What will it be like?

December 30, 2007

A very clever way of answering, indeed. Appreciate it.

As you don't expect any knowing of the occurrence of Knowledge,

please tell me who or what fades out and who or what knows or

witnesses the fading out?

Madathil Nair

________________

advaitin , Dinesh Rao <hgdinesh wrote:

..... I don't have any knowledge of scriptures, but from

> whatever little I understand, I feel that I won't know that I have

got

> Knowledge (In short that I am a realized person) it is not a

subject of

> knowledge, I will continue my normal activities but with the self,

which

> is always at the center, fading out gradually.

December 30, 2007

Namaste Rishi-ji.

Yours 38773.

Appreciate your input and agree with you mostly. However, I would

like a differentiation.

VichAra is a process in the phenomenal and, as such, it has to

culminate. Such culmination is an occurrence (occurrence of

Knowledge) from the phenomenal point of view. Sure, the one to whom

such Knowledge has occurred will definitely *know* that he always

had, nay, was that Knowledge. There is therefore no occurrence of an

event for him. Like you said, the clay is always clay in whatever

form it appears.

I have far exceeded my quota of posts for today!

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

December 30, 2007

Dear John,

First of all, let me applaud you for your exhaustive analysis of a few of my

perhaps insufficiently well-chosen words! (Had I known they were going to be

subjected to such detailed scrutiny, I might have paid more attention!)

Secondly, let me apologise for not yet having studied them sufficiently

thoroughly to be able to make any considered response. Indeed, I have not

yet read them from start to finish. There has been a build-up of material

over Christmas and I also have other tasks to perform so that I simply have

not had the time. A preliminary assessment suggests that it will take

several hours at least to read your essay thoroughly and provide any

response.

I must confess that, having seen and scanned the first two parts of your

comments, I did wonder what your motives might be. I had seen your amazing

work on 'Questions in Philosophy' and admired your ability to dissect

problems and ask the most probing questions - but I have not seen any

corresponding 'Answers in Philosophy'! It does seem that criticising others

is not necessarily a good substitute for offering one's own explanations.

However, having now scanned your third part, I see that you do in fact

attempt to provide both a rephrasing of the questions and some answers too.

Accordingly, I will not make any detailed response until later (I also

cannot say how long this may take since I have other priorities at the

moment).

One comment I will make is that we all acknowledge that it is not possible

to speak about reality. Also, I am sure most will attest to the inadequacy

of language and to the inability of the majority to use language both

correctly and efficiently. But this is not necessarily such a problem as you

seem to be suggesting. Advaita teaches via adhyAropa-apavAda so that all

that is said is eventually taken back anyway. And, in my own experience, the

most successful teaching utilises metaphor and stories, where what is being

spoken of does not relate directly to the topic under consideration in any

case. I suggest that the majority of members are sufficiently au fait with

the language of advaita that they are not misled by statements which may not

be couched in pedantically correct language.

I also notice that you refer to Shri Shantanand Saraswati as a source of

authority. Despite the fact that he was, for a while, a Shankaracharya, my

own view is that he cannot be referenced as an authority for concepts in

advaita. His 'sayings' variously reflect advaita, yoga, sAMkhya and sphoTa

(to mention a few) and confused the hell out of me while I was trying to

understand advaita back in the days of SES.

My apologies if what I have said comes across as somewhat negative. I

appreciate that you must have spent considerable time and effort in writing

your comments and that certainly deserves a response. Hopefully other

members of the group who are faster readers than myself will respond. I do

fear, however, that the length and erudition of your material may dissuade

some members from even reading it and this would be a pity. On behalf of the

group, I would ask that you not be put off by any lack of response and that

you continue to contribute but perhaps make any future posts a little

shorter and more to the point!

Best wishes,

Dennis

December 30, 2007

Namaskar Nairji

Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote:

>

> A very clever way of answering, indeed. Appreciate it.

>

> As you don't expect any knowing of the occurrence of Knowledge,

> please tell me who or what fades out and who or what knows or

> witnesses the fading out?

>

> Madathil Nair

>

Thank you for your appreciation.

