What will it be like?

[Guest guest]

Namaste Advaitins,

 

Firstly I would like to wish all of you a very happy Deepavali.

 

With regards to the subject of reincarnation and life after death, may

I recommend a book that I recently discovered. The book is titled

'Many Lives Many Masters'. It has got little to do with Advaita

Vedanta but it would definitely prove a point about reincarnation.

 

Take a look at it here and the reviews it has received:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Many-Lives-Masters-Prominent-Psychiatrist/dp/0671657860/re\

f=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-6480665-2832728?ie=UTF8 & s=books & qid=1194573587 & sr=8-2

 

Om Shanti,

Kathirasan

 

On Nov 8, 2007 3:00 PM, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

Namaste.

>

> I don't know much about transmigration of soul etc. Neither do I

> have any scriptural references relating to such matters in my

> possession.

>

> The straight answer to what happens when the body dies is that it

> decays or is burnt and becomes one with the soil. LOL. But, the

> person who has aksed the question seems to acknowledge that he is not

> the body. That is why he has asked what happens to the body. He is

> not worried about himself. So, he needs a serious answer.

>

> The following is my understanding from the point of view of simple

> vedanta.

>

> Sleep is flanked by wakefulness on either side. Sleep is remembered

> by the waker as " I slept " . Sleep is an experience of not

> experiencing recalled in waking.

>

> Death is not flanked by wakefulness like sleep. Death is not

> remembered as " I died " . Death is never an experience recalled.

>

> There is therefore no comparison between sleep and death.

>

> `X' thinks that he is going to die one day just because he

> sees " Y " , " Z " et al dying. But, `X''s death, if at all it occurs, is

> not going to be `X''s experience. `X' might `see' `Y''s death. But,

> that is another person's death – an experience of `seeing' another

> person die. Experience-wise, `X', therefore, does not die. He only

> infers that he has to die one day like others and lives in fear of

> that anticipated tragedy which he is never going to experience!

>

> The thing that is inferred to die is the body. We can't even say

> that the mind also dies unless we fastidiously attach it to the brain.

>

> I have a body. For how long during a day of twenty-four hours am I

> really aware of it? The truth is that I am never *totally* aware of

> my body. When I am busy doing my daily chores, the body is not

> remembered at all. When a pain or irritation occurs on the body,

> only the affected part is remembered. I am never aware of my body in

> totality. I am aware of my body in one piece only in thought. Then

> that thought is only an image visualized.

>

> The anticipated death of our body, therefore, is the death of a

> visualized image!

>

> Do we now have to ask the question: What happens in death? The fact

> is that, subjectively, there is no such thing called death. There is

> only the fear of an imagined monster lurking out there to pounce on

> us.

>

> We all live as awareness. However, we get tragically anchored on or

> pinned down to certain moorings and miserably imagine that we are

> limited by birth and death – two events which are not our experience.

>

> On this very pleasant sunny Deepawali morn on this part of the globe

> where I am, I am blessed with an opportunity to pen these thoughts.

> I never asked for this opportunity. It just came and blossomed in

> front of me and my heart just began pouring out. I didn't even

> remember that my fingers, which are a part of my so-called body,

> moved on the keyboard! What is next? I don't know. Yet, I know that

> something has to blossom in front of me again and the blooming will

> continue unabated. Why worry about an end to it? There is no end to

> it because we all are an endlessness that is purely awareness! For

> God's sake, let us not moor it anywhere and moan in vain.

>

> During the process of writing this, I died to my body countless

> times. Yet, the awareness that I am continued. Having learnt

> Vedanta, I can't tie that awareness down to a mass of cells called

> the brain or a subtler something which goes by the name of sharIra.

>

> Mug me if you may. Tick I will do. Ticking is my nature.

>

> I am always here, there, everywhere, at all ages. I can be in

> Victorian England and next in DwApara Yuga. I can bounce between my

> elementary school classroom at age six and my `future' death-bed at

> ripe old age. The choice (which moment or scene should shine) is

> left to awareness and, as awareness, there is nothing there to limit

> me to time and space in my endless sojourn.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Dennis,

You have said::

" Brahman will continue to manifest as ignorant jIva-s

regardless. (This is what I meant by " the real 'I' will continue to be

born " .) "

Brahman does not manifest as anything. Brahman does nothing. It always

remains as Brahman. It is we who see Brahman as the world and as jivas,

etc., because of our ignorance. The rope does not manifest as a snake. It

remains as the rope. But I see it as a snake because of dim light and

various other reasons.

