Guest guest Posted December 5, 2003 Report Share Posted December 5, 2003 Thanks Vaidya for reminding me. Advaita Manjari-2 was interjected in response to some confusing and misinterpreting posts about the jiivan mukta state by our dvaitin friends. It was a clarification based on my earlier post in adviatin. May be for that reason I did not include the the two adviatin lists. Here we go again for those who are interested in my understanding. It may be a re-run for advatin list. ----------- --- "Sundaram, Vaidya (MED)" <Vaidya.Sundaram wrote: > Sada-ji. > I saw post 1 on this series and now post 3 - if there was a post two, > I > have not seen it on Advaita-L. Just FYI. > Thanks, > Vaidya. --------------- Clarification of Advaitic statement ––we have mails posted on the vAdAvali list that aham brahma asmi meaning ‘I am Brahman’ which implies that ‘I am I’ and claiming as that is what Advaita says – It is obviously a ridiculous interpretation of Advaita. I am not trying to ‘wake-up’ an apparently sleeping person but trying to clear out, if I can, some of the confusion that is being propagated as a result of wrong understanding of Advaita. Neither I nor Brahman can be objectified to say I am ‘something’. As the biblical statement echoes – it is a state of realization and all one can say if at all is – I am that I am – it is one without a second and it is one in spite of the second. It is identity not an equation for normal intellectual analysis since that very intellectually analysis objectifies ‘I am’. It is not understanding ‘as a thought’ it is understanding ‘as a fact’. Hence it is called statement of self-realization. It is dropping the notions of what think I am in the recognition of ‘Who That I am really is’ – Hence I am posting a note that I wrote some time back for advaitin list based on my understanding, clarifying what jiivan mukta really implies. I am including it here as part of my Advaita Manjari. One can ignore any references to the Advaitin posts. -------------------- Advatia Manjari-2 Who is jiivanmukta or what is the state of Jiivanmukta? – One who has liberated while living? 1. When we are discussing about the state that is beyond our intellectual comprehension (beyond the mind and intellect), and at the same time if we do not want to rest our understanding completely on the statements of a particular person or persons, we have to resort to 'a pramaana' or a means of knowledge that is not illogical and at the same time that which everybody can agree upon including those individuals on whom we have our personal trust and whom we think are realized. Hence Shaastra becomes a more valid pramaana or valid means of knowledge of such states. 2. Who is Jiivan Mukta and what is the state of realization? - Recognizing that the root cause for bondage is the 'ignorance' - either ignorance of 'one-self' or 'ignorance of the nature of the Lord' (vishishhtadvaitic point) depending on how one interprets it, then realization is removal of that ignorance or clear understanding of 'who one-self' is or 'what is the nature of the reality'. From Advaita point - 'I do not know my self as my-self and take my-self as other than myself. I am being 'the subject' the knower I - takes myself the object that I am aware of as myself - Here ignorance plays as two aspects - one is taking object is different from subject (for example - this is my body, my mind, my intellect and this is my world and I can see this world and the world is different from me and this world is a creation and creator is different from me since I did not create this world, etc.) The second is taking the object as the subject - that is this is my body translates next as I am the body, mind and/or intellect - when I take object as subject and hence limitations of the objects become my limitations - I suffer the consequence of these limitations and all the life struggles in terms of 'pravRitti' and 'nivRitti' - trying gain what I like and get rid of what I dislike - become a means to solve the self-imposed problem based on my misunderstanding about myself. 3. Self-realization or state of jivanmukta is then realization of one self as the 'true self'. But what is that true self ? - First that self is the subject and not an object of any means of knowledge -All means of knowledge presupposes the existence of the subject 'I'. Hence all means of knowledge are valid because of the subject hence the self is beyond any means of knowledge - aprameyam - and it is a self-evident entity - or self- conscious entity - that is it is chit - and has to be existent entity since we cannot talk of nonexistent self - there it is 'sat' and since free any limitations since it is pure bliss and hence it is unlimited or infinite or anantam - therefore one without a second (since limitations come from the presence of the second). Hence knowledge of the self is the knowledge that "aham Brahmaasmi" - 'I am the Brahman' - or the 'Infinite Consciousness' -a notion of finite consciousness is illogical since that gives rise to a logical question of what is there beyond that finite consciousness? - if there is something then who is conscious of that - If one is conscious of that then that 'beyond thing' is not really beyond since it is within the consciousness - hence consciousness has to be infinite and there is nothing beyond consciousness. Neither from existence point it is divisible since even the dividers have to exist. 4. A Jivanmukta is one who is a mukta or liberated while body is alive. One cannot get any liberation if one is finite since he is bound eternally by that very finiteness, if that finiteness is his intrinsic nature. If he is infinte but thinks he is finite, then liberation is possible when he drops his notion of himself as finite realizes his true or intrinsic nature. A finite also cannot become infinite that is also illogical. Hence liberation itself need to be understood correctly. A jiivan mukta is one who is liberated while living and liberation is liberation from all misunderstandings that he is an not an object and is the very subject in all objectifications - He has understood that his true nature is 'aham Brahmaasmi' or 'ayam aatma Brahma' - This is realization as JK puts 'understanding as understanding as a fact' 'not as a thought'. Hence'self-realization' - realization of 'who one-self is' - and that oneself is the - existent - conscious and infinite self that one is. Then only brahavit brahma eva bhavati has a direct relavance. Krishna declares about this in B.G. Ch 6. sarvabhuutastam aatmaanam sarvabhuutaanica aatmani| iikshate yogayuktaatmaa sarvatra samadarshaNaH|| 'my-self is in all beings and also all being are in myself' - one who sees or understands such a yogi has everywhere (at all times and places) has equanimity or sees the same everywhere – whether it is dog or brahmana – just as whether it is ring or bangle or bracelet – one sees oneness of the gold in and through the names and forms. Interestingly Krishna reiterates the same message in the very next sloka even from a Bhakta point - yo mam pasyati sarvatra sarvanca mayi pasyati| tasyaaham na praNasyaami sa ca me na praNasyati|| he who sees Me everywhere and everything in Me - he can never be away from Me nor I can be away from him - Hence there is no more misunderstanding of oneself - Please note that in the very understanding of one-self or his-self -there is also a simultaneous recognition that there is no other 