I don't know and I can't imagine.(to be honest at this point of time I

don't care)

Respectfully

Dinesh

December 30, 2007

oh ! oh! Nairji ! of course , i understood exactly the platform you

are speaking from and appreciate all your viewpoints on this

subject . Satsangh will be indeed 'boring' if we were all to sing in

the same tune and same monotonous voice ..... sometimes , it is

great to hear different viewpoints and then arrive at a

reconciliation !

After all , one can be a jnani outwardly and inwardly a bhakta like

our beloved adi shankara bhagvadapada and be a bhakta outwardly and

be a jnani inwardly like our Sri Ramakrishna paramahamsa!

i know at heart you are a shakta but in satsangha , you are

vedanti ! That is o.k. too ! in fact , a famous verse goes like

this :

Antah-shaktah bahih-shaivah sabhayam vaishnava matah

Nana-rupadharah Kaulah vicaranti mahitale.

literally translated , this verse means

" At heart a Shakta, outwardly a Shaiva, in gatherings a Vaishnava

(who are wont to gather together for worship in praise of Hari) in

thus many a guise the Kaulas wander on earth. "

This is how exactly our beloved Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa

behaved ! He used to offer 'abishekams' to all the shivalingas in

the Dakshineshwer temple . Sri Ramakrishna used to take an active

part in all Satsanghs where vaishnavites joined together to sing the

glories of Sri Radha madhava ! But , the Paramahamsa was known to be

an ardent Shakta , follower of Shaktism! burt , can anyone in their

right mind say , sri Ramakrishna was not a jnani ? He was a true

jnani - a jnani , to whom form was everything and form was nothing!

yes - He was free and not bound ! A true Tantrik Advaitin , par

excellance!

Sri Ramakrishna says in the Gospel of Ramakrishna

" You may talk of Vedanta a thousand times to a genuine bhakta and

call the world like a dream before him, his devotion will not

vanish. He may shed it a little for a while. A pestle was lying in a

field of willows; it resulted in musalam kulanashnam (the pestle

destroying the dynasty). One becomes a jnani when one is born of

Shiva. His mind always goes to this knowledge.

'Only Brahman is the reality, the world an illusion'. If one is born

of Vishnu, one possesses prema bhakti loving devotion. This prema

bhakti does not leave you easily. Upon reasoning even if this prema

bhakti is diluted, it returns gushing forth after a time just as the

pestle destroyed the dynasty of the Yadus. "

The point i am trying to make is this , shri nairji ! The Great

mother holds a genuine bhakta in Her Lap and 'feeds' her but she

also watches over the so called jnani 'sitting' on the floor and

drinking fom a bottle ! Yes ! BOTH THE BHAKTA AND JNANI HAVE TO

SURRENDER THE 'EGO ' COMPLETELY at some point or the other !

THE SO CALLED JIVANMUKTA IS never deluded at any stage ! I WOULD

LIKE TO RECALL THE FOLLOWING VERSE FROM aDI SHANKARA BHAGVADAPADA'S

JIVANMUKTANADA LAHIRI:

Nirákáram kvápi kvacidapi ca sákáramamalam

nijam ùaivam rüpam vividhaguïabhedena bahudhá

Kadá ùcaryam paùyan kimidamiti høúyannapi kadá

munir ca vyámoham bhajati gurudèkúá kúata tamáç (15)

Visualising his own pure form of Ùiva (the auspicious) sometimes as

formless, And sometimes with form owing to association with gunas,

sometimes looking on in wonder at these, and at times delighted

within; The sage, with ignorance dispelled by Guru's grace (dèksá),

is not at all deluded.

so , only an ajnani wonders about the 'ignorance' he never had and

the jnani never hankers after the 'knowledge' he never lost !

enjoy !

ps : Say not, 'I have found the truth,' but rather, 'I have found a

truth.' - Gibran

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Bhagini-ji.

>

> Yours 38763.

