What’s in a name, anyway?

[Guest guest]

What's in a name, anyway?

 

Dear Sadanandaji,

Your posting on the above subject is excellent. We are still on the

dualistic plane and so differences are real for us. As you have indicated, a

plumber cannot serve the purpose of a doctor or vice-versa.

Such differences are valid even for the brahma-jnAnI. No doubt he looks

upon a man as well as a cow as brahman, but that does not mean that he will

treat them as the same for practical purposes. He will not give a man grass

to eat because he is not different from a cow. Nor will he go to a stable

and address the cows there on the need for striving for brahma-jnAna. Put

this way it looks obvious and even childish on my part to point it out, but

to stretch the doctrine of non-duality too far is also equally ridiculous.

 

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Respected Sastri-ji.

 

Yes. Accepted if we all agree that what you have pointed out is *an

ajnAni's point of view of a jnAni in/from the phenomenal*.

 

The jnAni being verily one with Brahman has no point of view at all.

He is not in the phenomenal either. He neither feeds a cow nor

addresses anybody to strive for brahma-jnAna. (All these conclusions

are again in the phenomenal, therefore mithyA, belong to ajnAnis, and

have nothing to do with the jnAni.)

 

However, the ajnAnis in the phenomenal do see *jnAnis* (the plural is

again stark ajnAna) performing all the actions mentioned above and

even miracles. That only proves the ever-present existence of Grace

in the vyAvahArika constantly beckoning us to our Homeland.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

P.S.: The jnAni doesn't even possess a body either. If we see him

as having and shedding one, that again is stark ajnAna of the

phenomenal. This is why I tend to careen towards Bhaskarji's

frequency on the issue of jIvanmukti.

_______________

 

advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>>

> Dear Sadanandaji,

Your posting on the above subject is excellent. We are still on the

> dualistic plane and so differences are real for us. As you have

indicated, a plumber cannot serve the purpose of a doctor or vice-

versa.

> Such differences are valid even for the brahma-jnAnI. No doubt

he looks upon a man as well as a cow as brahman, but that does not

mean that he will treat them as the same for practical purposes. He

will not give a man grass to eat because he is not different from a

cow. Nor will he go to a stable and address the cows there on the

need for striving for brahma-jnAna. Put this way it looks obvious and

even childish on my part to point it out, but to stretch the doctrine

of non-duality too far is also equally ridiculous.

[Guest guest]

Nairji - PraNAms

 

My understanding coincides with that Shreeman

Shastriji. I am humbled by his comments.

 

Understanding the reality underlying the experience of

the world does not negate the world. What it negates

is the reality assigned or assumed to the world. It is

similar to understanding that desk and chair are

nothing but wood, the material cause for both, does

not negate the desk and chair. Chair is still there to

sit and desk is there to use as a desk. What

eliminates is the misunderstanding that the difference

between these two objects not really real but are just

superimposed name and form only and is called mithyaa

or otherwise known as vyavahaara satya. Brahma jnaani

understands that the material cause (as well as the

intelligent cause) for the universe is nothing but

Brahman. Sat eva soumya idam agra aseet - ekam eve

advitiiyam - Sat is the very material cause for the

universe, which is of the nature of chit also - then

only eka vidyaanena sarva vijnaanam bhavati is valid.

Knowing wood, I know all the objects made of wood -

adhaara jnaanam is there even if one does not have

adheya jnaanam. Names and forms still exist and a

jnaani understands that all theses names and forms are

only real at transactional level and from absolute

level it is nothing but Sat alone which is Brahman

that you are. No knowledge can eliminate any object or

even experience. What it does is provide the true

knowledge of the object or the experience. Only

praatibhaasika satyam - that is those that projected

by the jiiva's mind are eliminated like snake is

eliminate by the rope knowledge, since snake is jiiva

sRishTi. On the other hand, the mirage water or sun

rise and sun set are not eliminated by the knowledge

that mirage water is not real or sun never rises or

sets.

 

Coming to the prarabda of Jnaani - he understands that

he was never a karthaa or bhoktaa - akartaaham

abhoktaaham - that is true even in ajnaana kaale.

But now, he sees the BMI undergoing natural process as

a part of the creation, sustenance and annihilation

process. He sees that all actions are being preformed

by PrakRiti itself - of course under the direction of

the Lord - then praarabda becomes leela of the Lord.

Not that it is not there, but it is understood

correctly.

 

See the statement of Krishna in 'mayaa tatam idam

sarvam .. and also following sloka in that chapter

(Ch.9). All manifestations are in Me but I am not in

them - then again they are not in Me also - look at my

glory Arjuna. This is jnaani's perspective. All

differences do exist yet, yet they do not exit from

the absolute level - all apparent difference become

apparent once one understands the truth of the

creation as Sat eva idam agra asti - or avyaaktaani

bhuutani vyaka madhyaani bhaarata, etc.

