Guest guest Posted August 11, 2006 Report Share Posted August 11, 2006 Namaste, Prof VK ji has recent post was on mumukshutvam. It is said that moksha is the highest human pursuit. Most people consider the body-mind-intellect to be their real self and do not care or think much about future life. Now, Bhagavad Gita tells me that I will keep taking births till all vasanas are exhausted and I understand my real nature or some would say the nature of Brahman. So the ego questions - why should I seek permanent death. Normally death is temporary and one in a million or billion would not take birth again. Why should I take to karma yoga or sanyasa and seek permanent death ? I am not going to experience any permanent bliss or life. (A dvaitin may differ here because I think in Dvaita the jiva maintains identity even after moksha). Say I am "self-realized" at the age of 55 - I would enjoy this supreme bliss for another 15 years and that is the end of the story. The reasoning given is that everything in this samsara is limited, finite, temporary, there are ups and downs, heat, cold, happiness, sorrow etc. So even this "state of liberation" is also temporary in the material sense because after the death of a jnani - there is no experiencer, experience or experiencing etc. In other words, the ego wants its own permanent identity - a very mysterious beast. Please comment. regards, Om Namah Sivaya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2006 Report Share Posted August 11, 2006 advaitin, "mahadevadvaita" <mahadevadvaita wrote: > > . So the ego > questions - why should I seek permanent death. Normally death is > temporary and one in a million or billion would not take birth > again. Why should I take to karma yoga or sanyasa and seek permanent > death ? I am not going to experience any permanent bliss or life. (A > dvaitin may differ here because I think in Dvaita the jiva maintains > identity even after moksha). Say I am "self-realized" at the age of > 55 - I would enjoy this supreme bliss for another 15 years and that > is the end of the story. The reasoning given is that everything in > this samsara is limited, finite, temporary, there are ups and downs, > heat, cold, happiness, sorrow etc. So even this "state of > liberation" is also temporary in the material sense because after > the death of a jnani - there is no experiencer, experience or > experiencing etc. In other words, the ego wants its own permanent > identity - a very mysterious beast. > > Please comment. > > regards, > Om Namah Sivaya Namaste Mahadev-ji I am taking the last two concluding sentences of your above post. The last sentence is about ego wanting a permanent identity (not a permanent death). The last but one sentence is about the jnAni. Now these two sentences do not co-exist for purposes of logic. If you are talking for the jnAni, then he has no ego and so there is nothing 'which wants a permanent identity'. If you are talking for the jnAni, he has no ego, and so, your statement about 'no experiencer, no experience, no experiencing' does not apply to any subject. The jnAni and the Ego cannot have the same lawyer on their side! PraNAms to all advaitins. profv k > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2006 Report Share Posted August 11, 2006 Sir, Please see inline. advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote: >> I am taking the last two concluding sentences of your above post. > The last sentence is about ego wanting a permanent identity (not a > permanent death). The last but one sentence is about the jnAni. Yes that is correct. > > Now these two sentences do not co-exist for purposes of logic. If > you are talking for the jnAni, then he has no ego and so there is > nothing 'which wants a permanent identity'. Yes agreed. > If you are talking for > the jnAni, he has no ego, and so, your statement about 'no > experiencer, no experience, no experiencing' does not apply to any > subject. The jnAni and the Ego cannot have the same lawyer on their > side! When I examine my heart and mind, I don't see the desire for moksha. I have already stated the logic which ego presents. The need for "permanent identity" is definitely coming from the ego of a person deluded by samsara and maya. I see the suffering in the world, my Pitaji's own suffering but somehow the ego thinks it is invincible - it will go through samsara without much trouble. What a funny creature !! > > PraNAms to all advaitins. > profv k > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2006 Report Share Posted August 11, 2006 "why should I seek permanent death".. "ego wants its own permanent > identity - a very mysterious beast". Namaste. Yes. Why should we seek permanent death? But unfortunately that is our lot - repeated births and repeated deaths-as long as we are in samsara. We do not seek it but that is our lot. We are all terminal cases and death is just around the corner. And we are not even in line - it is like a token system and any moment our number will be called and that is it. Your ego-sense will survive to see another life-form which you consider to be a good thing because at least "it" will remain alive. However what is in its lot is more suffering. Now lets examine the ego-sense. All it is is a sense of limitation, and that too a false one. The problem for the ego is of wanting to escape death. The problem for the ego is of dealing with a perpetual sense of small- ness. This Universe is immense and I am so small. No matter how much I acquire I am still small. No matter how healthy I am today I am going to die tomorrow. No longer how long I live I feel I have barely lived. Why does this bother me? Because my true nature is both complete and immortal. Until that sense of false limitation that the ego-sense feels is resolved, your life can never be fulfilling. You may acquire health, wealth and progeny - but you are still a limited individual. The reason you seek anything is not for its sake but because of this peculiar habit of your mind to attach itself to something or some object,gaining which you feel momentarily happy. The happiness you experience however is from you alone and unfortunately as even the happiness you temporarily experience is settling in it is immediately gone. That instant of acquisition you were happy not because of any property of that object but because your false sense of selflimitation was temporarily - very temporarily - resolved. So you go on chasing things and what you are chasing is a mirage. What you acquire does not deliver the goods. You are perennially dissatisfied because no matter how hard you chase, happiness seems to run farther and farther away. This is "life". When Vedanta talks about dropping the ego - at the same very same instant it talks about gaining what is the one thing that you desperately seek- a sense of fullness, of being complete, of not wanting. The loss is of an illusory source of limitation The gain is realizing truth and your real nature - the Absolute. Sounds too good to be true?? It is the only thing that really IS too good to be true - because it alone is true! And this is possible only in this rarest of rare births - the human birth. Not even the gods have this privilege our scriptures tell us. Once this wanting me is resolved then nothing else matters. I am still me. But this false ego-sense that was "wanting" is dead. Now there is no "me" that wants anything that fears anything not even death! Death then no longer is relevant. Once I know who I really am then I realize I am complete. Nothing can ever take away from my sense of completeness. I can be with or without money, with or without relations, this body can go through sickness or suffering, EVEN DEATH, but that does not affect ME, because I am complete. I am nonseparate from HIM. Then even if there were a hundred more janmas to take(there wont be but supposing) it does not bother me - why - because i KNOW for a fact that I, the WHOLE, will remain WHOLE. That is why moksha my friend. Your sense of limitation dies. Let it die - it was never worth keeping alive to begin with! Then, as the commercial says "You are now free to move about the country!" Na Karmana Na Prajaya Dhanena Tyage Naike Amrutatva Manasuhu!! POORNASYA POORNAMAADAAYA POORNAMEVAAVASHISHYATE !!! OM SHANTI SHANTI SHANTIH Best wishes Shyam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2006 Report Share Posted August 11, 2006 --- mahadevadvaita <mahadevadvaita > wrote: > So the ego > questions - why should I seek permanent death. ........... > Say I am "self-realized" at the age of > 55 - I would enjoy this supreme bliss for another 15 years and that > is the end of the story. The reasoning given is that everything in > this samsara is limited, finite, temporary, there are ups and downs, > heat, cold, happiness, sorrow etc. So even this "state of > liberation" is also temporary in the material sense because after > the death of a jnani - there is no experiencer, experience or > experiencing etc. In other words, the ego wants its own permanent > identity - a very mysterious beast. Shree Mahadevadvaita - at the outset your questions are very valid. If you are happy with 'as is' condition, there is no need to long for moxa. Pursuit for moxa is intended only for those who are not happy with the current state of cyclic phenomenon. Having said that now look at your post carefully and see if you can detect lot of