>

December 31, 2007

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

wrote:

>

> Sorry Sada-ji. This is how I feel about it and I

> have to go against

> our common understanding of the pramAnAs in order to

> drive home my

> point of view. Nevertheless, your words have been

> very helpful to me

> and I hope I would be able to understand them in the

> right sense one

> day. Till then, I have to live with what I think is

> a logical

> conclusion.

Nairji - PraNAms

No need for sorry. I appreciate your honest

intelectual pursuit. Please continue your pursuit of

inquiry until you are convinced of whatever the truth

may be. My only suggestion is to keep the mind open

since one has concluded, the knowledge cannot takes

place any further. Listerning to the teacher who is

shotria is the only means of knowledge, rather than

relying on the logic. Logic can take up only upto some

point, for the rest we can only depend only shaastra

pramaaNa. I am sure you know this but just a friendly

reminder based on my own experience.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

December 31, 2007

Sri Madathil nairji has brought up a very important point in his

post number 38770.

nairji writes :

(I am afraid we are here setting gradations to jnAnidom and using

different names. )

Nairji , you may be surprised to discover or know ( as i did) that

in fact there are indeed 'Seven' STAGES of Jnana ! In fact sadaji

was perfectly justified when he claimed that

(Not true. All points do enter - paaramaathika, yaavahaarika and

praatibhaasika - but now as jnaani, I have knowledge of the reality

of all these. All there avathaas - waking, dream and deep sleep

states are there for jnaani too but he knows that he is none

of the three states. He is the turiiyam beyond any state. All

these states are there as long as BMI or upaadhiis are there. That

is what jiivan mukta means. Once upaadhiis fall out, He shines in

his true nature without any projection.)

IN FACT , SWAMI SIVANANDA DESCRIBES THE SEVEN STAGES OF JNANA AS

FOLLOWS :

THE SEVEN STAGES OF JNANA

" There are seven stages of Jnana or the seven Jnana Bhumikas

First, Jnana should be developed through a deep study of Atma Jnana

Sastras and association with the wise and the performance of

virtuous actions without any expectation of fruits. This is

Subheccha or good desire, which forms the first Bhumika or stage of

Jnana. This will irrigate the mind with the waters of discrimination

and protect it. There will be non-attraction or indifference to

sensual objects in this stage. The first stage is the substratum of

the other stages

From it the next two stages, viz., Vicharana and Tanumanasi will be

reached. Constant Atma Vichara (Atmic enquiry) forms the second

stage.

The third stage is Tanumanasi. This is attained through the

cultivation of special indifference to objects. The mind becomes

thin like a thread. Hence the name Tanumanasi. Tanu means thread -

threadlike state of mind. The third stage is also known by the name

Asanga Bhavana. In the third stage, the aspirant is free from all

attractions. If any one dies in the third stage, he will remain in

heaven for a long time and will reincarnate on earth again as a

Jnani. The above three stages can be included under the Jagrat state.

The fourth stage is Sattvapatti. This stage will destroy all Vasanas

to the root. This can be included under the Svapana state. The world

appears like a dream. Those who have reached the fourth stage will

look upon all things of the universe with an equal eye.

The fifth stage is Asamsakti. There is perfect non-attachment to the

objects of the world. There is no Upadhi or waking or sleeping in

this stage. This is the Jivanmukti stage in which there is the

experience of Ananda Svaroopa (the Eternal Bliss of Brahman) replete

with spotless Jnana. This will come under Sushupti.

The sixth stage is Padartha Bhavana. There is knowledge of Truth.

The seventh stage is Turiya, or the state of superconsciousness.

This is Moksha. This is also known by the name Turiyatita. There are

no Sankalpas. All the Gunas disappear. This is above the reach of

mind and speech. Disembodied salvation (Videhamukti) is attained in

the seventh stage.

Remaining in the certitude of Atma, without desires, and with an

equal vision over all, having completely eradicated all

complications of differentiations of 'I' or 'he', existence or non-

existence, is Turiya. "

http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/teachings/jnanayoga.htm

SO, NAIRJI - AS YOU CAN SEE , THERE ARE IN FACT GRADATIONS OF

JNANA ! every spiritual aspirant is not born as a jivan mukta or

videha mukta - in fact , there is NO birth once you are a jivanmukta

or a videhamukta! Even Bhagwan Ramana Maharishi had to do 'aham'

meditation in the virupaksha cave for 17 long years before the world

recognized him as a 'jnani!'

but , nairji , on one point we have to agree with Sadaji - even the

most exalted of jnanis (advaitins) always bow down to their Gurus !