 

Advaita Vedanta does not say world is not real. what

it says the reality of the world is due the reality of

its substantive, Brahman. The name and form are real

only at transactional level. Pot is real at

transactional level but truth is its substantive, the

clay that never underwent any change other than the

superficial apparent changes to appear as pot. Mithyaa

is not unreal - transactionally real but the truth of

mithyaa is sat that is substantive for mithyaa.

Differences between pot, jug, cup, etc made of clay

are real at transactional level, but once one knows

clay, all objects made of clay are as good as known.

Once one knows Brahman, adhyaara for jagat, then all

objects in the creation made of Brahman as the

material cause are as good as known. Hence Krishna

emphasizes in Ch. 7 - apareyam idam .. ya yedam

dhaaryate jagat. Jnaanam does not involve elimination

of the world but understading of the world is not

real; and neither it unreal- it is only apparent or

transactionally real - brahma satyam, jagat mithyaa,

jivo braham eva na aparaH-is advaita.

 

Nairji, I realize you are familiar with all this but I

felt compelled to put it in the form that others can

also appreciate.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

wrote:

 

> Namaste Respected Sastri-ji.

>

> Yes. Accepted if we all agree that what you have

> pointed out is *an

> ajnAni's point of view of a jnAni in/from the

> phenomenal*.

>

> The jnAni being verily one with Brahman has no point

> of view at all.

[Guest guest]

Coming to the prarabda of Jnaani - he understands that

he was never a karthaa or bhoktaa - akartaaham

abhoktaaham - that is true even in ajnaana kaale.

But now, he sees the BMI undergoing natural process as

a part of the creation, sustenance and annihilation

process.

 

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Thanks for this reply...But I think, issue is something different here...It

is not about whether jnAni continues to see the world or not or whether

jnAni has a sharIra or upAdhi sambaMdha. Some of the vyAkhyAnakAra-s

attributes *avidyA lEsha* even to jnAni-s (jnAni in absolute sense) and in

support, they uphold bhAshya vAkya-s/shruti vAkya-s like vijnAya prajnAm

kurvIta (br.up. 4-4-21 & 22) , Atma vijnAna smruti saMtatir (br.up. bhAshya

1-4-7) etc. etc. to say that Atma jnAni has to really experience the

prArabdha karma due to avidyA lEsha & he can attain paramArtha ONLY after

shedding his mortal coil!! But it is to be noted that this concluding

portion of bhAshya in bruhadAraNyaka (1-4-7) comes after an elaborated

discussion (this maNtra bhAshya runs into almost 10-15 pages!!) where

Sankara explains why nothing other than the knowledge taught in the

vedAntic mahAvAkya-s is needed for liberation. Here earlier he very

vociferously argues against opponents like jnAna-karma samuchaya-vAdins,

prasaMkhyAna vAdin-s and against those who think yOgic meditation (citta

vrutti nirOdha) is necessary after SravaNa. Anyway, let us leave it as it

is...

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sada-ji.

 

Thanks for the lengthy, informative post (# 38041).

 

Yes. I do understand the soild advaitic reasoning in your post and

accept it without qualms.

 

However, may I humbly point out that the current disagreement, if I

may use such a strong word, relates not to the veracity of Advaita

but to how jIvanmukti, which none of us as far as I can infer have

attained, is understood.

 

There are many like me here who fully understand Advaitic reasoning

and acknowledge `brahma satyam jagat mithyA'. But, not all of us are

jIvanmuktAs. The BMI is a serious preoccupation with most of us

yet. We tend to take the world as really real despite our advaitic

knowledge that it is mithyA.

 

There is therefore a big gap between those who understand Advaita and

a jIvanmukta. From the point of view of the phenomenal, one has to,

therefore, *progress and bridge* the gap in order for self-

realization to occur.

 

Let us put the BMI-preoccupation mathematically. When I

say `preoccupation', it means one's concern, possessiveness,

identification etc. For a total ajnAni – an ignoramus – it may be

100%. For some one who understands Advaita, let us say, it is 30% –

50%. For a jnAni, naturally, the figure is 0%. What does this

practically mean? The jnAni knows " his " body. But, he is no more

possessive about it. There is absolutely no identification with the

body. Yet, when he `sees' it, he is no more any different from it.

The pairs of opposites like heat and cold, pain and pleasure do not

bother him any more. He sees himself in the pairs. In the

phenomenal, we ajnAnis may see him carrying and labouring with a

body. But, as far as the jnAni is concerned, it and the world sensed

through the organs of perception are as good as not there as separate

entities having been sublated in his Oneness. He wouldn't even know

when the body falls and perishes. What to then talk about the

prArabdha balance-sheet? Where then is the need for videhamukti?

