Witness and witnessed

[Guest guest]

--- subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote:

 

Subbu raised some important questions in his

justification of self-realization as an event in time.

I felt compelled to address some of the issues since

there is a reference to basic Vedantic principles that

we are discussing in a separate thread.

 

> Why is there not the

> recognition of

> the witnessing principle now itself? All of us know

> from the basic

> study of the Vedanta, in a few day's time, that we

> are the

> witnessing principle. Then why are we not able to

> assert, if not to

> others, to ourselves, that we are Jnanis and are

> already

> liberated?

 

It is to be recognized that knowing that we are

witnessing principle from the Vedanta - 'that I am

seer and not the seen' does not implies that I have

established my self as a witnessing principle without

getting involved in the witnessed. To be witness all

the time requires giving up all the notions that I am

this and this is mine - or complete vairaagya -

dispassion or detachment or sanyaasa. Practice of

karma yoga is required in order to purify the mind to

have that detachment. Therefore knowing that I am a

witnessing principle - a seer and not the seen through

Vedantic study does not mean I have acquired that

degree of detachment to be established in the

witnessing principle without involving myself in the

witnessed entities.

 

Only when one is firmly established that one is always

a witnessing principle and not witnessed - neti neti

... Since all this is witnessed, then only Subbu's

question has relevance.

 

But to go one step further, being a witness is an

intermediary step since there is still a duality -

witness and witnessed.

 

Additional understanding is required by inquiry that

what is witnessed is also I since there is independent

existence of witnesses without the support of witness.

That the whole world of objects is also 'me' the

conscious principle and there is no jadam or 'this' is

separate from I. 'Prapancopasamam' - all the world of

objects dissolve into me alone - should be understood

through Mandukya mantra 7, to firmly establish myself

that 'ayam aatma brahma' this self that I am is

Brahman.

 

>When that something happens and puts

> you in the

> unshakable position of a Jnani, essentially you have

> come out of a

> specific experience that has brought about this

> specific change in

> you.

 

Subbu, I submit that 'something that should happen' is

the understanding that even the objective world or

prameya is also me or I - that is both pramAta and

prameya - the seer and the seen, the witness and the

witnessed - the duality has to be resolved into I, the

substantive, and the conscious entity - saram khalu

idam brahma - all 'this' is Brahman - should also be

understood.

 

You could argue that this happens at a particular time

- true but that is talking in the state of vyavahaara.

When that happens, the concept of time is dissolved -

then who sees what, who hears what .. The concept of

desha kaala is transcended since one is understood as

Brahman beyond the duality. Any flashing etc is seen

too - is it not and I am neither seer nor the seen but

that which is substantive for both. One can talk at

vyavahaara level to communicate to his disciples about

the events in time. But this is transcendence from

vyavahaara to paaramaarthika. We are going from one

reference to the other - from relative plant to the

absolute plane - that is not a movement in time -

since any movement in time can only be in vyavahaara.

One can say realization is only in vyavahaara too -

But one realizes involves transcendence from real to

absolute. The best thing is not to talk of that

state. Hence it is generally agreed that a mahatma

does not announce that he has realized.

 

I am not sure about the context of Swami

Chinmayanandaji statement you have referred to.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Therefore knowing that I am a witnessing principle - a seer and not the

seen through Vedantic study does not mean I have acquired that degree of

detachment to be established in the witnessing principle without involving

myself in the witnessed entities.

 

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

You said the above with a clinical precision prabhuji...yes, the

statements " I am realized" and " I am not realized" both are mere

statements/ vrutti-s only in the mind...likewise, statements like *I was in

bondage* and *now after doing shravaNAdi direct sAdhana, I have finally

realized the ultimate in a flash* too mere staments/vrittis only in the

mind and as you said above these are mere *witnessed* entities by myself .

 

When one understands the rope as *snake*, he determines that this is

*snake* only. This is vrittijnAna of the snake. When the place is

sufficiently illumined he will realize the true nature of snake as rope.