ADI SHANKARA BHAGVADAPADA , the staunch advaitin, at his very first

meeting with his Guru Govinda bhagvadapada , took hold of his Guru

feet which was protruding out of a cave ( guru padaukaravindam-

lotus feet of guru) and humbly requested the reverend Sage to

initiate the young Shabnkara into brahma vidya ! in fact , if you

read the very first verse of Viveka chudamani , Adi shankara pays a

glowing tribute to his Guru Govindapada!

sarva-ved'aanta-siddh'aanta-gocharaM tam agocharam

gov'indaM param'aanandaM sad-guruM praNato'smy aham ..(Viveka

Chudamani Verse 1)

and let us appreciate with what great dexterity the acharya is

punning on the word ' Govindam' - here Govinda can refer to lord

Krishna or Adi shankara's guru deva Govindapada !

in fact another advaitin Kabir das ji also says

Guru Govind Doa khade kake lagun panv

Balihari Guru Apne, jin Govind diyo lakhay

if Guru and God both appear before me, To whom should I prostrate?

I bow before Guru who introduced God to me.

The point is even a die hard advaitin like Sri Ramana says , " ONE

MUST ALWAYS PAY 'RESPECTS' TO ONE'S GURU AND UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE

TREAT THE GURU AS AN EQUAL! "

SRI RAMANA SAID " Keep advaita within the Heart. Do not ever carry

it into action. Even if you apply it to all the three worlds, O son,

it is not to be applied to the Guru. "

bhava sankara dEsika mE saraNam!

Om shri gurubyo namaha!

ps : in fact , even Sri Krishna bhagwan had a guru - his name was

sage Sandeepini !

December 31, 2007

Hello Bhagini,

The point is even a die hard advaitin like Sri Ramana

says , " ONE

MUST ALWAYS PAY 'RESPECTS' TO ONE'S GURU AND UNDER NO

CIRCUMSTANCE

TREAT THE GURU AS AN EQUAL! "

SRI RAMANA SAID " Keep advaita within the Heart. Do

not ever carry

it into action. Even if you apply it to all the three

worlds, O son,

it is not to be applied to the Guru. "

You know, these two statements re never treating guru

as equal and keeping advaita within the heart always

have made me think of their basic meaning:

There must be some sense of Something above/beyond

'little me' to keep 'me' from being on the level of

the gods, to keep me from hubris, as the ancient

Greeks would say.

And keeping Advaita in the heart and not applying it

to guru/god again keeps that space clear 'above' me,

again keeping 'me'/you/us away from being 'at the

top',

at the level of the gods/god. It seems to be a way of

avoiding the ego getting beyond itself, overflowing,

becoming inflated with its own glory...

....does that sound right, anyone? Best wishes, Steve.

______________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

December 31, 2007

Dear Nairji,

Thank you for your previous reply. Rather than focusing on that, I am

more interested in trying to understand your and Sadanandaji's

positions more clearly.

First, it has to be clear that from the paramarthika perspective,

there is no one roleplaying, acting, etc... It is also clear that from

the vyavaharika perspective, it is correct to say that the jnani knows

that he is not the body and mind but still continues to act (to set an

example, for lila, or whatever other reason).

The disagreement, if I understand correctly, has to do with what the

jnani thinks. Here the word jnani refers to the BMI without ignorance

and not the Self. It seems to come down to: " In the mind of the jnani

are there thoughts that are paramarthically incorrect? " So can the

jnani (meaning the jnani's mind - just to be clear) have thoughts such

as " I am hungry " even while knowing that in reality this thought is

incorrect and is only valid from the vyavaharika perspective. It seems

to me that Sadaji is saying that this is possible, while Nairji is

saying that it is not [i apologise if I have misrepresented either

position].