 

Was Bh. Ramana a lesser mukta before his mortal coil fell off in the

eyes of the phenomenal? No doubt, he carried a painful sarcoma on

his shoulder. But, did it hurt him? If we consider that sarcoma as

a mark of his prArabdha, the truth is that he never was aware of it

and of the body which carried it as he was never ever other than

them. Then what prArabdha did he burn off before he disappeared from

the eyes of the phenomenal?

 

That is the big doubt, Sadaji. Otherwise, I am in total agreement

with you and in fact never ever negated the world. In fact, I love

the world because, as an Advaitin, I can acknowledge that it is not

other than me. How can I dislike me?

 

Kindly bear with me if my thoughts are sloppily expressed here.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

--- bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

>But I think, issue is

> something different here...It

> is not about whether jnAni continues to see the

> world or not or whether

> jnAni has a sharIra or upAdhi sambaMdha.

Some of

> the vyAkhyAnakAra-s

> attributes *avidyA lEsha* even to jnAni-s (jnAni in

> absolute sense) and in

> support, they uphold bhAshya vAkya-s/shruti vAkya-s

> like vijnAya prajnAm

> kurvIta (br.up. 4-4-21 & 22) , Atma vijnAna smruti

> saMtatir (br.up. bhAshya

> 1-4-7) etc. etc. to say that Atma jnAni has to

> really experience the

> prArabdha karma due to avidyA lEsha & he can attain

> paramArtha ONLY after

> shedding his mortal coil!! But it is to be noted

> that this concluding

> portion of bhAshya in bruhadAraNyaka (1-4-7) comes

> after an elaborated

> discussion (this maNtra bhAshya runs into almost

> 10-15 pages!!) where

> Sankara explains why nothing other than the

> knowledge taught in the

> vedAntic mahAvAkya-s is needed for liberation.

 

 

Bhaskarji – PraNAms.

Here is my understanding based on what you have

provided.

Just some general comments. Shruti statements with

Nyaaya that can provide samanvayam or coherency and

Bhaashyaas have to be understood with a clear basis.

I must say that is where a sampradaaya teacher comes

to our help in accounting properly.

 

Once I understand that I am aatma and not anaatma that

is what jnanam stands for, all anaatma is just a

projection and has no real basis. If I ,

sat-chit-ananda swaruupa, is the fundamental truth,

which is the substratum for both jiiva, jagat and

Iswara, and if that is the essence of Vedanta

shaastra, then all relative statements have to be

understood from that relative frame works only.

 

Atma jnaani has to experience something if one says –

that is self-contradiction since aatma jnaanam

involves ‘aham brahmaasmi’ – I am the totality. and

that totality that I am cannot experience since any

experience involves dvaita or tripuTi

(experiencer-experienced and experiencing). This is

true even when I do not know that I am Brahman, since

I am Brahman all the time whether I know it or not and

not that I am going to become Brahman. That is the

reason why Shankara explains clearly that nothing

other than Knowledge taught through maha vaakyas that

shows the identity relations between jiiva and Brahman

is needed for liberation. Hence Krishna emphatically

says in Gita – any one thinks that he is kartaa ( of

course bhoktaa is included) , he is totally deluded

(sammuuDhaH), since prakRiti does everything. One who

knows that he is akartaa abhoktaa alone knows (yaH

pasyati tad aatmaanam akartaaram sa pasyati) the

truth. If you say one is aatma jnaani or Brahma

jnaani – that jnaanam involves clear understanding

that he does not act or enjoy.

 

Even in ajnaana kaale one does not do any action or

enjoy – that is the Vedantic truth.

 

Only difference between jnaani and ajnaani, even

though both are akartaaham and abhoktaa, one assumes

he is the doer and enjoyer, while the other sees that

doing and enjoying is going on his presence. Since

BMI complex belong to prakRiti and BMI complex is

formed due to praarabda, the action and reaction will

go on at the BMI level only until praarabda wanes out

– jnaani witnesses these as a play, while ajnaani

assumes he is doing it and pays the consequence of

that misunderstanding. It is like an actor playing

the role in a drama. A true actor lives in the

character he plays, knowing very well that is just a

drama, since he never forgets that he is an actor

playing the role and not the role itself. He can cry

in the scene as a beggar, if that is what the scene

demands, knowing very well he is going to have more

millions for that crying. That is what Krishna’s

statement – Look at my glory Arjuna! - means.

 

 

Now who acts and enjoys since he has gone (or

understood that he is Brahman). One can say it is

Iswara that makes use of those equipments that are

readily available for loka kalyaaNam. Any BMI

modifications are part of the praarabda that is

destined that even Iswara would not change. But it is

still utilized for the benefit of the totality or

provides a vehicle for teaching others.