Each jiva is a subtle body with the reflectionof consciousness in it. It

is these jivas who go on taking various gross bodies until they get

enlightenment.

Even now it is not clear what exactly is the point on which you are

looking for scriptural authority. If you make that clear, we can try to find

out if there is any.

(Concern (or worry as I put it, perhaps the wrong word), for the

suffering of others in samsAra is the sign of a compassionate and

magnanimous heart. All great saints have felt such concern. That is why I

attributed it to you. Please do not deny it, even out of modesty. This is

just by the way.).

S.N.Sastri

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis-ji.

 

Again, please see in .

_________________________

 

> The quote by SSS, given by Vinayaka-ji below certainly comes

> closest to expressing what I was saying.

 

[i thought it was closest to what I said! LOL.]

__________________________

 

[Now let us take a closer look at the SSS quote. Comments in brackets

mine.]

 

QUOTE

 

" This pathetic realistic description of one who has realized the

truth betrays a woeful disregard of the two standpoints of view

which a student of the upanishads has constantly to bear in mind. "

 

UNQUOTE

 

[What is the pathetic description? Vinayaka-ji, can you quote that

too?]

_____________

 

QUOTE CONTINUES:

 

" For, from the transcendental point since all distinctions are

nought, the only reality being brahman, or Atman. From the empirical

view, the jnAni is only one among the other egos, while he is a

miracle in the eyes of the seekers of knowledge. "

 

UNQUOTE

 

[i have heard that SSS has written mostly in his native Kannada.

Whose is this English translation? Has he really used the words " one

among the other egos " ? That sounds like the jnAni is an ego.]

 

________________

 

 

QUOTE CONTINUES

 

" **The experience of the sthitaprajna described in the gItA can never

be exactly defined in empirical terms**. From the transcendental

point of view, there is no question of the jnAni leaving behind him

the body or an independent objective world, for it never existed for

him.

 

UNQUOTE

 

[That is very correct. If the body never existed for him, the ego

also never existed. All the more reason to ask for a clarification

about the translation " of the previous sentence. The asterisks

should have been placed on the word ''experience''. We are vainly

trying to understand that " experience " from our faulty empirical with

a faulty vision.]

__________________________

 

QOTE CONTINUES

 

" The idea that he deals with other egos and that the world goes on

even after his departure is true enough empirically, but it can never

affect reality as it is. "

 

UNQUOTE

 

[Again very correct. It is important to note here that the

transcendantal has no point of view at all as there is nothing there

that remains for the transcendantal to view. However, the phenomenal

(empirical) can afford at least two points of view. Its own delued

understanding of the world without reference to paramArtha and its

intellectualization of the transcendantal, i.e. of how things would

look like for a jnAni who appears to operate in the phenomenal but

who truly has no points of view.]

 

[We are vainly intellectualizing in delusion when we uphold the view

that there is an objective world of innumerable under-privileged non-

realized jIvAs for a jnAni to confront and deal with until such time

his mortal coil falls off. Such thinking is like the snake

vehemently refusing to leave the rope even when the light is shone on

it. The problem sure is with the light then. It is only a faulty

view of the transcendental from the deluded empirical charmed by the

snake. It has nothing to do with reality or it *can never affect

reality as it is* (to use Swamiji's own words with their right import

(of course as I understand it.)]

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

 

>

> QUOTE

>

> " This pathetic realistic description of one who has realized the

> truth betrays a woeful disregard of the two standpoints of view

> which a student of the upanishads has constantly to bear in mind. "

>

> UNQUOTE

>

> [What is the pathetic description? Vinayaka-ji, can you quote

that

> too?]

 

Dear Nair-ji,

 

Swamiji was referring to the maNDana's (advaitin who was supposed to

be contemporary of shankara) view of jivanmukti, which is as under:

 

" In discussing the immediate effect of brahmajnAna, maNDana remarks

that the knower would attain release immediately after the shuffles

off his mortal coil. This departure from the body would be, sooner

or later, according to the rigour of one's karma to be exhausted.