It seems to me, based on my limited understanding, that Sadaji's

position makes more sense. There is no thought whoose content is true

from the paramarthika perspective - even statements such as " I am

Brahman " are just meant to establish the absolute truth by negating

ignorance. We know from many accounts that jnanis do indeed have

thoughts and if this is the case, they must be capable of thinking

something while knowing it is true only from vyavahara perspective.

I apologise again if I have mis-interpreted anyone's position.

Regards,

Rishi.

December 31, 2007

Rishiji - PraNAms

Your statements about my statements are essentially

correct except - Jnaani knows that the equipments

function - indriyaaH indriyaartheshu vartante - it is

the function of the sense organs to sense and the mind

to gather the sense input and cognize and recognize

the objects and respond to the external stimulus

including intelligent discussions on adhyaatmika. He

may say for transactional purposes that he eat, he

slept well last night, he can see, walk, talk or

feeling cold, hungry etc. Some people use - this

donkey has eaten - which is rather odd way of

communication.

Ramana maharshi eat, slept and even helped in the

kitchen - and when the thieves robed the ashram and

bet the bhagavan he also joked that swami also

received some puja by the thieves.

Yet, as Krishna say - prakRiti does all the actions

and who ever knows that he is akartaa he alone knows.

Others think they are doing the action and therefore

claiming the results that do not really belong to

them. Krishna says only mooDhAH think they are the

doers of actions. Jnaani knows he does not do even

though in His presence actions are being done.

Hence only difference between jnaani and ajnaani is

one knows and the other does not know the facts, facts

remain the same.

Anyway I believe this is what I understand from

shaastras and that is only way false can be false.

Otherwise we try to dismiss the false then we are

giving reality to the false! Jnaani understands that

false is false and truth is the truth and truth is the

adhiShTaanam, substantive for the false. Naama, ruupa

exists and their existence is borrowed form the sat.

As soon as I open my eyes I cannot but see the

varieties of objects in front with naama and ruupa.

That is indriya dharma and not purusha tantra - it is

not up to me not to see things and keep my eyes open -

of course assuming mind is behind the eyes. If mind is

somewhere else, then even though senses see, the mind

does not register and no knowledge of the sought

occurs. It is not failure of the senses.

Similarly the mind cannot but think as long as it is

there. There are two thoughts aham and idam - I

thought and this thoughts. ajnaani thinks 'I am this'

- confusion between aham and idam - being discussed in

the analysis of the mind series. jnaani also has aham

and idam thoughts but there is no confusion of I am

this. I am, I am .. as akhandaakaara vRitti - will be

there in the back ground while he can play the roles

as effectively as ajnaani - in fact better since he is

not trying to get happiness out of it - since he is

happy in himself or by himself - atmani eva atmaanaa

tuShTaH.

That is the position of the scriptures, as I

understand.

I thank Nairji and you sir, for providing another

opportunity to clarity my understanding of the

scriptures.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--- risrajlam <rishi.lamichhane wrote:

> Dear Nairji,

>

> Thank you for your previous reply. Rather than

> focusing on that, I am

> more interested in trying to understand your and

> Sadanandaji's

> positions more clearly.

>

> First, it has to be clear that from the paramarthika

> perspective,

> there is no one roleplaying, acting, etc... It is

> also clear that from

> the vyavaharika perspective, it is correct to say

> that the jnani knows

> that he is not the body and mind but still continues

> to act (to set an

> example, for lila, or whatever other reason).

>

> The disagreement, if I understand correctly, has to

> do with what the

> jnani thinks. Here the word jnani refers to the BMI

> without ignorance

> and not the Self. It seems to come down to: " In the

> mind of the jnani

> are there thoughts that are paramarthically

> incorrect? " So can the

> jnani (meaning the jnani's mind - just to be clear)

> have thoughts such

> as " I am hungry " even while knowing that in reality

> this thought is

> incorrect and is only valid from the vyavaharika

> perspective. It seems

> to me that Sadaji is saying that this is possible,

> while Nairji is

> saying that it is not [i apologise if I have

> misrepresented either

> position].