'self' other than 'one-self' - since the self I am is unlimited and infinite. This understanding also includes ' not only I am in all of them but all are in me - that is they are not different from me. Hence the world is in my consciousness - I am not separate from the world and I am in the world and the world is in me - Just as clay saying I am in all pots and all pots are in me. Yet the 'naama and ruupa' the superficial entities which are just projects as well as the consequences of those projections - that is 'individual notions' - I am a mud pot or I am a honey pot etc., belong not to me only to the superficial names and forms. This is stated by Krishna in Ch. 9 mayaatata midam sarvam jagadavyakta muurthinaa| mastaani sarva bhuutani na ca aham tesvavastitaH|| I pervade this universe in an unmannifested form and all manifestations are in me but I am not accountable or responsible for the sufferings of these beings due to their misunderstandings. Those belong to them and not to me. Hence one is Jivanmukta when one has not just intellectual but clear 'understanding' of one is and there is no more misunderstanding taking 'I am ' 'this or that'. That one 'individual' has realized is 'no more' - he is dissolved. His true nature that is 'I am Brahman'. Hence the correct understanding the 'ego' what was identifying that I am this body etc. is not more - that ego is replaced by a correct understanding "I am the totality' or 'aham brahma asmi'. Since the original 'ego' (based on ones misunderstanding that one is an object) is completely dissolved - Since he is no more, there is no more a question of talking about 'him' as an individual. The correct question is how does that 'Brahman' operates that 'body or uses that body' - Krishna gives an elaborate answer in the 'stitapraJNa LakshNa' which we have discussed elaborately when Madhava presented that part of B.G. Since it is as though That one who was living there in that body is dead and gone is replaced by the one who has clear understanding that He is the Brahman. In reality it is the 'Brahman' the infinite consciousness uses the readily available equipment (body, mind and intellect - since the tenant has left) for the benefit of the universe - (either to fulfill the vaasanas of the samashhTi who need a living teacher for their realization - sitting a remote cave meditating on the universality of the self - for the good of all). Unlike someone pointed out - he does not really eat - sleep or do things - since there is no more 'he'. - From the total self point - ' akartaaham abhoktaaham ahamevaaham avyayaH" - I am neither doer nor the enjoyer - I am all by myself and unlimited and inexhaustible -. Then who eats and sleeps - Krishna again answered that – prakrityevaca karmaani kriyamaanaani sarvashaH| All actions are done by prakRiti itself - of course under my president ship - But that prakRiti is only my lower nature -not different from me. This is further explained beautifully in the two slokas – naiva kinchit karomiiti yukto manyeta tatvavit| pasyan shRinvan spRushan jighran ashnan svapan svasan|| pralapan visRijan gRihNan unmishhan nimishhan api| indriyaaniidriyaartheshu vartanta iti dhaarayan|| The one who knows the truth knows “I am not the doer of anything’ – and Krishna gives all ‘–ns’ or ‘–ings’ to illustrate the point starting from seeing, touching etc. Since I am the doer or kartRitva bhaava is only a notion due to the error of identification that I am this body – a confusion of subject-object relation due to adhyaasa. >From the point of the realized souls It is suffice to understand at this stage to take that Lord himself manifests in the body of the Jivanmukta and operates for the benefit of all mankind. Hence we pray – 'Gururbrahma gururvishnuH gururdevo maheswaraH' - essentially the guru is the manifestation of the Lord himself - since He is nothing but Brahman and he has the true understanding that 'I am Brahman'. >From these discussions we understand that there is no more 'ego' as we understand operating in the Jivanmukta and Jivanmukta is the one who has clear understanding of himself. 5. The definition of clear understanding is that is there is no more misunderstanding. If after one has clear understanding if one gets misunderstanding then that the understanding is not clear! yad gatvaa na nivartante taddhaama paramam mama| Once one has reached my state - or clear understanding of oneself or understanding of Brahman (brahma vit bramhaiva bhavati - the one who knows Brahman becomes Brahman) there is no more return - no more misunderstanding again. Hence one understands as a fact there is no more notions left for misunderstanding. 6. As long as there are equipment's, through the equipments (and depending on the limitations of the equipments), jivanmukta can 'see' and 'act' in the world (with clear understanding that he is not really the seer but prakRiti itself acts in his presence). Hence plurality can still be there but he does not have a notion or misunderstanding that the plurality is a reality or separate from him! Hence we see that he sees, acts etc. like a normal beings but he knows truely that he is not the seer or actor but appropriate seeing and acting is going through those equipments in His presence). He may use the words within vyavahaara not to confuse the rest - I am hungry or I am sleepy etc. but that is for vyavahaara or convenience for transaction but true understanding is different - just like we all know the Sun does not raise or set yet we can operate even with that understanding enjoy saying that - look at beautiful sun set. - This is the difference between aatma rati and atma kreeda - Jivanmukta can revel oneself, in oneself by oneself - atmanyeva atmanaa tushTaH - Yet for a can enjoy his own glory - aisvaryam - the creation projected as plurality. To answer the question if he decides to come back - he, as ego-centric individual, is no more as ego but he is now with an understanding as 'I am Brahman', hence what is so-called 'coming back' is with clear understanding that I am Brahman - when he comes back - it is Brahman that is operating through the equipments - not the old ego that was there before realization. Since He is Brahman one without a second - what is there to be afraid off. He does not act - but divine actions come forth from those equipments since He is full of divinity. All actions are for the benefit of the entire world since world is Him and He is the world. He transacts with the world just like a scientist knowing fully well all things are essentially made up of fundamental particles – yet garbage treated differently form food. Just a space is indivisible and even the dividers are in space, yet for transactional purposes bath room is different from kitchen. Lastly about the gradual versus sudden - Swami Chinmayanandaji used to tell us a story of Mr. Jones and the cat. This is also helps to understand the adhyaasa part and so-called ‘I am I’ part!