what will it be like?

[Guest guest]

Steveji writes:

Hello Michael,

 

" This sense of the individuality of consciousness has

to be overcome by

the

mysterious event of realisation. "

 

There seems to be an implied assumption that there is

something wrong with individuality, that it should

somehow be " overcome " .

 

Why??

 

What's wrong with the sense of individuality when one

understands that the very basis for individuality is

the Self? If I, as the individual, want to over come

individuality, surely it will never happen! I cannot

will myself into realization, nor can I meditate my

way out of it, nor can I, by inquiry, somehow overcome

individuality, since the individual is the one doing

all these huge attempts to do away with individuality.

Seems maybe the very desire to overcome individuality

is to give it huge importance and therefore even

further entrench it?

 

Maybe realization is nothing more than to cease

creating such great distinction between the individual

and the Self?

 

Maybe I am and always have been the Self manifesting

as the individual? And if that's so, then apparently

the Self wants lots of selves?...ha, one guy's groping

questions and ruminations about the subject...Happy

New Year, all!!

 

 

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

Namaste Steveji,

If the post is taken as a whole then the puzzlement may be eased. I wrote:

" The different covering would perhaps be the

individual mind as a distinct upadhi for pure consciousness. Pure

consciousness seems to have taken that form. This is the source of wrong

indentification. The mind is insentient and only its association with

pure consciousness makes it seem to be conscious in a free standing way.

This sense of the individuality of consciousness has to be overcome by the

mysterious event of realisation. "

 

The usual identification of 'fair skinned Brahmin, ICS executive' is fine

for the matrimonials but the Sages would say that the tasteless,

odourless, one without a second that you are cannot be captured by such

epithets though it may make you a great prize.

 

Yet there is a sense of self which we have in every moment. It is both

in the moment and persistent over time. From what does it arise? One

line of thinking is that we must turn our attention away from the

different forms that consciousness takes to consciousness itself. It is

the consistent thing that does not change. It is as though the same stuff

were being moulded into different shapes. Meditational practice by

quieting the mind or mental modifications (the shapes) can give an

intimation of the great unity. If you are of the jnani bent it can aid

the intuitions that are fundamental to advaitic understanding.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael

[Guest guest]

Namaste Rishi-ji.

 

There are only vyAvahArikA standpoints. The so-called paramArthikA

standpoint is a conceptualization of paramaArtha from the phenomenal

and as such is a vyAvahArika standpoint ridden with separation - the

soul of duality. ParamArtha can't brook a standpoint.

 

Needless, therefore, to say that I am expressing my doubt from the

phenomenal point of view.

 

Kindly permit me to restate and elaborate on my original conundrum

for clarity:

 

 

CONUNDRUM RESTATED (SHASTRA vs. ADVAITA?)

 

If I am not mistaken to be making a tall claim, I understand advaita

and the words of our jnAnis like Shankara, Ramana, Nisargadatta et

al. Does such understanding and ability to articulate advaita

effectively to an audience qualify me to jnAnihood? The obvious

answer is a big `No'.

 

If that is the case, then I have to enquire into the factors that set

the great jnAnis in a unique class by themselves apart and away from

a pedestrian advaitic prattler like me. If such an enquiry, which

essentially is done in this dualistic phenomenal of ours, is embarked

upon, our focus naturally shifts to at least four factors:

 

1. I have an ego and, therefore, a burdensome individuality.

2. I have a body and live in the fear of its perishing. I am

always swayed by its pain and pleasure.

3. I have a mind that thinks petty, small, limited, isolated and

miserable.

4. I have an intellect that sings the tune of my ego and laments

lack of adequate knowledge.

 

What about my conceptualization of a jnAni? In contrast, if my

understanding of advaita is right, he ought to be at least what I am

not. He is `aham bramhasmi' personified. Brahman as a knower of

Brahman. His ego and individuality have evaporated without a trace.