After cognising the true nature of rope he realizes that the knowledge

which he had earlier as a *snake* is a wrong notion. But this type of

cognition of the real nature of rope is also a vrutti in the mind...the

*witnessed* entity...Hence as far as the vrutti is concerned, both wrong &

right knowledge of rope are mere vrutti only or *witnessed entities* and

pertains to antaHkaraNa alone. But here the subtle point to be noted is

here we have to cognise that after knowing the real nature of the rope one

says previously I had misunderstood this rope as snake. Here the notion

regarding the snake is wrong and unreal. But the judgement that this type

of notion has taken place earlier in my mind is born NOW. This judgement

emerges out when one takes the stand in his true nature i.e. witnessing

priciple and unknowingly he has objectified both wrong and right knowledges

of rope. Sri Srinivas Murthy prabhuji has explained this in one of his

previous mails but I think it's gone unnoticed ...It is important to note

that this type of determination regarding the false and true understanding

of the mind is called by shankara as *avagati* or anubhAva which illumines

both jnAnavrutti & ajnAna vrutti.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

>

> --- subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v wrote:

>

> Subbu raised some important questions in his

> justification of self-realization as an event in time.

> I felt compelled to address some of the issues since

> there is a reference to basic Vedantic principles that

> we are discussing in a separate thread.

>

> > Why is there not the

> > recognition of

> > the witnessing principle now itself? All of us know

> > from the basic

> > study of the Vedanta, in a few day's time, that we

> > are the

> > witnessing principle. Then why are we not able to

> > assert, if not to

> > others, to ourselves, that we are Jnanis and are

> > already

> > liberated?

>

> It is to be recognized that knowing that we are

> witnessing principle from the Vedanta - 'that I am

> seer and not the seen' does not implies that I have

> established my self as a witnessing principle without

> getting involved in the witnessed. To be witness all

> the time requires giving up all the notions that I am

> this and this is mine - or complete vairaagya -

> dispassion or detachment or sanyaasa. Practice of

> karma yoga is required in order to purify the mind to

> have that detachment. Therefore knowing that I am a

> witnessing principle - a seer and not the seen through

> Vedantic study does not mean I have acquired that

> degree of detachment to be established in the

> witnessing principle without involving myself in the

> witnessed entities.

>

> Only when one is firmly established that one is always

> a witnessing principle and not witnessed - neti neti

> .. Since all this is witnessed, then only Subbu's

> question has relevance.

>

The best thing is not to talk of that

> state. Hence it is generally agreed that a mahatma

> does not announce that he has realized.

 

 

Namaste, Sada-ji,

 

Well said. There has been a lot of discussion about the actual

process of self-realization. In my opinion the discussion has been

carrid on too long trying to find out what happens to the mind after

it has been consumed by the ocean of Absolute Knowledge.

 

Just to prompt everybody to think in a different direction, may I ask

the following seemingly innocuous question:

 

Does a Jivanmukta know that he is a Jivanmukta?

 

PraNAms to all the advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

> Namaste, Sada-ji,

>

> Well said. There has been a lot of discussion about the actual

> process of self-realization. In my opinion the discussion has been

> carrid on too long trying to find out what happens to the mind

after

> it has been consumed by the ocean of Absolute Knowledge.

>

> Just to prompt everybody to think in a different direction, may I

ask

> the following seemingly innocuous question:

>

> Does a Jivanmukta know that he is a Jivanmukta?

 

Namaste to all,

Yes he/she does. Why ? Because if you read Pujya Swami Dayananda's

Gita commentary, you can tell that he is a Param jnani, although he

never speaks about himself. It is intuitive not any hard evidence or

anything.

Also, please read our Chief Moderator's own account on his website

(although he was reluctant to answer this question.) Here is an

extract from his website

 

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/q_and_a/q_and_a.htm

 

Q: Would you please tell us about your own Awakening?

 

A: The short answer is 'no'. Why do you ask and what difference could

it make to anything?

