Brahmajnani and prarabdha karma

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Sunder,

 

You have pointed out that—

 

 

In the metaphor used by Sri Ramana, sanchita, prarabdha, and

agami karma-s are like three wives of the Ego! They become widows at

the same time when the Ego dies (jnana dawns), not at different times!

(Talks - p. 349).

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

This statement is well known, but does it contradict Sri Sankara's statement

in several places in his bhAshya that the prArabdha karma is not destroyed

on the dawn of knowledge?. It appears to mean that, as far as the jnAni is

concerned, the prArabdha karma is as good as non-existent, because he is not

affected by what happens to the body. Sankara has postulated the continuance

of prArabdha karma because otherwise the body would fall immediately on the

dawn of knowledge and there would be no Jivanmukta. .In his bhAshya on Gita

5.13 he says: " Even in the case of one in whom has arisen discriminatory

wisdom and who has renounced all actions, there can be, like staying in a

house, the continuance in the body itself as a consequence of the

persistence of the remnants of the results of past actions which have

started bearing fruit, because the awareness of being distinct (from the

body) arises while one is in the body itself " .

 

So it appears that we have to reconcile these two views by saying that one

is from the jnAni's point of view and the other is from the point of view of

the other people who see the jnAni as having a body. Though the jIvanmukta

has a body in the eyes of the world, from his own point of view he has no

body because he has no sense of 'mine-ness' in the body as we have.

 

In Vivekachudamani in Sloka 463 (Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Edn) it is said that

the mention of continuance of prarabdha is only from the empirical point of

view.

 

I am sure you know all this.

We are only trying to clarify our own thoughts and trying to learn from one

another.

 

Regards,

 

S.N.Sastri

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

 

> So it appears that we have to reconcile these two views by saying

that one

> is from the jnAni's point of view and the other is from the point

of view of

> the other people who see the jnAni as having a body. Though the

jIvanmukta

> has a body in the eyes of the world, from his own point of view he

has no

> body because he has no sense of 'mine-ness' in the body as we have.

>

> In Vivekachudamani in Sloka 463 (Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Edn) it is

said that

> the mention of continuance of prarabdha is only from the empirical

point of

> view.

 

Dear Advaitins,

 

A jivanmukta has a body, he feels pain caused to the body due to

disease etc., he sees the world and other beings. But he 'knows'

that they are unreal.

 

But when same jivanmukta attains vidEha mukti, these factors are

entirely absent. He is 'totally free'. Taking these things into

account, can't we say the vidEhamukti is superior to jIvanmukti? Or

we simly have to hold on to some passages of the bhAshya and stretch

it beyond its intended limit?

 

And secondly, isn't it wrong to say that jnAni's prarabhda 'has to'

get exhausted? Why this binding for him? Many illumined sages with

the help of yoga give up their body; some when they are relatively

young. Shall we have to decide then, that they commit sin, if they

choose to die before the exhaustion of prarabhda? Can't we say that

its their wish to continue in the body or not?

 

Just few thoughts to fine tune our understanding of these concepts.

Comments are welcome.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sastriji,

 

The text Aparoksanubhuti attributed to Sankara answers this riddle of

Prarabdha Karma beautifully. Here are the relevant excerpts:

 

89. O enlightened one, pass your time always contemplating on Atman while

you are experiencing all the results of Prarabdha; for it ill becomes you to

feel distressed.

90. The theory one hears of from the scripture, that Prarabdha does not

lose its hold upon one even after the origination of the knowledge of Atman,

is now being refuted.

91. After the origination of the knowledge of Reality, Prarabdha verily

ceases to exist, inasmuch as the body and the like become non-existent; just

as a dream does not exist on waking.

92. That Karma which is done in a previous life is known as Prarabdha

(which produces the present life). But such Karma cannot take the place of

Prarabdha (for a man of knowledge), as he has no other birth (being free

from ego).

93. Just as the body in a dream is superimposed (and therefore illusory),

so is also this body. How could there be any birth of the superimposed

(body), and in the absence of birth (of the body) where is the room for that

(i.e., Prarabdha) at all?

94. The Vedanta texts declare ignorance to be verily the material (cause)

of the phenomenal world just as earth is of a jar. That (ignorance) being

destroyed, where can the universe subsist?

95. Just as a person out of confusion perceives only the snake leaving

aside the rope, so does an ignorant person see only the phenomenal world

without knowing the reality.

96. The real nature of the rope being known, the appearance of the snake

no longer persists; so the substratum being known, the phenomenal world

disappears completely.

97. The body also being within the phenomenal world (and therefore

unreal), how could Prarabdha exist? It is, therefore, for the understanding

of the ignorant alone that the Shruti speaks of Prarabdha.