 

Hence the correct understanding is Iswara sees the

world through that BMI and acts as needed. Jnaani has

become one with Iswara when he realized I am not in

them (BMI) but they are in me.

 

Therefore jnaani’s sambhanda (relation is only at

relative plane) is like Iswara’s sambhadha with a

local BMI that is conducive for loka kalyaaNam. From

absolute Brahman’s point there is no sambhandha at

all. When the BMI drops after praarabda, the BMI also

becomes part of the totality while Jnaani already has

becomes totality.

 

Here

> earlier he very

> vociferously argues against opponents like

> jnAna-karma samuchaya-vAdins,

> prasaMkhyAna vAdin-s and against those who think

> yOgic meditation (citta

> vrutti nirOdha) is necessary after SravaNa. Anyway,

> let us leave it as it

> is...

 

That still stands. Shankara does not contradict

himself or Shruties contradict either – only thing is

what is said has to be understood from what reference

the statements are made.

 

A word of caution to those who are interested in

Brahma jnaanam. One should get a clear understanding

of the problem and everything can be seen then as

self-consistent. Hence Vedanta shaastra has to be

studied under a teacher, if one does not want to get

lost in the arguments and counter arguments.

 

As per Shankara's own statements if one " understands "

the maha vaakyaas, that is the knowledge; and nothing

else is needed further. Look at the life of Nisarga

datta Maharaj - tat tvam asi was enough to put his

misunderstandings aside. What we need is faith in

those statements and faith in the interpretation of

these maha vaakyaas by the aachaarya deva. What is

lacking in us is the purity of the mind needed to

assimulate the knowledge given out in mahavaakyas, due

to pressure of vaasanas. But constant reflection on

these with clear understanding of the import of the

scripture is the only solution.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

 

> There are many like me here who fully understand

> Advaitic reasoning

> and acknowledge `brahma satyam jagat mithyA'.

.........

>

> There is therefore a big gap between those who

> understand Advaita and

> a jIvanmukta. From the point of view of the

> phenomenal, one has to,

> therefore, *progress and bridge* the gap in order

> for self-

> realization to occur.

 

Nairji - My PraNAms.

 

Looks like the posts are comming one after the other.

I just responded to Bhaskarji since many of the

comments are common, I will skip those and address

only those that I like.

 

I saw another Bhaskarji's post. about different types

of jiivanmuktas.

 

First let me clarify from my understanding.

All understanding takes place at intellect level only

- when we say I understand advaita Vedanta - there is

nothing further to do or understand. Being Swami

Dayanandaji student, I am sure you can appreciate the

statement.

 

Only problem is that understanding does not seem to

stay with us, particularly when we are deeply involved

at BMI level with the world outside. One side I

understand that I am the totality as the maha vaakyaas

imply, on the other hand I operate that I am only this

BMI and I need to 'become jiivan mukta' 'I need to

'bridge the gap' for self-realization to occur.

 

Let me ask you - when you are not yourself and when

you do not realize yourself as yourself - If you

really deeply understand, there is nothing to realize

- nothing to bridge the gap - just BE what you are.

 

The problem is due to habitual thinking (habits die

hard)we take ourselves what we are not - atamaa takes

itslef as anaatma.

 

The very notion that there is gap between me and my

understanding - itself forms a gap in the

understanding.

 

Realization is 'aparoxaanubhuti' - immediate - when we

drop our wrong notions about ourselves. Wrong notions

stay due to habitual thinking. Constant vigilance on

how the mind operates and mistakes is the only way to

catch from its falling into the traps.

 

> Let us put the BMI-preoccupation mathematically.

>. What to then talk

> about the

> prArabdha balance-sheet? Where then is the need for

> videhamukti?

 

All that is true and absolutely correct. Jnaani has

realized that there is nothing to realize! He is nitya

suddha mukta swaruupa - all the time.

 

>

> Was Bh. Ramana a lesser mukta before his mortal

> coil fell off in the

> eyes of the phenomenal?

 

Nairji - not only Bh. Ramana, everyone one of us - nay

I alone am, since there is no one else there.

 

 

No doubt, he carried a

> painful sarcoma on

> his shoulder.

 

Waite a minute - there is jump from aatma to anaatma

here. He never carried any thing - the BMI is part of

prakRiti had its problem - just as it is limited in

space and time etc. That does not mean Bh. Ramana had

any problem.

 

But, did it hurt him? If we consider

> that sarcoma as

> a mark of his prArabdha, the truth is that he never

> was aware of it

> and of the body which carried it as he was never

> ever other than

> them. Then what prArabdha did he burn off before he

> disappeared from

> the eyes of the phenomenal?> > That is the big

doubt, Sadaji. Otherwise, I am in

> total agreement

> with you

 

When one has realized that I am not anaatma, the

properties of anaatma do not belong to him. They

belong to anaatma only. Then where is the question of

He has to go through praarabda. There is

self-contradiction there since it contradicts the

nature of the self.

