Omniscience of Muktas is qualified by Prarabda.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,All,

 

Recent discussion on the 'Onmiscience' of Sankara and others brings

me to say that we are all essentially omniscient. At our Higher Mind

level all information is available. Now having said that, what is the

difference between a Jivanmukta and an ordinary Jiva. Well as it is

all within illusion it is a matter of semantics really. Now having

said that, the Mukta's guiding mind is IMHO really the

Vijnanamayakosa purified of its Ego or Ahamkara sense. The Mukta being

within this illusion, is subject to Prarabda; so all the actions are

really predetermined. If this were not so then the obvious differences

between, Ramana, Sankara, Krishna and others wouldn't be

present....ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Tony OClery <aoclery wrote: Namaste,All,

 

Recent discussion on the 'Onmiscience' of Sankara and others brings

me to say that we are all essentially omniscient. At our Higher Mind

level all information is available. Now having said that, what is the

difference between a Jivanmukta and an ordinary Jiva. Well as it is

all within illusion it is a matter of semantics really. Now having

said that, the Mukta's guiding mind is IMHO really the

Vijnanamayakosa purified of its Ego or Ahamkara sense. The Mukta being

within this illusion, is subject to Prarabda; so all the actions are

really predetermined. If this were not so then the obvious differences

between, Ramana, Sankara, Krishna and others wouldn't be

present....ONS...Tony.

 

One should be wary of all these concepts of omniscience and alayavijnana

which smack of duality. There is mention of the concept of omniscience in the

treatise, 'Guruvachaka Kovai,' of Sri Muruganar, a famous disciple of Bhaghavan

Ramana, and a veritable jivanmukta. Sri Muruganar derides the concept of

omniscience as belonging to the world of illusion. I have brought out these

verses to the extent of my limited capacity. An English version of this work

authored by Michale James and Sadu om, has been published by Ramanashram.

 

9. Omniscience.

 

(926) Know that the supreme, non-dual, knowledge of abiding as one's

true Self, not confronting any phenomena alien, alone constitutes omniscience,

and not the externalised knowledge of knowing the three periods of time.

 

(927) For those whose minds are not quiescent, when already there is a

calamity by virtue of the mean knowledge accumulated, the further accumulation

of knowledge unknown, would only contribute to the further darkening of the

mind, and not lead to anything good.

 

(928) Only for the ignorant confounding one's true Being for the ego,

thereby confronting phenomena false, acquisition of knowledge boundless is

omniscience, whereas for the Sage, free from such delusions, all such knowledge

is sheer madness.

 

(929) Only when deluded into the notion of a knower, one comes to the

sorrow of being limited in knowledge. Whatever be the nature of such relative

knowledge, even the so called omniscience included, should come nought in the

Light of Being-Awareness.

 

(930) The extolling of the Lord as omniscient by the Vedas is only by

Way of concession to the ignorant labouring under the notion of limited

knowledge. In the true experience of Being, the Lord is known to be Awareness

supreme, Whole and Spontaneous, not confronting anything alien.

 

(931) The notion of the common folk that even though the enlightened

ones perceive the world of variegated phenomena like the ordinary, yet even in

the perception of multiplicity, they are aware of only non-duality, is false.

 

(932) Only in the deluded vision of the ignorant given to the

perception of the phenomena in all its vast variety, the enlightened one is

also confounded to share such perception. In reality, the enlightened one does

not perceive anything; he is no seer.

 

(933) The notion of one having a limited knowledge is but due to the

blemish of perceiving objects external as real. Abandoning the perception of

such phenomena, if one but is aware of one's true Being, through self-enquiry,

such limited knowledge confounded till then would fade and flower giving place

to the true knowledge, omniscient.

 

 

 

 

(934) Only, when the true Being-Awareness, appearing as phenomena

variegated by virtue of misapprehension, is known direct as such, devoid of

duality, such knowledge alone could constitute omniscience, and not anything

alien.

 

(935) But for all these varied illusive dream objects having been our

true Being, one and undifferentiated, all this dream could not have appeared.

Hence, reasoning thus, know that only the Awareness of our true Being,

manifesting as the variegated phenomena, illusive, in the waking state,

constitutes true omniscience.

 

(936) Not being enamoured of the glamour of delights delusive,

abandoning the worldly knowledge, base, if one but nips in the bud the

differentiation of the true Being as Siva and jiva, then alone the true meaning

of Being-Awareness-Siva, will be known.

 

With warm regards,

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relax. Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

>

>

>

> Tony OClery <aoclery wrote: Namaste,All,

>

> Recent discussion on the 'Onmiscience' of Sankara and others

brings

> me to say that we are all essentially omniscient. At our Higher

Mind

> level all information is available. Now having said that, what

is the

> difference between a Jivanmukta and an ordinary Jiva. Well as it

is

> all within illusion it is a matter of semantics really. Now

having

> said that, the Mukta's guiding mind is IMHO really the

> Vijnanamayakosa purified of its Ego or Ahamkara sense. The Mukta

being

> within this illusion, is subject to Prarabda; so all the actions

are

> really predetermined. If this were not so then the obvious

differences

> between, Ramana, Sankara, Krishna and others wouldn't be

> present....ONS...Tony.