 

On Nov 22, 2007 2:37 PM, S.N. Sastri <sn.sastri wrote:

 

> Dear Shri Sunder,

>

> You have pointed out that—

>

>

> In the metaphor used by Sri Ramana, sanchita, prarabdha, and

> agami karma-s are like three wives of the Ego! They become widows at

> the same time when the Ego dies (jnana dawns), not at different times!

> (Talks - p. 349).

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

>

> This statement is well known, but does it contradict Sri Sankara's

> statement

> in several places in his bhAshya that the prArabdha karma is not destroyed

> on the dawn of knowledge?. It appears to mean that, as far as the jnAni is

> concerned, the prArabdha karma is as good as non-existent, because he is

> not

> affected by what happens to the body. Sankara has postulated the

> continuance

> of prArabdha karma because otherwise the body would fall immediately on

> the

> dawn of knowledge and there would be no Jivanmukta. .In his bhAshya on

> Gita

> 5.13 he says: " Even in the case of one in whom has arisen discriminatory

> wisdom and who has renounced all actions, there can be, like staying in a

> house, the continuance in the body itself as a consequence of the

> persistence of the remnants of the results of past actions which have

> started bearing fruit, because the awareness of being distinct (from the

> body) arises while one is in the body itself " .

>

> So it appears that we have to reconcile these two views by saying that one

> is from the jnAni's point of view and the other is from the point of view

> of

> the other people who see the jnAni as having a body. Though the

> jIvanmukta

> has a body in the eyes of the world, from his own point of view he has no

> body because he has no sense of 'mine-ness' in the body as we have.

>

> In Vivekachudamani in Sloka 463 (Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Edn) it is said

> that

> the mention of continuance of prarabdha is only from the empirical point

> of

> view.

>

> I am sure you know all this.

> We are only trying to clarify our own thoughts and trying to learn from

> one

> another.

>

> Regards,

>

> S.N.Sastri

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Vinayakaji,

 

From the standpoint of the Mukta purusa, there is no prarabdha. However from

the standpoint of those who are yet to be 'released' from bondage, Prarabdha

karma is the justification for the mukta purusa's bodily existence. It is

only a riddle to those yet to be established in the Self and not to those

who are verily the SELF.

 

On Nov 22, 2007 3:46 PM, Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns wrote:

 

> advaitin <advaitin%40>, " S.N.

> Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> > So it appears that we have to reconcile these two views by saying

> that one

> > is from the jnAni's point of view and the other is from the point

> of view of

> > the other people who see the jnAni as having a body. Though the

> jIvanmukta

> > has a body in the eyes of the world, from his own point of view he

> has no

> > body because he has no sense of 'mine-ness' in the body as we have.

> >

> > In Vivekachudamani in Sloka 463 (Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Edn) it is

> said that

> > the mention of continuance of prarabdha is only from the empirical

> point of

> > view.

>

> Dear Advaitins,

>

> A jivanmukta has a body, he feels pain caused to the body due to

> disease etc., he sees the world and other beings. But he 'knows'

> that they are unreal.

>

> But when same jivanmukta attains vidEha mukti, these factors are

> entirely absent. He is 'totally free'. Taking these things into

> account, can't we say the vidEhamukti is superior to jIvanmukti? Or

> we simly have to hold on to some passages of the bhAshya and stretch

> it beyond its intended limit?

>

> And secondly, isn't it wrong to say that jnAni's prarabhda 'has to'

> get exhausted? Why this binding for him? Many illumined sages with

> the help of yoga give up their body; some when they are relatively

> young. Shall we have to decide then, that they commit sin, if they

> choose to die before the exhaustion of prarabhda? Can't we say that

> its their wish to continue in the body or not?

>

> Just few thoughts to fine tune our understanding of these concepts.

> Comments are welcome.

>

> Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

>

> Br. Vinayaka.

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kathirasanji.

 

Immense thanks for your posts 38193 amd 38194.

 

The thoughts expressed by you were the very ones which were

labelled 'idealism' here before based on an AdhyAsya bhASya quote that

was irrelevant to the context.

 

Where are you these days? Like to see you coming with with such gems

more frequently.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " K Kathirasan " <brahmasatyam

wrote:

>

> Namaste Vinayakaji,

>

> From the standpoint of the Mukta purusa, there is no prarabdha.

However from

> the standpoint of those who are yet to be 'released' from bondage,

Prarabdha

> karma is the justification for the mukta purusa's bodily

existence. It is

> only a riddle to those yet to be established in the Self and not

to those

> who are verily the SELF.

 

namaste kathirasan-ji,

 

Nicely put. Could not agree more. :-)

 

Warm Regards,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Prarabdha to a jIvan muktah is discerned only in samasti abhiprAya.