According to this philosopher, there are two alternatives which we

may predicate of a person who lives on for some time after he has

acquired knowledge of brahman. Either he is yet practising the

meditation needful for the 'complete realization', which becomes

perfected at the time of death, or else, he is really a perfect soul

whose dealings in life-even while alive they appear to be just like

those of the ignorant-have this point of difference that the wise

one is not obsessed with the idea of their reality (Br. S., 131-132) "

 

> " For, from the transcendental point since all distinctions are

> nought, the only reality being brahman, or Atman. From the

empirical

> view, the jnAni is only one among the other egos, while he is a

> miracle in the eyes of the seekers of knowledge. "

 

> [i have heard that SSS has written mostly in his native Kannada.

> Whose is this English translation? Has he really used the

words " one

> among the other egos " ? That sounds like the jnAni is an ego.]

 

Reply: The book I am referring to is a small work, which is an

introduction to his magnum opus vEdAnta prakriyA pratyabhijnA. It is

written by him in english. The moment one uses the word emirical

view, it is an ajnAni's view. Its natural for an ajnAni to take

jnAni also as an another individual, ego etc., isn't it?

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

 

> I suspect that the reason it is difficult to phrase the question

and the

> reason people are finding difficulty answering it is that it

probably boils

> down ultimately to asking why there is this world-appearance at

all. And I

> accept that this question is unanswerable. Incidentally, I am not

actually

> 'worried' about any of this. My question was whether there was any

> scriptural reference where this topic is actually discussed.

 

Dear Dennis-ji,

 

This is what shankara says on the topic of (multiple?) avidyas in

BSB 4.1.3:

 

Opponent: Who is it then that has this

unelightenment/avidya/ignorance?

 

vEdAntin: We say that it is you, yourself who ask thus.

 

opponent: It is not stated by the upanishad that I am God?

 

vEdAntin: If that is so, you are already enlightened man! And

so 'nobody has unenlightenment/avidya'. Hereby is also refuted the

criticism of some people who say that the self becomes associated

with a second entity owing to the very presence of nescience

(avidya), so that non-dualism becomes untenable. Hence one should

fix one's mind on the self which is God.

 

(SW. Gambhirananda's translation.)

 

Interestingly, he makes similar remark while commenting on the

bruhadAraNyaka shruti too (I could not recollect the reference).

Shankara's saying 'nobody has unenlightenment' (stictly speaking, he

should have told there is no avidya for you!) is very important and

I think it simply dismisses our question which is wrong(?) Or after

the dawn of the jnAna who would ask such questions?

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , vaibhav khire <vskhire wrote:

>

> Dennisji,

> " Is there any benefit in attaining enlightenment other than for that

jIva for the rest of its embodiment? "

>

> Well one way to look at this is, " does the jIva have a choice? " It

is inevitable for a jIva to get enlightened, plus birth-death are mere

transitions for it. So, just like every drop falling from the sky

eventually has to land in the sea, every jIva has to get enlightened.

>

>

> Although it was not Dennisji meant to ask, I would still appreciate

if members could give their views on my question earlier, namely the

mechanism of rebirth vis-a-vis sukshma sharira.

>

> Thanks,

> Vaibhav.

>

>

>

===================================================

 

 

Aum namO brahmavidbhyaH !!

 

praNAmaH to everyone !

 

Vaibhav ji, your question was sufficiently answered by SrI Adi

SankarAchArya in his brahma sUtra bhAshya.

 

Consider the following excerpt carefully,

 

brahma sUtra.3.1.1,

 

" tadantarapratipattau ramhati samparishvaktaH praSnanirUpaNAbhyAm "

 

In obtaining a different (body) (the soul) goes enveloped (by subtle

parts of the elements), (as appears from) question and explanation.

 

AchAryA's bhAshya:

 

The soul accompanied by the chief vital air, the sense-organs and the

mind, and taking with itself nescience (avidyA), moral good or

ill-desert (karman), and the impressions left by its previous

existences, leaves its former body and obtains a new body; this is

known from the scriptural passage extending from Bri. Up. IV, 4, 1

('Then those prANas gather around him') up to IV, 4, 4 ('It makes to

itself another newer and more beautiful shape'); which passage forms

part of a chapter treating of the samsAra-state.

 

# Now, AchAryA takes up the questions put by the pUrvapakshin which were,

 

* Scripture, while stating that the soul takes the organs with itself,

does not state the same with regard to the elements.

* The subtle parts of the elements can moreover EASILY BE PROCURED

ANYWHERE " ; for wherever a new body is to be originated they are

present, and the soul's taking them with itself would, therefore, be

useless. Hence we conclude that the soul when going is not enveloped

by them.