 

The longer answer is that I used, many years ago, to feel generally

dissatisfied with life and believe that everyone else (at least those

who appeared to be happy) was deluding themselves in believing that

anything in this life had any real meaning. I began an investigation

that was to last for several decades, during which time I learnt about

Advaita and felt that I was following a path that would one day lead

to enlightenment. I used to imagine that I might one day meet a guru

who would pass on the crucial knowledge that would make the

breakthrough. All this was self-delusion, still believing that there

was a separate 'I' that could somehow become an eternal Self.

 

There was no obvious, final piece of knowledge, no event, no special

guru. I carried on reading and discussing these matters, latterly with

many contacts on the Internet. Then, though my interest continues (as

evidenced by the fact that I am currently writing my fourth book on

the subject), the personal element imperceptibly diminished until, two

or three years ago, I realized that I was no longer 'seeking'. The

understanding of the truth was just simply there, not simply as an

intellectual conviction but as something unarguable, requiring no

external validation. Life goes on; the nature of this body-mind has

not changed and will continue to operate as though the world is

dualistic but it matters not. There is not the shadow of a doubt

that 'I' am not the body or mind, simply 'I am'. There is no free

will, no creation etc. All of the key tenets of Advaita are simply

self-evident.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "mahadevadvaita"

<mahadevadvaita wrote:

>

>> > Does a Jivanmukta know that he is a Jivanmukta?

>

> Namaste to all,

> Yes he/she does. Why ? Because if you read Pujya Swami

Dayananda's

> Gita commentary, you can tell that he is a Param jnani, although he

> never speaks about himself. It is intuitive not any hard evidence

or

> anything.

>

 

Namaste,

 

You have come nearer to answering my question. Yes, "He never speaks

about it himself"!

 

Not only does a Jivanmukta speak about it, but the fact may be --

mark it, "may be" , because I cannot speak for a Jivanmukta -- a

Jivanmukta sees everything as Brahman (Recall: brahma eva bhavati)

and so the concept of a Jivan which has become a mukta is all not

there; he is brahman, he was brahman and he sees brahman everywhere.

So there probably is not the awareness that he is a mukta; he was

never in bondage!

 

One more observation from me in substantiation. Shuka is a brahma-

jnAni and a jivanmukta. Nobody questions it. Throughout the

bhagavatam, is there any statement of Shuka himself that he is a

brahma-jnAni or a jivanmukta? Others declare him so but he never

seems to even hint at it.

 

Another. If you had stumbled into Sadashiva-brahmendra and if you

had asked him: show me a jivanmukta. Maybe he would not have cited

himself as the example. For him the world was brahman and therefore

the 'question' of a jivanmukta does not arise!

 

Well, these are surmises. Unless you and I become a jivanmukta we

cannot answer the question!

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

>> > Does a Jivanmukta know that he is a Jivanmukta?

 

Profvk-ji,

 

A couple of passages from Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi may be pertinent to

your question:

 

A visitor asked Sri Bhagavan, "You are Bhagavan. So you would

know when I shall get jnana. Tell me when I shall be a Jnani."

Sri Bhagavan replied, "If I am Bhagavan there is no one besides the

Self - therefore no Jnani or ajnani. If otherwise I am as good as

you are and know as much as yourself. Either way I cannot answer

your question."

(Talk 48)

 

 

M.: Mukti [liberation]is synonymous with the Self. Jivan mukti

(liberation while alive) and videha mukti (liberation after the

body falls) are all for the ignorant. The Jnani is not conscious

of mukti or bandha (bondage).

Bondage, liberation and orders of mukti are all said for an ajnani

in order that ignorance might be shaken off. There is only mukti

and nothing else.

(Talk 266)

 

Best wishes,

Peter

[Guest guest]

Pranams Peter-ji,

 

>

> A visitor asked Sri Bhagavan, "You are Bhagavan. So you would

> know when I shall get jnana. Tell me when I shall be a Jnani."

> Sri Bhagavan replied, "If I am Bhagavan there is no one besides the

> Self - therefore no Jnani or ajnani. If otherwise I am as good as

> you are and know as much as yourself. Either way I cannot answer

> your question."

