Guest guest Posted April 29, 2007 Report Share Posted April 29, 2007 PraNAms to all. Here is my understanding. We can use two familiar examples to explain the view of jiivanmukta about the world. Now we all know from science that Sun never rises nor sets. Now with that knowledge how do see the sunrise and sunset? We can still enjoy the beauty of sunrise and sunset knowing very well sun neither rises nor sets. We also know all matter is fundamentally the same - consisting of electrons, protons and neutrons. Having known oneness of all matter and fundamentally there is no difference other than packaging of these particles, what is our attitude when dealing with verities of objects in the world. Just because knowledge that all matter is the same does not make equate garbage and food. Garbage is still garbage and food is still food even though they are fundamentally the same - they arise from the same units, exists because of the same and go back into the same. Differences exist in terms of how they are packed or assembled and there is no confusion that gold is different, iron is different and mud is different. Jiivanmukta has vision of reality which is oneness of apparent plurality. Krishna says one who sees himself in all and all in himself he is the Jnaani. Or one sees me in everything and everything in me alone sees the truth. Take the life of Krishna - Is he jnaani or not? In Vishwaruupa he shows he is in all and all in himself. Yet he had no problem in distinguishing kouravaas from Pandavas, who are good and who are bad - he says he is born again and again to protect the good and to punish the bad. That is the vision of the jnaani. This is what advaita calls as vyavahaara or transactional reality is different from paaramaarthika or absolute reality. At absolute level there is nothing but Brahman - with that knowledge one can still transact very well at vyavahaara. There is no confusion for a jnaani at vyavahaara level - Only difference is He also knows the oneness that pervades the apparent plurality. Hence guru or teacher is different from shishya or disciple - although there is neither a teacher nor a student at absolute level. At the paaramaarthika level the teacher remains silent. At vyavahaara level, he communicates with students - about the nature of paaramaarthika. There should not be any confusion if one understands correctly. Krishna loves everybody as his own self - but does not spare Kamsa or Shahipaala - his mode of operation is different for the good vs. bad - knowing very well he pervades both the good and bad and he is above the good and bad. Please study commentary on slokas 3 and 4 of Gita Ch.9. Hari Om! Sadananda > > On 4/26/07, sai9701 <sai9701 wrote: > > > I wanted to know... when we say a enlightened > being or say siddha or > > say one who has realised the ultimate truth... > does the world > > appears different to that person... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 29, 2007 Report Share Posted April 29, 2007 Namaste all The following site seems to convert 'big doubts' into 'small doubts'! http://www.vedah.com/org/literature/upanishads/everyday.asp PraNAms to all advaitins. profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 Hi All, I am glad that I asked the question to the right souls... souls who are walking on the path and have lots of experience to share for the freshers on the path... I sincerely thank all of them who answered and will be answering and all those who prayed to the almighty for me to get the answer... Some souls expressed the desire to know the material sai asking the question... so i will introduce sai...My name ( actually body) is Sainathan Arumugam...It is 27 yrs old... It is a Chemical Engg and has done MBA in marketing... Is working as a Marketing Engg and was controlled by an atheist mind which has studied science... but destiny gave it a chance to experience something beyond it...and a seeker evolved ... and seeker is on the path enjoying the adventure of being a seeker... i call myself a kid because when i began i was very serious kind off and with all the studying of advaita and other philosophies i became more serious until i started studying kabir and lives of the sufi's who bring the teachings of vendanta in the form of bhakti and love and call u to bring back the child in u.. the carefree child who lives in the shade of its mothers care.. the mother being the lord... so i m back to my childhood days and am enjoying life... btw my parents are angry with me because they think i have no more emotions or passiion for life... i m not bothered about money or relationship they have not seen me cry at funerals... who dies is my funda... they want me to get married... whereas deep within me there is this constant feeling of discarding everything and living a carefree life...ha ha ha... i do know many saints handled a married life and sadhana... but i m scared after all everything said and done I am not a saint...lol i welcome all ur suggestions and ur take on living a life as a seeker being engrossed in the worldly duties... love all, the self in sai. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 Namaste Sadaji. Thank you very much for your detailed and lucid post (# 35796). Although I can vibe very well with all that you say, the big doubt remains a big doubt for me due to the following big doubt: All the examples quoted (sunset-sunrise, fundamental composition of matter etc.) relate to aparA-vidya whereas self-knowledge is parA- vidya. The logic of the former may therefore no more apply when knowledge of oneself has occurred to oneself. I know what the Upanishads and teachers are saying. It may be possible for me to effectively drive home the entire gamut of Vedanta in matter of minutes. Yet, I don't consider myself self-realized. There is a feeling that I have still miles to go despite my mouthing off and on big statements like " I am always liberated " and " Liberation is here and now " etc. To me, self-realization is still an objectified concept exemplified in the smiling visage of Bh. Ramana Maharshi or some other such exalted being. I have no means to knowing how the world appeared