopelessly deeper. It will be as futile as our earlier attempts to understand adhyaasa. In fact, the two issues are very much inter-related. As limited beings, we have a conjured-up idea of the "liberated state". All that we read and hear go into the making of this concept - visualization. We have to understand that this "visualization" is yet another object and, as such, has nothing to do with the "real subject" which we know we are when self- realization "occurs". (I am really scared of using these verbs.). That, rightly called Silence, is beyond words. Bhagwan Ramana was That. We can understand Bhagwan only when we "know" that we are none other than Bhagwan Ramana. Then we have nothing more to say. To whom to say? If others still see us as saying something, it is only due to their ignorance. Then, where is the question of karmaphala and bank- balance? GM and MN now see Bhagwan Ramana as an object. That object in its "objecthood" has an inevitable tail called karmaphala. When GM and MN realize that they are Bhagwan Ramana, the tail disappears along with the mire they are in. That is only logical because there cannot be more than One then. Best regards. Madathil Nair ___________ advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > An example usually cited is that of shri ramaNa maharShi (post- > realization of shri venkataraman but before the mahAsamAdhi in > 1950). Usually it is claimed that because of the still active and > unexpended prArabdha karma of venkataraman, the body still remained > post-realization and even underwent the medical operations, etc. > I tend to think that karmaphala of venkataraman became zero at > realization and that karmaphala looses its meaning at realization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2002 Report Share Posted August 7, 2002 --- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote: Murthy gaaru as I see it there is slight misunderstanding in the terminology as presented. Brahman is substratum for all. At the macrocosmic level – it is identified as Iswara and cause of Jagat – jagat kaaraNam. Same Brahman identified with the microcosmic state is jiiva. As you are fully aware at Brahman level nothing can be said. Since it is pure absolute sat chit and ananda swarauupa with no internal or external differences. Once we bring PrakRiti and puruashha we are already in the- micro/ macro states – macrostate exists as long as microstate exist - since it is assmblage. All actions are being performed by Prakriti – what is prakRiti – it is only manifested part of Brahman only – that is looking from totality – by Iswara and looking at jiiva level – the individual – Bhoomiraapo nalo vaayu kham mano bhudhiH evacha Ahankaaram itiiam me bhinna prakRiti ashTadhaa|| Apareyam itastvanyaam prakRitim viddhi me paraam| Jiivabhuutaam mahaabhaaho yayedam dhaaryate jagat|| Krishna points out that at both the microcosmic level and macrocosmic levels his, under line His, lower nature and his higher nature include the eight fold aspects of prakRiti – subtle and gross bodies and the very life principle at jiiva/jiivas level. … aham kRitsnasya jagataH prabhavaH pralayastathaa He identifies himsels as Iswara. Yes you are right – for action prakriti consisting of bodies – gross and subtle – are required. And that exactly is what microcosmic states and macro cosmic states mean. Identification with the individual body,mind intellect – operation at jiiva level- identification with total body, total mind and total intellect is Iswara level. In the first case – in the identification there is delusion, underline delusion, involved since one forgets that one is the sat/chit ananda. In the second case – Iswara in identification has no delusion – the upaaddhiis become his power of maaya. Now come back at the jiiva level. All actions are done by prakRiti under the borrowed power of Iswara – maya adhyakshaNa prakRitiH suuyate sa charaa charam. Evan at jiiva level intellect appears to be bright by the reflected light of the sat/chit/ananda. So when you say prakRiti is jadam and cannot do the action – it is yes or no. Yes it cannot do by itself. But it does under the power of the Lord. This is borrowed power. – heart pumps – digesting system works– in fact all praNas funtion not by the individual effort of jiiva but due to Paramaatma – as stated in 15th chapter. Now let us examine when jiiva realizes I am not these upaadhiis but I am sat chit and ananda. What happens to upaadhiis – since upaadhiies is part of the jagat and is under the control of Iswara – they just do not drop dead! - Since jiiva is no more – it is the iswara that takes the control of those local prakRiti – Hence as part of jagat the upaadhiis are there and the plurality of the world is seen through those upaadhiis. Krama-s will go as dictated by the praradba – both vyashhTi and samashhTi - that is under the laws of Iswara. PrakRiti although jadam, works under the illuminating power of the Lord. That is what shakti means. Iswara essentially uses the readily available equipment for the benefit of the totality. Since we are still discussing in the vyavahaara state and not absolute Brahman state – All the laws of creation and – cause-effect – karma and the result should operate. Hence sanchita karma that exists cannot just stop existing since that which exists cannot cease to exist. The results will be used again for loka kalayaana only by Iswara. Local gross/subtle bodies do undergo the destined changes – Ramakrishna’s throat cancer, Ramana Maharshi’s hand problem are part of that destined changes – Similarly at samashhTi level there is universal benefit in the continuation of those particular Upaadhiis. They were eating-sleeping – seeing smiling like the rest of us yet they are not eating-sleeping-seeing or smiling like the rest of us. Hari OM! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Health - Feel better, live better http://health. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2002 Report Share Posted August 7, 2002 Namaste. Moderators, please note I have to reply to the earlier posting of Murthygaru line by line and that is why almost his entire post is reproduced in parts below. Murthygaru: On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, profvk-ji wrote: > > This semantics problem has to be solved the following way. If jIva > has identified itself with the body mind intellect then it has all > the doer-enjoyer status. If on the other hand, jiva, through the > mind to which it is attached at present, can throw away the > identification with the body mind and intellect and identify itself > with the jivAtmA which is its spiritual essence, then it is not the > doer or the enjoyer. The whole problem reduces to this > identification. Identification of what with what? There is an Inner > Self (jIvAtman = parmAtman). There is an outer self (body mind > intellect). In between there is the jIva. The Inner self is akartA > and abhoktA. The outer self is inert. But the outer self appears to > be doing everything. It acts in the presence of the Inner Self. The > action itself is a mAyic action by prakRti and all its > ramifications. So prakRti in the presence of the purusha, acts. > jIva is not prakRti......... > I agree fully with what is said above except the statement "...But the outerself appears to be doing everything..." which, I think, requires further expansion. Is that statement really correct? The outerself (as profvk-ji defines above) is inert and cannot do anything. It is only the jIvA associated with the outerself that appears to be doing the action. --\ ----------------- VK: Correct. When I said the outer self appears to be doing everything, I meant it from the point of view of two different speakers. One is the ordinary layman, unconnected with any advaita or philosophy who sometimes believes that the BMI is doing everything. The advaitic student knows that it is the jIva associated with outer self that appears to be doing the action. As an advaitin, this is what I meant. Thanks for the correction. --\ ----------------- Murthygaru: A. When the jIvA is associated with the outerself, he/she is in the realm of vyavahArika and is in ignorance. He/she sees action taking place, and he/she, the jIvA, considers itself to be doing the action. B. When the jIvA is associated with the innerself, he/she is akartA, abhoktA. Further, there is no action either. In case A, there appears to be action and there appears to be the doer. In case B, there is no action and there is no doer either. I do not see another stage or case where prakr^iti (apart from the Self) is *doing* the action while jIvA is witnessing the action. --\ -------------------- VK: Only this very last sentence of yours needs to be explained. Everything else seems to be OK. The case where **prakR^iti (apart from the Self) is ‘doing’ the action while jIva is witnessing the action** is nothing but your case A – except that I have to make corrections to the statement ** --- **. First prakR^iti is only ‘causing’ the action as you yourself say later. Secondly, the ‘witnessing’ is not being done by the jIva, because in this case, that is case A, the jIva is associated with the outer self; that is why the action is taking place. So the corrected statement could be: **prakR^iti is the cause of the action which takes place in the presence of the Self; So the Self is only a witness**. jIva is not now in the role of the witness; it is actually involving itself, because this is case A. --\ ---------------- Murthygaru: The point is quite clear if we use the advaitic terminology of the jIvA and avidyA, but gets quite muddled if we start using prakr^iti and puruSha. The separation of prakr^iti and puruSha (which is wrong but somehow meant or implied, which started this discussion) is the starting problem and is implied in the statement that prakr^iti *alone* is doing the action. Now let me put forward an example. example: i (GM) is conducting a yajna. In vyavahArika, an action has taken place. The doer is GM, the Consciousness associated with the outerself (the body, mind, intellect, ego). The body, mind, intellect, ego is inert and is not capable of taking action. It is only when associated with Consciousness, then only, the body, mind, intellect, ego can claim to take action. --\ ------------------ VK: Mark it. It is not as if Consciousness is doing the action of ‘enabling the action’. In the presence of Consciousness, action takes place. How? Through the Power (=prakR^iti) of