> (Talk 48)

>

 

With deep reverence to the Bhagavan, I have to say I am not sure I

understand the above logic. Following the above logic, if anybody were

to come to Bhagavan and ask Him what is the way to realization, His

reply could have been on similar lines - that similarly in either

cases stated above, He should have said I cant answer. But He did.

 

So did Sri Krishna answer to all of Arjuna's questions. So did

Shankaracharya write several volumes.

 

I am assuming, Bhagavan probably wanted to say that such questions are

not to be answered and are not pertinent and we should instead focus

on realizing our Self.

 

Learned members can correct my understanding.

 

Regards,

Ravi

[Guest guest]

From; H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranms to all.

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk

wrote:Just to prompt everybody to think in a different direction,

may I ask the following seemingly innocuous question:

Does a Jivanmukta know that he is a Jivanmukta?

PraNAms to all the advaitins.

profvk

Dear Prof VK and Dear members who responded to the above question,

 

In response to the question , I would like to bring to your

kind notice What Upanishads have said in this matter;

Mantras from Prashnopanishad:

tAn hOvAcaitAvadEvAhamEtatparaM brahma vEda

nAtaH paramastIti || 6-7

Pippalada said to them: Thus far, indeed, I know the Supreme Brahman;

there is nothing higher than this.

tE tamarcayantastvaM hi naH pitA yaH asmAkam avidyayAH

paraM pAraM tArayasIti| namaH paramaRuShibyO

namaH paramaRuShiByaH || 6-8

And they, worshipping him, said: Thou, indeed, art our father—thou

who hast taken us across our ignorance to the other shore.

Adoration to the supreme rishis! Adoration to the supreme rishis!

Then he said to them, "Thus far I know the supreme God.

There is nothing higher than it."

 

 

Mantras from ShveAsvatarOpanishad:

vEdAhamEtaM puruShaM mahAntaM

AdityavarNaM tamasaH parastAt |

tamEva viditvA atimRutyumEti

nAnyA paMthA vidyatE ayanAya || 3-8

I know the great Purusha, who is luminous, like the sun and beyond

darkness. Only by knowing Him does one pass over death; there is no

other way to the Supreme Goal.

 

 

vEdAhamEtamjaraM purANaM

sarvAtmAnaM sarvagataM viButvAt|

janmanirOdhaM pravadanti yasya

brahmavAdinO hi pravadanti nityam|| 3-21

I know this undecaying primeval One, the Self of all things, which

exists everywhere, being all—pervading and which the wise declare to

be free from birth. The teachers of Brahman, indeed, speak of It as

eternal.

 

 

 

Mantra from Kathopanishad:

anyatra dharmAdanyatrAdharmAt

anyatrAsmAt kRutAkRutAt |

anyatra BUtAcca BavyAcca

yattatpaSyasi tadvada || 1-2-14

 

Katha 1-2-14

Nachiketa said: That which you see as other than righteousness and

unrighteousness, other than all this cause and effect, other than

what has been and what is to be—tell me That.

 

Tens of such mantras from Upanishadscan be quoted .

What conclusions can we draw from the above?

ONE WHO KNOWS SAYS THAT HE KNOWS.

ONE WHO LEARNT ALSO SAYS HE KNOWS.

THIS IS THE UPANISHADIC TRADITION.

 

My request to the members is this : Let us approach Mother Sruti

for any answer to questions and our answers should be based on

IT ONLY. Then only we will not be misled and will not mislead

others.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk

wrote:

>

> Just to prompt everybody to think in a different direction, may I

ask

> the following seemingly innocuous question:

>

> Does a Jivanmukta know that he is a Jivanmukta?

>

> PraNAms to all the advaitins.