to such great souls. I can only conjecture from their words. Yet, the tragedy is that I am the one doing the conjecture and, therefore, may be light- years off the mark. Sri Nagulapalli-ji wrote here about Bhagwan undergoing surgery without anaesthesia. I, who can wax eloquent about Bhagwan's teachings, can't even think of general anaesthesia. What then to speak of surgery without anaesthesia? My first worry would be if the anaesthetist is competent enough to guarantee me a return ticket! This is not my worry alone. Many surgeons seem to share the same anxiety. This only confirms the fact that there is a big difference in the way Bhagwan and another ordinary being like me relate to a particular situation. Perhaps, Bhagwan doesn't have to relate at all because He knows that He is the situation. When He knows that He is verily the surgeon and the knife that make the incision and also the pain the operation inflicts, who remains there to `suffer' the pain? What or who can hurt what or whom? I am condemned to relate and often sadly react because I see the situation, the surgeon and the knife as other than and outside me. I do then have to run away from the anaesthetist suspecting that he hasn't confirmed my return booking yet. The big doubt therefore seems to have a certain validity when the `apparent behaviour' of exalted beings and ordinary mortals is analyzed, although I admit that a realized soul would still write beautiful poetry about say a rainbow like an unrealized one like me do knowing fully well that the vibgyor results from the prismatic behaviour of rain droplets. I should therefore imagine that the 'apparent' to and fro transit of a jIvanmuktA between vyAvaharikA and paramArtika is there only for a non-jIvanmukta to behold, experience and learn from. That might be a silly thought. Well, the vyAvaharikA is always silly. Pranams. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 Hey this one really gives me some light... like dicussing about a realised being like Ramanna for whom as per intellectual derivations the knife, body etc would be he himself... so there wont be a question of pain or say suffering... what i was trying to understand is that does the state of realisation brings in a capability of switching off the mind as and when required or does it mean removing the mind completely from the circuit.... because i understand that the mind is the one which creates the images and starts the cycle of duality... so a realised being who has swithced off mind for him there will not be any duality... hence pain pleasure etc experienced by mind will cease to exist in such a being... further i wont be able to give reference to context for my ideas or sharings... but i have read that the guru has this ability of switching on and off his/her mind... switchin it on to help the society and the disciples and switching off to be in the state of samadhi... wow.. sounds gud... removing mind out of circuit... now i know that is not an easy task... love all, sai. advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > Namaste Sadaji. > > Thank you very much for your detailed and lucid post (# 35796). > Although I can vibe very well with all that you say, the big doubt > remains a big doubt for me due to the following big doubt: > > All the examples quoted (sunset-sunrise, fundamental composition of > matter etc.) relate to aparA-vidya whereas self-knowledge is parA- > vidya. The logic of the former may therefore no more apply when > knowledge of oneself has occurred to oneself. > > I know what the Upanishads and teachers are saying. It may be > possible for me to effectively drive home the entire gamut of Vedanta > in matter of minutes. Yet, I don't consider myself self- realized. > There is a feeling that I have still miles to go despite my mouthing > off and on big statements like " I am always liberated " > and " Liberation is here and now " etc. To me, self-realization is > still an objectified concept exemplified in the smiling visage of Bh. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 Sorry, Sai-ji. I am afraid you misunderstood me. It is a pity that I have only been able to confound the big doubt. I didn't mean to suggest a switching off and on of the mind. Mind, we all agree, is a stream of thoughts. We ordinary ones are carried away by thoughts and often tormented by them, whereas a realized one is all Himself inspite of the thoughts. In other words, he is the thought when one 'occurs' to him like he is the tree when he 'confronts' one. Thus, he is everything, whether in the mind or outside (Where is an inside or outside for him?!) or everything is he himself. There is no separation. This is a spontaneous understanding - being wholeness. He doesn't have to labour to entertain and sustain this understanding. He is spontaneity himself. There is therefore no gimmic of a deliberate swtiching on and off of anything there. To illustrate the point, let us switch from Bh. Ramana and extend this understanding to Christ (I had done it here some time ago in the past.): The Cross is me, my tormentors are me, the pain is me, the crackling of the bones is me, the blood is me. If everything including the pain is me, how can that pain hurt me? So, Christ simply smiled at his tormentors as they toiled on his body with nails and hammers. He didn't obviously switch off anything. He was fully and spontaneously ON AS JUST EVERYTHING. That 'spontaneously being fully on as everything' is just different from the behaviour of ordinary men in difficult situations is all the point I wanted to make. Pleasure and pain are basically Consciousness. In a pleasant experience, the enjoyment is you as Consciousness. Similarly, in suffering, the pain is just you as Consciousness. One who has really *realized* this truth remains Consciousness both in pleasure and pain. I haven't *realized* this. So, I tend to enjoy and suffer. I have only academic knowledge about the truth. So, I can write about it like I do now even while being under the sway of the pair of opposites (i.e. while enjoying pleasures and suffering from pain). If we accept the difference between the two, then logically