self-inconsistencies. The first statement "why I should seek a permanent death" and the last statement "ego wants a permanent identity' are contradictory. Now let us go back to your statement "after the death of jnaani..". Self-realization is not the death of jnaani - it is realization that I was never born even to die. The whole giitopadesha starts with the statement 'na jaayate mRiyateva kadaachit..' When you realize, you realize that you are eternally present and happy in spite of the physical death of the body-mind-intellect. So your statement "So even this "state of liberation" is also temporary in the material sense..." itself is incorrect - first it is not a state and second even the time concept is transcended and third even the material concept is transcended. What we are looking for is not moxa but happiness that is everlasting in all our pursuits. Limitless alone is absolute happiness. Vedanta says you will never get that by any pursuit since you are that - seeker is the sought. Self-realization is re-alize your essential nature that you are birthless and deathless and eternally happy - by dropping all the wrong notions about yourself and the world around you. Yes it is the ego that has birth and death and therfore has a fear of death, but not you who is ever birthless and deathless. But again, pursuit for moxa is only for those who have vairaagya for the worldly pursuit of happiness. If one is comfortable with the egotistical world, then there is no problem. One can enjoy the roller-costar. Hope this answers your question. I am sure Prof. VK will answer you in his amicable way. Hari OM! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2006 Report Share Posted August 12, 2006 Om Namah Shivaye! These are very practical spiritual feelings. It is very important that one should experience the answer to some extent in this very life. As per the great acharya, Abhinavagupta: "MOKSA or LIBERATION is nothing else but the awareness of one's true nature." He further explains that the highest attainment, however, is that of Shiva Consciousness in which the entire universe appears as “I”-consciousness. The question is - how to go about it? Trika Yoga. Pranam, Virendra. mahadevadvaita <mahadevadvaita > wrote: Namaste, Prof VK ji has recent post was on mumukshutvam. It is said that moksha is the highest human pursuit. Most people consider the body-mind-intellect to be their real self and do not care or think much about future life. Now, Bhagavad Gita tells me that I will keep taking births till all vasanas are exhausted and I understand my real nature or some would say the nature of Brahman. So the ego questions - why should I seek permanent death. Normally death is temporary and one in a million or billion would not take birth again. Why should I take to karma yoga or sanyasa and seek permanent death ? I am not going to experience any permanent bliss or life. (A dvaitin may differ here because I think in Dvaita the jiva maintains identity even after moksha). Say I am "self-realized" at the age of 55 - I would enjoy this supreme bliss for another 15 years and that is the end of the story. The reasoning given is that everything in this samsara is limited, finite, temporary, there are ups and downs, heat, cold, happiness, sorrow etc. So even this "state of liberation" is also temporary in the material sense because after the death of a jnani - there is no experiencer, experience or experiencing etc. In other words, the ego wants its own permanent identity - a very mysterious beast. Please comment. regards, Om Namah Sivaya The all-new Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2006 Report Share Posted August 12, 2006 mahadevadvaita <mahadevadvaita > wrote: So even this "state of liberation" is also temporary in the material sense because after the death of a jnani - there is no experiencer, experience or experiencing etc. In other words, the ego wants its own permanent identity - a very mysterious beast. From Sankarraman There is unconsciously the belief ingrained in our system that in the realized state also we would exist as personal individuals. Emancipation is confounded to be one of persistence of our ego, the perpetuation of our errors and illusions. By virtue of this error we are averse to dying either temporarily or permanently, the former at least assuring our rebirth while the latter containing the dreary prospect of our being consigned to an airy, cold nothingness. We do not have the intuition that our real existence is beyond body-mind, time-space, as the one pure awareness. Till we have the personal experience of our actual locus being the self we will have such misconceptions, and the fears which are its consequence. with warm regards Sankarraman .. Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2006 Report Share Posted August 12, 2006 kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada > wrote: --- mahadevadvaita <mahadevadvaita > wrote: > So the ego > questions - why should I seek permanent death. From Sankarraman Dear Sir, The whole attribution for the conclusion that moksa is also impermanent is to the fact of equating eternity also with time series. We think that when we attain moksa, we will exist as personal beings with many object-oriented pleasures as some dualistic schools conceive. As far as I am concerned I might state honestly that I do feel equal to the idea of moksa, even though I may talk of Vedanta learnedly or unlearnedly. There is an account in Bhaghavan Ramna's talks not recorded, but conveyed by Annamalai Swamy, the chief disciple of Bhaghavan, to his devotees ( devotees of Annamalai Swamy). Some devotees req Bhaghavan to confer on them moksha. As was his wont, Bhaghavan did not reply. When Annamalai Swamy asked Bhaghavn, at the end of the session when the visitors dispersed, as to why Bhaghavan did not reply, Bhaghavan replied that those people if they understood the real implication of moksha- the sense of freedom from the error of the personal ego with all its cravings-they would not visit him, and that all they wanted was a comfortable sailing in the sea of time. with regards Sankarraman.......... > How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2006 Report Share Posted August 12, 2006 Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran > wrote: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada > wrote: --- mahadevadvaita <mahadevadvaita > wrote: > So the ego > questions - why should I seek permanent death. From Sankarraman Dear Sir, The whole attribution for the conclusion that moksa is also impermanent is to the fact of equating eternity also with time series. We think that when we attain moksa, we will exist as personal beings with many object-oriented pleasures as some dualistic schools conceive. As far as I am concerned I might state honestly that I do feel equal to the idea of moksa, even though I may talk of Vedanta learnedly or unlearnedly. From Sankarraman The last sentence should be, ' I do not feel equal to etc.' Otherwise it should be meaningless. I request to be excused for this basic error. with regards Sankarraman T Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2006 Report Share Posted August 12, 2006 advaitin, "mahadevadvaita" <mahadevadvaita wrote: > > Namaste, So the ego > questions - why should I seek permanent death. Normally death is > temporary and one in a million or billion would not take birth > again. Why should I take to karma yoga or sanyasa and seek permanent > death ? I am not going to experience any permanent bliss or life. > Please comment. > > regards, > Om Namah Sivaya Namaste Mahadev-ji, I am neither a sotriyah nor a Brahmanishta, so I can only address what you say from my own limited level of understanding. The questions which you write about above, were ones that used to trouble my mind as well. Why would I want moksha, if moksha means the end of `me'? Now my understanding has changed. First of all, what is meant by the word, 'me'? Am I the body and the mind? No, I am not. So if I am not the body and the mind, (and indeed never have been), then the recognition of the fact that I, 'me,' (the one those words actually point to), is Brahman, does not change what has always been true. Prior to Self-knowledge, the mind can accept what is true or not. It can like it or not. But whether the mind accepts it or not, that does not change what is always true. So that's one way to ease the mind's fear around this matter. Because in a sense, Self-knowledge does not change what has always been true. It's just that the mind now sees the truth, as it always has been. When you say: "I am not going to experience any permanent bliss or life," that is the mind talking, taking itself to be one with what the word `I' refers to. All experiences come and go. Try and find one which has gone. You can't. It's all gone, and even the memory will one day go, (sooner for some than for others) :-) I like one thing my teacher has said, "For a jnani, experience can be compared to the reaction an adult has when his or her hand lets go of a helium balloon. For a child this is a terrible loss. It's a tragedy. That happiness is totally gone. For an adult, what does it matter? So if a jnani knows that the source of true happiness is not to be found in objects of experience, and furthermore that mental happiness comes and goes, and furthermore that I am not the mind, then how can the