> profvk

 

ShrIgurubhyo namaH

 

Namaste Respected Sir,

 

A very interesting question indeed!! The answer of Advaita Vedanta

to this question is an emphatic and resounding 'YES'. While there

are countless examples to prove this all over the Upanishads, Gita,

etc., first let me give the straightforward, crystal clear reply of

none other than our Most Revered Bhagavatpaada Shakara, the

unmatched Acharya:

 

About Jivanmukti being a fact, Bhagavatpada has written in His

Brahmassutra bhashya on sutra IV.i.15:

 

First the translaiteration and then the translation:

 

//api ch naiva atra vivaditavyam brahmavidA kanchitkAlam sharIram

dhriyate na vaa dhriyate iti. katham hi yEkasya sva-hRRidaya-

pratyayam brahma-vEdanam deha-dhAraNam cha apareNa pratikSheptum

shakyeta? shruti-smRRitiShu cha sthita-prajna-lakShaNa-nirdeshena

etadeva niruchyate.//

 

//Furthermore, no difference of opinion is possible here as to

whether or not the body is retained for some period (after

enlightenment) by the knowers of Brahman. For, when somebody has

the conviction in his heart that he has realized Brahman and yet

retains the body, how can this be denied by anybody else? This very

fact is elaborated in the Upanishads and Smritis in the course of

determining the characteristics of a sthitaH-prajna (the man of

steady knowledge of the Truth).//

 

In the UpadeshasAhasrI the Acharya says:

 

It is reasonable that, being the consequences of actions of past

births that have begun to fructify and yielded the present body,

knowledge of Brahman and the experience of pleasure and pain are not

incompatible. Other kinds of actions (of the past that have yet to

begin to yield results and those done after enlightenment) are

different (and are destroyed by knowledge). [Metrical Part IV.4]

 

Again, in IV.5 He says:

 

He who has the knowledge of the Atman that negates the erroneous

notion that the body is the Atman and is as firm as the erroneous

notion of the common folk that the body is the Atman, is liberated

even without his wishing for it.

 

In the Bhagavad gita we have several instances to show that one can

be aware, while alive, of his enlightened state. One example is:

 

For the monks who have control over their mind, who are free from

desire and anger and who have realized the Atman, there is

absorption in Brahman (liberation) whether they are living or dead.

( IV.26)

 

I have nothing whatsoever to achieve in the three worlds, O Partha,

nor is there anything unattained that should be attained; yet I

engage in action. (III.22)

 

The entire description contained in the Gita about Sthitaprajna,

GunAtiita, Bhagavadbhakta are all examples of Jivanmukta being aware

of his attained state. The Lord says: `When approached in the

proper manner, the Jnanis will give out the teaching of the Supreme

to you.' This implies that the Jnanis are jivanmuktas, with the

knowledge that they are enlightened. They should be in a position

to also see the surrendered disciple's state of ignorance,

empathise with him and guide him appropriately. They will be able

to see accurately the state of progress of the disciple and guide

him. For all this to happen, they should be aware of their own

state of liberation; else how will they be able to make a first-hand

assessment of the disciple's still-in-bondage state?

 

In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, the jivanmukta is eulogized thus:

 

How does that Knower of Brahman behave? Howsoever he may behave, he

is just such. (III.v.1)

 

Again, therein:

 

This is the eternal glory of a knower of Brahman; it neither

increases nor decreases through (good or bad) action. (IV.iv.23)

 

In the same Upanishad we have the episode of Ajaatashatru. A

brahmana named BAlAki professed to know the Truth and went about

silencing many `gullible' people. When he came to King AjAtashatru

of a different city, he offered to teach the King the Truth. Even

as he commenced to give out his `teaching', the King knew that that

was not the Truth and interrupted him. At every stage the King

interrupted him and said : this is not the Truth. Finally the

brahmana realized that the King was indeed a Jnani and begged him to

impart the Truth to him.

 

Unless the Jnani knew about his enlightened state and was conscious

of it, he could not have reacted the way he did.

 

The above instances show that the Jivanmukta is quite aware of his

Jivanmukti. The Panchadashi too consists verses to show this.

 

The Vedanta Shastra is such an `exact science' that there are clear

cut answers for such questions. Only that suitable Acharyas are

rare who can unearth the appropriate answers from the vast

literature available.

 

Sri Sada ji's reply is quite nice.

