BEING THE MIRROR ? was Dakshinamurthy Stotra & Buddhist view from ramana

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "shnkaran" <shnkaran wrote:

> Dear Shayam,

> Still, I am not able to accept the

idea

> of the emancipated ones exercising freewill. Will it not be correct

to

> say that they are the impersonal tools of the supreme intelligence?

> How can be the idea of any combination of free will and prarabdha

> foisted on them, which seems to suggest the notion of some

> fragmentation, meaning thereby that the realized are still under the

> sway of thought and individuality psychologically? No doubt they are

> individuals in the sense of the word used by Jiddu Krishnamurthy,

> being indivisible, whole, non-fragmented. Bhaghavn, while talking

> about the nature of the realised ones, compares their inner being

to a

> void like the radio-instrument, picking up the waves. When Bhaghavan

> was asked all types of meaningless questions in a court-session, he

> answered them nonchalantly. When the devotess asked him whether he

did

> not feel tired, Bhaghavan said that he did not use the mind in

> replying, in which case alone he must have been tired. Any how, we

> cannot conceptualize the transcendental wisdom.

> with warm regards,

> Sankarraman

>

Shrigurubhyo namaH

Dear Sir,

Namaskarams.

 

Although the question is addressed to Shyam ji, i thought i will make

a small contribution to the discussion.

 

Since it is accepted that the body-mind apparatus remains over even

after the enlightenment is had, it would be proper to admit that they

continue to function in the normal way, with the only difference that

the Jnani knows that they are not he. We have seen enough passages

from the Panchadashi and others to substantiate this. In loukika

vyavahara when he says 'I', he identifies with the body-mind

apparatus. In spiritual contemplation when he says 'I' he has

identified with the KUtastha. This is the normal way they act. When

supposing someone serves him food. If there is no requirement for

him for another serving, will he not say: 'enough'? What is this but

his exercising free will? If he keeps quiet saying 'let prarabdha

take its course', he will have to face the consequences which is

anybody's guess.

 

Again, in the wake of a need to give a discourse, take in a disciple,

undertake works that would benefit people at large, etc. there is

definitely an element of free will. Without this he can never live

as a human being albeit a Jnani. The Gita says, the Tattvavit

discriminates between the gunas and knows that all actions that come

forth from his body-mind apparatus are mere interactions between the

senses and objects. Excepting the dis-identification born of

ignorance which in his case has been destroyed due to the

enlightenment had, there will be no difference between his actions

and that of others.

 

One more element that is noteworthy is this: Apart from his

prarabdha, the prarabdha of those who get connected with this Jnani

by way of securing guidance, teaching, blessings, advice, satsangh

etc. is to be recognised. These people, who live at the time of the

Jnani's life, are favourably destined to get his connection. From

the cosmic angle, it is the combination of the prarabdha of all

individuals that brings about these associations.

 

Finally, prarabdha is that which is indicative of one's quota of

sukha and duhkha in this life. The word prarabdha is not exclusively

used in the case of a Jnani. It is a common term applicable to

everyone. Thus, for example, it is a child's prarabdha that is what

makes it undergo the suffering of say, blood cancer. Prarabdha, by

definition, is that force of that individual's past karma that has

begun to bear fruit and has started manifesting right at the start of

this birth. The portion of his accummulated karma that has begun to

bear fruit starts to operate by giving a certain body and giving all

the sukha and dukha that is to be experienced till the fall of this

body. When this portion ends, the next portion becomes ready to bear

fruit and that marks his next birth, what body, etc. In the case of

the Jnani, too, this has begun to operate in the usual way. But

owing to a multitude of causes, he has gained the liberating

knowledge in this birth, which now is known to be his last birth.

Since the quota of sukha and dukha has already been set, like a

released arrow, it goes on, Jnana or no Jnana. In his case, it goes

on till the fall of this body. ( Since the Jnana has burnt his

sanchita karma, nothing will be left to give him next body. Since

there is no 'i am the doer' feeling for him, his post-enlightenment

actions will not bind him.) That is why the sukha and duhkha like

disease that are experienced by this Jnani's body-mind apparatus is

called, prarabdha.

