What will it be like?

[Guest guest]

Dear Vinyaka-ji,

 

 

 

You say: " 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? "

 

 

 

Yes, I think this is probably the sufficient answer to the question. To the

enlightened one, the concern over either 'himself' or 'others' is no longer

meaningful. It is, as Sadananda-ji pointed out some time ago, like the one

who has woken from a dream expressing concern for those characters still in

the dream. (You may notice that I say 'probably'! I was already aware of

this way of looking at it but not sure it actually answered the concern

satisfactorily. I will have to think about it!)

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Mariusz,

 

Sri Sastri points out that:

 

" What I have said does not merely 'seem a bit dualistic'; it is positively

dualistic, because it is from the empirical or vyAvahArika standpoint. From

this point of view duality is real, the world is real and jivas are real.

But it is not the same reality as that of brahman, but it is reality of a

lower order, empirical or vyAvahArika reality. All statements and

discussions are possible only from the empirical standpoint. From the

absolute or pAramArthika standpoint there is only brahman; there is no one

else and so no discussion. Even the mahAvAkya " That thou art " is valid only

from the empirical standpoint under which there is a " thou " or jIva who

thinks, wrongly, that he is different from " That " , or brahman. "

 

Swami Paramarthananda points out that, at the paramArtha level, nirguNa is

no longer applicable either. Even satyam, j~nAnam, chaitanyam, advaitam are

no longer relevant. He uses the metaphor of day with respect to night and

says this comparison is not appropriate if one lives on the sun! Another

interesting point he makes is that this is why turIya is spoken of as amAtra

(not having any measure), i.e. mauna - silence.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Mariusz,

It is not clear how you say that there is no difference detween the two

levels. On the empirical level there is the world constituted of names and

forms with brahman as the substratum The world appears to be real only

because of the substratum, brahman, which is Existence itself. On the

absolute level there is only brahman.

 

It is also not clear to me how you say that karma does not matter at

all. The upanishads repeatedly mention that each jIva takes a new birth

according to its karma. It is only when a particular jIva gets

Self-knowledge that its accumulated karma gets destroyed. The prArabdha

karma which resulted in the present birth

( the birth in the course of which the Self-knowledge arose) does not get

destroyed immediately on the dawn of Self-knoledge, but it has to be

exhausted by being actually experienced. When this is exhausted there will

be no further birth for that jIva. He becomes a videhamukta.

 

S.N.Sastri

 

Dear Shri Sastri,

 

Thank you kindly for your very informative reply. I believe I perceive

the difference between the absolute and the empirical levels, as well

as the fact that there is really no difference between them, i.e., that

they are " one " . Would you therefore agree with a statement that, from

such perspective, karma does not matter at all?

 

Best regards,

 

Mariusz

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Mariusz,

 

 

 

The 'continuity' is for the jIva who is *not* liberated. I agree that there

is none for the liberated jIva. Indeed, this is what the word means in this

context - liberated from the continuity of saMsAra.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of mortlake2002

11 November 2007 17:55

advaitin

Re: What will it be like?

 

 

 

Dear Dennis,

 

But is not your statement to the effect that " when X is liberated, the

identity of X is lost forever " equal to what I have said, viz., " there

are no " continuous " jivas, in other words, that each jiva is just a

unique " ripple " in the ocean of the Self " ?

 

Best regards,

 

Mariusz

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

My apologies, too - I tend to read a message and respond if appropriate.

Accordingly I replied to your last message before reading this one.

 

 

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of mortlake2002

11 November 2007 18:08

advaitin

Re: What will it be like?

 

 

 

Sorry, an instantaneous self-correction: Now I see that these two

statements are not exactly identical because you are talking about a

liberated jiva while I talk about a " dead " jiva. The question about

jivas' continuity still remains, though.

 

Best regards,

 

Mariusz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Humble praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

It is only when a particular jIva gets Self-knowledge that its accumulated

karma gets destroyed.

 

> prabhuji, does not Atma jnAna reveals the fact to that jIva (who was

thinking that he was an individual due to ajnAna) the he was never ever was

an *individual* ?? & his karma & karma bandhana are mere adhyArOpita on

his eternal non-dual reality?? If that is not the case and jIva, still

maintains his individuality even after Atma jnAna ( here Atma jnAna, I

suppose, intuitive realization of *ahaM brahmAsmi*) & still strives for

getting rid of accumulated karma, then shruti verdict *kshEyaNtE chAsya

karmANi, chidyaNtE sarva saMshayAH* etc. mere words without any meaning is

it not??