The state of Bhuman is vitalized by the expressed 'sarvam Atmaiva

bhUt kena kam pasyet?? what does a Jivan muktah perceive other than

atman when he sees everything as Atman? Again if considereed that a

jIvan muktah has no prArabdah then such a state will be momentary.

ie, the state of Jivan mukti itself becomes ksaNika. we do not have

any pramAna for Jivan mukti being ksanika though. The gnosis of

Jivan muktah is private and that his perception of the external

world is subjective. As Isa rightly points of 'yastu sarvAni bhUtAni

AtmanevAnupasyati' and for his there is no sorrow afflicted to him

what so ever be its strength. Shrthi clearly says, 'PrArabdha karma

paryantam ahinirmokavad vyavahArati candravac carate dehi sa muktas

cAniketaha' - 'as long as his previously commenced karma remains

unspent he functions very mucch like a snake with the slough on. He

who has attained liberation, though possessed of the body wanders

homeless like a moon'. to me the very term Jivan mukti sounds like

an oxymoron; the Jivatva persisting with the state of Mukti, just

for the reason of prArabdha that persists. Having fullfilled all his

duties 'krta krtyavAn' a Jivan muktah waits for the time that

arrives when the body is shed. 'Jivanmuktva padam tyaktvA svadEha

kAlasAtkrte'

[Guest guest]

Sri Pai-ji :

 

Nairji has already provided a good definition of the word 'Swami' in

his post . I would like to post a link to an excellent article on

the subject of 'swami' and 'sanyasi ' on the web ....

 

here it is

 

http://www.swamij.com/what-is-a-swami.htm

 

paiji , there are three articles on this site and they are very

detailed . please read them and let me know if they answer all your

questions .

 

For example , Swami vivekananda of the The Sri Ramakrishna mission

was a swami ! He was a religious teacher; he was a mystic and he

deserved the title of swami because he had also mastered

his 'senses' .. ( that is he was fully in control of his senses !

Out of respect , young Naren had fully earned the title of swami .

Swami Vivekananda ji was also a Sanyasi in every sense of the word -

He was a true renunciate in body , mind and spirit . Swamiji wore

the ochre robes not for outward symbolism - he was truly a monk of

the sanyasa order - having renounced the life of a householder -he

was what we call a parivrajaka swami ! PARIVRAJAKA can be defined

in two ways: Paritah Vrajati (One who wanders everywhere) and

Parityajya Vrajati (One who wanders renouncing everything)

 

PAIJI, PL READ THIS ARTICLE ON SANYASA -there are some nice

scriptural references on Sanyasa

 

http://www.angelfire.com/realm/bodhisattva/evamvidvan.html

 

furthermore Paramarthanandaji distinguishes between two types of

sanyasa - vividisha sanyasa and vidwat sanyasa. Vividisha sanyasa

is taken for studying the scriptures. 'Vividisha' means a desire for

learning. Vividisha sanyasa is a step to vidwat sanyasa. In vidwat

sanyasa, a sanyasi is not interested in anything. He has attained

the knowledge. He does not hold on to anything - to even the fact

that 'I am a gnani'. But even in the knowledge he does not have

abhimana. So the aim of vidwat sanyasa is total renunciation. The

aim of vividisha sanyasa is committed study of the scriptures.

 

In this context ,i would invite comments on Sage Yagyavalkya ! No

doubt , he was a bnrahmagyani and he also took up who took up

vidwat sanyasa later in life as is obvious from his conversation

with wife maitrayee! now , scholars on this , was he also a

jivanmukta ?

 

But then, there are Saints who never took formal sanyasa diksha but

nevertheless true renunciates Such renunciates do not belong to any

religious order or institution - their renunciation is not just

external ! They do not carry the tridanda , nor do they wear the

loin cloth or carry the alms bowl ! My lioncubs , please give me

examples of such true Swamis /sanyasis!

 

Hari Aum Tat sat !

 

 

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

 

>

> advaitin , ram mohan anantha pai

> <pairamblr@> wrote:

> >> ....kindly explain what is the meaning of the word " Swami " ,

> and how it relates and differs with the word " Sanyasi " .

> > What is the root etc.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " K Kathirasan " <brahmasatyam

wrote:

>

> Namaste Sastriji,

>

> The text Aparoksanubhuti attributed to Sankara answers this riddle

of

> Prarabdha Karma beautifully. Here are the relevant excerpts:

>

 

>

> On Nov 22, 2007 2:37 PM, S.N. Sastri <sn.sastri wrote:

 

> >

> > In Vivekachudamani in Sloka 463 (Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Edn) it

is said

> > that

> > the mention of continuance of prarabdha is only from the

empirical point

> > of

> > view.