equation of experience + quality of mind + temporary happiness = me? It can't. I'm out of that equation. None of those things have anything to do with my Being, with me. If I've taken my self out of that equation, then whatever comes and goes, is clearly seen not to touch me, and in fact, it never did. From that understanding, I can appreciate what life brings and what it takes away, without getting bothered about it all. Because I know it has nothing at all to do with the true source of the mind's ananda. I've seen through the trick that ignorance plays, and it can't trick me like that anymore. Something else, in the sampradaya in which I study, and what Swami Dayananda and his teachers teach, is at the death of the body of the jnani, what is the 'experience' then? The experience of Ishwara. Now, I'm not claiming to understand that statement at all, because I don't. But this is what the teachings teach, and they say this is a very important part of the teachings, without the understanding of which, the teachings are not considered to be complete. Who are you now? You are Brahman. You are also the whole. You are Ishwara. Your experience is limited by your limited upadhi. But for the jnani, when the limited upadhi drops, the experience is that of Ishwara. Again, I'm not even sure that our limited minds can understand what that means, but that is what the teachings, which I have heard, say. Yet it seems to me that if I am the whole already, and the mind can know that, but the mind does not have Ishwara's experience directly due to the limitation of the upadhi, then when that limited upadhi is no more, then why would the `experience' not be that of the whole Ishwara upadhi? Of course that would be from the POV of Ishwara, as the limited mind of the jnani would be no more. Well, my limited mind is already a part of Ishwara. It's a part to the whole. It belongs to Ishwara anyway. So if it's there or not, only Ishwara was ever there anyway. Most likely wiser people than I on this list can make some sense of out what I've said here, (or maybe what I've said is nonsensical, as my understanding is far from complete) This much I can tell you, I don't seem to have the concerns which you expressed above any more, (and which I certainly used to have), and I don't know why that is. The fear of 'loss of experience' does not seem to be one that I have. If who and what I am can never die, and indeed has never died, and if I am the whole, then where is there a loss in any way, except of ignorance? Every moment is replaced by the next. Each moment there is a `loss' of the previous experience, as one replaces another. If I am not this mind, then where is the loss? I don't see a loss. The creation is just changing. (And the teachings say it is changing in me). I'm sure that learned members here can express, explain, clarify and (most importantly) correct whatever I have said here. My pranams, Durga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2006 Report Share Posted August 13, 2006 "> Something else, in the sampradaya in which I study, > and what Swami Dayananda and his teachers > teach, is at the death of the body of the jnani, what > is the 'experience' then? The experience of Ishwara. > > Now, I'm not claiming to understand that statement > at all, because I don't." Namaste Durga-ji Pranams. You have written some very wise and insightful comments, as one would expect from a student of HH Pujya Dayananda-ji. I am certainly would not consider myself a learned expert but perhaps my perspective may be of some use, about this particular aspect of your writing. One thing that advaita rejects, and particularly HH Swami Dayanandaji, is any idea of advaita dealing with any kind of "experience" howsoever profound or divine. As you very astutely pointed out the entire teaching is to give me a knowledge of my true self - jnanam. Right now due to beginingless avidya I think of myself as a limited ego, and my Guru using the Mother Shruti as a pramana, aided by my self-effort, takes me towards the firm understanding of my true self - satyam jnanam anantam. Once i "dis"-cover my true identity to be Brahman, that is the culmination of my search - there is then no more "wanting" me - I am whole. I am complete. Period. With regards to this body - all the elements that constitute it in gross and subtle form can now resolve back into srshti - their purpose has been served - they have gotten me to my destination. And they have truly been blessed. Once that is so, there is no question about any kind of experience awaiting "me" upon the dissolution of this body. First of all the experiencer "bhokta" is long dead by the firm knowledge that I am the saakshi chaitanyam the very substratum of this jagat. Secondly even if somewhere something is said about such an experience - then like anything other experience it will have an end. ANything that "begins" must "end" - if nothing else then certainly at pralaya during the COsmic dissolution. "Anatar jyoti bahir jyoti, pratyak jyoti paratparah: Jyoti jyoti ahamswayam jyoti, atma jyoti shivosmyham" !!! If this be my realization while alive where is the question of me experiencing anything at the time this body completes its allotted quota of life? Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2006 Report Share Posted August 14, 2006 Dear Sri. Sadananda / friends, On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 15:57 -0700, kuntimaddi sadananda wrote: > > ... > But again, pursuit for moxa is only for those who have vairaagya for > the worldly pursuit of happiness. If one is comfortable with the > egotistical world, then there is no problem. One can enjoy the roller- > costar. > > How does vairaagya come into the picture? The purushaarthas are 4: dharma, artha, kaama and moxa. If vairaagya was a pre-condition, why have a separate word called mumukshu (instead of viraagi) ? I cannot reconcile vairaagya with the life of SriRama or SriKrishna. Best regards, Ramachandra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2006 Report Share Posted August 14, 2006 Shree Ramachandraji - PraNAms The dharma artha kaama and moxa are the four puruShArthas - Moxa is the ultimate. Now for moxa - one needs four-fold qualifications: viveka (discrimination), vairAgya (dispassion), ShamAdi shat sampatti ( set of 6 - wealth of discipline) and mumuxutvam (intense desire for liberation). These are called 4-D's: discrimination, dispassion, discipline, desire. viveka is discrimination of what is Shreyas in contrast to prayas or discrimination of eternal from ephemeral - nitya anitya vastu viveka. VairAgya is dispassion towards those that make you bound - all sensuous desires and all ego-centric desire prompted action. Mental dependence on something other than oneself for happiness - Dispassion towards that is vairAgya. This is essentially what Krishna calls .. ananyaschinata without any other thought other than Me. It is like giving up watching TV for the sake of putting forth all the efforts to study. Giving up lower for higher is vairaagya. Giving up higher for lower is what we normally do. Rama could easily give up the throne to follow his dharma as a son. In the ashTottaranaamavali for Krishna one says he is annadibrahmachArine namaH - How can he be that with 16000 + wives. He is mentally a sanyaasi. Shat sampatti - involves shama, dama, shraddHa, uparati, titIxa, samAdAna are the six-set of disciplinary modes of living in order to withdraw the mind from wasteless pursuits. mumuxutvam is the intense desire for liberation. If you have that then the rest of the others follow. Since most of us do not have that wisdom that Rama or Krishna has we need acquire the above set of four-fold qualifications to be able to pursue intensely the inquiry of Brahman at the seat of meditation. Hope this helps. Hari OM! Sadananda --- "K.B.S.Ramachandra" <ram (AT) meritsystems (DOT) com> wrote: > How does vairaagya come into the picture? The purushaarthas are 4: > dharma, artha, kaama and moxa. If vairaagya was a pre-condition, why > have a separate word called mumukshu (instead of viraagi) ? > > I cannot reconcile vairaagya with the life of SriRama or SriKrishna. > > Best regards, > Ramachandra > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2006 Report Share Posted August 15, 2006 > I cannot reconcile vairaagya with the life of SriRama or SriKrishna. > > Best regards, > Ramachandra > Namaste Ramachandra-ji Pranams to Sadanandaji for such a detailed and patient answer. With regards to Lord Rama, I would encourage you to read the section on Vairagyam in the Yoga Vashishta, where-in is laid out so beautifully by Bhagwaan Ramchandra-ji in his own words a very detailed description of vairagyam born out of viveka, which then of course sets the scene for the Great Sage Vashishta to promulgate his most wonderful work on advaita. Hare Ram Hare Ram Ram Ram Hare Hare. Shyam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2006 Report Share Posted August 15, 2006 Namaste Sri Shyamji, What you have so clearly written in post #32507 makes perfect sense. And it is indeed the conclusion I would have come to if left to think about this subject on my own. Yet my own teacher, (whom Pujya Swami Dayanandaji told me is one of the best teachers he has ever trained), has told us in class over and over again, that after the death of the body the jnani abides as Ishwara. I heard Pujya Swamiji