 

The prArabdha karma which resulted in the present birth

( the birth in the course of which the Self-knowledge arose) does not get

destroyed immediately on the dawn of Self-knoledge, but it has to be

exhausted by being actually experienced. When this is exhausted there will

be no further birth for that jIva. He becomes a videhamukta.

 

> In the above statement of yours, there is an implication that there are

two stages in Atma jnAna, one is self knolwedge and second is *actual*

experience...Kindly tell me what is the difference between self-knowledge &

*actual experience*?? what exactly this *self-knowledge* exclusive of

*actual experience*?? Hope, you are not taking about krama-mukti which is

achieved through dhyAna & upAsana. Moreover, as we know,ignorance is never

created due to accumulation of karma or any such other things. Action only

results in merit and demerit & it invariably follows *katrutva buddhi.

Ignorance is natural (naisargika)and beginingless (anAdi). And only

self-Knowledge can remove this ignorance. If that self-knowledge itself is

not sufficient to eradicate the *katrutva buddhi & resultant karma & karma

phala, what else can bring the ultimate liberation?? As you know, shankara

extensively discusses this mukti with or without dEha (body)...for that

matter for a jnAni whether he is with body or without body it hardly

matters..it is not the *body that gets liberated to give it undue

importance is it not?? While commenting on the one of the maNtra-s of

bruhadAraNyaka maNtra, shankara says, Being but Brahman, he is said to be

merged in brahman. Because he has no desires that cause the limitation of

non-brahmanhood, therefore 'being but Brahman, he is merged in Brahman.

Shankara continued to say that this *merging*(if we can say so!!) will

happen *in this very life* and NOT when the body falls*. .Hence, I am

humbly requesting you to throw more light on the above statement of yours

i.e. self knowledge AND actual experience..I am aware of the observations

with regard to jnAni mAtra & brahma jnAni by Sri VidyAraNya swamiji in

jIvanmukti vivEka.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

We have originally started this discussion to find a `satisfactory

answer' to the question - " What happens when the body dies? " One

thing very clear from these discussions is the fact that there can be

no satisfactory answer to this question (that satisfies everyone!).

Most of the focus of these discussions rightly diverted to our

understanding of what Atman is. The fundamental declaration of

Vedanta is that if we know the Atman, we will have no more

questions! Sankara provides what is Atman in two of his often quoted

treatises – Atmabodha and Nirvânashatkam and the following paragraphs

will provide the essence of these works:

 

A profound definition of What Atman can be derived from the following

quoted speech of Swami Vivekananda (translation of

the " Nirvânashatkam " by Shankara, recited at Greenacre, Maine, and

reported in an 1894 issue of the Greenacre Voice):

 

" I am neither body nor changes of the body; nor am I senses nor

objects of the senses. I am Existence Absolute. Bliss Absolute.

Knowledge Absolute. I am It. I am It. " I am neither death nor fear of

death; nor was I ever born, nor had I parents. I am Existence

Absolute. Bliss Absolute. Knowledge Absolute. I am It. I am It.

 

" I am not misery nor have I misery. I am not enemy nor have I

enemies. I am Existence Absolute. Bliss Absolute. Knowledge Absolute.

I am It. I am It. " I am without form, without limit, beyond space,

beyond time; I am in everything, I am the basis of the universe —

everywhere am I. I am Existence Absolute. Bliss Absolute. Knowledge

Absolute. I am It. I am It. "

 

Sankara provides answers to " Everything that we want to know about

Atman, but afraid to ask " in Atmabodha a work of 68 verses. We have

just concluded our Atmabodha Satsangh in Washington Metropolitan and

here is a brief summary.

 

The word " Atman " is generally rendered as " Soul " or " Self. " The

Sanskrit word really cannot be translated. Atman is deathless, birth-

less, eternal, and real that exists within every individual. It is

the unchanging Reality behind the changing body, sense-organs, mind,

and ego. It is Spirit, which is Pure Consciousness and is unaffected

by time, space, and causality. Therefore, It is limitless and One

without a second. The unchanging Reality in the individual is called

Atman where as the unchanging Reality in the universe is called

Brahman. Brahman, too, is beyond time, space, and causality and is

all-pervading spirit. Vedanta states that Brahman and Atman are one

and the same. The knowledge of this identity or non-difference is the

Self-Knowledge, which confers upon an individual liberated from the

bondage and suffering of the world.