 

With warm regards,

Subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

In the early days when there were only a few devotees around, Bhagavan

used to share in all the work. One day Sri Ramana was doing some

physical labor and involved in some construction. He was alone. Some

people came by and saw Bhagavan sweating and laboring. They had come to

visit Sri Ramana. So they asked Bhagavan where the Swami is. Sri Ramana

said that the Swami was not there and had gone somewhere. So the people

left and started going down the hill.

 

Going down, they met a devotee of Bhagavan on the way and asked about

the Swami. The devotee said that Swami was definitely up there on the

hill. Puzzled, everyone started climbing back up. When they got up

there, Bhagavan had taken a bath and was looking nice and clean with

religious marks on the forehead and so on. The visitors bowed to

Bhagavan and had his darshan and then left.

 

After people left, the devotee turned to Bhagavan and she asked why do

you trick people like that? Bhagavan said---What am I supposed to

do...put a big sign here or a label on my forehead saying, "Here is the

Swami!"

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

 

r

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri. Subrahmanian,

 

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v"

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

> A very interesting question indeed!! The answer of Advaita

Vedanta

> to this question is an emphatic and resounding 'YES'. While there

> are countless examples to prove this all over the Upanishads,

Gita,

> etc., first let me give the straightforward, crystal clear reply

of

> none other than our Most Revered Bhagavatpaada Shakara, the

> unmatched Acharya:

>

> About Jivanmukti being a fact, Bhagavatpada has written in His

> Brahmassutra bhashya on sutra IV.i.15:

>

> First the translaiteration and then the translation:

>

> //api ch naiva atra vivaditavyam brahmavidA kanchitkAlam sharIram

> dhriyate na vaa dhriyate iti. katham hi yEkasya sva-hRRidaya-

> pratyayam brahma-vEdanam deha-dhAraNam cha apareNa pratikSheptum

> shakyeta? shruti-smRRitiShu cha sthita-prajna-lakShaNa-nirdeshena

> etadeva niruchyate.//

>

> //Furthermore, no difference of opinion is possible here as to

> whether or not the body is retained for some period (after

> enlightenment) by the knowers of Brahman. For, when somebody has

> the conviction in his heart that he has realized Brahman and yet

> retains the body, how can this be denied by anybody else? This

very

> fact is elaborated in the Upanishads and Smritis in the course of

> determining the characteristics of a sthitaH-prajna (the man of

> steady knowledge of the Truth).//

>

 

But again Sri.Sankara himself has said in adhyAsa-bhAShya ;

 

asaN^gasyAtmanaH pramAtR^itvamupapadyate . na

ca pramAtR^itvamantareNa pramANapravR^ittirasti .

tasmAdavidyAvadviShayANyeva pratyakShAdIni pramANAni shAstrANi ceti |

 

(It is illogical to speak of pramAtR^itva of the Self, which is

spoken of 'detached'. Without a pramAtR^i, there cannot be any

operation of pramANas. Therefore, pramANAs such as the shAstras and

pratyakSha operate only in the realm of avidyA.)

 

Also from his commentary on the BU2.4.14:

 

"taM kena vijAnIyAt" yena vijAnAti, tasya karaNasya, vij~neye

viniyuktatvAt. j~nAtushca j~neya eva hi jij~nAsA, na Atmani; na ca

agneriva AtmA Atmani viShayaH; na ca aviShaye j~nAtuH

j~nAnamupapadyate; tasmAt yena idaM sarvaM vijAnAti, "taM

vij~nAtAraM"

kena karaNena ki vA anyaH vijAnIyAt, yadA tu punaH paramArthavivekini

brahmavidi vij~nAtaiva kevali.advayi vartate, taM vij~nAtAraM are

kena

vijAnIyAditi."

 

The very important point to note here is ".. na cha agneriva AtmA

Atmani viShayaH" "The Self is not an object of knowledge for the

Self".

 

Thus, what would be the correct answer to the question "Does a

Jivanmukta know that he is a Jivanmukta?"

 

If one consider jIvanmukta = Brahman/Atma, the answer is big `NO',

for Atma can not know that it is Atma (na cha agneriva AtmA Atmani

viShayaH)

 

On the other hand, if one consider jIvanmukta is Not= Brahman/Atma,

the answer perhaps might be `yes'.