- Mr. Jones somehow got the feeling or understanding that 'he is a rat and not a man' – Do not ask me when he got this idea and is there a scriptural pramaaNa for that – it is just like a conscious entity thinks that I am this unconscious body. If you have that notion, you can tell me how you got that kind of ridiculous misunderstanding. If you do not have that misunderstanding my saashhTanaga praNaams to you. You have realized who you and should not have misunderstanding of what you are not. If you say I know very well you are not inert shariira – sthuula, suukma and kaaraNas shariira-s- and still act as though you are one, then Mr. Jones story is very relevant. Coming back to our friend Mr. Jones, since he has the notion that he is a rat, he was always trying to avoid any cat nearby and runs away form one since he is afraid for his safety. (udaramanataram kurute athatasya bhayam bhavati – a spec of dvaita can cause fear- says scriptures). His wife learned about his problem and took him to a psychologist - after many sittings and repeating reinforcement - 'I am man and I am not a rat' - he 'understood' that he is a man and not a rat. After paying the doctor fees he goes back home but after a hour he came back running to the doctor gasping for his breath - when confronted by the doctor - Mr. Jones said - ' I know very well I am man and I am not a rat'. Doctor asked then, what is the problem? Why did you come back running?’ Mr. Jones replied -"I am afraid because, I know that I am a man and not a rat, but that cat on the street may not know that I am man and not a rat" – ‘aham brahmaasmi’ is not I am I or I am this etc it is realization of ones own intrinsic nature that I am sat-chit-aananda swaruupa. They are not attributes of I. That is my ‘swaruupa’. Understanding or realization we are talking about is the understanding as a fact - not any more as a thought - That understanding is complete and once and for all - That occurs only once and that is the end of all misunderstandings. When the mind is clear of all misunderstanding then the self is self-revealed. Till then, even as of now for everyone, one has glimpses or ‘experience’ of the self, but the misunderstanding still prevails. The happiness that one gains during the sensuous enjoyments is also 'glimpses of the self' - 'vishyaanade paramaanadaH' - says Vidyaranya in 'Pancadasi'. Clear understanding of the nature of reality is what Bhagavan Ramana calls in 'sat darshan' as 'dRiDaiva nishTa' - firm understanding of the self. There are no gradations in the self-realization - but there is gradation is the purification of the mind - as the mind is getting purified - clearer the screen - the more light of self -illumination beaming through. I am that self is total, complete and firm and occurs only when the 'ego' falls down since it is false. 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. Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 Greetings Kuntimaddi Sadananda, I sincerely think that you know a lot more about Advaita and the Vedas then I do. Therefore, please do not be offended if in any of my posts I misinterpreted the Advaitin teaching, or if I misinterpreted the Advaitin teaching in my experience itself. I remember Nisargadatta Maharaj's words: I am nothing in particular, yet I am. These words I read in one of his books. If any message posted by me on this forum seemed to suggest that the persona, the actor, is the Atman, then I was misinterpreted because the Atman in my understanding cannot be equal to the persona. It is the final ultimate essence of the persona, or Spirit, as is called in Latin "Spiritus" and later derived in western languages to "Esprit" or "Spirit", meaning exactly "Essence" in Latin. I did not want to be misinterpreted, and I did not write that the personality is Brahman. If in any passage I misinterpreted Advaita, according to your view, than I am sincerely sorry. I am no brawler, but I have my opinions. I have my stand on the different Vada-s and Eka-Jiva Vada is one of the Vada-s that interest me. I think Advaita may be seen from various standpoints, such as Visishtadvaita, etc. Nevertheless, I apologize if I in any way offended you. Best Regards, Fred - "kuntimaddi sadananda" <kuntimaddisada "Sundaram, Vaidya (MED)" <Vaidya.Sundaram Cc: <advaitin>; <advaita-l Friday, December 05, 2003 12:21 PM Adviata Manjari- 2 > Thanks Vaidya for reminding me. Advaita Manjari-2 was interjected in > response to some confusing and misinterpreting posts about the jiivan > mukta state by our dvaitin friends. It was a clarification based on my > earlier post in adviatin. May be for that reason I did not include the > the two adviatin lists. Here we go again for those who are interested in > my understanding. It may be a re-run for advatin list. > ----------- > > --- "Sundaram, Vaidya (MED)" <Vaidya.Sundaram wrote: > > Sada-ji. > > I saw post 1 on this series and now post 3 - if there was a post two, > > I > > have not seen it on Advaita-L. Just FYI. > > Thanks, > > Vaidya. > --------------- > > Clarification of Advaitic statement --we have mails posted on the > vAdAvali list that aham brahma asmi meaning 'I am Brahman' which > implies that 'I am I' and claiming as that is what Advaita says - It is > obviously a ridiculous interpretation of Advaita. I am not trying to > 'wake-up' an apparently sleeping person but trying to clear out, if I > can, some of the confusion that is being propagated as a result of wrong > understanding of Advaita. > > Neither I nor Brahman can be objectified to say I am 'something'. As > the biblical statement echoes - it is a state of realization and all one > can say if at all is - I am that I am - it is one without a second and > it is one in spite of the second. It is identity not an equation for > normal intellectual analysis since that very intellectually analysis > objectifies 'I am'. It is not understanding 'as a thought' it is > understanding 'as a fact'. Hence it is called statement of > self-realization. It is dropping the notions of what think I am in the > recognition of 'Who That I am really is' - Hence I am posting a note > that I wrote some time back for advaitin list based on my understanding, > clarifying what jiivan mukta really implies. I am including it here as > part of my Advaita Manjari. One can ignore any references to the > Advaitin posts. > -------------------- > > Advatia Manjari-2 > > Who is jiivanmukta or what is the state of Jiivanmukta? > - One who has liberated while living? > > 1. When we are discussing about the state that is beyond our > intellectual comprehension (beyond the mind and intellect), and at the > same time if we do not want to rest our understanding completely on the > statements of a particular person or persons, we have to resort to 'a > pramaana' or a means of knowledge that is not illogical and at the same > time that which everybody can agree upon including those individuals on > whom we have our personal trust and whom we think are realized. Hence > Shaastra becomes a more valid pramaana or valid means of knowledge of > such states. > > 2. Who is Jiivan Mukta and what is the state of realization? - > Recognizing that the root cause for bondage is the 'ignorance' - either > ignorance of 'one-self' or 'ignorance of the nature of the Lord' > (vishishhtadvaitic point) depending on how one interprets it, then > realization is removal of that ignorance or clear understanding of 'who > one-self' is or 'what is the nature of the reality'. From Advaita point > - 'I do not know my self as my-self and take my-self as other than > myself. I am being 'the subject' the knower I - takes myself the object > that I am aware of as myself - Here ignorance plays as two aspects - one > is taking object is different from subject (for example - this is my > body, my mind, my intellect and this is my world and I can see this > world and the world is different from me and this world is a creation > and creator is different from me since I did not create this world, > etc.) The second is taking the object as the subject - that is this is > my body translates next as I am the body, mind and/or intellect - when > I take object as subject and hence limitations of the objects become my > limitations - I suffer the consequence of these limitations and all the > life struggles in terms of 'pravRitti' and 'nivRitti' - trying gain what > I like and get rid of what I dislike - become a means to solve the > self-imposed problem based on my misunderstanding about myself. > > 3. Self-realization or state of jivanmukta is then realization of one > self as the 'true self'. But what is that true self ? - First that > self is the subject and not an object of any means of knowledge -All > means of knowledge presupposes the existence of the subject 'I'. Hence > all means of knowledge are valid because of the subject hence the self > is beyond any means of knowledge - aprameyam - and it is a self-evident > entity - or self- conscious entity - that is it is chit - and has to be > existent entity since we cannot talk of nonexistent self - there it is > 'sat' and since free any limitations since it is pure bliss and hence it > is unlimited or infinite or anantam - therefore one without a second > (since limitations come from the presence of the second). Hence > knowledge of the self is the knowledge that "aham Brahmaasmi" - 'I am > the Brahman' - or the 'Infinite Consciousness' -a notion of finite > consciousness is illogical since that gives rise to a logical question > of what is there beyond that finite consciousness? - if there is > something then who is conscious of that - If one is conscious of that > then that 'beyond thing' is not really beyond since it is within the > consciousness - hence consciousness has to be infinite and there is > nothing beyond consciousness. Neither from existence point it is > divisible since even the dividers have to exist. > > 4. A Jivanmukta is one who is a mukta or liberated while body is alive. > One cannot get any liberation if one is finite since he is bound > eternally by that very finiteness, if that finiteness is his intrinsic > nature. If he is infinte but thinks he is finite, then liberation is > possible when he drops his notion of himself as finite realizes his true > or intrinsic nature. A finite also cannot become infinite that is also > illogical. Hence liberation itself need to be understood correctly. A > jiivan mukta is one who is liberated while living and liberation is > liberation from all misunderstandings that he is an not an object and is > the very subject in all objectifications - He has understood that his > true nature is 'aham Brahmaasmi' or 'ayam aatma Brahma' - This is > realization as JK puts 'understanding as understanding as a fact' 'not > as a thought'. Hence'self-realization' - realization of 'who one-self > is' - and that oneself is the - existent - conscious and infinite self > that one is. Then only brahavit brahma eva bhavati has a direct > relavance. > > Krishna declares about this in B.G. Ch 6. > > sarvabhuutastam aatmaanam sarvabhuutaanica aatmani| > iikshate yogayuktaatmaa sarvatra samadarshaNaH|| > > 'my-self is in all beings and also all being are in myself' - one who > sees or understands such a yogi has everywhere (at all times and > places) has equanimity or sees the same everywhere - whether it is dog > or brahmana - just as whether it is ring or bangle or bracelet - one > sees oneness of the gold in and through the names and forms. > > Interestingly Krishna reiterates the same message in the very next sloka > even from a Bhakta point - > yo mam pasyati sarvatra sarvanca mayi pasyati| > tasyaaham na praNasyaami sa ca me na praNasyati|| > he who sees Me everywhere and everything in Me - he can never be away > from Me nor I can be away from him - > > Hence there is no more misunderstanding of oneself - Please note that in > the very understanding of one-self or his-self -there is also a > simultaneous recognition that there is no other 'self' other than > 'one-self' - since the self I am is unlimited and infinite. This > understanding also includes ' not only I am in all of them but all are > in me - that is they are not different from me. Hence the world is in > my consciousness - I am not separate from the world and I am in the > world and the world is in me - Just as clay saying I am in all pots and > all pots are in me. Yet the 'naama and ruupa' the superficial entities > which are just projects as well as the consequences of those projections > - that is 'individual notions' - I am a mud pot or I am a honey pot > etc., belong not to me only to the superficial names and forms. > > This is stated by Krishna in Ch. 9 > > mayaatata midam sarvam jagadavyakta muurthinaa| > mastaani sarva bhuutani na ca aham tesvavastitaH|| > > I pervade this universe in an unmannifested form and all manifestations > are in me but I am not accountable or responsible for the sufferings of > these beings due to their misunderstandings. Those belong to them and > not to me. > > Hence one is Jivanmukta when one has not just intellectual but clear > 'understanding' of one is and there is no more misunderstanding taking > 'I am ' 'this or that'. That one 'individual' has realized is 'no more' > - he is dissolved. His true nature that is 'I am Brahman'. Hence the > correct understanding the 'ego' what was identifying that I am this body > etc. is not more - that ego is replaced by a correct understanding "I am > the totality' or 'aham brahma asmi'. > > Since the original 'ego' (based on ones misunderstanding that one is an > object) is completely dissolved - Since he is no more, there is no more > a question of talking about 'him' as an individual. The correct > question is how does that 'Brahman' operates that 'body or uses that > body' - Krishna gives an elaborate answer in the 'stitapraJNa LakshNa' > which we have discussed elaborately when Madhava presented that part of > B.G. > > Since it is as though That one who was living there in that body is dead > and gone is replaced by the one who has clear understanding that He is > the Brahman. In reality it is the 'Brahman' the infinite consciousness > uses the readily available equipment (body, mind and intellect - since > the tenant has left) for the benefit of the universe - (either to > fulfill the vaasanas of the samashhTi who need a living teacher for > their realization - sitting a remote cave meditating on the universality > of the self - for the good of all). Unlike someone pointed out - he > does not really eat - sleep or do things - since there is no more 'he'. > - From the total self point - ' akartaaham abhoktaaham ahamevaaham > avyayaH" - I am neither doer nor the enjoyer - I am all by myself and > unlimited and inexhaustible -. Then who eats and sleeps - Krishna again > answered that - > > prakrityevaca karmaani kriyamaanaani sarvashaH| > > All actions are done by prakRiti itself - of course under my president > ship - But that prakRiti is only my lower nature -not different from me. > This is further explained beautifully in the two slokas - > > naiva kinchit karomiiti yukto manyeta tatvavit| > pasyan shRinvan spRushan jighran ashnan svapan svasan|| > > pralapan visRijan gRihNan unmishhan nimishhan api| > indriyaaniidriyaartheshu vartanta iti dhaarayan|| > > The one who knows the truth knows "I am not the doer of anything' - and > Krishna gives all '-ns' or '-ings' to illustrate the point starting > from seeing, touching etc. Since I am the doer or kartRitva bhaava is > only a notion due to the error of identification that I am this body - a > confusion of subject-object relation due to adhyaasa. > > From the point of the realized souls It is suffice to understand at this > stage to take that Lord himself manifests in the body of the Jivanmukta > and operates for the benefit of all mankind. Hence we pray - > > 'Gururbrahma gururvishnuH gururdevo maheswaraH' - > > essentially the guru is the manifestation of the Lord himself - since He > is nothing but Brahman and he has the true understanding that 'I am > Brahman'. > > From these discussions we understand that there is no more 'ego' as we > understand operating in the Jivanmukta and Jivanmukta is the one who has > clear understanding of himself. > > 5. The definition of clear understanding is that is there is no more > misunderstanding. If after one has clear understanding if one gets > misunderstanding then that the understanding is not clear! > > yad gatvaa na nivartante taddhaama paramam mama| > > Once one has reached my state - or clear understanding of oneself or > understanding of Brahman (brahma vit bramhaiva bhavati - the one who > knows Brahman becomes Brahman) there is no more return - no more > misunderstanding again. Hence one understands as a fact there is no more > notions left for misunderstanding. > > 6. As long as there are equipment's, through the equipments (and > depending on the limitations of the equipments), jivanmukta can 'see' > and 'act' in the world (with clear understanding that he is not really > the seer but prakRiti itself acts in his presence). Hence plurality can > still be there but he does not have a notion or misunderstanding that > the plurality is a reality or separate from him! Hence we see that he > sees, acts etc. like a normal beings but he knows truely that he is not > the seer or actor but appropriate seeing and acting is going through > those equipments in His presence). He may use the words within > vyavahaara not to confuse the rest - I am hungry or I am sleepy etc. but > that is for vyavahaara or convenience for transaction but true > understanding is different - just like we all know the Sun does not > raise or set yet we can operate even with that understanding enjoy > saying that - look at beautiful sun set. - This is the difference > between aatma rati and atma kreeda - Jivanmukta can revel oneself, in > oneself by oneself - atmanyeva atmanaa tushTaH - Yet for a can enjoy his > own glory - aisvaryam - the creation projected as plurality. > > To answer the question if he decides to come back - he, as ego-centric > individual, is no more as ego but he is now with an understanding as 'I > am Brahman', hence what is so-called 'coming back' is with clear > understanding that I am Brahman - when he comes back - it is Brahman > that is operating through the equipments - not the old ego that was > there before realization. Since He is Brahman one without a second - > what is there to be afraid off. He does not act - but divine actions > come forth from those equipments since He is full of divinity. All > actions are for the benefit of the entire world since world is Him and > He is the world. He transacts with the world just like a scientist > knowing fully well all things are essentially made up of fundamental > particles - yet garbage treated differently form food. Just a space is > indivisible and even the dividers are in space, yet for transactional > purposes bath room is different from kitchen. > > Lastly about the gradual versus sudden - Swami Chinmayanandaji used to > tell us a story of Mr. Jones and the cat. This is also helps to > understand the adhyaasa part and so-called 'I am I' part!- Mr. Jones > somehow got the feeling or understanding that 'he is a rat and not a > man' - Do not ask me when he got this idea and is there a scriptural > pramaaNa for that - it is just like a conscious entity thinks that I am > this unconscious body. If you have that notion, you can tell me how you > got that kind of ridiculous misunderstanding. If you do not have that > misunderstanding my saashhTanaga praNaams to you. You have realized who > you and should not have misunderstanding of what you are not. If you say > I know very well you are not inert shariira - sthuula, suukma and > kaaraNas shariira-s- and still act as though you are one, then Mr. Jones > story is very relevant. > > Coming back to our friend Mr. Jones, since he has the notion that he is > a rat, he was always trying to avoid any cat nearby and runs away form > one since he is afraid for his safety. (udaramanataram kurute athatasya > bhayam bhavati - a spec of dvaita can cause fear- says scriptures). His > wife learned about his problem and took him to a psychologist - after > many sittings and repeating reinforcement - 'I am man and I am not a > rat' - he 'understood' that he is a man and not a rat. After paying the > doctor fees he goes back home but after a hour he came back running to > the doctor gasping for his breath - when confronted by the doctor - Mr. > Jones said - ' I know very well I am man and I am not a rat'. Doctor > asked then, what is the problem? Why did you come back running?' Mr. > Jones replied -"I am afraid because, I know that I am a man and not a > rat, but that cat on the street may not know that I am man and not a > rat" - > > 'aham brahmaasmi' is not I am I or I am this etc it is realization of > ones own intrinsic nature that I am sat-chit-aananda swaruupa. They are > not attributes of I. That is my 'swaruupa'. > > Understanding or realization we are talking about is the understanding > as a fact - not any more as a thought - That understanding is complete > and once and for all - That occurs only once and that is the end of all > misunderstandings. When the mind is clear of all misunderstanding then > the self is self-revealed. Till then, even as of now for everyone, > one has glimpses or 'experience' of the self, but the misunderstanding > still prevails. The happiness that one gains during the sensuous > enjoyments is also 'glimpses of the self' - 'vishyaanade paramaanadaH' - > says Vidyaranya in 'Pancadasi'. Clear understanding of the nature of > reality is what Bhagavan Ramana calls in 'sat darshan' as 'dRiDaiva > nishTa' - firm understanding of the self. There are no gradations in > the self-realization - but there is gradation is the purification of the > mind - as the mind is getting purified - clearer the screen - the more > light of self -illumination beaming through. I am that self is total, > complete and firm and occurs only when the 'ego' falls down since it is > false. > > 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. > > > > Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now > http://companion./ > > > 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 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 Frederico There is no need for you to be sorry about. In my article, I was referring to dvaitin friends in the vaadavali list. What I wrote is only clarification of adviatic understanding of what jiivan mukta state means, based on my understanding. Now the Only thing I request you is to continue your input to the list. But when you referring to other mails (such as mine for example) do not include whole post. Only include that part that you