 

To this, AchAryA answers:

 

" we must understand that the soul when passing from one body to

another is enveloped by the subtle parts of the elements which are the

seeds of the new body.--How do we know this?--'From the question and

the explanation.' The question is, 'Do you know why in the fifth

libation water is called man?' (V, 3, 3.) The explanation, i.e.

answer, is given in the entire passage which, after having explained

how the five libations in the form of sraddhâ, rain, food, seed are

offered in the five fires, viz. the heavenly world, Parganya, the

earth, man and woman, concludes, 'For this reason is water in the

fifth oblation called man.' Hence we understand that the soul goes

enveloped by water. "

 

## Next, SrI Sankara takes up the views of BauddhAs and other darSanAs

and proves them to be false on the basis of scriptural declaration.

 

Sruti says, " like a caterpillar the soul does not abandon the old body

before it makes an approach to another body. (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 3).

 

Now the views of Other darSanAs are as follows:

 

bauddha: The Self alone(without the organs) begins to function in a

new body, and that as the body itself, so **new sense-organs also are

produced in the new abode of fruition.**

 

sAmkhya: The Self and the organs are both all-pervading and when

obtaining a new body only begin to function in it on account of Karma.

 

vaiSEshika: The mind alone goes to the new body.

 

digambara jaina: The individual soul only flying away from the old

body alights in the new one as a parrot flies from one tree to another.

 

## SrI Sankara finally says,

" All these hypotheses which owe their origin to the mind of man only

are to be set aside because they are contradicted by scripture " !!

 

 

## Hope it is somewhat clear now.

 

 

!! SrI Adi SankarArpaNamastu !!

 

** P.S: With the help of Adi SankarAchArya's brahma sUtra bhAshya

English translation by George Thibaut available at bharatadesam.com **

[Guest guest]

Hello all,

 

First of all, I would like to thank all the participants in this

thread for their very informative contributions. I am new to this

group but I can already see its high quality and generous spirit.

 

I have been absorbing advaita for several years now, having arrived

at it after decades-long search among many religious and

philosophical traditions. Thus I believe that advaita is

the " Urgrund " of them all (of course, in different proportions and to

a different extent.)

 

My favorite way of summing up the advaitic method of reasoning is

through two interrelated statements: " The truth is always in between -

to each truly important question the answer is always " yes " and " no " . "

This, in my opinion, applies also to this ongoing discussion and - as

Steve Stoker perceptively observed - it works very much like a Zen

koan.

 

But let's get to the point. My approach to advaita is purely

practical. I recognize it as the only " way out " (please note the

parentheses which indicate that I am fully aware of the conventional

character of this and other thus marked expressions/concepts),

therefore I am interested exclusively in its applications " here and

now " . One of the most important issues in this respect is

the " liberation " from the cycle of " rebirth " through the avoidance of

creating any " karma " . The role of karma has been suggested in

Dennis's original posting but apparently it did not elicit so far any

comments.

 

I have read carefully the previous postings in this thread, and they

led me to the following conclusions:

 

1. If I understand correctly S. N. Sastri's comment to the effect

that " each jiva is a subtle body with the reflection of consciousness

in it. It is these jivas who go on taking various gross bodies until

they get enlightenment " , it means that the same jiva goes from one

gross body to another, taking with it its karmic baggage, and thus

the karma aspect is all-important for liberation. However, this seems

a bit dualistic, doesn't it? Please correct me if I am wrong here.

 

2. On the other hand, if Dennis Waite is right in saying that " when X

is liberated, the identity of X is lost forever but the mistaken

identity of other jIva-s continues. Before X was liberated, there was

only brahman, appearing as all jIva-s and the world. After X is

liberated, there is still only brahman,appearing as all jIva-s and

the world. The liberation of X has made no difference to anything at

all other than that the mistaken belief of X that he or she was

separate and limited has gone from X's mind for the remainder

of X's embodiment. Brahman will continue to manifest as ignorant jIva-

s regardless " , that means that there are no " continuous " jivas, in

other words, that each jiva is just a unique " ripple " in the ocean of

the Self, so its karma does not carry over to anything, hence it does

not matter at all. Consequently, each jiva's enlightenment is a one-

time phenomenon, with no consequences beyond this particular

jiva's " existence " .

 

3. The following comes not so much from the current discussion but

from my readings of Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj - if

there is no cause and effect and if " we " (the jivas) don't do

anything, how there can be any karma at all?

 

I will be grateful for your kind comments.

 

Best regards,

 

Mariusz