 

Nairji - I do not see any scope for any doubt unless

one tries to superimpose anaatma properties on aatma.

But Brahma jnaani will not do that superimposition

since he is Brahma jnaani - one without a second! I am

'this' this - this being BMI is the fundamental error

and knowledge that I am not this and I am the totality

that is never affected by this or that is the

realization.

 

There is no question of brahma jnaani having

praarabda. What is referred to is BMI has praarabda

since it is a product of praarabda. It will fall off

eventually but until then in spite of its limitations,

Iswara will use it for whatever benefit He can extract

out of it for loka kalyaaNam.

 

Hence we pray - guru brahma guru Vishnu .. since he is

now incarnate of Iswara himself.

 

Now I am responding to Bhaskarji's more recent

comments too.

 

Bhaskarji - If I may say - that there are no

gradations in the knowledge. Therefore there are no

gradations in jiivan muktas - he is liberated from the

identification that I am a jiiva.

 

What we have is gradations in the purity of the mind.

The understanding that I am aatma and not anaatma does

not sink in even though I understand mahaavaakyaas.

That is due to habitual thinking coming from many

lives of practice! Only way to eliminate the habits as

Scriptures advise us is constant reflection on the

teaching until it permanently sinks in.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Bhaskarji – PraNAms.

Here is my understanding based on what you have provided. Just some general

comments. Shruti statements with

Nyaaya that can provide samanvayam or coherency and Bhaashyaas have to be

understood with a clear basis.

I must say that is where a sampradaaya teacher comes to our help in

accounting properly.

 

> I dont know what was the need here to talk about sampradAya at this

point of discussion...Kindly be specific if you have anything in

mind...However, I am in complete agreement with most part of your mail

:-)).

 

Here

> earlier he very

> vociferously argues against opponents like

> jnAna-karma samuchaya-vAdins,

> prasaMkhyAna vAdin-s and against those who think

> yOgic meditation (citta

> vrutti nirOdha) is necessary after SravaNa. Anyway,

> let us leave it as it

> is...

 

That still stands. Shankara does not contradict

himself or Shruties contradict either – only thing is

what is said has to be understood from what reference

the statements are made.

 

> Again I am failed to understand the context of your statements here

prabhuji...I've never spoken about the *contradictions* in shankara bhAshya

or shruti...I was talking about jnAni's *vyavahAra* or sustained effort

from jnAni to maintain that jnAna & vyAkhyAnakAra-s contribution towards

it.....Kindly let me know the proper context or from which reference these

statements are made *if* my understanding is not correct or

asampradAyik....

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadaji.

 

Your message 38048.

 

I am fully in agreement with most of what you say. Let me therefore

zero in only on where we seem to diverge.

 

You said:

 

QUOTE

 

> When one has realized that I am not anaatma, the

> properties of anaatma do not belong to him. They

> belong to anaatma only.

 

UNQUOTE

 

I see it this way. When one has realized that one is not anAtmA,

then anAtmA with all its properties ceases to exist. If not, then we

are talking dwaita, not advaita.

_______________________

 

You continued:

 

QUOTE

 

> There is no question of brahma jnaani having

> praarabda. What is referred to is BMI has praarabda

> since it is a product of praarabda. It will fall off

> eventually but until then in spite of its limitations,

> Iswara will use it for whatever benefit He can extract

> out of it for loka kalyaaNam.

 

UNQUOTE

 

If anAtma has ceased as mentioned above, then where is BMI (anAtmA)as

separate from a mukta. The body's falling off and Ishwara's using it

for lokakalyANam is an explanation we use in the phenomenal of

ajnAna. It has nothing to do with the nityamukta.

_____________________

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

 

> QUOTE

>

> > When one has realized that I am not anaatma, the

> > properties of anaatma do not belong to him. They

> > belong to anaatma only.

>

> UNQUOTE

>

> I see it this way. When one has realized that one

> is not anAtmA,

> then anAtmA with all its properties ceases to exist.

> If not, then we

> are talking dwaita, not advaita.

 

Nairji - PraNAms.

 

What you say is true from the paaramaarthik point. But

vyavahaara will continue even for jnaani but his

perspective of vyavahaara is different from ajnaani's.

This is one of the fundamental objection of

vishiShTaadviata and dvaita. They ask -when one has

realized then there is no duality for him and

therefore there can be no realized teacher who can

teach Vedanta. Question they pose is if Krishna is a

teacher - is he a realized soul or not? According to

you he is one without a second and there is no student

to teach.