 

Thus, from the above, we can safely conclude that there can be a co-

existence of free will and prarabdha. In fact, it is so and it can

only be so. That he is an apparatus of Divinity, etc. are

expressions that denote his complete egolessness, etc. This is the

understanding that has come to me from exposure to books, exalted

persons, etc.

 

Pranams,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote: ---

 

 

 

Although the question is addressed to Shyam ji, i thought i will make

a small contribution to the discussion.

 

 

Dear Subramanium,

I did not mean to suggest that the jnani, when he carries on his undertakings, is totally oblivious to the empirical requirements. As you say, in so far as the psychosomatic functioning is concerned, the jnani's actions are synonymous with those of the ajnani except that he does not limit his being to the body and the world, but is aware of a larger reality of which the body--world is a shadowy representation. All the actions of the jnani are by way of boha-hetu, and not bandha-hetu, a term often used by Bhagahvan Ramana. There is a verse by Pattinathar in which he says: “Is there a particular Samadhi for the jnanis who have transcended the six chakras and the thirty six tatvas. They take food when afflicted by hunger, and take bath sweat. What is the difference between the jnanis and the anjanis in so far as the empirical goings-on are concerened?” In Guru Vachaka Kovai, written by Muruganar, the chief disciple

of Bhaghavan, there is a verse to the following effect. : “Thoughts of the form of mental movements alone constitute the stream of existence. The seers leading a pure life, bereft of such mental movements, though apparently interacting in the world goaded by fate, are, in reality, gliding only in the space of Awareness.” (Verse 616) I did not mean that the jnanis are devoid of volition in the gross sense. What I meant was that the avarana sakti, which has hidden the Self, being extinguished in the fire of self-awareness, the jnanis are no longer under the sway of the metaphysical ignorance, leading to birth and death. I agree with you in the essentials, and am fortunately aware of the verse of Pancadasi quoted by you.

The following conversation between Bhaghavan and a devotee, taken from the book, “Be as you are,” is very interesting, and sheds much light on this discussion.

Q: Is a jnani capable of or likely to commit sins?

A: An ajnani sees someone as a jnani and identifies him with the

body. Because he does not know the Self and mistakes his body for

the Self, he extends the same mistake to the state of the jnani. The

jnani is therefore considered to be the physical frame.

Again since the ajnani, though he is not the doer, imagines himself

to be the doer and considers the actions of the body his own, he

thinks the jnani to be similarly acting when the body is active. But

the jnani himself knows the truth and is not confounded. The state of

a jnani cannot be determined by the ajnani and therefore the question

troubles only the ajnani and never arises for the jnani. If he is a doer

he must determine the nature of the actions. The Self cannot be the

doer. Find out who is the doer and the Self is revealed.

Q: So it amounts to this. To see a jnani is not to understand him. You

see the jnani's body and not his jnana. One must therefore be a jnani

to know a jnani.

A: The jnani sees no one as an ajnani. All are only jnanis in his

sight. In the ignorant state one superimposes one's ignorance on a

jnani and mistakes him for a doer. In the state of jnana, the jnani

sees nothing separate from the Self. The Self is all shining and only

pure jnana. So there is no ajnana in his sight. There is an illustration

for this kind of illusion or superimposition. Two friends went to

61

sleep side by side. One of them dreamt that both of them had gone

on a long journey and that they had had strange experiences. On

waking up he recapitulated them and asked his friend if it was not so.

The other one simply ridiculed him saying that it was only his dream

and could not affect the other.

So it is with the ajnani who superimposes his illusory ideas on

others.

Q: You have said that the jnani can be and is active, and deals with

men and things. I have no doubt about it now. But you say at the same

time that he sees no differences; to him all is one, he is always in the

consciousness. If so, how does he deal with differences, with men,

with things which are surely different?

A: He sees these differences as but appearances, he sees them as

not separate from the true, the real, with which he is one.

Q: The jnani seems to be more accurate in his expressions, he

appreciates the differences better than the ordinary man. If sugar is

sweet and wormwood is bitter to me, he too seems to realize it so. In

fact, all forms, all sounds, all tastes, etc., are the same to him as they

are to others. If so, bow can it be said that these are mere

appearances? Do they not form part of his life-experience?