 

Namaste,

 

Verse # 454 (Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan edition) has an

illuminating commentary by Sw. Chandrasekhara Bharati (Sringeri

Mathadhipati 1912-1954) :

 

praarabdhaM balavattaraM khalu vidaaM bhogena tasya kshayaH

samyagGYaanahutaashanena vilayaH praak{}sa.nchitaagaaminaam.h .

brahmaat{}maik{}yamavekShya tan{}mayatayaa ye sarvadaa sa.nsthitaaH

teshhaaM tat{}tritayaM nahi k{}vachidapi brahmaiva te nirguNam.h ..

 

" Prarabdha is very strong indeed; for those of wisdom it is

liquidated only by experience (of its effects). Of the sanchita

(accumulated) and agami (future) karmas the liquidation takes place

in the fire of jnana.

But, to those who perceive the identity of the atman with Brahman,

and who ever remain engrossed in it, these three do not obtain

anywhwere. They are verily the qualityless Brahman. "

(tr. P.Shankaranarayanan) .

 

Commentary (orig. in Sanskrit, tr. P.S., as above) -

 

" Though jnana is of an identical nature, yet, due to difference in

the content of samadhi, those who have attained Brahman-relaization

are distinguished as Brahmavit, Brahmavidvarah, Brahmavidvariyan and

Brahmavidvarishthah on the basis of the distinctions of levels called

sattvapatii (abiding in the sattva guna, or in the sadvastu),

asamsakti (non-attachment to anything external), padarthabhavana

(obliviousness to all objects), and turyaga (going to the

transcendent).

Among these, he who has reached the level of turyaga, who is a

Brahmavidvarishtha, is one of the nature of qualityless Brahman. He

is not even responsive when awakened by others. To such a one, the

three kinds of karma do not pertain.

The Brahmavidvariyan awakes to the world when so stimulated by

others. Then he is connected with the prarabdha. This is like

Prahlada getting out of his samadhi upon hearing the sound made by the

Panchajanya conch of Mahavishnu.

Brahmavidvara, who is a sthitaprajna, gets out of his samadhi of his

own accord by the force of his own karma, and sukha and duhkha

pertain to him. This is clear from the query of Arjuna made to

Krishna: sthitaprajnasya ka bhasha: 'What is the language of the man

of steadfast wisdom?'

Brhamvits are those like the sage Yajnavalkya who adopted sanyasa for

the fruition of his jnana and induced Brahman-realization to King

Janaka and others by his instruction...............................

......................................................

To those who remain thus having attained to the stage of turya, which

is the topmost and fourth, none of these three kinds of karma,

operates anywhere and at any time. Such persons are the qualityless

Brahman itself. That means that in their case there is no occasion

for the operation of the sattva and other gunas. "

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Sri Sri Sunderji :

 

i cannot thank you enough for this very timely post. All this makes

sense when you read this post in conjunction with that chapter XIX

in Tripura Rahasya on different types of jnanis ! Jnana is 'one '

but jnanis are different! i am glad you mentioned about 'samadhi '

( not nirvikalpa ) but jnanis like Sri Ramana are always in Sahaj

Samadhi ( the natural state of Atma swarupam)!

 

Even Sri Rama awas attached to duty ( karma) that is why he got

duped by the magic deer ( mayavi) ! and we all know the story of

Brahma - how he lost one of his five heads and how he was humbled by

lord Shiva ! Brahma's ego was his curse ! even sri vishnu had to

intervene to save shiva fronm the curse of Demon Bhasma Even lord

hari suffered a curse for killing the wife of Bhrighu! All these

examples only go to show noone ( not eben the gods) are free from

these mental predispositions! ( all this is Tripura rahasya - i

think chapter 2)

 

so , to cut a long story short -

 

Prarabdha karma is of three categories, ichha, anichha and parechha

[personally desired, without desire, and due to others' desire].

 

And AS BHAGWAN RAMANA SAYS

 

" For the one who has realized the Self, there is no ichha-prarabdha

but the two others, anichha and parechha, remain. "

 

THANK YOU SUNDERJI FOR ALL THESE TIMELY AND TIMELESS QUOTATIONS !

you rarely post but when you post you only post Gems of wisdom!

 

with warm regards

 

Ramana Maharshi, 220

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " Sunder Hattangadi " <sunderh

wrote:

>

> advaitin , " K Kathirasan " <brahmasatyam@>

>

> Namaste,

>

> > " Prarabdha is very strong indeed; for those of wisdom it

is

> liquidated only by experience (of its effects). Of the sanchita

> (accumulated) and agami (future) karmas the liquidation takes

place

> in the fire of jnana.

> But, to those who perceive the identity of the atman with Brahman,

> and who ever remain engrossed in it, these three do not obtain

> anywhwere. They are verily the qualityless Brahman. "

> (tr. P.Shankaranarayanan) .

>

> >