 

Basically, Atman is the changeless reality, the absolute knowledge,

and the everlasting bliss. Atman is the knowledge itself and It is

our stability. Atman is present in the " embodied " soul (jiva), yet It

is distinct from it. Atman interpenetrates the body, sense-organs,

etc., yet It is totally different from these things. Atman is the

Unchanging Consciousness (verse 17). Atman is merely a witness to

reality and is action-less (verse 18). Atman is free from all human

experience, feeling, and emotion. These things are attributed to the

body, senses, and mind. The essential nature of Atman is Eternity,

Purity, Reality, Consciousness, and Bliss. It is important to note

that these things are not " qualities. " They are a part of the nature

of Atman. They are always present (verse 23).

 

It is vital to understand that Atman (soul) and Buddhi (mind) cannot

be unified. No real union is possible between two contradictory

things (verse 24). Atman never undergoes any change as the mind does.

Atman manifests in all material objects, but cannot be manifested by

them. Atman manifests itself (verses 27-28). Atman and Brahman are

non-dualistic entities. " What is necessary for the attainment of

Liberation is actual realization of the knowledge of the non-duality

of Atman and Brahman. " We cannot judge one is greater than the other,

just as we cannot judge in the duality of Brahman and ourselves. They

are one and the same.

 

The Mahavakyas of the Vedas (great Vedic Aphorisms) help a person to

realize the oneness of the individual soul and Brahman (Supreme

Soul). These aphorisms are:

1) That thou art

2) This Atman is Brahman

3) Consciousness is Brahman

4) I am Brahman

The realization of identity of the individual soul and Brahman

enables one to attain the Highest Good (verses 29-30). True

understanding of these aphorisms will enable one to recognize the

identity.

 

Verse 34 of the Atmabodha summarizes the Atman by - " I am without

attributes and action, eternal and pure, free from stain and desire,

changeless and formless, and always free " (verse 34).

What does freedom mean? To the people who believe in and follow the

Atmabodha, freedom is the opportunity to quest for self-knowledge and

Brahman within themselves. Freedom gives them the chance to believe,

journey, and achieve self-knowledge. Freedom allows for them to

overcome ignorance and become one with themselves. Freedom is

something that is necessary within. It is a self-freedom. It has

nothing to do with being free within the society. Atmabodha is not a

societal freedom, but a freedom to believe and journey within.

 

" Free at last,

free at last,

thank the Brahman the Almighty,

we're free at last! "

 

In conclusion, the Vedantic perspective in getting answers to

questions is through more Contemplation and less discussion.

 

With my warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

>

>

> The various replies so far were interesting, as always, but have

all missed

> the point of my question. (This was my fault really for quoting the

question

> and answer which triggered my thoughts.)

> ........

>

> Who-I-really-am was never born and is not going to be reborn

> whether or not that knowledge is realized in a particular mind.

[Guest guest]

Thank you sri Ramji for a very timely presentation with quotations

from Nirvana shatakam and Atma bodha ! i enjoyed reading these

valuable references. i wish i had known about the Washington

Satsangh on Atma bodha ! sorry, i missed it!

 

now, it is also my pleasure to bring to this audience three slokas

from Srimad bhagavad gita chapter 18 , verses 20 , 21 and 22 in this

context !

 

sarva-bhutesu yenaikam

bhavam avyayam iksate

avibhaktam vibhaktesu

taj jnanam viddhi sattvikam (18-20)

 

That by which one sees the one indestructible reality in all beings,

undivided in the divided, know that " knowledge " as SATTWIC (Pure) .

 

prthaktvena tu yaj jnanam

nana-bhavan prthag-vidhan

vetti sarvesu bhutesu

taj jnanam viddhi rajasam (18-21)

 

But that " knowledge " which sees in all beings various entities of

distinct kinds, (and) as different from one another, know that

knowledge as RAJASIC (Passionate

 

yat tu krtsna-vad ekasmin

karye saktam ahaitukam

atattvartha-vad alpam ca

tat tamasam udahrtam (18-22)

 

But that " knowledge, " which clings to one single effect, as if it

were the whole, without reason, without foundation in truth and

narrow, that is declared to be TAMASIC (Dull) .