A: I have said that equality is the true sign of jnana. The very term

equality implies the existence of differences. It is a unity that the

jnani perceives in all differences, which I call equality. Equality does

not mean ignorance of distinctions. When you have the realization

you can see that these differences are very superficial, that they are

62

not at all substantial or permanent, and what is essential in all these

appearances is the one truth, the real. That I call unity. You referred

to sound, taste, form, smell, etc. True, the jnani appreciates the

distinctions, but he always perceives and experiences the one reality

in all of them. That is why he has no preferences. Whether he moves

about, or talks, or acts, it is all the one reality in which he acts or

moves or talks. He has nothing apart from the one supreme truth.

Q: They say that the jnani conducts himself with absolute equality

towards all?

A: Yes.

Friendship, kindness, happiness and such other bhavas [attitudes]

become natural to them. Affection towards the good, kindness

towards the helpless, happiness in doing good deeds, forgiveness

towards the wicked, all such things are natural characteristics of the jnanis.

with warm regards,

yours ever in Bhagahavan

Sankarraman

__,_.wiw_,___

 

 

 

Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail Beta.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

In Guru Vachaka Kovai, written by Muruganar, the chief disciple

> of Bhaghavan, there is a verse to the following

effect. : "Thoughts of the form of mental movements alone constitute

the stream of existence. The seers leading a pure life, bereft of

such mental movements, though apparently interacting in the world

goaded by fate, are, in reality, gliding only in the space of

Awareness." (Verse 616)

 

Namaskarams,

 

Thanks for the response. Could you pl. expatiate on the

expression 'bereft of such mental movements...'? If someone for

example asks a Jnani a question, say on a particular verse of the

Gita and the Acharya's bhashya, is not a thinking activity involved

in replying the question? Sometimes, a Jnani might ask for time to

consult the books and give a reply to satisfy the particular aspect

of the questioner's doubt. All this necessitates thinking, framing

the reply in a particular series of sentences, etc. Jnanis do write

a lot sometimes and will not this involve thoughts before expressing

in words? What do you think about this? Just a question for

discussion.

 

If it is said that everything is the imagination of the ajnani, then

that puts a full stop to all questions aimed at trying to understand

a Jnani.

 

Regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote:

Namaskarams,

Thanks for the response. Could you pl. expatiate on the

expression 'bereft of such mental movements...'? If someone for

example asks a Jnani a question, say on a particular verse of the

Gita and the Acharya's bhashya, is not a thinking activity involved

in replying the question? Sometimes, a Jnani might ask for time to

consult the books and give a reply to satisfy the particular aspect

of the questioner's doubt. All this necessitates thinking, framing

the reply in a particular series of sentences, etc. Jnanis do write

a lot sometimes and will not this involve thoughts before expressing

in words? What do you think about this? Just a question for

discussion. This translation has been done by me. I have translated the entire book consisting of almost 1250 verses into English. That is the translation of the prose version rendered by one Sadu Om, the chief disciple of Muruganar, both Muruganar and Sadu Om being great Tamil scholars. Perhaps, my translation might be defective. It has been translated by One James Michel, and

If it is said that everything is the imagination of the ajnani, then

that puts a full stop to all questions aimed at trying to understand

a Jnani.

Dear Subramanium,

I am not spiritually competent to further dwell on that idea, which I am able to accept intuitively. There is somewhere a communication gap between us, or it is that I do not have a clear understanding of the great master. This is my translation. In fact, I might state, with great humility, that I have translated the entire work consisting of about 1250 verses. I was prompted to do that at a period when I was deeply, mentally afflicted, for what reasons I do not know till date. That was ten years back. That is the translation of the prose rendition of the original done by one Sadu Om, the chief disciple of Muruganar, both Muruganar and Sadu Om being great Tamil scholars being highly, spiritually evolved individuals, to my understanding. But it is my view which I am not thrusting upon anybody. You might be having doubts about the correctness of my intellectual exposition. But, since the translation has been done

already by one Michel James, and Sadu Om, as a joint venture, and has been published by the Ashram, you might refer to it. The entire translation is available in the internet in the homepage of David Godman, which you can peruse. I am not sure whether Michel has improved upon the internet version, which, I feel, is not likely. The original poetry has been translated by Professor K.Swamynathan, which, I have strong reasons to believe, is more authentic. If you doubt the veracity of my words, or have doubt in my intellectual competence-you have the freedom to doubt- you had better refer to the above two translations, especially the poetry, which is not available in the internet, but is available with the Ashram. I refuse or rather excuse to be dragged into any further intellectual discussion on this. If you doubt the correctness of even these personalities, you could read the original poetry of Muruganar. In the prose rendition there might have been some

interpretations.