 

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

dear all :

 

i posted the sanskrit version of verse 8 from jivanmuktananda lahari

instead of verse 12

 

please

 

read this verse

 

Kadácinmaunasth tç kvacidapi vágvádanirataç

kadácit svánande hasati rabhasá tyaktavacanaç

Kadácillokánám vyavahøtisamálokana paro

munir ca vyámoham bhajati gurudèkúá kúata tamáç (12)

 

along with the english translation

 

Sometimes, observing silence, at times active in wordy discussions,

> Sometimes speechless laughs all of a sudden in innate joy, And

> sometimes engrossed in observing the activities by Guru's grace

> (dèkúá), is not at all deluded. (12)

 

( from kanchi kamakoti.org)

 

instead of

 

>

> dispelled by Guru's grace

> (dèksá), is not at all deluded.ˆÅ™¸ Š¸ŒÃŠ¸¸ŸÙ¸¸½¹Ù¸À ˆÅ¹Þ¸™¹œ¸ Þ¸

> ˆ»Åœ¸¸½þ÷˜¸÷¸Ó¸¥¸¾À

> ˆÅ¹Þ¸÷ˆÅ¸ã¸¸£¸½÷˜¸¾À ˆÅ¹Þ¸™¹œ¸ 㸙º«µ¸¾ä¸ ¹ª¸¹ª¸£¾À —

> Ù¸Ó¸›¸Ã 㛸¸›¸¿ Ù¸¼÷¡¸¸½ ˆÅ¹Þ¸™¹œ¸ Þ¸ ˆÅœ¸Ä»£¹›¸Ù¸¡¸¸

> Ÿ¸º¹›¸›¸Ä ¨¡¸¸Ÿ¸¸½Ú¿ Ù¸Ó¸¹÷¸ Š¸º²™ú®¸¸®¸¸÷¸÷¸Ÿ¸¸À ——8——

>

> Kadá gañgámbhobhiç kvacidapi ca küpotthita jalaiç

> kvacit kásárotthaiç kvacidapi saduúïaiùca ùiùiraiç

> Bajan snánam bhütyá kvacidapi ca karpüra nibhayá

>

>

 

 

The error is regreetted ! this is what happens when a

deluded 'fool ' comments on a Great soul ! oh! oh! Atma-ninda is

bad! i take that back and say ' i am still struggling on the path'In

the words of Rboert frost , there are miles and miles to go !

 

LOVE AND REGARDS

 

(MY LAST POST FOR TODAY AND TILL MONDAY)

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p

wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri. Subrahmanian,

> Thus, what would be the correct answer to the question "Does a

> Jivanmukta know that he is a Jivanmukta?"

>

> If one consider jIvanmukta = Brahman/Atma, the answer is big `NO',

> for Atma can not know that it is Atma (na cha agneriva AtmA Atmani

> viShayaH)

>

> On the other hand, if one consider jIvanmukta is Not=

Brahman/Atma,

> the answer perhaps might be `yes'.

>

>

> Regards,

> Srinivas.

>

 

Namaste Srinivas ji,

 

Thanks for the question/observation. Without going into the BU

quote let me try to address your concern.

 

You would notice that the Acharya says:

 

katham hi yEkasya sva-hRRidaya-pratyayam brahma-vEdanam deha-

dhAraNam cha ....

 

[ conviction in his HEART (mind) that he has realized Brahman….]

 

In Advaita, the Atman is never in bondage; it is ever free. The

antahkaranam, the mind, is what is considered to be in bondage. To

be specific, the Chaitanya in association with the achit: mind-body

complex is what is in bondage. The liberation is also for this

only. The ingnorance-born chit-achit granthi, the knot between the

Pure Consciousness and the mind-body complex is rent asunder when

the realization takes place as said in the Mundaka mantra: bhidyate

hridaya granthiH.... When this happens, the connection with the

anaatma is broken. The jiva is said to be liberated.