are referring to - Shree Ram Chandran as requested everyone in the list to follow these rules so that our mails boxes do not get overfilled with previously posted posts. God Bless you. Hari OM! Sadananda --- "Frederico S. Gonzales" <fsg wrote: > Greetings Kuntimaddi Sadananda, > > I sincerely think that you know a lot more about Advaita > and the > Vedas then I do. > Therefore, please do not be offended if in any of my posts > I > misinterpreted the Advaitin teaching, or if I misinterpreted the > Advaitin > teaching in my experience itself. I remember Nisargadatta Maharaj's > words: I > am nothing in particular, yet I am. These words I read in one of his > books. > If any message posted by me on this forum seemed to suggest > that > the persona, the actor, is the Atman, then I was misinterpreted > because the > Atman in my understanding cannot be equal to the persona. It is the > final > ultimate essence of the persona, or Spirit, as is called in Latin > "Spiritus" > and later derived in western languages to "Esprit" or "Spirit", > meaning > exactly "Essence" in Latin. > I did not want to be misinterpreted, and I did not write > that the > personality is Brahman. > If in any passage I misinterpreted Advaita, according to > your > view, than I am sincerely sorry. > I am no brawler, but I have my opinions. I have my stand on > the > different Vada-s and Eka-Jiva Vada is one of the Vada-s that interest > me. I > think Advaita may be seen from various standpoints, such as > Visishtadvaita, > etc. Nevertheless, I apologize if I in any way offended you. > Best Regards, > Fred > - > "kuntimaddi sadananda" <kuntimaddisada > "Sundaram, Vaidya (MED)" <Vaidya.Sundaram > Cc: <advaitin>; <advaita-l > Friday, December 05, 2003 12:21 PM > Adviata Manjari- 2 > > > > Thanks Vaidya for reminding me. Advaita Manjari-2 was interjected in > > response to some confusing and misinterpreting posts about the > jiivan > > mukta state by our dvaitin friends. It was a clarification based on > my > > earlier post in adviatin. May be for that reason I did not include > the > > the two adviatin lists. Here we go again for those who are > interested in > > my understanding. It may be a re-run for advatin list. > > ----------- > > > > --- "Sundaram, Vaidya (MED)" <Vaidya.Sundaram wrote: > > > Sada-ji. > > > I saw post 1 on this series and now post 3 - if there was a post > two, > > > I > > > have not seen it on Advaita-L. Just FYI. > > > Thanks, > > > Vaidya. > > --------------- > > > > Clarification of Advaitic statement --we have mails posted on the > > vAdAvali list that aham brahma asmi meaning 'I am Brahman' which > > implies that 'I am I' and claiming as that is what Advaita says - It > is > > obviously a ridiculous interpretation of Advaita. I am not trying to > > 'wake-up' an apparently sleeping person but trying to clear out, if > I > > can, some of the confusion that is being propagated as a result of > wrong > > understanding of Advaita. > > > > Neither I nor Brahman can be objectified to say I am 'something'. > As > > the biblical statement echoes - it is a state of realization and all > one > > can say if at all is - I am that I am - it is one without a second > and > > it is one in spite of the second. It is identity not an equation for > > normal intellectual analysis since that very intellectually analysis > > objectifies 'I am'. It is not understanding 'as a thought' it is > > understanding 'as a fact'. Hence it is called statement of > > self-realization. It is dropping the notions of what think I am in > the > > recognition of 'Who That I am really is' - Hence I am posting a note > > that I wrote some time back for advaitin list based on my > understanding, > > clarifying what jiivan mukta really implies. I am including it here > as > > part of my Advaita Manjari. One can ignore any references to the > > Advaitin posts. > > -------------------- > > > > Advatia Manjari-2 > > > > Who is jiivanmukta or what is the state of Jiivanmukta? > > - One who has liberated while living? > > > > 1. When we are discussing about the state that is beyond our > > intellectual comprehension (beyond the mind and intellect), and at > the > > same time if we do not want to rest our understanding completely on > the > > statements of a particular person or persons, we have to resort to > 'a > > pramaana' or a means of knowledge that is not illogical and at the > same > > time that which everybody can agree upon including those individuals > on > > whom we have our personal trust and whom we think are realized. > Hence > > Shaastra becomes a more valid pramaana or valid means of knowledge > of > > such states. > > > > 2. Who is Jiivan Mukta and what is the state of realization? - > > Recognizing that the root cause for bondage is the 'ignorance' - > either > > ignorance of 'one-self' or 'ignorance of the nature of the Lord' > > (vishishhtadvaitic point) depending on how one interprets it, then > > realization is removal of that ignorance or clear understanding of > 'who > > one-self' is or 'what is the nature of the reality'. From Advaita > point > > - 'I do not know my self as my-self and take my-self as other than > > myself. I am being 'the subject' the knower I - takes myself the > object > > that I am aware of as myself - Here ignorance plays as two aspects - > one > > is taking object is different from subject (for example - this is my > > body, my mind, my intellect and this is my world and I can see this > > world and the world is different from me and this world is a > creation > > and creator is different from me since I did not create this world, > > etc.) The second is taking the object as the subject - that is this > is > > my body translates next as I am the body, mind and/or intellect - > when > > I take object as subject and hence limitations of the objects become > my > > limitations - I suffer the consequence of these limitations and all > the > > life struggles in terms of 'pravRitti' and 'nivRitti' - trying gain > what > > I like and get rid of what I dislike - become a means to solve the > > self-imposed problem based on my misunderstanding about myself. > > > > 3. Self-realization or state of jivanmukta is then realization of > one > > self as the 'true self'. But what is that true self ? - First that > > self is the subject and not an object of any means of knowledge -All > > means of knowledge presupposes the existence of the subject 'I'. > Hence > > all means of knowledge are valid because of the subject hence the > self > > is beyond any means of knowledge - aprameyam - and it is a > self-evident > > entity - or self- conscious entity - that is it is chit - and has to > be > > existent entity since we cannot talk of nonexistent self - there it > is > > 'sat' and since free any limitations since it is pure bliss and > hence it > > is unlimited or infinite or anantam - therefore one without a second > > (since limitations come from the presence of the second). Hence > > knowledge of the self is the knowledge that "aham Brahmaasmi" - 'I > am > > the Brahman' - or the 'Infinite Consciousness' -a notion of finite > > consciousness is illogical since that gives rise to a logical > question > > of what is there beyond that finite consciousness? - if there is > > something then who is conscious of that - If one is conscious of > that > > then that 'beyond thing' is not really beyond since it is within > the > > consciousness - hence consciousness has to