 

Pujya Gurudev swami chinmayananda summarizes :

 

" the " knowledge " of the 'good' (Sattwic) perceives the oneness

underlying the universe; the comprehension of the 'passionate'

(Rajasic) recognises the plurality of the world; and the

understanding of the 'dull' (Tamasic) indicates a highly

crystallized, self-centred ego in him, and his view of the world is

always perverted and ever false. "

 

(FROM ADVAITIN FILES)

 

Therefore , As shri Ramana says

 

" Reincarnation exists only so long as there is ignorance. There is

really no reincarnation at all, either now or before. Nor will there

be any hereafter. This is the truth. "

 

ps : maunaji , i will respond to you privately as i am rushing to

work to meet year end deadlines ! This is vyavaharika satyam

everything is time bound ! time is the essence! smile :-)

 

Hari Aum!

 

 

 

 

In advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote:

>

> Namaste:

>

> We have originally started this discussion to find a `satisfactory

> answer' to the question - " What happens when the body dies? "

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Sastri,

 

" It is not clear how you say that there is no difference between the

two levels. On the empirical level there is the world constituted of

names and forms with brahman as the substratum The world appears to

be real only because of the substratum, brahman, which is Existence

itself. On the absolute level there is only brahman. "

 

Yes. The difference is thus only apparent, and things apparent are

not real (although they exist.) Once we understand that " on the

absolute level there is only brahman " , everything else ceases to

matter. Isn't this the central tenet of advaita?

 

" It is also not clear to me how you say that karma does not matter at

all. The upanishads repeatedly mention that each jIva takes a new

birth according to its karma. "

 

I have a great respect for, and a great liking of, the Upanishads but

we are told repeatedly in numerous advaitic texts that books and

teachings can take us only so far. The Upanishads clearly operate on

the empirical (hence dualistic) level. Once we absorb their message,

we must overcome and abandon it. As for karma, I see at least two

reasons why it can be perceived as unimportant, or even non-existent.

First, since being a doer is only an illusion, " our " deeds don't

matter (but I must stress that this is not an invitation to

antinomianism; elaborating on this topic would take us too far off on

a tangent from the present subject.) Second, karma is only a concept

which, like all forms and concepts, must be eventually dropped off.

 

" The prArabdha karma which resulted in the present birth (the birth

in the course of which the Self-knowledge arose) does not get

destroyed immediately on the dawn of Self-knowledge, but it has to be

exhausted by being actually experienced. When this is exhausted there

will be no further birth for that jIva. He becomes a videhamukta. "

 

This is all on the empirical level. On the absolute level there is no

birth nor death, etc. What I don't understand is why we need to keep

talking in terms of the avidya even after we realize that they are

only teaching aids?

 

Best regards,

 

Mariusz

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis,

 

No problem, I often do the same, thank you for your replies.

 

Best regards,

 

Mariusz

 

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> My apologies, too - I tend to read a message and respond if

appropriate.

> Accordingly I replied to your last message before reading this one.

>

>

>

> Dennis

>

>

>

> advaitin [advaitin ] On

Behalf

> Of mortlake2002

> 11 November 2007 18:08

> advaitin

> Re: What will it be like?

>

>

>

> Sorry, an instantaneous self-correction: Now I see that these two

> statements are not exactly identical because you are talking about

a

> liberated jiva while I talk about a " dead " jiva. The question about

> jivas' continuity still remains, though.

>

> Best regards,

>

> Mariusz

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Mariusz,

 

 

 

I have considerable sympathy with this view (as you may have gathered!) I

think the short answer has to be though, that this is a group trying to

cater for all levels of seeker so that it is very likely that any given

level of the teaching is going to be valuable for someone and may cancel out

a little bit of ignorance. In fact, it is probably necessary to emphasize

that everything that is said on this group (or elsewhere) should be accepted

or not according to the present level of understanding of the reader.

Ultimately all this teaching is mithyA, along with the world, the seekers

and the teachers.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

This is all on the empirical level. On the absolute level there is no

birth nor death, etc. What I don't understand is why we need to keep

talking in terms of the avidya even after we realize that they are

only teaching aids?

 

Best regards,

 

Mariusz

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis,

 

I understand the practical usefulness of a graded teaching so perhaps I should

have

expressed myself more clearly. By " we " I meant Shri Sastri and myself. It seems

that both

of us have already surpassed the conventional concepts so useful on the

empirical level,

therefore I do not understand why Shri Sastri objects to my calling karma

non-existent.