>

> It seems to me, based on my limited understanding,

> that Sadaji's

> position makes more sense. There is no thought

> whoose content is true

> from the paramarthika perspective - even statements

> such as " I am

> Brahman " are just meant to establish the absolute

> truth by negating

> ignorance. We know from many accounts that jnanis do

> indeed have

> thoughts and if this is the case, they must be

> capable of thinking

> something while knowing it is true only from

> vyavahara perspective.

>

> I apologise again if I have mis-interpreted anyone's

> position.

>

> Regards,

>

> Rishi.

>

December 31, 2007

steve :

i am glad you mentioned about the Greek word 'Hubris'. You indeed

make a valid point

( There must be some sense of Something above/beyond

'little me' to keep 'me' from being on the level of

the gods, to keep me from hubris, as the ancient

Greeks would say.

And keeping Advaita in the heart and not applying it

to guru/god again keeps that space clear 'above' me,

again keeping 'me'/you/us away from being 'at the

top', at the level of the gods/god. It seems to be a way of

avoiding the ego getting beyond itself, overflowing,

becoming inflated with its own glory...)

in fact , those who are familiar with Hinduism know the Story of

Sage Vishwamitra who was full of false pride , arrogance and

inflated ego ! Therefore , although Sage Vishwamitra was a great

Rajarishi , he could never be called a Brahma rishi ? It was sage

Vasishta who made Sage vishwamitra see 'reason' and conferred on

Sage Vishwamitra the title of 'brahmarishi' once Sage

Vishwamitramitra's ego was totally effaced ! hence , the oft quoted

phrase 'VASISHTAR VAYALE BRAHMARISHI'( from the mouth of Vasishtar ,

the title brahmarishi.)

this note is for Rishiji :

YES ! The jnani eats , sleeps and he behaves just like all of us but

there is a big difference ...

MAY i IN THIS CONTEXT QUOTE VERSES 8 AND 9 FROM THE SRIMAD bHAGVAD

GITA ?

Naiva kinchit karomeeti yukto manyeta tattwavit;

Pashyan shrunvan sprishan jighran nashnan gacchan swapan shwasan.

( chapter 5 , verse 8)

" I do nothing at all " —thus will the harmonised knower of Truth think—

seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, going, sleeping,

breathing. ,

Pralapan visrijan grihnan nunmishan nimishannapi;

Indriyaaneendriyaartheshu vartanta iti dhaarayan. ( chapter 5 ,

verse 9)

Speaking, letting go, seizing, opening and closing the eyes—

convinced that the senses move among the sense-objects.

yes! A liberated sage is like a lotus leaf unaffected by the

raindrop that falls on its leaf! Yes ! The jnani is in the world but

not of the world ! !

on that note , this will be my last post for 2007 and i want to

welcome 2008 with the following words

" As we turn off the sound and move into Silence , the Dancing can

begin. We finally hear the Music of Our Soul, and it is this that

gives us inner Peace . And as we listen to the Music of our Soul, we

mysteriously and wonderously hear the Music of everyone else's as

well .... and we are at 'ONE ' with the world . "

Let the countdown begin ....

ps : A million thanks to Sri Ramji and his wonderful team of

moderators for creating this Holy Satsangha in cyberspace !

December 31, 2007

Namaste Rishji.

Thanks for your efforts to understand the 'disagreement'. Actually,

there is no disagreement at all because I am only expressing a doubt

and Sada-ji is expressing his shraddhA on the validity of shAstra

pramANa.

Without worrying about the inscrutable mechanics of the jnAni's 'non-

existent' mind, let me just take out a single statement from your

post and conclude my position:

You said:

QUOTE

> We know from many accounts that jnanis do indeed have

> thoughts and if this is the case, they must be capable of thinking

> something while knowing it is true only from vyavahara perspective.

UNQUOTE

Since we see our so-called jnAnis thinking, I can accept the jnAni's

capability of 'thinking'. Yet, my sensibility demands of me to

point out the oxymoronic nature of such a proposition. Hence, all

my words of dissent hithertofore here.