consciousness. From the Absolute sense, even this does not happen. Because, there cannot be any action in the Absolute. In the vyavaharik sense, action takes place; because it is now prakR^iti that comes into play. And how does it comes into play? By the jIva’s association with the outer self. This association itself is a play of prakR^iti. If the jIva has not associated with the outer self, then, Murthygaru, you yourself have analysed it in your next paragraph. --\ ------------------- Murthygaru: Now, if jIvA is associated with the innerself, there is no GM, no action, no saMkalpa, no yajna. I see only these two stages. Where is the case of prakr^iti taking action, while puruSha stays aside and witnesses the action? So, the argument in vyavahArika: "I see the action of yajna, I see saMkalpa for the yajna, but I did not do the saMkalpa for the yajna; it is prakr^iti, my body, mind, intellect, ego which did the action while I witness. Obviously, that would not hold. That argument is not true in the absolute either. --\ --------------------- VK: Instead of words *did the action*, substitute *caused the action* in line with your own analysis of 13.29 down below. How prakR^iti *causes* action is the cosmic mystery. A weak word substitute for this is *prakR^iti does the action*. The Lord Himself does not hesitate to use this for purposes of our understanding. Cf.3.27 and 13.29 and 18.59 --\ --------------------- Murthygaru: Finally, a repeat from my previous post, which was not commented on: the conditions for performance of action. Firstly, the body is needed to perform action. The jIva is to exist with the body and the jIvA is to identify with the body for any action to be performed. Secondly, there is continuity of action and hence is attached to the memory. Memory is an attribute of the jIvA, so action, if any, has to be associated with the jIvA (the Atman mired in ignorance). --\ ------------------ VK: Memory is not an attribute of the jIva. It is an appendix to the conditioned jIva. – what you call Atman, mired in ignorance. --\ ---------------- Murthygaru: Now, coming to BG13.29: my understanding of 13.29 is as follows: Lord Krishna is saying that action is *caused* by the prakr^iti, the change of guNA-s; the origin of action is in prakr^iti. The Consciousness is untainted and unaffected by this change of guNA-s that are responsible for the action. I do not think 13.29 is saying that it is prakr^iti that is *doing* the action. --\ ------------------- VK. You are right. Prakriti is causing the action. Not ‘doing’ it in the laukik sense. praNAms to all advaitins, Yours, profvk ===== Prof. V. Krishnamurthy My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/ You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site. Health - Feel better, live better http://health. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 8, 2002 Report Share Posted August 8, 2002 namaste shri Sadananda garu, Thanks very much for your post explaining the concept further. I think our understanding is similar (for the first part) but with slightly different uses of terminology. Thanks again for taking time to explain. I have questions on the second part of the post and I expand on that below. On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, kuntimaddi sadananda wrote: > [...] > > Now let us examine when jiiva realizes I am not these upaadhiis but I > am sat chit and ananda. What happens to upaadhiis – since upaadhies > is part of the jagat and is under the control of Iswara – they just > do not drop dead! - Since jiiva is no more – it is the iswara that > takes the control of those local prakRiti – Hence as part of jaga > the upaadhiis are there and the plurality of the world is seen > through those upaadhiis. Krama-s will go as dictated by the praradba > – both vyashhTi and samashhTi - that is under the laws of Iswara. Whose prArabdha is being referred here? Here, I have a fundamental doubt. Isn't karma, by definition, individualistic to the jIvA? Then what is this samiShTi karma? Again, let me bring the example of shri ramaNa. VenkaTaraman has realized. The veil of ajnAnam that covered that jIvA is removed. As far as that entity is concerned (that entity is no longer there; but even when we the third party speak about it), the karma-balance is zero. The ego is extinguished, karma, karmaphala have all become meaningless. Then as it is prArabdha that dictates the jagat, the prArabdha (good fortune) is mine that I see that body of venkataraman giving teaching as ramaNa maharShi. Yes, it is Ishwara that dictates it as karmaphalaprada, but it is my karmaphala that I receive the teaching of ramaNa maharShi. It is *not* the unexpended karma of venkataraman that the body still stands after realization. That is the point I was trying to make in my series of responses. I would be very much obliged if you or other members correct me if my understanding is wrong. > [...] > > Hari OM! > > Sadananda > Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2002 Report Share Posted August 9, 2002 --- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote: > Whose prArabdha is being referred here? Here, I have a fundamental > doubt. Isn't karma, by definition, individualistic to the jIvA? > Then