 

Best regards,

 

Mariusz

[Guest guest]

Dear Mariuszji,

 

The point is not to master an intellectual understanding of karma and

having done that, move on to the next, more subtle topic. The point

of understanding karma is that it is very helpful in order to

understand how to purify the mind. Without purifying the mind, stable

self-knowledge will not arrise and all talk of " everything is

Brahman " is purely speculative and will not benefit anyone. One

" surpasses conventional concepts " when one gains sadhana chatushtaya,

not when one gains a thorough intellectual understanding of the

conventional concepts. [Of course, this is not to imply that you and

Sastriji don't have a purified mind - but I certainly don't and there

might be other people here who might not.]

 

Having said that, I also agree with the spirit of your messages. We

cannot keep hanging on to the comfort of the vyavaharik position

forever - we have to immerse ourselves in the non-dual perspective as

soon as possible.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Both the jiva (identifying self as body/mind/intellect - empirical

level) and the Jivamukta (Self-realized - absolute level) will have

to do the karma. For the jiva, the karma will be binding where as

for the Jivamukta, it is not binding. For the Jivamukta, karma

becomes the akarma and for the jiva, it becomes the baggage. In

Bhagavad Gita chapter 2, Bhagawan Sri explains to Arjuna the nature

of the Jivamukta (Perfect Yogi, Person with the Stable Mind) through

the verses 55 to 72. The distinction between karma and akarma is

further elaborated in chapter 5. Sastriji

(advaitin/message/37767) discusses what

is akarma while translating verse 18 of mahAvAkyaratnAvaliH.

 

" 18. karmaNA badhyate jantuH vidyayA ca vimucyate—One is bound by

karma and liberated by knowledge. Actions are performed only because

of desire. As long as there is desire there is bondage. So action is

an indication of being still in bondage. The karma of a liberated

person is akarma (not karma) because he has no sense of doership and

no desire. "

 

I hope this clarifies your question,

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: As long as we live, action becomes inevitable. The unrealized

get bounded by their actions where as the liberated have no binding

action!

 

advaitin , " mortlake2002 " <shamshir wrote:

>

> It seems that both Sastriji and me have already surpassed the

> conventional concepts so useful on the empirical level,

> therefore I do not understand why Shri Sastri objects to my calling

> karma non-existent.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Rishiji,

 

You wrote:

 

" Of course, this is not to imply that you and Sastriji don't have a

purified mind - but I certainly don't and there might be other people

here who might not. "

 

I am unable to say whether my mind is purified or not. All I know is

that the understanding I have of some of the " truths " mentioned so

far is not merely intellectual, and most of the time I am at a loss

for words to express it, although the sense of " having " it is

absolute (this occasionally leads to interesting exchanges with my

wife who is a very spiritual person but not an advaitin...8-).)

 

I repeat - I do understand the reason for putting forward

explanations which later on must be negated, in order to help some

jivas develop further. But my conclusions about the non-reality of

karma or reincarnation are hardly secrets - one can find them in the

scriptures, in the transcripts of Ramana Maharshi's or Nisargadatta

Maharaj's talks, in the books by Dennis Waite (and within the first

one hundred pages, too.) What is the problem then?

 

Forgive me for being blunt but I suspect that the reason lies in the

fact that both karma and reincarnation are dogmas of modern popular

Hinduism. Then again, advaita teaches that religion is a very useful

and necessary step toward realization, but only a step nevertheless.

Once it served its purpose it has to be left behind.

 

Having been born in Poland, I was of course brought up as a Catholic.

Some time ago I had an idea to actively return to the Church in order

to strenghten my absorption of advaita through religious practice (I

hope I make this clear enough.) It didn't take me very long to find

out that it all felt like a retrogression. I am not saying that in

order to denigrate religion, just to demonstrate that religion - for

some jivas - is not the ultimate tool of realization.

 

An interesting outcome of my temporary return to Catholicism was a

personal discovery that almost all the sayings of Jesus recorded in

the Gospels make the best sense when interpreted in advaitic terms!

 

Best regards,

 

Mariusz

[Guest guest]

Sri Ram Chandran,

 

Namaste:

 

You wrote:

 

" Both the jiva (identifying self as body/mind/intellect - empirical

level) and the Jivamukta (Self-realized - absolute level) will have

to do the karma. For the jiva, the karma will be binding where as

for the Jivamukta, it is not binding. For the Jivamukta, karma

becomes the akarma and for the jiva, it becomes the baggage. "

 

This is once again the empirical level - absolute level dichotomy

which is not really binding to one who understands the non-reality of

the former. What is karma if not merely a concept? What is akarma if

not the absence of karma? Therefore, once again, from this

perspective karma is not real. Am I missing something?