With warm regards,

Yours ever in Bhaghavan Ramana

Sankarraman

DD

--

 

 

 

DD

 

 

 

Get on board. You're invited to try the new Mail Beta.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v

wrote:

>

> advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran@>

> wrote:

> In Guru Vachaka Kovai, written by Muruganar, the chief disciple

> > of Bhaghavan, there is a verse to the following

> effect. : "Thoughts of the form of mental movements alone constitute

> the stream of existence. The seers leading a pure life, bereft of

> such mental movements, though apparently interacting in the world

> goaded by fate, are, in reality, gliding only in the space of

> Awareness." (Verse 616)

>

>Dear Subramanium,

I apologize if my earlier reply were somewhat

presumptious? I have to think deeply if I should correctly respond to

you. But I can assure that my rendering is correct though not in a

good style

yours ever in Bhaghavan

Sankarraman

[Guest guest]

"Dear Shayam,

Still, I am not able to accept the idea of the emancipated ones

exercising freewill. Will it not be correct to say that they are the

impersonal tools of the supreme intelligence?"

 

Pranams.

 

Shri Sadananda-ji and Subbu-ji - two wonderfully gifted and learned

panditahs have already written elaborately and there is perhaps some

impropriety to my having anything to add.

Nevertheless as this question was posed to me I am permitting myself

a humble perspective.

 

Everything in srshti is Ishwara's order. Time, the laws of nature,

the forces of gravity, the properties of atoms, the physiological

functions of the body, the laws of action and result, Death, etc etc

are all wonderfully perfect only because they are all in accordance

with the Supreme order.

In fact Ishwara's order is non-separate from Ishwara - the order

verily is Ishwara.

When I feel a pulse on my wrist more than a pulse i am feeling the

order that is Ishwara Himself. Similairly when you perceive a rising

Sun, that verily is Ishwara

 

Now part of this Divine order is icchashakti and kriyashakti - the

former being peculiar to humans.

 

As a result of this alone humans are endowed with free will, whether

we like it or not [- it is a negative because it can lead us into

adharma -(Duryodhan's famous assertion - "i know what is dharma and

i know what is adharma but there is something that impels me as it

were to adharma") and it is a positive because it alone leads us to

dharma and ultimately to moksha.]

 

Now this free will being a Divine expression is ever a Divine free

will - it is ever a impersonal tool of Ishwara as you rightly point

out.

 

However when tainted as it were with man's raga-dveshas, arising out

of beginingless avidya, it is then that it can be said to be a man's

free will as we understand it.

 

Free will + raga dvesha = "man's will"

Free will - raga dvesha = "divine will"

 

So when we do anything we are doing it impelled by our vasanas, and

our ragadveshas. We have many occasional where we failt o understand

what is "the right thing to do" - we can only surrender at those

times to Ishwara and pray that whatever steps we are thinking of

undertaking are in keeping with dharma, in keeping with His order

and for this we need him to bless us with sat-buddhi.

 

Now let us apply this to a jnani. Since to a Mahatma like Bhagwaan

Ramana Maharshi His ego-identification has ended as it were, He no

longer has any raga-dvesha - binding likes or dislikes. It is

the "binding" likes and "binding" dislikes that produce karma and

consequently karmaphala. The earth is not doing any karma by

revolving around the sun, even though moving - as such its movement

is in perfect accordance with Ishwara's order.

 

Simialirly whatever karmas a jnani performs, whatever free will He

exercises, whatever words He speaks, and whatever thoughts He thinks

are, by their very nature, with no effort whatsoever on His part,

dharma - they are not in violation of the order that is Ishwara - in

fact they are the shining jewels of Ishwara's order representing the

very best and the most beautiful and the most exalted of everything

in Ishwara's srshti.