 

Scripure advises the student to appoach a teacher who

is both srotriam and brahmaniShta. How can there be a

teaching when the teacher does not see the student?

 

What good is if Shankara writes bhaashyas and he

himself has not realized the truth that he is

expounding. If he has realized, where is the question

of writing since he has to use his BMI to do that.

 

Hence, the illusion of plurality is there as long as

the upaadhis are there. A jnaani will not have

delusion that the illusion of plurality (which is

dvaita) is real while for ajnaani that the plurality

is real as you can see all dvaitin arguing about it.

 

Hence knowledge does not elimiate anything other than

the ignorence and the ignorance is that world is real,

I am a jiiva and there is iswara who is responsible

for the world etc. Knowledge is All are in Me and I am

in all, the substantive for the whole world - world is

there, BMIs are there but they are only super

impositions or adhyaasa on the Brahman that I am. The

Gita 9th Ch 3 and 4 slokas are key to understand

these. The teacher, student and the teaching can go on

at vyavahaara level. Krishna says I am Dhanajaya and

shows Arjuna too in his visvaruupa, yet Krishna is a

teacher and Arjuna is a student and asks at the end of

the class, if all his delusion gone?

 

Anyway, that is my understanding and let us leave it

with that.

 

> You continued:

>

> QUOTE

>

> > There is no question of brahma jnaani having

> > praarabda. What is referred to is BMI has

> praarabda

> > since it is a product of praarabda. It will fall

> off

> > eventually but until then in spite of its

> limitations,

> > Iswara will use it for whatever benefit He can

> extract

> > out of it for loka kalyaaNam.

>

> UNQUOTE

>

> If anAtma has ceased as mentioned above, then where

> is BMI (anAtmA)as

> separate from a mukta. The body's falling off and

> Ishwara's using it

> for lokakalyANam is an explanation we use in the

> phenomenal of

> ajnAna. It has nothing to do with the nityamukta.

> _

 

Nair ji - it is the same problem. anaatma does not

cease. what ceases is his misunderstanding that

anaatma is real. My statements are self-consistent.

 

Now after realization that apparent plurality or the

projected world of plurality is called aiswaryam or

vibhuuti of the Lord. There is no delusion that it is

different from him, yet he has no involvement in it.

mayaa adhyaksheNa suuyate sa caraacaram or pasymme

yogamaiswaram, etc.

 

I will leave with this and perhaps take it up the

issue as I contemplate on the response to Dennis.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

____________________

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sada-ji.

 

Your post 38086.

 

I would also like to close this issue with this short reply.

 

I didn't exclude the duality of stotriya brahmanishta jnAni gurus,

scriptures and students in this phenomenal of ours.

 

As I wrote in another post today, we have to go by the fundamental

approach of advaita that I am (the one who asks the " Who Am I? "

question) the subject and the rest all, including the asker's BMI,

are objects. Self-realization is the ultimate sublation of all

duality in me - the One without a second. The focus of discussion

should, therefore, be the subject's point of view. We cannot shift

the focus here and there to each and every object as that will not

serve the purpose of useful communication.

 

The vishiStAdvaitin should be told that he is objecting in the

phenomenal of ajnAna. His focus is ajnAna based and that is why he

sees duality including the impossibility of more than one jnAni.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> What you say is true from the paaramaarthik point. But

> vyavahaara will continue even for jnaani but his

> perspective of vyavahaara is different from ajnaani's.

> This is one of the fundamental objection of

> vishiShTaadviata and dvaita. They ask -when one has

> realized then there is no duality for him and

> therefore there can be no realized teacher who can

> teach Vedanta. Question they pose is if Krishna is a

> teacher - is he a realized soul or not? According to

> you he is one without a second and there is no student

> to teach.

>

> Scripure advises the student to appoach a teacher who

> is both srotriam and brahmaniShta. How can there be a

> teaching when the teacher does not see the student?

>

> What good is if Shankara writes bhaashyas and he

> himself has not realized the truth that he is

> expounding. If he has realized, where is the question

> of writing since he has to use his BMI to do that.

>

> Hence, the illusion of plurality is there as long as

> the upaadhis are there. A jnaani will not have

> delusion that the illusion of plurality (which is

> dvaita) is real while for ajnaani that the plurality

> is real as you can see all dvaitin arguing about it.

>

> ........................

> Anyway, that is my understanding and let us leave it

> with that.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

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

 

namaskAraH SrI sadAnanada ji,

 

mahASaya, I agree with all that you have written. Let me add a small

quote from SrI Sankara's brahma sUtra bhashya appertaining to the

on-going discussions:

 

" na cha anadhyasta Atma bhAvEna dEhEna kaschit vyApriyatE " - adhyAsa

bhAshya.