 

Best regards,

 

Mariusz

[Guest guest]

Dear Mariuszji,

 

As you know, this is a group that is designed for the discussion of

traditional Advaita Vedanta following Sri Shankaracharya. This

doesn't mean that everyone (or possibly most people) is a traditional

Advaitin, but it is a good way of ensuring a common basis for

discussion. If you say karma and rebirth is a dogma of modern

Hinduism, I can say it is not. If you say religion is usually not

conducive to gaining self-knowledge, I can say it is. How will such a

discussion based on each person stating their own position with

authority lead anywhere?

 

To avoid this kind of problem, we need a common basis for discussion.

Appeal to subjective experience/knowledge is inadequate for the

purpose of discussion (since experiences and their interpretations

vary between people) and there is only so much that can be discussed

on the basis of logic alone. For this reason, we have a simple ground

here - Vedantic tradition. Clearly, Vedantic tradition does say that

karma and rebirth are worth understanding and can help in gaining

self-knowledge. It also says that spending too much time and energy

in trying to understand Maya, which cannot really be understood, is

unwise (if this is the point you are trying to make, I agree it is

often a very pertinent one - especially for me).

 

Please understand that I am not saying that your personal experiences

are not meaningful or that they are unimportant - I am just saying

that for the purpose of discussion we need some valid source of

" axioms " that we all accept (even just for the sake of discussion).

Here, such axioms are naturally going to the concepts accepted by

Vedantic tradition.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Dear Rishiji,

 

I am afraid that you do not understand my position. For example, you

wrote:

 

" If you say religion is usually not conducive to gaining self-

knowledge, I can say it is. "

 

I never said this. All I have said was that religion is definitely

conducive to gaining self-knowledge but only up to a point.

 

" How will such a discussion based on each person stating their own

position with authority lead anywhere? "

 

I did not make any statements based solely on my own authority, or on

my personal experiences. The only time I spoke about the latter was

in reply to your (also inaccurate) observation about my

supposedly " intellectual " understanding of advaitic concepts.

 

But all this really does not matter. I am sorry that I took your and

other members' time. Goodbye.

 

Mariusz

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane

wrote:

>

> Dear Mariuszji,

>

> As you know, this is a group that is designed for the discussion of

> traditional Advaita Vedanta following Sri Shankaracharya. This

> doesn't mean that everyone (or possibly most people) is a

traditional

> Advaitin, but it is a good way of ensuring a common basis for

> discussion. If you say karma and rebirth is a dogma of modern

> Hinduism, I can say it is not. If you say religion is usually not

> conducive to gaining self-knowledge, I can say it is. How will such

a

> discussion based on each person stating their own position with

> authority lead anywhere?

>

> To avoid this kind of problem, we need a common basis for

discussion.

> Appeal to subjective experience/knowledge is inadequate for the

> purpose of discussion (since experiences and their interpretations

> vary between people) and there is only so much that can be

discussed

> on the basis of logic alone. For this reason, we have a simple

ground

> here - Vedantic tradition. Clearly, Vedantic tradition does say

that

> karma and rebirth are worth understanding and can help in gaining

> self-knowledge. It also says that spending too much time and energy

> in trying to understand Maya, which cannot really be understood, is

> unwise (if this is the point you are trying to make, I agree it is

> often a very pertinent one - especially for me).

>

> Please understand that I am not saying that your personal

experiences

> are not meaningful or that they are unimportant - I am just saying

> that for the purpose of discussion we need some valid source of

> " axioms " that we all accept (even just for the sake of discussion).

> Here, such axioms are naturally going to the concepts accepted by

> Vedantic tradition.

>

> Regards,

>

> Rishi.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shastriji,

 

" The prArabdha karma which resulted in the present birth

( the birth in the course of which the Self-knowledge arose) does not get

destroyed immediately on the dawn of Self-knoledge, but it has to be

exhausted by being actually experienced. When this is exhausted there will

be no further birth for that jIva. He becomes a videhamukta. "

 

Could you please explain this ' " prarbdha karma to be exhausted by being

actually experienced " ?

 

Does it mean that, what ever one experiences in the process of living, for

the rest of the life after gaining atma jnana nishta, one just lives with the

thought of acceptance, that I am exhausting my prarbdha of the janma?

 

I stand to be corrected by the revered Shri. Shahstriji.

 

With prananams and prayer

Lakshmi

 

 

 

Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Mail. See how.