what is this samiShTi karma? Murthy gaaru there is unwritten rule that one should not be asking too intelligent questions. Anyway I will try to provide my understanding to the best I can. Any action on the part of the individual jiiva has two compoents - that part which affects the individual directly and that part which affects the totality directly or indirectly. The relative proportion of these two depends on the action itself - its intesity - time -place etc. Take for example a simple prayer. Sarve bhavantu sukhinaH ... etc. When an individual prays for the happiness of all - In that very prayer - he is requesting a result that affets the totality- At individual level in that very prayer, he is uplifting himself and in the process his vision is becoming more and more universal. His self-centered vasana-s gets neutralized. Since individual is part of the totality, every action of the individual has some influence on the totality. The very prayer seeks a result on the totality and not on the particular indivudual. It will have some impact on the totality. The impact will be more intense if the sankalpa of the indivudual who is praying is very intense. I donot know if you are familiar with the Choas theory. Non-linearity is the very foundation of the Universe. According to non-linear dynamics, it is said that the fluttering of a buttlefly in China will have an effect on the weather in Newyork- however small that may be. When the individual jiiva is disolved - that can happen only when the individual jiiva realized that I am not an individual or never an indivudual but I am the totality - aham brahma asmi - Brahma vit brahma eva bhavati is the shruti - what remains in that understanding are two factors - the totality which is always there and the individual upaadhis that are still there - is it not? The actions and the results of the part performed by those upaadhies in the presence of chaitanya are still there to fructify. These manifest both at vyashhTi level - those part that are locus on vyashhTi and also at samashhTi level those parts that are locused on the totality. The laws of action and results that are valid as part of the creation - still creation is still there from the totality - still go on. Only that happened is that one who has identified with the local upaddhis will still be using the local upaadhies but not as individual but as total - that is the status of jiivan mukta. - Is not everything self-consistent? Now you can even the see how avataara-s occur. When many indivuduals pray to the Lord, it is the samashhTi vasana-s that builds up and makes the Lord to come down (avatarati) since he does not have any specific indidualistic vasana-s to be cause for a particular body. It is the samashhTi vasana-s only that bring the Lord down. Hence he declares - pavitraaNaaya saadhuunaam vinaashhaaya.ca... > > Again, let me bring the example of shri ramaNa. > VenkaTaraman has realized. The veil of ajnAnam that covered that > jIvA is removed. As far as that entity is concerned (that entity > is no longer there; but even when we the third party speak about > it), > the karma-balance is zero. The ego is extinguished, karma, > karmaphala > have all become meaningless. Then as it is prArabdha that dictates > the > jagat, the prArabdha (good fortune) is mine that I see that body of > venkataraman giving teaching as ramaNa maharShi. Yes, it is Ishwara > > that dictates it as karmaphalaprada, but it is my karmaphala that > I receive the teaching of ramaNa maharShi. It is *not* the > unexpended > karma of venkataraman that the body still stands after realization. Murthy gaaru - it is both - If you remember - Bhagavaan Ramana had some hand problem and doctors did sevaral operations on the hand to remove cancer I suppose. Now whose vasana-s was that he had to undergo that pain and operations etc. So the body problems will go on based on its prarabda- How can body which is inert has any vasana-s - was not that your question. Now and even before also - the body is part of the totality and the consciousness that enlivening Bhagavaan Ramana who has now as though become the total consciousness (I am describing as if it is process but it is only a recognition not that some finite becomes infinite), the totality is now experiencing in the local scale as though some discomforts hapenning and the rest of the totality also experiencing or witnessing in terms of disciples of Bhagavan the mutations of that local upaadhiis. It was the samashhTi vasana-s - yours and other bhaaktaas that kept the body going for the benefit of the totality -fulfilment of samashhTi vasana-s. Remember some gunda-s tried to steal things in the ashram and even bet Bhagavaan and with his characteristic smile he said - 'I also received some puja from the bandits'. > That is the point I was trying to make in my series of responses. > I would be very much obliged if you or other members correct me if > my understanding is wrong. > I hope it is clear now. Hari OM! Sadananda > > [...] > > > > Hari OM! > > > > Sadananda > > > > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy > ------ > > > > > > > > ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com 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.