>

> One should be wary of all these concepts of omniscience and

alayavijnana which smack of duality. There is mention of the concept

of omniscience in the treatise, 'Guruvachaka Kovai,' of Sri

Muruganar, a famous disciple of Bhaghavan Ramana, and a veritable

jivanmukta. Sri Muruganar derides the concept of omniscience as

belonging to the world of illusion. I have brought out these verses

to the extent of my limited capacity. An English version of this

work authored by Michale James and Sadu om, has been published by

Ramanashram.

 

Namaste S,

 

You will notice that I used the word illusion on two occasions in my

post, indicating that what I was saying was part of illusion, maya

or avidya. So in fact I am in agreement with you on your post. I am

familiar with Muruganar, and agree that knowledge is avidya and

ignorance. I posted some posts ago about the creation hymn in the

Rig Veda inferrring the 'God' perhaps doesn't know. To me the only

concept to entertain really is Ajativada and I extend that concept

to incluse illusion/appearace itself..ie..No snake No

rope.....ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Ref. posts 30339 and 30347;

 

Namaste Tony-ji;

 

In addition to Sankarraman-ji incredibly appropriate (an euphemism for

perfect) response, i believe i should add a few words, to express my

disagreement with the views expressed in message 30339. I believe some other

more learned members should (and will) step up in response to some

misconceptions presented in your post. By no means consider this an attack

on your views, it only is so that i somehow sense some misinterpretation on

the concept of the jivan-mukta as per your views, in light of what i believe

to have been conveyed by extensive literature on the subject (which could

also mean that i am the one misinterpreting things).

 

The first thing to be refuted (and the key to all i am proposing in

opposition to what's said) is that contrary to what you believe, it is

implied that there's no difference between Sankara, Ramana etc. Undergoing

existence in an undifferentiated state (advaitic) dictates that that very

state should be one and the same. Therefore, being in that state also

signifies that within, there are absolutely no differences between those

sages (and the sages themselves perceive none). For the sake of

communication, Bhagavan Ramana may have said "Sankara says this, on account

of that etc", but the differences are only existent in the eye of the

(unrealised) beholder. Along with the dawning of the light of self, it also

is to be noted that those sages are one and the same.

 

Unified in existence with the unqualified self, also signifies that there is

a gross mistake in assuming "qualified omniscience" from any view other than

"sagehood" itself. The sage may reflect the changes of the outside world,

but this is to the outside world alone. On that account, taking into

consideration the metaphor between the mirror and the reflection, the

realised sage actually "is" none other than the mirror, to anyone who may

see its reflection (which in turn, is no other than the seer himself).

 

Also following this argument, it is to be noted that the process of

self-realisation is considered to be, at least in as much as a simple

description should encompass, the process of transcendence of any and all of

the five sheaths. So, to assume that self-realised sages such as Ramana and

Sankara operate from within the vijnanamaya-kosa (which may even sound

offensive to some) is to forget or ignore that for them no such sheaths

exist, having been dissolved upon the very moment of realisation.

 

To assume that there is such a thing as advaitic truth is first and foremost

to assume that there are absolutely no divisions in consciousness

whatsoever, even though the unrealised beings (such as myself) should be

bound by the ignorance of being eveloped by such sheaths, which prevent the

apparent individual from fully merging into the light of the self (yet at

the same time presenting the path and providing the tools for such merger).

 

Finally, to sum things up (from which solid grounds i base my argument), and

to dispell the belief that jnanis are subject to Prarabdha Karma, i shall

quote some portions of the Eighth Mantra, Second Khanda, from Swami

Krishnananda-ji's commentary on the Mundaka Upanishad:

 

" It is sometimes held that the Prarabdha Karma of a Jnani is not

destroyed. Sometimes it is suggested that even the Prarabdha is destroyed

when knowledge rises. The portion of the effects of actions to be worked out

through a particular body is separated from the Sanchita Karma and allotted

for experience even before the birth of the body. Hence, the momentum with

which the Prarabdha starts actuating the body is exhausted only on the death

of the body and not before. Knowledge is not concerned with this active

momentum at all. Even when the individual is resolved into the Absolute

Consciousness, the body, as long as the Prarabdha is not exhausted, will

continue to move as directed by the Prarabdha, though this movement of the

body does not become the object of the Knowledge of the Self-realised

person. In this sense, the Prarabdha is not destroyed even when Knowledge

dawns.

 

But, it must be remembered that the Prarabdha is seen to be working in the

Jnani only by other individuals who have not got Self-Knowledge. The value

of a thing is completely negated and is also reduced to non-existence when

there is no consciousness of that thing or when the thing is resolved into

the subject itself. The state of the consciousness of the Absolute is not

something which is separated from the movement of the Prarabdha. In it all

movements are realised as an infinite unity. The Jnani has no special

connection with his particular body. All other bodies also are equally his.

He is the centre of the Consciousness of all individuals, and therefore,

there is no meaning in holding that Prarabdha works in him. He is the

witness of universal activity, or rather, the very Self of the Universe

itself. Appearances are meaningful only to separated individuals and not to

the unified consciousness. The movement of the body of the Jnani is compared

to the movement of a leaf in the wind; such a movement is not a conscious

activity at all. "

 

 

My warmest regards, to you and all...

 

 

 

_____

Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora!

http://br.acesso.