Without the superimposition of the body on the Self, no one can function.

 

Hence it can be concluded that the jnAni doesn't take the world to be

real but he can superimpose the body on the Self for the purpose of

teaching etc. If we say that for a jnAni, there is *no world* at all,

then why should he teach? for whom? Or should we say that these jnAnis

are present only in our individual creation? This is no good than

Idealism.

 

Most of the issues we are dealing with in advaita lately boil down to

the debate between Idealism and Realism.

 

We are hanging between Idealism and Realism. We cannot dare to say

that everything in this world including its past, present and future

with all the events occurring in the universe is simply a creation of

jIva and also that vyAsa, Sankara etc are all present only in our

individual creation.

 

Hope I am not missing the point somewhere if I say, Sankara only says

that the jnAni doesn't take the world to be real but not that the

jnAni considers the world as the horn of a hare etc.

 

 

!! SrI Adi SankarArpaNamastu !!

 

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

>

> What you say is true from the paaramaarthik point. But

> vyavahaara will continue even for jnaani but his

> perspective of vyavahaara is different from ajnaani's.

> This is one of the fundamental objection of

> vishiShTaadviata and dvaita. They ask -when one has

> realized then there is no duality for him and

> therefore there can be no realized teacher who can

> teach Vedanta. Question they pose is if Krishna is a

> teacher - is he a realized soul or not? According to

> you he is one without a second and there is no student

> to teach.

>

> Scripure advises the student to appoach a teacher who

> is both srotriam and brahmaniShta. How can there be a

> teaching when the teacher does not see the student?

>

> What good is if Shankara writes bhaashyas and he

> himself has not realized the truth that he is

> expounding. If he has realized, where is the question

> of writing since he has to use his BMI to do that.

>

> Hence, the illusion of plurality is there as long as

> the upaadhis are there. A jnaani will not have

> delusion that the illusion of plurality (which is

> dvaita) is real while for ajnaani that the plurality

> is real as you can see all dvaitin arguing about it.

>

> Hence knowledge does not elimiate anything other than

> the ignorence and the ignorance is that world is real,

> I am a jiiva and there is iswara who is responsible

> for the world etc. Knowledge is All are in Me and I am

> in all, the substantive for the whole world - world is

> there, BMIs are there but they are only super

> impositions or adhyaasa on the Brahman that I am. The

> Gita 9th Ch 3 and 4 slokas are key to understand

> these. The teacher, student and the teaching can go on

> at vyavahaara level. Krishna says I am Dhanajaya and

> shows Arjuna too in his visvaruupa, yet Krishna is a

> teacher and Arjuna is a student and asks at the end of

> the class, if all his delusion gone?

>

> Anyway, that is my understanding and let us leave it

> with that.

>

> > You continued:

> >

> > QUOTE

> >

> > > There is no question of brahma jnaani having

> > > praarabda. What is referred to is BMI has

> > praarabda

> > > since it is a product of praarabda. It will fall

> > off

> > > eventually but until then in spite of its

> > limitations,

> > > Iswara will use it for whatever benefit He can

> > extract

> > > out of it for loka kalyaaNam.

> >

> > UNQUOTE

> >

> > If anAtma has ceased as mentioned above, then where

> > is BMI (anAtmA)as

> > separate from a mukta. The body's falling off and

> > Ishwara's using it

> > for lokakalyANam is an explanation we use in the

> > phenomenal of

> > ajnAna. It has nothing to do with the nityamukta.

> > _

>

> Nair ji - it is the same problem. anaatma does not

> cease. what ceases is his misunderstanding that

> anaatma is real. My statements are self-consistent.

>

> Now after realization that apparent plurality or the

> projected world of plurality is called aiswaryam or

> vibhuuti of the Lord. There is no delusion that it is

> different from him, yet he has no involvement in it.

> mayaa adhyaksheNa suuyate sa caraacaram or pasymme

> yogamaiswaram, etc.

>

> I will leave with this and perhaps take it up the

> issue as I contemplate on the response to Dennis.

>

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

> ____________________

[Guest guest]

--- paramahamsavivekananda

<paramahamsavivekananda wrote:

 

>

> Hope I am not missing the point somewhere if I say,

> Sankara only says

> that the jnAni doesn't take the world to be real but

> not that the

> jnAni considers the world as the horn of a hare etc.