concur with this statement himself (although that was two years ago, and I can't remember his exact words). Perhaps someone else who is a student of Swamiji's would care to comment. I will also ask my teacher (who is now out of town) for further clarification on the subject. I tape record all of our classes, and I know that there is one tape which specifically addresses this subject, although since I didn't mark it as such, I doubt if I could find it right now. However yesterday, I was listening to a tape of a recent class, and here is what was said by my teacher at the beginning of the class: "Coming to know That (Consciousness) one is liberated…. And that liberated person (the one gaining this Knowledge here and now) that person is liberated after death. That means doesn't take another body. When that body drops, then that person just abides as Ishwara." Then this is what my teacher said at the end of the class: "Reality is Ishwara. It's not just that Reality is Brahman. Reality is Ishwara, because Brahman has this maya capacity that allows Brahman to be Ishwara. To be this [whole creation]. So with the maya capacity, Brahman has infinite intelligence, which is not something that we can really conceive of with our little limited minds. Infinite intelligence means the expression of all that is. So Brahman expresses in the form of all that is. And that Brahman can express that way (because of the maya) means that Brahman is Ishwara. The person who knows this self, this atma, the one who knows that self to be that Consciousness, which is changeless, that person is liberated. That person does not grieve. That person is liberated after death. What that means is this. This whole maya upadhi expresses. As Ishwara, I express as this infinite creation. This is the expression of my Being. The whole maya expresses in this infinite way. Each one of us is a jiva within that infinite expression. Jiva just means what? Because of the nature of that expression, every entity within it is bound by ajnanam, is bound by ignorance. It means, that I don't know myself. I am. I exist. And the mind just takes myself naturally to be this body, mind, sense organs, because that is the limitation of the mind and the sense organs. Just think of it, in a dream, a dream character has sense organs. Everything is looking outward. So the dream character just obviously takes themselves to be this [body]. But what is the truth? The truth is that I am the whole, that I am Ishwara. That is the truth. And so when the jiva knows that, there is nothing in this individual that has any inclination to transmigrate anymore, because I am the whole. And even walking around, I know that. And so when the body drops there is no reason to take another birth. And so this jiva, does not transmigrate anymore. What does that mean? I just abide as Ishwara, which is who I am. I am all of these things, and I am free from all of these things, and that is the truth. That is Ishwara. And then as long as this jiva upadhi is here, then when you gain self-knowledge, it is a very interesting situation, because then you get to walk around in Ishwara. You as a jnani, are walking through your self. You are walking through Ishwara. That's what it is. And the more you understand that, the more the jivatvam (the individuality) resolves into Ishwara, as there is more and more appreciation of Ishwara. But the amount of appreciation of Ishwara is commensurate with the mind's relaxation into the self, because the mind needs to feel that wholeness and love. And as the mind relaxes and recognizes that the nature of the love and the fullness that it sought is the self, then it doesn't need for the creation to be in a particular way to make me happy. When that thing is gone, I don't need this to be in a particular way to make me happy because my ananda is the atma, is the self. That is the one and only source of ananda. When that's clear, then I can really appreciate Ishwara, because I don't say, "Please do it like this, so that I can be happy." When I am free, I am free to appreciate. There is also no reason for this individual to continue." [End quote] One thing I've also been taught, which addresses pralaya, is that first of all, the creation projects cyclically, and there is indeed no `first' beginning for the creation. And even with the dissolution of the creation, the jivas and all of their karmas still exist in their seed form, and thus it is said that the jiva has had an infinite number of lifetimes, that ignorance is beginningless, and that the storehouse of karmas for a jiva is infinite and inexhaustible except through Knowledge, When the creation projects again, the jivas (the ajnanis) and their karmas are projected as well. And when the creation resolves one could say that it is similar to Ishwara being in nirvikalpa samadhi. When an individual mind comes out of nirvikalpa samadhi, all memories etc. still remain. Well, all of these topics represent very deep waters for me. And ones which I rarely try and venture into. I wonder if understanding all of them is necessary for self-knowledge to occur. I think most likely it isn't necessary to understand all of them. Except for the understanding of Ishwara, that you are the whole. And even that understanding grows and matures after self-knowledge, in the light of what the mind now knows to be true. It is my understanding, (and what I have been taught, and what makes perfect sense to me), is that once the recognition of the self has occurred, (which is self-knowledge), then that is that. Obviously the self doesn't change. But what does change and what does grow after self-knowledge, is the appreciation and understanding of my self as the whole, of my self as Ishwara, an understanding and appreciation of all of the complexities, and the beauty and the inner workings. What was it that Lord Krishna said? (And I'm sure this is a very imperfect paraphrase) `The jnani is the only true bhakta, because only the jnani knows me, whereas everyone else wants something from me.' Regarding the use of the word `experience.' My teacher has often remarked that Pujya Swamiji doesn't use this word much, as it can be confusing. Yet my teacher uses the word to point us students to the fact that the self, which we experience ourselves as at this very moment, is Brahman. That one experiences the self, not in terms of an enjoyer or doer, and not in terms of the self as an object of experience. But rather that the self is *the* bottom-line `experience'. The one which cannot be gotten behind and looked at, and yet which each of us already knows ourselves, and actually experiences ourselves, as. So it's not that anyone lacks experience of the self, it is rather that the experience, which is totally present and complete, is not recognized for what it is. And not knowing this, some people often become very confused by the words which are traditionally used (but not properly unfolded) to describe the self, the self which is already 100% totally `experienced' as who I am. Then that confused person goes looking around for some type of `experience' (which they feel they can't possibly be having at this very moment). An `experience' that matches ideas they have of the words they have heard, missing the very fact, that the self which one is, and which the Upanishads are pointing to, is totally present and is in fact, experienced as who I am right now. So the phenomena of people going around seeking to have an `experience' which they are not now having, rather than recognizing the experience they are already having for what it is, is the problem with using the word, `experience,' IMO. Granted the word `experience' is tricky, as most experiences come and go, but properly wielded, I do think that the word `experience' can be used very effectively to point the student to their very own being, which is already present, and is in fact the bottom-line `experience' of being, but not as an object. In terms of the jnani abiding as Ishwara after the jnani's body drops, as I previously said, I don't fully understand that statement. I think my teacher talking this way this may have something to do with my own teacher's appreciation of Ishwara, and also perhaps that Pujyah Swamiji is himself teaching and talking more about Ishwara now. If I have an opportunity, I will ask Pujya Swamiji when I attend a course which he is giving next month. I will also ask my own teacher for further explanation, because although I have heard this often, (that the jnani abides as Ishwara, and even that the experience is Ishwara's experience after the death of the jnani's body), my own inclination would be to accept something similar to what you have written, and indeed that is what I once thought, and my teacher has said that she once thought this as well. But that it isn't correct. So, because my teacher has said that after the death of the body, the jnani abides as Ishwara, and because it seems to me that I did hear Pujya Swamiji agree with that statement, I feel compelled to try and properly understand exactly what they mean, and the meaning is not clear to me at the moment. My pranams, Durga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2006 Report Share Posted August 15, 2006 Namaste Durgaji: I do believe that you have provided several clues through the earlier paragraphs of your discussions for understanding jnani abiding as Ishwara. Our doubts will remain as long as we assume that we have limited intelligence. How can a person with a limited intelligence understand an entity with infinite intelligence? This is the famous 'black hole' paradox - the only way to understand the black hole is to be in it; when we are in it, we lose the separate identity and consequently the question also gets dissolved! Ishwara is macrocosm (collective mind) and Jiva is microcosm (individual mind). When jiva discards the body-mind-intellect (death of physical body) the Jivamukta becomes the witnessing Ishwara without name and form. I do think that this is total liberation ore REAL Moksha. This is my understanding and I do want to hear from others on this paradoxical unanswerable question! Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "Durga" <durgaji108 wrote: > > > In terms of the jnani abiding as Ishwara after the > jnani's body drops, as I previously said, I don't > fully understand that statement. I think my teacher > talking this way this may have something to do with > my own teacher's appreciation of Ishwara, and also > perhaps that Pujyah Swamiji is himself teaching and > talking more about Ishwara now. > ....... > > So, because my teacher has said that after the death of > the body, the jnani abides as Ishwara, and because > it seems to me that I did hear Pujya Swamiji agree > with that statement, I feel compelled to try and > properly understand exactly what they mean, and > the meaning is not clear to me at the moment. > > My pranams, > Durga > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2006 Report Share Posted August 15, 2006 > durgaji108 > Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:45:35 +0000 > Re: Why Moksha ? > > Namaste Sri Shyamji, > > What you have so clearly written in post #32507 > makes perfect sense. And it is indeed the conclusion > I would have come to if left to think about this > subject on my own. Yet my own teacher, (whom Pujya > Swami Dayanandaji told me is one of the best teachers > he has ever trained), has told us in class over and > over again, that after the death of the body the > jnani abides as Ishwara. > Durgaji PraNAms. Jnaani abides in Brahman - that is what the knowledge means - aham brahmAsmi is the realization.. Iswara is also vyAvahArika satyam. From the disciple's point, he may see his teacher as Brahman manifesting as Guru and Brahman manifesting as Iswara. Just from technical point, Jnaani has become Brahman as 'brahmavit brahma eva bhavati' is the shruti vAkyam - knower of Brahman becomes Brahman. One can equate Brahman with Iswara as creator. But that is true only if creation is considered as real - that is from jiiva's reference. . From absolute point there is no creation and therefore no Iswara either. Hari Om! Sadananda _______________ Try Live.com - your fast, personalized homepage with all the things you care about in one place. http://www.live.com/getstarted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2006 Report Share Posted August 15, 2006 Namaste Sadaji: First, I have no quarrel with your statements and I do not see any contradiction of the statement attributed to Swami Dadayanandaji. The reference point for all discussions that we conduct about Jivamukta, Ishwara and Brahman is Jiva and consequently everything pertains to vyavaharika level only. As you rightly pointed out Brahman only knows the Brahman. The question, what happens to the death of a Jnani can at the most be answered from Jiva as the reference point only. Swamiji explanation is intellectually quite appealing - the jnanai will not take another birth after death of his/her body and the jnani merges with the Ishwara. Every question that we raise regarding ifs and buts can only be answered from the relative point only and only Brhaman has the answer at the absolute level. Warmest regards, Ram Chandran -- In advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda wrote: > > > > durgaji108 > > Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:45:35 +0000 > > Re: Why Moksha ? > > > > Namaste Sri Shyamji, > > > > What you have so clearly written in post #32507 > > makes perfect sense. And it is indeed the conclusion > > I would have come to if left to think about this > > subject on my own. Yet my own teacher, (whom Pujya > > Swami Dayanandaji told me is one of the best teachers > > he has ever trained), has told us in class over and > > over again, that after the death of the body the > > jnani abides as Ishwara. > > > > Durgaji PraNAms. > > Jnaani abides in Brahman - that is what the knowledge means - aham brahmAsmi is the realization.. Iswara is also vyAvahArika satyam. >From the disciple's point, he may see his teacher as Brahman manifesting as Guru and Brahman manifesting as Iswara. Just from technical point, Jnaani has become Brahman as 'brahmavit brahma eva bhavati' is the shruti vAkyam - knower of Brahman becomes Brahman. One can equate Brahman with Iswara as creator. But that is true only if creation is considered as real - that is from jiiva's reference. . From absolute point there is no creation and therefore no Iswara either. > Hari Om! > Sadananda > _______________ > Try Live.com - your fast, personalized homepage with all the things you care about in one place. > http://www.live.com/getstarted > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 15, 2006 Report Share Posted August 15, 2006 >"Ram Chandran" <ramvchandran > > >First, I have no quarrel with your statements and I do not see any >contradiction of the statement attributed to Swami Dadayanandaji. Ram - PraNAms. Actually I was not contradicting Swami Dayanandaji. I learned from him. I was explaining the difference between Brahman and Iswara. The truth is jnaani becomes Brahman one with the total consciousness since that is the realization. Iswara is only a notion in the mind of jiiva who sees creation and Iswara as creator. Creation is only taTAsta laxaNa and not swarUpa laxaNa. SwarUpa laxaNa is satyam jnaanam anantam Brahma or sat chit ananda brahma without any qualification. That is the only difference I was trying to point out. Otherwise the statements are the same. Thanks for pointing out. Hari Om! Sadananda _______________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 16, 2006 Report Share Posted August 16, 2006 advaitin, "shyam_md" <shyam_md wrote: > > One thing that advaita rejects, and particularly HH Swami Dayanandaji, > is any idea of advaita dealing with any kind of "experience" howsoever > profound or divine. > > As you very astutely pointed out the entire teaching is to give me a > knowledge of my true self - jnanam. > > Right now due to beginingless avidya I think of myself as a limited > ego, and my Guru using the Mother Shruti as a pramana, aided by my > self-effort, takes me towards the firm understanding of my true self - > satyam jnanam anantam. > > Once i "dis"-cover my true identity to be Brahman, that is the > culmination of my search - there is then no more "wanting" me - I am > whole. I am complete. Period. Srigurubhyo Namah Dear Shyam ji, While what you have said in this post is largely indisputable, i have this one aspect pertaining to the above to point out. Here is what Acharya Shankara says in the Brahmasutrabhashya I.i.2: In Brahma-jignaasaa (enquiry into Brahman), the Vedic texts, personal experience, etc. are valid means ... for the knowledge of Brahman culminates in experience and it relates to an existing entity. (unquote) The original words are: shrutyaadayo anubhavaadayashcha yathaa sambhavam iha pramaanam, anubhava- avasAnatvaat ...brahmajnaanasya. The Bhamati, an authoritative gloss on the Brahmasutra bhashya has this to say on the above sentence of the bhashyam: The mental modification having the form, 'I am Brahman', culminates in the revelation of the real nature of Brahman. The original sentence is: anubhava = antaHkarana-vrittibhedo brahmasaakshaatkaaraH. tasya avidyaa-nivritti-dvaarena brahmasvarupa-aavirbhaavaH pramaana phalam. ...brahmaanubhavaH brahmasaakshaatkaaraH paraH purushaarthaH, nirbhrishta-nikhila-duhkha-paramaanandarupatvaat. He states that 'experience' is that special mental mode that is called 'direct realization'. This destroys avidya and through that gives rise to the anubhava-pramana phalam that is the 'means' namely the anubhava that gives rise to one's brahmasvarupatvam. He goes on to question: How can Brahman become an object of an anubhava? and answers: Since Brahman is an Existent, it is quite possible to realize It as such through this anubhava. While this is the traditional Advaita view, called the attainment of the 'akhandakaaravritti' that signifies one's freedom from bondage and liberation from re-birth, let me quote a portion from the book Sridakshinmaurtistotram Part II, on this: Progress temporal; Perfection, the Eternity, in a Flash: It should not be thought that progress and perfection are conceptions pointing to the same level of experience. The one takes place in time; the other signifies transcending it. Perfection is not attained in the time order, but it is victory over time. That is, perfection is not to be understood as taking place gradually step by step, but in a flash at some point during the progress. This is the significance of the Sruti quoted by Sri Sri Acharyapada in the Kathopanishad bhashya (1.3.12)- anadhvagaa adhvasu paarayishnavaH - which means that the knowers 'arrive at the goal without