be infinite and there is > > nothing beyond consciousness. Neither from existence point it is > > divisible since even the dividers have to exist. > > > > 4. A Jivanmukta is one who is a mukta or liberated while body is > alive. > > One cannot get any liberation if one is finite since he is bound > > eternally by that very finiteness, if that finiteness is his > intrinsic > > nature. If he is infinte but thinks he is finite, then liberation > is > > possible when he drops his notion of himself as finite realizes his > true > > or intrinsic nature. A finite also cannot become infinite that is > also > > illogical. Hence liberation itself need to be understood correctly. > A > > jiivan mukta is one who is liberated while living and liberation is > > liberation from all misunderstandings that he is an not an object > and is > > the very subject in all objectifications - He has understood that > his > > true nature is 'aham Brahmaasmi' or 'ayam aatma Brahma' - This is > > realization as JK puts 'understanding as understanding as a fact' > 'not > > as a thought'. Hence'self-realization' - realization of 'who > one-self > > is' - and that oneself is the - existent - conscious and infinite > self > > that one is. Then only brahavit brahma eva bhavati has a direct > > relavance. > > > > Krishna declares about this in B.G. Ch 6. > > > > sarvabhuutastam aatmaanam sarvabhuutaanica aatmani| > > iikshate yogayuktaatmaa sarvatra samadarshaNaH|| > > > > 'my-self is in all beings and also all being are in myself' - one > who > > sees or understands such a yogi has everywhere (at all times and > > places) has equanimity or sees the same everywhere - whether it is > dog > > or brahmana - just as whether it is ring or bangle or bracelet - one > > sees oneness of the gold in and through the names and forms. > > > > Interestingly Krishna reiterates the same message in the very next > sloka > > even from a Bhakta point - > > yo mam pasyati sarvatra sarvanca mayi pasyati| > > tasyaaham na praNasyaami sa ca me na praNasyati|| > > he who sees Me everywhere and everything in Me - he can never be > away > > from Me nor I can be away from him - > > > > Hence there is no more misunderstanding of oneself - Please note > that in > > the very understanding of one-self or his-self -there is also a > > simultaneous recognition that there is no other 'self' other than > > 'one-self' - since the self I am is unlimited and infinite. This > > understanding also includes ' not only I am in all of them but all > are > > in me - that is they are not different from me. Hence the world is > in > > my consciousness - I am not separate from the world and I am in the > > world and the world is in me - Just as clay saying I am in all pots > and > > all pots are in me. Yet the 'naama and ruupa' the superficial > entities > > which are just projects as well as the consequences of those > projections > > - that is 'individual notions' - I am a mud pot or I am a honey pot > > etc., belong not to me only to the superficial names and forms. > > > > This is stated by Krishna in Ch. 9 > > > > mayaatata midam sarvam jagadavyakta muurthinaa| > > mastaani sarva bhuutani na ca aham tesvavastitaH|| > > > > I pervade this universe in an unmannifested form and all > manifestations > > are in me but I am not accountable or responsible for the sufferings > of > > these beings due to their misunderstandings. Those belong to them > and > > not to me. > > > > Hence one is Jivanmukta when one has not just intellectual but clear > > 'understanding' of one is and there is no more misunderstanding > taking > > 'I am ' 'this or that'. That one 'individual' has realized is 'no > more' > > - he is dissolved. His true nature that is 'I am Brahman'. Hence > the > > correct understanding the 'ego' what was identifying that I am this > body > > etc. is not more - that ego is replaced by a correct understanding > "I am > > the totality' or 'aham brahma asmi'. > > > > Since the original 'ego' (based on ones misunderstanding that one is > an > > object) is completely dissolved - Since he is no more, there is no > more > > a question of talking about 'him' as an individual. The correct > > question is how does that 'Brahman' operates that 'body or uses that > > body' - Krishna gives an elaborate answer in the 'stitapraJNa > LakshNa' > > which we have discussed elaborately when Madhava presented that part > of > > B.G. > > > > Since it is as though That one who was living there in that body is > dead > > and gone is replaced by the one who has clear understanding that He > is > > the Brahman. In reality it is the 'Brahman' the infinite > consciousness > > uses the readily available equipment (body, mind and intellect - > since > > the tenant has left) for the benefit of the universe - (either to > > fulfill the vaasanas of the samashhTi who need a living teacher for > > their realization - sitting a remote cave meditating on the > universality > > of the self - for the good of all). Unlike someone pointed out - he > > does not really eat - sleep or do things - since there is no more > 'he'. > > - From the total self point - ' akartaaham abhoktaaham ahamevaaham > > avyayaH" - I am neither doer nor the enjoyer - I am all by myself > and > > unlimited and inexhaustible -. Then who eats and sleeps - Krishna > again > > answered that - > > > > prakrityevaca karmaani kriyamaanaani sarvashaH| > > > > All actions are done by prakRiti itself - of course under my > president > > ship - But that prakRiti is only my lower nature -not different from > me. > > This is further explained beautifully in the two slokas - > > > > naiva kinchit karomiiti yukto manyeta tatvavit| > > pasyan shRinvan spRushan jighran ashnan svapan svasan|| > > > > pralapan visRijan gRihNan unmishhan nimishhan api| > > indriyaaniidriyaartheshu vartanta iti dhaarayan|| > > > > The one who knows the truth knows "I am not the doer of anything' - > and > > Krishna gives all '-ns' or '-ings' to illustrate the point starting > > from seeing, touching etc. Since I am the doer or kartRitva bhaava > is > > only a notion due to the error of identification that I am this body > - a > > confusion of subject-object relation due to adhyaasa. > > > > From the point of the realized souls It is suffice to understand at > this > > stage to take that Lord himself manifests in the body of the > Jivanmukta > > and operates for the benefit of all mankind. Hence we pray - > > > > 'Gururbrahma gururvishnuH gururdevo maheswaraH' - > > > > essentially the guru is the manifestation of the Lord himself - > since He > > is nothing but Brahman and he has the true understanding that 'I am > > Brahman'. > > > > From these discussions we understand that there is no more 'ego' as > we > > understand operating in the Jivanmukta and Jivanmukta is the one who > has > > clear understanding of himself. > > > > 5. The definition of clear understanding is that is there is no more > > misunderstanding. If after one has clear understanding if one gets > > misunderstanding then that the understanding is not clear! > > > > yad gatvaa na nivartante taddhaama paramam mama| > > > > Once one has reached my state - or clear understanding of oneself or > > understanding of Brahman (brahma vit bramhaiva bhavati - the one who > > knows Brahman becomes Brahman) there is no more return - no more > > misunderstanding again. Hence one understands as a fact there is no > more > > notions left for misunderstanding. > > > > 