>

PraNAms paramahamsaji

 

You are absolutely correct. The world which is due to

the projecting power of maaya is just naama and ruupa

super imposed on Brahman that I am. Hence mithyaa or

maaya or vyavahaara is sat asat vilaxanam - different

from real and different from unreal, since it appears

to be real but upon inquiry the substantive is real

but not the superimpositions, like ring, bangle,

bracelet etc on Gold. They are all vaachaarambhanam

vikaaraH. Similarly for the world, there is no

substantive other than the SAT. Knowing that

everything is gold does not dismiss the ring, bangle

and bracelet. Utility or transactability or

vyavahaara is based on naama and ruupa that ring is

different from bangle which is different from

bracelet. Knowing that everything is nothing but gold

does not make gold jnaani to mess up with the

differences in the attributes associated with naama

and ruupa. World remains for jnaani - only difference

is, unlike ajnaani, he does not take the world really

real but real only at vyavahaara or transactional

level and not at absolute level.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

World remains for jnaani - only difference

> is, unlike ajnaani, he does not take the world really

> real but real only at vyavahaara or transactional

> level and not at absolute level.

 

Dear Sada-ji,

 

The following passage uttered by swami vivEkAnanda makes it clear:

 

The great point of contrast between Buddhism and Hinduism

lies in the fact that Buddhism said 'Realize all this as illusion',

while Hinduism said 'Realize that within the illusion is the Real.'

 

Source: 'Master as I saw him' by sister nivedita.

 

YOurs in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Sri Sri Vinayaka-ji :

 

What a delight to open the Advaitin group page and read your

wonderful responses many topics .

 

Vinayaka-ji, Sri Ganesan Sankararaman ( a former member) informed me

you are a serious student of vedanta and he has been impressed by

your quest for Truth and thirst for knowledge.

 

i will treasure this quote of Swamiji in my files for ever!

 

" The great point of contrast between Buddhism and Hinduism

lies in the fact that Buddhism said 'Realize all this as illusion',

while Hinduism said 'Realize that within the illusion is the Real.' "

 

on another note , a real jnani will never lose his memory specially

sages like Sri Ramana ! It is even preposterous to assume that !

Sages generally deliberately forget their 'Puurvikam' ( like their

birth name , their ancestry etc etc ) but other than that

their 'medha' shakti , 'pratibha' shakti etc remains intact till

they breathe their last!

 

Sri Ramana was a cut above the rest ! Please read what Sri Ramana

says :

 

" " I knew nothing, had learned nothing before I came here. Some

mysterious power took possession of me and effected a thorough

transformation. I knew nothing and planned nothing. When I left home

in my 17th year, I was like a speck swept on by a tremendous flood.

I knew not my body or the world, whether it was day or night. It was

difficult even to open my eyes. The eyelids seemed to be glued down.

My body became a mere skeleton. Visitors pitied my plight as they

were not aware how blissful I was. It was after years that I came

across the term Brahman when I happened to look into some books on

Vedanta brought to me. Amused, I said to myself, 'Is this known as

Brahman!?! "

 

 

Yes! Vinayakaji ! He IS a real jnani ! A real jnani never loses

touch with Reality for his jnana is not confined to his 'notes '

or 'memory ' !

 

Take care , dear one!

 

love and regards

 

ps : on another note , Many saints when they give 'diksha' to their

disciples incur the disciple's Karma ( sanchita , agami and prarabda

karma ) also and that is why these saints get all these afflictions

like Cancer etc! i am sure that was the case with Sri Ramana .

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " bhagini_niveditaa "

<bhagini_niveditaa wrote:

 

 

>

> on another note , a real jnani will never lose his memory specially

> sages like Sri Ramana ! It is even preposterous to assume that !

> Sages generally deliberately forget their 'Puurvikam' ( like their

> birth name , their ancestry etc etc ) but other than that

> their 'medha' shakti , 'pratibha' shakti etc remains intact till

> they breathe their last!

 

Dear mAtAji,

 

What you say is absolutely right. My paramaguru used to say, whatever

may happen to my body, my head remains intact. He used to say that,

even a head ache is out of question for him! He was a meditative man

and used to hug brahman multiple times in nirvikalpa samadhi. :-)) He

used to say that the chances getting afflicted with mental disorders

for the people who practice yoga is very rare.

 

The body of Swami Vivekananda was shattered due to contentious travel

and lecturing. But, trust me, just before couple of hours of his

passing away, he took sanskrit grammar class for not less than three

hours to the brahmacharis of the math. Sri ramakrishna who was having

terrible throat pain due to cancer, passed away uttering the holiest

passages of the vedas and the name of his ishta devi, bhavatAriNi

kali. This was told by none other than swamiji.

 

And there is no dearth of testimony of other saints and sages on this

topic. There may be rare exceptions which we cannot understand,but we,

ignorant beings, better not judge it!

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote:

 

> The body of Swami Vivekananda was shattered due to contentious travel

> and lecturing.

 

Dear Advaitins,

 

Please read the word 'contentious' as 'continuous'. Sorry for the

typos which recur again and again in my mails. :-)

 

Warm Regards,

 

Br. Vinayaka.