travelling'. The chid-achid-granthi is torn asunder by the Mahavakyajnana and thereafter the Chit shines in Its full glory. That the granthi is torn means that the names and forms of all that is superimposed including Avidya, the very existence of which is only the Substratum, are sublated leaving behind Sat, the Adhishtana, ahishtaana-avashesho hi naashaH kalpita-vastunaH. (unquote) In my humble opinion, this abrupt arising of the akhandaakara vritti is the 'Eureka' of Vedanta Sadhana. This is how traditionally Vedanta is taught. Humble Pranams, Shyam, subbu Om Tat Sat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 Pranams subbu-ji Thank you for your wonderful, detailed, and scholarly post. It is a blessing for us to have the oppurtunity to hear from panditahs. " The mental modification having the form, 'I am Brahman', culminates in the revelation of the real nature of Brahman.How can Brahman become an object of an anubhava? and answers: Since Brahman is an Existent, it is quite possible to realize It as such through this anubhava." "That is, perfection is not to be understood as taking place gradually step by step, but in a flash at some point during the progress. This is the significance of....which means that the knowers 'arrive at the goal without travelling'. "The chid-achid-granthi is torn asunder by the Mahavakyajnana and thereafter the Chit shines in Its full glory. That the granthi is torn means that the names and forms of all that is superimposed including Avidya, the very existence of which is only the Substratum, are sublated leaving behind Sat, the Adhishtana, ahishtaana-avashesho hi naashaH kalpita-vastunaH. (unquote)" "In my humble opinion, this abrupt arising of the akhandaakara vritti is the 'Eureka' of Vedanta Sadhana." Is jnana vrtti "aham brahmasmi" some kind of experience or experiential state is what is being considered. I have a few questions, and am eager to hear your learned and erudite opinions and thoughts. Since the vastu is selfexisting and is in fact the only thing existing and realization amouts to the recognition of the vastu as my true self, who would be the "experiencer" of that experience? This sentence in the brahmasutras Evam muktiphalaniyamastadavasthavadhriteh" indicates that "there is no gradation or variation in the fruit of that knowledge" This would to me seem like there cannot be one grade of liberation while living and another perhaps better grade of liberation upon death. If liberation be a divine experience or an Ishwara experience, then certainly there can be many grades - one experience may simply have to do with experiencing the omniscience of Ishwara, another the omnipotence, another the ability to express in and as many bodies, etc etc I have not had the pleasure of reading a translation or commentary on the Bhamati - if there is a particular book please recommend - however I have read and been taught that its author differed from Padmapadacarya in one respect - that the mind of a jiva, under the spell as it were of avidya - projects for himself a distorted vision of the world, wheras according to the latter, Ishwara's creation "exists", its existence is nonseparate from Brahman, and under the spell of avidya the mind in error cognizes it as separate from Ishwara. [Please correct me if this is an incorrect representation on my part of the Bhamati, as again, I have not read it.] The reason I mention this is that if one were to take the viewpoint of the Bhamati - then liberation would certainly entail a correction of this distorted perception - similair to the correction of vision with an incorrect lens - and this will certainly be an "experience" in the sense that we understand the term. There would also be a permanency to this, as in, one then need not ever worry about reverting back to this distorted sense of perception, because the knot of avidya is permanently and decidedly severed. However if the latter view is taken, and I believe many of the current day mahatmas to this view, then realization lies in firmly seeing the nondual in and through this duality, without necessarily having a transcendental experience in the sense of a mystic or esoteric experience, where there is no time sense or space sense. The Vivekachudamani describes a man as "He who knows himself, wears no distinguishing mark and is unattached to the senses, and treats his body as a vehicle, experiencing the various objects as they present themselves like a child dependent on the wishes of others." This would seem to favor a description of someone not in a complete "transcendental state" There are two kinds of erroneous notions - one is similair to the rope-snake wherein in the knowledge of the rope the snake cognition is permanently destroyed. Another kind is for example of knowing the sun never really rises and sets - now the intellectual knowledge that this happens does not really change the vyavaharic experience of the Sun rising and setting. Which example better fits the "knowledge" as it were of Brahman. If it is the former then yes- there must likely be a "revelationary" experience where you finally "see" that you indeed are all this, are all this, [and what you "saw" because of avidya is no longer present]. If it is the latter, then the jagat continue to have a vyavaharic satyam, and nishta in one's identitification with the vastu, (as being nonseparate from me) will gradually become complete and total, (with no separate afterdeath "divine" experience awaiting the jiva who has already attained jnanam.) The Eureka example is very apt - Archimedes immediately "knew" he had the answer (in his case it was an inferential conclusion of course) but the dawn of this knowledge did not involve an "experiential phenomenon" Sashtang Pranams Shri gurubhyoh namah Shyam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 Namaste Sri Shyamji, I know that your question was addressed to Sri Subbuji, who can answer any question on Vedanta better than I could hope to do in a thousand lifetimes. However, I wanted to write something, which I'm not even sure addresses the question you are asking, but it is something which I have been taught, and which makes sense to me. When the recognition of 'I am Brahman' occurs, that is pretty much that, and this occurrence does happen in the mind, in the form of the akhanda akara vritti. So after that the jnani does not loose sight of the fact that 'I am Brahman.' That fact has been clearly recognized. Then what? There is something which is called pratibandakha jnanam, that is jnanam with 'obstructions.' So what are these obstructions? Where and why are they? How did they come about? How do they go? The 'obstructions' are in the form of past conditionings held in the mind, which have yet to 'unwind' in the light of the jnani's Knowledge. Which is why my teacher has said, that sometimes someone with self-knowledge might not appear to have self-knowledge, due to some of their behaviors. And only the teacher and that particular student who now has Knowledge, will know that that person is indeed liberated. In the light of the knowledge of the self, the pratibandakhas will eventually unwind, and dissolve. In ancient days,when the minds of individuals were not so troubled as in these times, these obstructions could very often be observed in meditation. They would rise up and pass away and be gone. However, in these modern times, the human being has become much more complex emotionally, and adharma is more prevalent. All of our minds in these times may have a lot more unwinding to do, and it is my understanding that because of this phenomena, Pujya Swami Dayanandaji and many of the teachers he has trained, appreciate the role which modern psychology plays in relation to self-knowledge. Some people seem to feel that after recognition of the self, everything magically becomes 'rosy.' But I have been taught that this is not the case. Yes, the mind now has a home. It is no longer a vagabond, seeking its happiness here and there in the creation. And certainly in order for self-knowledge to occur, the mind must have a 'relative' degree of shanti. However, because of past conditionings, this mind may still have a lot of maturing to do in the light of Knowledge. It may take time for the negative conditioning of the past to go. So that is all on the level of the mind, and on the level of duality, but it is important, because if a jnani has a broken arm, most probably he or she would go to the doctor and have it fixed. And if the jnani has past conditionings held in the mind, which are causing pain, it is similar. So the jnani can have Knowledge and know 'I am full and complete' and at the same time have broken arm and feel pain, and want to have it fixed. In the same way the jnani can know 'I am full and complete,' and there may still be some past conditionings in the mind that rise up cause pain, which that person would prefer to be without. So I have been taught that recognition of my self as Brahman is only the beginning (in a sense) of self-knowledge, and after that initial recognition, which is not lost sight of, still there can be work that remains to be done in the light of that Knowledge, on the level of the mind. Please pardon me for butting in here with my two cents, but my teacher feels that understanding these matters in these confused times which we now live in is very important. Hari Om, Durga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2006 Report Share Posted August 18, 2006 advaitin, "shyam_md" <shyam_md wrote: Srigurubhyo NamaH Namaste Shyam ji, Thank you for the very thought-provoking response. Here is yet another `evidence' of Ishwara gracing this group. How timely is that post of Sri Sunder Rajan ji. My thanks to him for those invaluable inputs. Last night the thought of the word `kshana' of the bhashya was prompting itself and I was wondering how I would be able to locate it. And promptly comes in that post that carries that very vaakyam that substantiates the response that is contained herein. To make things easier, I have inserted `Shyam says:' and `Reply' to cover this entire reply. It might sound like I am being curt, but that is not the case. It is a joy to converse with a sadhaka of your type. Shyam says: Is jnana vrtti "aham brahmasmi" some kind of experience or experiential state is what is being considered. I have a few questions, and am eager to hear your learned and erudite opinions and thoughts. Since the vastu is selfexisting and is in fact the only thing existing and realization amouts to the recognition of the vastu as my true self, who would be the "experiencer" of that experience? Reply: The endeavour of sadhana is to obtain a Direct Perception of the vastu. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says: Atma vaa arey drashTavyaH, shrotavyo, mantavyo, nididhyaasitavyaH'. This means:as per the Acharya's bhashyam `…the Self, dear Maitreyi, has to be realized. It should be first heard of….then reflected on…..then steadfastly meditated upon. Thus only is it realized, when these means, namely hearing etc. have been gone through. When these three are combined, then only true realization of the unity of Brhaman is accomplished, not otherwise, by hearing alone.' The realization comes about in the form of the vritti and is experienced in the manas of the aspirant. As in the case of all other vrittis, this vritti is witnessed by the Sakshi. (Some other details pertaining to vritti in general and this particular vritti are available in the thread on Self-Realization when Sri Sundar Hattangadi ji posted a note from the Panchadashi by Sri S.N.Shastry) This quote from the Brahmasutra bhashyam (4.1.1.2) would clear many doubts. A thorough study of the earlier sutrabhashyam and this one will be very rewarding: http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sankar a_38263.php (quote) Now in the case of those persons for whom the meaning of these two terms is obstructed by ignorance, doubt, and misconception, the sentence 'Thou art that' cannot produce a right knowledge of its sense, since the knowledge of the sense of a sentence presupposes the knowledge of the sense of the words; for them therefore the repetition of the scripture text and of reasoning must be assumed to have a purpose, viz. the discernment of the true sense of the words.-- And although the object to be known, viz. the Self, does not consist of parts, yet men wrongly superimpose upon it the attribute of being made up of many parts, such as the body, the senses, the manas, the buddhi, the objects of the senses, the sensations, and so on. Now by one act of attention we may discard one of these parts, and by another act of attention another part; so that a successively progressing cognition may very well take place. This however is merely an antecedent of the (true) knowledge of the Self (in which there can be no successive stages). Those quick-witted persons, on the other hand, in whose mind the sense of the words is not obstructed by ignorance, doubt, and misconception, are able to intuit the sense of the sentence 'Thou art that' on its first enunciation even, and for them therefore repetition is not required. For the knowledge of the Self having once sprung up discards all ignorance; so that in this case no progressive process of cognition can be acknowledged. (unquote) Although it may appear superficial, it would be of benefit to add that the ` sa-pratibandhaka' (with-obstruction) aparoksha Jnanam (direct knowledge) does not confer liberation. The reason is simple: the obstruction/s persist/s. These could be of the form of misapprehension, non-apprehension or doubt, as the above bhashya mentions. Unless the specific obstruction goes, the knowledge had will not result in the fruit of liberation. Even if a person has had the obstructed `direct knowledge', if death precedes the actual destruction of avidya, the person is not freed from rebirth. The Jivanmuktiviveka mentions the case of none other than Shuka who was troubled with the obstruction of doubt. He had known the teaching correctly, having been initiated into it by his father, Sage Vyasa. As the realization did not dawn, Vyasa sent him to Janaka. When Janaka expounded the Truth to Shuka, the latter recognized that it was no different from what his father had taught and correctly understood by him. But the words of Janaka had the effect of bringing about a conviction in Shuka and immediately (upon focusing intensely on the Self) he became enlightened, the doubt-obstacle having been eradicated. The Jivanmukti Viveka mentions another case as well. Shyam says: This sentence in the brahmasutras Evam muktiphalaniyamastadavasthavadhriteh" indicates that "there is no gradation or variation in the fruit of that knowledge" Reply: Can you pl. give the reference to that quote? Shyam says: This would to me seem like there cannot be one grade of liberation while living and another perhaps better grade of liberation upon death. If liberation be a divine experience or an Ishwara experience, then certainly there can be many grades - one experience may simply have to do with experiencing the omniscience of Ishwara, another the omnipotence, another the ability to express in and as many bodies, etc etc Reply: This is not disputed. Shyam says: I have not had the pleasure of reading a translation or commentary on the Bhamati - if there is a particular book please recommend - however I have read and been taught that its author differed from Padmapadacarya in one respect - that the mind of a jiva, under the spell as it were of avidya - projects for himself a distorted vision of the world, wheras according to the latter, Ishwara's creation "exists", its existence is nonseparate from Brahman, and under the spell of avidya the mind in error cognizes it as separate from Ishwara. [Please correct me if this is an incorrect representation on my part of the Bhamati, as again, I have not read it.] Reply: Here is what the Panchapaadikaa, of Padmapadacharya says: >From the principal teaching in all the Srutis being that of Brahman for the purpose of moksha, it is concluded (arthaapatti) that : the Jiva is ignorant of his Brahmanhood, is in bondage caused by avidya which is natural (nisargataH). A question arises: Have you not averred that the jiva is non-different from Brahman? He replies: True, that is why the `covering' of his Brahmasvarupatvam called avidya is postulated in the jiva. Otherwise, if the jiva's knowledge of his native Brahmanhood is admitted to be eternal, then the Sruti's teaching of his identity with Brahman would be rendered futile. (there is the quotation of the Gita verse (13th chapter: prakritim purusham chaiva …and maayaam tu prakritim vidyaan (sruti)). Then he concludes: Therefore, being conditioned by Maya (maaya-avacchinna- rUpatvaat) the jiva, even though non-different from Brahman, he does not know his Brahmanhood. Then he quotes the Gaudapaada kaarika: anaadi maayayaa suptaH (I.16). Shyam says: The reason I mention this is that if one were to take the viewpoint of the Bhamati - then liberation would certainly entail a correction of this distorted perception - similair to the correction of vision with an incorrect lens - and this will certainly be an "experience" in the sense that we understand the term. There would also be a permanency to this, as in, one then need not ever worry about reverting back to this distorted sense of perception, because the knot of avidya is permanently and decidedly severed. However if the latter view is taken, and I believe many of the current day mahatmas to this view, then realization lies in firmly seeing the nondual in and through this duality, without necessarily having a transcendental experience in the sense of a mystic or esoteric experience, where there is no time sense or space sense. Reply: Even Padmapaadacharya does not obviate the need for anubhava to eradicate avidya. This is clear in the Panchapaadika for the Sutrabhashya sentence that was quoted earlier regarding Brahmajnana being an anubhava. Shyam says: The Vivekachudamani describes a man as "He who knows himself, wears no distinguishing mark and is unattached to the senses, and treats his body as a vehicle, experiencing the various objects as they present themselves like a child dependent on the wishes of others." This would seem to favor a description of someone not in a complete "transcendental state" Reply: That is true. The Vivekachudamani has this to say about the culmination of sadhana: 477. Himself knowing his indivisible Self through his own realisation and thus becoming perfect, a man should stand face to face with the Atman, with his mind free from dualistic ideas. 