He has attained total chittashuddhi. He is no more miserably

anchored in his body and has realized that his nature is immortal

existence. He doesn't have a peevish, petulant mind. It has gone

universal to a totality that is virtually no-mind or all-mind. The

intellect with which he stoked the fire of knowledge has burnt off

without a trace. He is verily Knowledge. In a nutshell, he is no

more a he. What remains is an `all pervading brilliance that is

everywhereness and timelessness' (to put it figuratively and for want

of a better expression).

 

If he is anything less than this conceptualization, then I will have

to put him in my class. Then the difference between him and me is

one of gradation only. He is simply on a higher rung than mine. That

is all. That would mean that he is an Ajani.

 

I am afraid the shAstra pramAna referenced here seems to place him in

the class of ajnAnis with its stress on prArabdha and his having to

act (role-play) through a redundant BMI in order to bring about loka

kalyANa. The explanation of role-playing cannot save him because he

is thought of as acting without doership through the BMI equipment.

How can advaita entertain a thought that a jnAni, who is a no-mind

totality that is Knowledge and Immortality, needs a dilapidated,

moribund BMI to express itself (without doership of course) for the

welfare of a world that has inexorably merged back and dissolved in

his totality together with the multitudes of jIvAs that inhabited

it? This is my conundrum.

 

 

AN ATTEMPT FOR ANSWER:

 

If you agree with me that such lingering jnAnis are advaitically

inadmissible, then we have to look for a different understanding of

the shAstra pramANa, which explains the availability of jnAnis in the

phenomenal.

 

It is accepted that the phenomenal appears on the Absolute due to an

error in our perception. Call it ignorance, avidya, adhyAsa,

nescience – anything. jnAnis, as we know them in our phenomenal,

are a superimposition on the paramArtha resulting from this error.

ShAstra seems to deliberately lend credence and validity to the

superimposition and provides a model for the mechanics of it by

bringing in factors like karma, prArabdha etc.

 

There is, therefore, no harm in accepting the shAstraic explanation

just for the sake of an explanation to satisfy the bothersome askers

in the phenomenal. Nevertheless and however, an advaitin shall not

overplay the shAstraic explanation at the expense of its advaitic

impossibility.

 

The jnAnIs are simply Grace operating in the phenomenal. They are

Grace moulded after the spiritual masters of the past and present.

This `moulding' is a projection arising out of avidya. But, it helps

in my salvation and, therefore, is welcome.

 

Now, please let me take up an analogy to reinforce my point. In

reality, I am a self-iridescent screen of infinite expanse, whose

very nature is iridescence. An apparent split takes place in this

iridescence whereby an individuality appears to arise. This

individuality is this limited, miserable me, which then

projects/objectifies its own BMI together with a universe of

different avastAs inhabited by multitudes of other individualities.

 

Our jnAnis are a part of this projection. Since the world appears

first as my awareness of myself followed by the objectifications, the

answer to our conundrum of creation should be sought in me, the

source, alone – the one who yearns to return to his real nature of

pure iridescence – the totality of the infinite screen. The jnAnis

and other jIvAs are just incidental to my point of view. It is

futile to look for an answer in them.

 

When I realize that I am only iridescence, the whole universe and all

the jIvAs including the jnAnis vanish into the brilliance of that

knowledge. That is my self-realization – the only self-realization

that is needed at all to end the riddle of this apparent creation.

The bosom of the iridescence is an ocean of compassion. The jnAnis

are its expression. They are a given. I need to understand only that

much. Going into how they happened to be there and how they still

seemingly operate with BMIs, I am afraid, is not the look out of

Advaita. One will only get wrong answers that way.

 

As I said before, vicAra in the phenomenal culminates in self-

realization giving the latter a semblance of an event. Advaitically

nothing is far from the truth. All my travails in the phenomenal

towards liberation are mithyA. Actually I am aware of my real nature

of iridescence all the time. But, yet, a drama that doesn't really

take place seems to take place in the phenomenal before I self-

realize! My paramArthik unceasing awareness of myself appears in the

vyAvahArika as a progressive process ending in an event called self-

realization.