there seems to be a difference in the way the world appears to a jIvanmukta and me. Hope I am clear. Pranams. Madathisl Nair ________________ advaitin , " sai9701 " <sai9701 wrote: > > Hey this one really gives me some light... > > like dicussing about a realised being like Ramanna for whom as per > intellectual derivations the knife, body etc would be he himself... > so there wont be a question of pain or say suffering... > > what i was trying to understand is that does the state of > realisation brings in a capability of switching off the mind as and > when required or does it mean removing the mind completely from the > circuit.... > > because i understand that the mind is the one which creates the > images and starts the cycle of duality... so a realised being who > has swithced off mind for him there will not be any duality... hence > pain pleasure etc experienced by mind will cease to exist in such a > being... > > further i wont be able to give reference to context for my ideas or > sharings... but i have read that the guru has this ability of > switching on and off his/her mind... switchin it on to help the > society and the disciples and switching off to be in the state of > samadhi... > > wow.. sounds gud... removing mind out of circuit... ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 advaitin , " sai9701 " <sai9701 wrote: > > > like dicussing about a realised being like Ramanna for whom as per > intellectual derivations the knife, body etc would be he > himself... > so there wont be a question of pain or say suffering... > > what i was trying to understand is that does the state of > realisation brings in a capability of switching off the mind as > and when required or does it mean removing the mind completely > from the circuit.... Namaste! This analysis of what and how an enlightened being " sees " the world, reminds me of a story Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa told. He was a genius in presenting most abstract, complex concepts using very ordinary and village centered experiences. It is Lord's sheer compassion, to let us have some seers who are NOT academically educated! Why? Because, only then millions of ordinary seekers can benefit from their teachings which are bereft of any high-sounding quotes or scholarly commentaries for the grand yet simple, distant but near Truth. I digress. The story is: A very young sister asks her much older sister how it is like to be a married one. The older sister replies that, no matter however much she explains, she wouldn't understand how it is like to be married. But when she herself grows up and gets married, she would very easily understand how it is like to be a married one, even without any one explaining any thing! So too, is to conjecture how would an enlightened being sees the world. When we grow up and get enlightened ourselves we would know it first hand and only then probably our understanding would be complete or even correct. And how to get it, is the subject of all the scriptures. Few words from Shankara's Vivekachudamani, translated by Swami Prabhavananda that made an impression on me are as follows: ----------------------- [source:Vivekachudamani- Shankara's crest-jewel of discrimination By Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood] * Children may free their father from his debts, but no other person can free a man from his bondage: he must do it himself. * Others may relieve the suffering caused by a burden that weighs upon the head; but the suffering which comes from hunger and the like can only be relived by one's self. * The sick man who takes medicine and follows the rules of diet is seen to be restored to health- but not through the efforts of another. * A clear vision of the Reality may be obtained only through our own eyes, when they have been opened by spiritual insight - never through the eyes of some other seer. Through our own eyes we learn what the moon looks like: how could we learn this through the eyes of others? * Those cords that bind us, because of our ignorance, our lustful desires and the fruits of our karma - how could anybody but ourselves untie them, even in the course of innumerable ages? * Erudition, well-articulated speech, a wealth of words, and skill in expounding the scriptures- these things give pleasure to the learned, but they do not bring liberation. * Study of the scriptures is fruitless as long as Brahman has not been experienced. And when Brahman has been experienced, it is useless to read the scriptures. * A sickness is not cured by saying the word " medicine " . You must take the medicine. Liberation does not come by merely saying the word " Brahman " . Brahman must be actually experienced. * Until you allow this apparent universe to dissolve from your consciousness - until you have experienced Brahman - how can you find liberation just by saying the word " Brahman " ? The result is merely a noise. ------------------------------- I guess, I am adding to the noise! Hari OM! -Srinivas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 Dear All, It is nice to hear from everyone... but I felt instead of a satsang I am in between a conference of philosophers... Truly speaking I find some sort of binding of thoughts some sort of limiting of ideas... and I personally believe that sadhana is all about breaking free from ideas... But all the discussions has been positive and gud... and I agree that an enlightened one will only know what is being enlightened... And since the group believes in holding close to Shankara's teaching I fear I will be crossing boundaries more often ... since for me Nothing exists that is not Shiva ( Conciousness)... and that applies to the various philosophies and paths and I embrace them all... So I will be in and out of discussions... Moreover I am not used to disciplined speech and respectful words... Everything is eternal like me so who do I think is elder or younger... Thanks again for ur words... I will drop in when in doubt.... love all, sai. Its Sai. Ahhh...imagining that irresistible " new car " smell? Check outnew cars at Autos. 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.