478. The verdict of all discussions on the Vedanta is that the Jiva and the whole universe are nothing but Brahman, and that liberation means abiding in Brahman, the indivisible Entity. While the Shrutis themselves are authority (for the statement) that Brahman is One without a second. 479. Realising, at a blessed moment, the Supreme Truth through the above instructions of the Guru, the authority of the Scriptures and his own reasoning, with his senses quieted and the mind concentrated, (the disciple) became immovable in form and perfectly established in the Atman. 480. Concentrating the mind for some time on the Supreme Brahman, he rose, and out of supreme bliss spoke as follows. 481. My mind has vanished, and all its activities have melted, by realising the identity of the Self and Brahman; I do not know either this or not-this; nor what or how much the boundless Bliss (of Samadhi) is ! 482. The majesty of the ocean of Supreme Brahman, replete with the swell of the nectar-like Bliss of the Self, is verily impossible to express in speech, nor can it be conceived by the mind – in an infinitesimal fraction of which my mind melted like a hailstone getting merged in the ocean, and is now satisfied with that Essence of Bliss. 483. Where is the universe gone, by whom is it removed, and where is it merged ? It was just now seen by me, and has it ceased to exist ? It is passing strange ! 484. In the ocean of Brahman filled with the nectar of Absolute Bliss, what is to be shunned and what accepted, what is other (than oneself) and what different ? 485. I neither see nor hear nor know anything in this. I simply exist as the Self, the eternal Bliss, distinct from everything else. 486. Repeated salutations to thee, O noble Teacher, who art devoid of attachment, the best among the good souls and the embodiment of the essence of Eternal Bliss, the One without a second – who art infinite and ever the boundless ocean of mercy: Shyam says: There are two kinds of erroneous notions - one is similair to the rope-snake wherein in the knowledge of the rope the snake cognition is permanently destroyed. Another kind is for example of knowing the sun never really rises and sets - now the intellectual knowledge that this happens does not really change the vyavaharic experience of the Sun rising and setting. Which example better fits the "knowledge" as it were of Brahman. If it is the former then yes- there must likely be a "revelationary" experience where you finally "see" that you indeed are all this, are all this, [and what you "saw" because of avidya is no longer present]. If it is the latter, then the jagat continue to have a vyavaharic satyam, and nishta in one's identitification with the vastu, (as being nonseparate from me) will gradually become complete and total, (with no separate afterdeath "divine" experience awaiting the jiva who has already attained jnanam.) Reply: Actually, the continuance of vyavahara is admitted by citing the rope- snake example as well. The persistence of at least a semblance of `fear and shivering' of seeing the unreal snake is admitted in experience even after the sublating of the snake by the right perception of the rope. Some texts give this example to explain the persisting of the Jnani's body and vyavahara. What you have said `…..gradually become complete and total' is not disputed at all. This nishta ideally precedes and culminates in the `enlightenment', thereafter establishing the Jnani in Jivanmukti. If for some reason the nishta has not preceded, it is ideal that the Jnani cultivate it by practicing; this being optional. The presence or absence of this after-enlightenment nishta does not vitiate his freedom from rebirth and Avidya. This is a seminal topic in the Jivanmukti viveka. The Brahmasutra bhashya portion given above will throw light on this topic as well. To restate: Gradual dispelling of wrong notions pertaining to the nature of Brahman is admitted, but only prior to the Saakshaatkaara. The Acharya clearly states that there is no evolution in sakshatkara as such. Some topics connected with the above were included in a discussion with Peter ji recently by me. In order just not to make the post too long, I desist from mentioning many other things. Sureshwaracharya says: Tattvamasyaadi-vaakyottha-samyag-dhii-janma-maatrataH Avidya saha kaaryena na asiit asti bhavishyati (As soon as the vritti impelled by the tattvam asi (like) sentence, avidya is known to be was not, is not and will not be. Note the expression `maatrataH = immediately). You conclude: The Eureka example is very apt - Archimedes immediately "knew" he had the answer (in his case it was an inferential conclusion of course) but the dawn of this knowledge did not involve an "experiential phenomenon" Sashtang Pranams Shri gurubhyoh namah Shyam Reply: The example was more to highlight the abruptness of the jnana- vritti and the definite feeling of fullfilment and real freedom experienced by the person upon getting such a realization. In this sense it is esoteric (confidential, private). It is the endeavour of the Guru and Shastra to give this intimate experience to the aspirant. As the experience of bondage is intimate to him, the countering experience of release also has to be an intimate one. That realization is not in stages or parts is clearly brought out by a recent post by Sri Sundar Hattangadi ji of an incident covering Sri Aurobindo's letter to Sri Ramana. That can be recollected at this juncture. Let me conclude by citing one example: Although I have not read books on Bhagavan Ramana extensively, from what little I have read, this understanding has come to me: The `Death' experience he had at the upstairs of his Madurai house as a high-schoolboy, marked his enlightenment and freedom from bondage. His subsequent long, astounding by all standards, abidance in samadhi in the paathaala-lingam (stretching to several weeks or months, nobody kept count of the period), cellar shrine, at Tiruvannamalai Big Temple, marked his later establishment in Jivanmukti. The jivanmuktiviveka and other works and Teachers who have had the direct realization have stressed this kind of `event-ful' journey to liberation. May the Guru and Shastra bless us all with the faith and strength to tread this noble path. Humble pranams, just an aspirant Subbu Om Tat Sat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2006 Report Share Posted August 18, 2006 advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v wrote: > > advaitin, "shyam_md" <shyam_md@> wrote: > > Srigurubhyo NamaH > Namaste Shyam ji, > > Thank you for the very thought-provoking response. Here is yet > another `evidence' of Ishwara gracing this group. How timely is that > post of Sri Sund > Shyam says: > Is jnana vrtti "aham brahmasmi" some kind of > experience or experiential state is what is being > considered. > > I have a few questions, and am eager to hear your learned and > erudite opinions and thoughts. > > Since the vastu is selfexisting and is in fact the only thing > existing and realization amouts to the recognition of the vastu as > my true self, who would be the "experiencer" of that experience? Namaste, It seems to me that investing too heavily in the concept of Iswara tends to replace the idea of oneself with the idea of another self without realisation. Iswara is the illusory sum total of all the jivas, the Universal Mind if you wish. I understand one becomes the Sakti on realisation but also simultaneously realises Nirguna Brahman, all that is left is the body and the creation; which essentially disappears as never having happened at all..Ajativada! I'm not saying it is wrong to worship or attribute some reality to Iswara but it is only a step, a step that can be jumped over by 'Who am I?' So going to the inside instead of the outside....ONS..Tony. This is my last post for a couple of weeks as I will be in Cuba. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2006 Report Share Posted August 18, 2006 Namaste Sri Toni: Honestly speaking, that your statement, "Iswara is the illusory sum total of all the jivas" seems to imply the English translation of mAyA as illusion. From the advaitic point of view, Iswara represents Brahman plus mAyA. As for as I can see, our problem is our inability to define the unknowable using 'known words and phrases.' This is unresovable puzzle and how do we resolve this puzzle is the big question. The scriptures say that faith on Iswara is the only means for getting rid of this puzzle. Our faith on Iswara can help us to reach the Pure Brahman (Parabrahman without mAyA) and the only way is to purify the mind which is the cause of all our problems. Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "Tony OClery" <aoclery wrote: > > > It seems to me that investing too heavily in the concept of Iswara > tends to replace the idea of oneself with the idea of another self > without realisation. Iswara is the illusory sum total of all the > jivas, the Universal Mind if you wish. I understand one becomes the > Sakti on realisation but also simultaneously realises Nirguna > Brahman, all that is left is the body and the creation; which > essentially disappears as never having happened at all..Ajativada! > > I'm not saying it is wrong to worship or attribute some reality to > Iswara but it is only a step, a step that can be jumped over by 'Who > am I?' So going to the inside instead of the outside....ONS..Tony. > > This is my last post for a couple of weeks as I will be in Cuba. > 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.