 

Gods, jnAnis, BMIs and jIvAs are part and parcel of that *on-going

drama* which is *not played* at all. A big paradox! That is

ajAtavAda.

 

Thus, from the ekajIva/ajAtavAda point of view adopted in the

phenomenal, jnAnIs don't call for an explanation. The shAstraic

explanation is a model that applies only from the aneka-jIva point of

view. That point of view has its own pitfalls as it caters to

duality.

 

That is perhaps why Bh. Ramana countered the questioner: " You say

the jnAni sees the path, treads it, comes across obstacles, avoids

them, etc. In whose eyesight is all this, in the jnani's or in yours?

He sees only the Self and all in the Self. " .

 

We might also have to provide correct definitions for the terms

jnAni, jIvanmukta, jnAnaniSta etc. It would be interesting in this

regard to read Shri Atmachaitanya-ji's post # 12177 of 29.01.02.

 

Hope I have not confounded the confusion.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

___________________

 

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane

wrote:

 

> 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.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis-ji.

 

You said:

 

>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.>

_______________________

 

This is the point of view which I find difficult to accept - the

jnAni still having a body and mind. Kindly read my previous post of

today addressed to Rishi-ji.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

This thread is becoming more and more 'interesting' with Our beloved

Nairji raising more and more doubts and with our respected Sadaji

and young Rishji trying to clarify these doubts raised by nairji !

Strangely enough , from Nairji's doubts , we also 'learn' and from

Sadaji's clarifications also we learn and delearn! when mandana

mishra and adi shankara are debating , who are we to intervene ?

 

but let this 'UBHAYA BHARATI ' answer shri nairji's query on who is

a Jivanmukta?

 

In my previous post , i had described the Seven Stages of Jnana or

jnana bhumikas ! Although , i had given the author of that jnana

yoga as Swami Sivananda , the classification of Seven stages is

taken from Varaha UPANISHAD ! NOW . LET US SEE HOW VARAHA UPANISHAD

DESCRIBES a Jivanmukta :

 

He is said to be a Jivanmukta (emancipated person) in whom, though

participating in the material concerns of the world, the universe is

not seen to exist like the invisible Akasa.

 

" He is said to be a Jivanmukta, the light of whose mind never sets

or rises in misery or happiness and who does not seek to change what

happens to him (viz., either to diminish his misery or increase his

happiness).

 

He is said to be a Jivanmukta who though in his Sushupti is awake

and to whom the waking state is unknown and whose wisdom is free

from the affinities (of objects).

 

He is said to be a Jivanmukta whose heart is pure like Akasa, though

acting (as it) in consonance to love, hatred, fear and others.

 

*****He is said to be a Jivanmukta who has not the conception of his

being the actor and whose Buddhi is not attached to material

objects, whether he performs actions or not.******

 

He is said to be a Jivanmukta, of whom people are not afraid, who is

not afraid of people and who has given up joy, anger and fear.

 

He is said to be a Jivanmukta, who though participating in all the

illusory objects, is cool amidst them and is a full Atman, (being)

as if they belonged to others.

 

O Muni, he is said to be a Jivanmukta, who having eradicated all the

desires of his Chitta, is (fully) content with me who am the Atman

of all.

 

He is said to be a Jivanmukta, who rests with an unshaken mind in

that all pure abode which is Chinmatra and free from all the

modifications of Chitta.

 

He is said to be a Jivanmukta in whose Chitta do not dawn (the

distinctions of) the universe, I, he, thou and others that are

visible and unreal.