6. As long as there are equipment's, through the equipments (and > > depending on the limitations of the equipments), jivanmukta can > 'see' > > and 'act' in the world (with clear understanding that he is not > really > > the seer but prakRiti itself acts in his presence). Hence plurality > can > > still be there but he does not have a notion or misunderstanding > that > > the plurality is a reality or separate from him! Hence we see that > he > > sees, acts etc. like a normal beings but he knows truely that he is > not > > the seer or actor but appropriate seeing and acting is going through > > those equipments in His presence). He may use the words within > > vyavahaara not to confuse the rest - I am hungry or I am sleepy etc. > but > > that is for vyavahaara or convenience for transaction but true > > understanding is different - just like we all know the Sun does not > > raise or set yet we can operate even with that understanding enjoy > > saying that - look at beautiful sun set. - This is the difference > > between aatma rati and atma kreeda - Jivanmukta can revel oneself, > in > > oneself by oneself - atmanyeva atmanaa tushTaH - Yet for a can enjoy > his > > own glory - aisvaryam - the creation projected as plurality. > > > > To answer the question if he decides to come back - he, as > ego-centric > > individual, is no more as ego but he is now with an understanding as > 'I > > am Brahman', hence what is so-called 'coming back' is with clear > > understanding that I am Brahman - when he comes back - it is Brahman > > that is operating through the equipments - not the old ego that was > > there before realization. Since He is Brahman one without a second > - > > what is there to be afraid off. He does not act - but divine > actions > > come forth from those equipments since He is full of divinity. All > > actions are for the benefit of the entire world since world is Him > and > > He is the world. He transacts with the world just like a scientist > > knowing fully well all things are essentially made up of fundamental > > particles - yet garbage treated differently form food. Just a space > is > > indivisible and even the dividers are in space, yet for > transactional > > purposes bath room is different from kitchen. > > > > Lastly about the gradual versus sudden - Swami Chinmayanandaji used > to > > tell us a story of Mr. Jones and the cat. This is also helps to > > understand the adhyaasa part and so-called 'I am I' part!- Mr. > Jones > > somehow got the feeling or understanding that 'he is a rat and not > a > > man' - Do not ask me when he got this idea and is there a scriptural > > pramaaNa for that - it is just like a conscious entity thinks that I > am > > this unconscious body. If you have that notion, you can tell me how > you > > got that kind of ridiculous misunderstanding. If you do not have > that > > misunderstanding my saashhTanaga praNaams to you. You have realized > who > > you and should not have misunderstanding of what you are not. If you > say > > I know very well you are not inert shariira - sthuula, suukma and > > kaaraNas shariira-s- and still act as though you are one, then Mr. > Jones > > story is very relevant. > > > > Coming back to our friend Mr. Jones, since he has the notion that he > is > > a rat, he was always trying to avoid any cat nearby and runs away > form > > one since he is afraid for his safety. (udaramanataram kurute > athatasya > > bhayam bhavati - a spec of dvaita can cause fear- says scriptures). > His > > wife learned about his problem and took him to a psychologist - > after > > many sittings and repeating reinforcement - 'I am man and I am not a > > rat' - he 'understood' that he is a man and not a rat. After paying > the > > doctor fees he goes back home but after a hour he came back running > to > > the doctor gasping for his breath - when confronted by the doctor - > Mr. > > Jones said - ' I know very well I am man and I am not a rat'. > Doctor > > asked then, what is the problem? Why did you come back running?' > Mr. > > Jones replied -"I am afraid because, I know that I am a man and not > a > > rat, but that cat on the street may not know that I am man and not > a > > rat" - > > > > 'aham brahmaasmi' is not I am I or I am this etc it is realization > of > > ones own intrinsic nature that I am sat-chit-aananda swaruupa. They > are > > not attributes of I. That is my 'swaruupa'. > > > > Understanding or realization we are talking about is the > understanding > > as a fact - not any more as a thought - That understanding is > complete > > and once and for all - That occurs only once and that is the end of > all > > misunderstandings. When the mind is clear of all misunderstanding > then > > the self is self-revealed. Till then, even as of now for everyone, > > one has glimpses or 'experience' of the self, but the > misunderstanding > > still prevails. The happiness that one gains during the sensuous > > enjoyments is also 'glimpses of the self' - 'vishyaanade > paramaanadaH' - > > says Vidyaranya in 'Pancadasi'. Clear understanding of the nature > of > > reality is what Bhagavan Ramana calls in 'sat darshan' as 'dRiDaiva > > nishTa' - firm understanding of the self. There are no gradations > in > > the self-realization - but there is gradation is the purification of > the > > mind - as the mind is getting purified - clearer the screen - the > more > > light of self -illumination beaming through. I am that self is > total, > > complete and firm and occurs only when the 'ego' falls down since it > is > > false. > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now > > http://companion./ > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. New Photos - easier uploading and sharing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Sadaji. You did exactly what you asked Fred not to do! With respects. Madathil Nair _______________ advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> wrote: > But when you referring to other mails (such as mine for example) do not > include whole post. Only include that part that you are referring to - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Thanks a lot Sri Sadananda, I appreciate your willingness for me to keep posting in this group and I feel honoured by it. You will also notice that from now on I will just add the most important part of the message I am replying to, as this is a rule of this list and saves much disk space and mailbox space in the computers of everyone. You may be sure that I will keep posting interesting insights or experiences I have. For the benefit of all who seek Moksha like I do. Best Regards, Fred - kuntimaddi sadananda advaitin Sunday, December 07, 2003 12:35 AM Re: Adviata Manjari- 2 Frederico There is no need for you to be sorry about. In my article, I was referring to dvaitin friends in the vaadavali list. What I wrote is only clarification of adviatic understanding of what jiivan mukta state means, based on my understanding. God Bless you. Hari OM! Sadananda New Photos - easier uploading and sharing. 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 --- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote: > Sadaji. > > You did exactly what you asked Fred not to do! > > With respects. > > Madathil Nair > _______________ OOps! sada ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. New Photos - easier uploading and sharing. 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.