The only way I can reconcile the doubt is to demand that we accept

what is seen (jnAni thinking and playing roles etc.) by admitting

that it is a part of our ignorance and that the jnAni per se is not

actually doing anything at all because he is already one with the

One (That is the paramArta!). In a nutshell, it is an acceptance

that what is seen is not true at all; it is knowing that the jnAnis

of the phenomenal are just another projection like the other so many

and that they are Providence manifesting for those who want to

evolve spiritually.

Such thinking would go well with ajAtavAda and essentially mean

that 'with my self-realization the whole (apparent) creation

including all the struggling ajnAnis is resolved inexorably into

me'. We have problem only if we labour under the impression that

there are multitudes of jIvAs with each one of them awaiting

separate, individual salvation.

Hope I am clear.

PraNAms.

Madathil Nair

December 31, 2007

Namaste Nair-ji:

I do agree with you that all assessments of an ajnani on how a Jnani

acts in this world are only just SPECULATIONS. At the same time, it

also means that an ajnani can never resolve this issue by using only

intellectual logic and analysis. An ajnani's intellect can not prove

or disprove the statements (Pramanas) made in the Shastra. How do we

resolve this puzzle? One way is to become a jnani and self-realize

the Truth. Another way is to accept the statements in the Shastra

with Shraddha and adopt the purification steps stated in the Shastra.

As long as the mind is not purified, the doubts will remain and the

doubts can only be exterminated with a heavy dose of Shraddha.

With my warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Rishji.

>

> Thanks for your efforts to understand the 'disagreement'.

Actually,

> there is no disagreement at all because I am only expressing a

doubt

> and Sada-ji is expressing his shraddhA on the validity of shAstra

> pramANa.

>

December 31, 2007

Dear Nairji,

" The only way I can reconcile the doubt is to demand that we accept

what is seen (jnAni thinking and playing roles etc.) by admitting

that it is a part of our ignorance and that the jnAni per se is not

actually doing anything at all because he is already one with the

One (That is the paramArta!). "

From that point of view, however, it is not only the jnani who is not

thinking and playing roles but there is no one at all doing such

things. Both the jnani and the ajnani are nirvikalpa by their very

nature. So there seems to be no reason to make a special statement

that applies only to jnanis.

Basically, I think you accept that from the vyavaharika perspective,

the jnani thinks and acts. Everyone accepts that from the paramarthika

perspective, neither the jnani nor anyone thinks or acts. So from

which perspective are you expressing your doubt?

I hope, once again, that I am not completely misunderstanding your

position.

Regards,

Rishi.

December 31, 2007

Hi Nair-ji,

It seems to me that all of this discussion boils down to the usual problem

of paramArtha versus vyavahAra. It is certainly the case that " there *are*

multitudes of jIvAs with each one of them awaiting separate, individual

salvation " *from the standpoint of vyavahAra*. * And *ajAtivAda* is

certainly true *from the standpoint of paramArtha*. There is no problem as

long as our statements are made (as if) from the appropriate standpoint. (Of

course, I recognize that all statements are unavoidably from the vyAvahArika

standpoint but you know what I mean.)

Realization is the event in the mind when self-ignorance is dispelled. It is

then known that there is only brahman and that the apparently separate

jIva-s and objects are only name and form of that non-dual reality. But this

realization makes no difference to the appearance, whether from the vantage

point of the now self-realized j~nAnI or from the still unrealized

aj~nAnI-s. 'All of them' still see separate persons and objects and still

appear to act in the apparent world. The j~nAnI still 'has' a body and mind

as before. The key difference is that the j~nAnI now knows that all of the

appearance is only an appearance, always has been and always will be brahman

only.

Nothing is any different other than the self-knowledge in the mind of the

j~nAnI. Before there was only brahman and no-one acting; after there is only

brahman and no-one acting. The single difference is that this knowledge is

now present in the mind of the j~nAnI - that is why he is called a j~nAnI.

Is this not the logical way of looking at things?

Best wishes,

Dennis