 

So jnani has free will, and that his free will is the Divine free

will are not mutually contradictory terms.

 

A thousand salutations to these exalted Ones,

Hari Om

 

Shyam

[Guest guest]

Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran > wrote:

subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote:

From

Sankarraman

In my earlier message, Mr Subramanium's response and my rejoinder have been mixed up in a confused way while incorporating whatever typed in the word document in the internet. I am sorry for this, which is also due to some technical error in the tool box. Ignoring my earlier message, the present one may be taken in its stead. I apologize to the moderators for this inconvenience.

Dear Subramanium,

I am not spiritually competent to further dwell on that idea, which I am able to accept intuitively. There is somewhere a communication gap between us, or it is that I do not have a clear understanding of the great master. This is my translation. In fact, I might state, with great humility, that I have translated the entire work consisting of about 1250 verses. I was prompted to do that at a period when I was deeply, mentally afflicted, for what reasons I do not know till date. That was ten years back. That is the translation of the prose rendition of the original done by one Sadu Om, the chief disciple of Muruganar, both Muruganar and Sadu Om being great Tamil scholars being highly, spiritually evolved individuals, to my understanding. But it is my view which I am not thrusting upon anybody. You might be having doubts about the correctness of my intellectual exposition. But, since the translation has been

done already by one Michel James, and Sadu Om, as a joint venture, and has been published by the Ashram, you might refer to it. The entire translation is available in the internet in the homepage of David Godman, which you can peruse. I am not sure whether Michel has improved upon the internet version, which, I feel, is not likely. The original poetry has been translated by Professor K.Swamynathan, which, I have strong reasons to believe, is more authentic. If you doubt the veracity of my words, or have doubt in my intellectual competence-you have the freedom to doubt- you had better refer to the above two translations, especially the poetry, which is not available in the internet, but is available with the Ashram. I refuse or rather excuse to be dragged into any further intellectual discussion on this. If you doubt the correctness of even these personalities, you could read the original poetry of Muruganar. In the prose rendition there might have

been some interpretations.

With warm regards,

Yours ever in Bhaghavan Ramana

Sankarraman

DD

 

 

 

 

Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "shnkaran" <shnkaran wrote:

> >Dear Subramanium,

> I apologize if my earlier reply were somewhat

> presumptious? I have to think deeply if I should correctly respond to

> you. But I can assure that my rendering is correct though not in a

> good style

> yours ever in Bhaghavan

> Sankarraman

 

 

Dear Sir,

Namaskarams. Kindly pardon me for any digressions on my part. The

point i was trying to make and so very beautifully presented by Shyam

ji in his latest reply to you, is this:

 

The questioning about the Jnani and the answer to such questioning are

an accepted practice in Vedanta. The Bhagavad gita is the best

example. There is this verse therein where the practice for a sadhaka

and the way a Jnani would conduct himself in the world are both taught

in one verse:

Raaga-devsha-viyuktaistu viShayaan indriyaischaran

aatma-vashyair vidheyaatma prasaadam adhigacchati

 

Verse 64. He attains peace, who, self-controlled, approaches objects

with the senses devoid of love and hatred and brought under his own

control.

 

It is inevitable for a Jnani to be amidst objects during his non-

samadhi times. How will he go about with these objects (including

people, events, etc)?. With no raga and dvesha he will contact the

objects, people, events, etc. and with a mind under his control he

interacts with them. What causes problem and bondage is the

interaction accompanied by raga-dvesha. Once these are not there,

objects, people, events, do not pose any problem. This is the way laid

out by Bhagavan to the mumukshu. This is the way the Jnani conducts

himself and remains ever peaceful. Thus, we see that the mind or

mental movements are not eliminated, they are there to choose,

discriminate, think, etc. and yet since the dragons of raga and dvesha

are absent, vyavahara can go on. Thus, there is no need to say that

the Jnani does not do any vyavahara at all. The Gita is full of such

teachings where the way the Jnani does vyavahara.

 

Warm regards,

subbu