 

As bondage is experienced in the mind, the kshetra, liberation is

also experienced in the mind only by the kshetrajna. Kshetra, the

mind, is vedya, vishaya, object, for the kshetrajna, the Seer.

Although this duality is gone for the Jnani, yet, as the prarabdha-

given body continues till the exhaustion of the already started

karma, the Jnani experiences the fruit of liberation in the mind.

 

The realization of the Jnani is spoken of elsewhere in the

Sutrabhashya by the Acharya:

 

pUrva-siddha-kartritva-bhoktritva-viprItam hi triShvapi kAleShu

akartritva-abhoktriva-svarUpam brahma aham asmi, na itaH pUrvam

kartA bhoktA vaa aham Asam; na idAnIm, nApi bhaviShyat-kAle iti

brahmavid avagacchati.

 

[Contrary to the earlier held notion of doership ad enjoyership, I

am Brahma-svarUpam that is not doer-enjoyer at all the three periods

of time. Doer-enjoyer, I was not before, now I am not, and nor even

in the future I will be. Such is the realization of the knower of

Brahman.] Surely, in order to say, or think, in this manner, the

jivanmukta must be conscious of this freed state.

 

In advaita, even during the bondage of the jiva, the pramaatru-

pramaana-prameya (knower, knowing and known) vyavahara is unreal;

Brahman, the Pure Consciousness Itself is held to be appearing as

these three. That is why one might see in the VedAnta paribhAsha

the scheme: pramAtru-chaitanya, pramAna-chaitanya and prameya-

chaitanya mentioned. Even during vyavahara, in ignorance, whatever

perception, etc. takes place, it is in the Chaitanya only, as

superimposed.

 

Upon realization, this is true for the Jnani and the triad,

tripuTii, is no longer real; they are Chaitanya Itself. In the

dream it is the same Consciousness that projects itself as the

triad. It is with the same dream-stuff that the triad is made of.

Such is the way the Jnani looks upon the vyavahara in jivanmukti.

 

Coming to the point of Consciousness becoming an object to Itself,

if understood in the above light, there will be no problem. As the

jivanmukta, what we point out to the body-mind complex and address

it as such, realizes the free nature of himself in his mind, he can

very well say or think about his free Brahman nature. There is no

defect in this. Just as I know my status as an Asst. Manager now, I

can know my status as the Manager when I am promoted.

 

The Gita verses : buddhi-grAhyam atIndriyam, guNA guNeshu vartanta

iti matvA na sajjate, etc. can be cited as instances. Nava-dvAre

purE dEhii, etc. also are there in this context.

 

Only because it is possible for the mind to be a vedya, seen, the

sadhanas pertaining to the sthita-prajna, man of steady knowledge,

are taught in the scriptures. While it is possible for the sadhaka

to practice them, by constantly looking into his mind as to their

taking deep roots, for the jivanmukta these traits become

spontaneous. Says the Acharya in the Gita bhashya:

Sarvatraiva hi adhyAtma-shAstre kritArtha-lakShaNAni yAni tAnyeva

sAdhanAni uchyante, yatna-sAdhyatvAt. (meaning already stated above.)

 

Only because it is possible for a jivanmukta to know that he is

one, we find utterances like: ahamannam ahamannam ahamannam…..in

the Taittiriya Up. In the Panchadashi there is this expression

given to by the realized man:

 

Dhanyoham dhanyoham svAtmAnam anjasA vedmi…[i am blessed, I am

blessed, I directly perceive my Self..]

 

A question might arise: What happens when the JM's body dies? When

this happens, the body-mind complex is resolved in prakriti (na

tasya prANaa utkrAmanti = his subtle body does not leave the body

and transmigrate; it merges into prakriti here itself.) and

naturally, as the JM will not have any vyavahara, no mind is

required to have the sthitaprajna traits. He is deemed to be one

with the akhanda Brahman. It is no longer possible for anyone to

refer to such an entity as 'he', etc.

 

The details I gave above are not exactly for further discussion.

 

With warm regards,

Subbu

Om Tat Sat