 

Through the path of the Guru and Shastras, enter soon sat – the

Brahman that is immutable, great, full and without objects – and be

firmly seated there. "

 

http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/varaha.htm

 

that is why a Jivanmukta like Adi shankara bhagvadapada sings

raptuorously in Jivannmuktanandalahari :

 

Kadácid vidvadbhir vividiúubhi ratyanta nirataiç

kadácit kávyálankøti rasa rasálaiç kavivaraiç

Kadácit sattarkaiç anumitiparais tárkikavaraiç

munir ca vyámoham bhajati gurudèkúákúata-tamáç (5)

 

Sometimes (conversing) with the learned and those keen on learning;

Sometimes with eminent poets versed in poetic figures and

sentiments; while at times with eminent logicians prone to right

reasoning and inferences; The sage, with ignorance dispelled by

guru's grace (dèkúá), is not al all deluded.

 

 

The point is , nairji , would you or would you not concede that adi

shankara bhagvadapada was a jivanmukta ? if so , why would a

paramajnani like adi shankara bhagvadapada go on pilgrimages from

Kashmir to kanyakumari on foot , visit all the temples on the way ,

establish all the Mutts and install Sri chakra worship in devi

temples ? why ? specially , an advaitin of his stature ? An advaita

acharya , par excellance ?

 

A SANSKRIT VERSE GOES LIKE THIS

 

Ruupam ruupavivarjitasya bhavato dhyaanena yatkalpitam

stutyaa anirvachaniiyataa akhila guro duuriikrtaa yanmayaa |

vyaapitvam cha niraakrtram bhagavato yat tiirtha-yaatraadinaa

kshantavyam jagadiisha tadvikalataa-doshatrayam matkrtam

 

 

You are bereft of any form. Yet I imagined a form in the

name of meditating upon You. . You are beyond words. No words can

explain Your nature. Yet I have sung Your glories through words.

You are all-pervading. Yet I undertook pilgrimages to

worship You in specific place.

 

Nairji , Sanyasis come in various sizes and shapes but there are two

main types - Swami Paramarthanandaji states " Paramahamsa sanyasa is

itself of two types - 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. "

 

Such a 'vidwat' sanyasi does not stay in one place ; he is moving

about freely from one place to another sharing his knowledge of the

scriptures with all the ones he meets !

 

nairji , may i please kindly request you to read post number 38259

wherin the different types of jnanis are discussed! SAGE yAGNAVALKYA

wAS A JNANI but he was not a jivanmukta as some 'vasanas' were still

left !

 

and as Lord Dattatreya says

 

" The mind of the highest order of jnanis though associated with

objects, knows them to be unreal and therefore is not agitated as is

the case with the ignorant. "

 

Since a jnani of the highest order can engage in several actions at

the same time and yet remain unaffected, he is always many-minded

and yet remains in unbroken samadhi. His is absolute knowledge free

from objects. "

 

This is the reason why Sage Ramana was present in holy satsangha

with his devotees to impart to them the teachings of 'atma jnanam'

 

this note is for Michaelji :

 

Michaelji writes

 

(The usual identification of 'fair skinned Brahmin, ICS executive'

is fine for the matrimonials but the Sages would say that the

tasteless,odourless, one without a second that you are cannot be

captured by such epithets though it may make you a great prize.)

 

Hey Michaelji , are you saying Brahman is 'anirvachinya' - that

itself is a description ! smile :-) a little humor will not

hurt 'brahman'

 

Hari Aum Tat sat !

 

Yet there is a sense

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Rishi-ji.

>

> There are only vyAvahArikA standpoints. The so-called

paramArthikA

> standpoint is a conceptualization of paramaArtha from the

phenomenal

> and as such is a vyAvahArika standpoint ridden with separation -

the

> soul of duality. ParamArtha can't brook a standpoint.

>

> Needless, therefore, to say that I am expressing my doubt from the

> phenomenal point of view.

>

> Kindly permit me to restate and elaborate on my original conundrum

> for clarity:

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin , " bhagini_niveditaa "

<bhagini_niveditaa wrote:

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

> truth.' - Gibran

 

The above Quotation of Gibran does not hold water in the world of

Vedanta. The quest should culminate in the understanding " I HAVE

FOUND THE TRUTH " and certainly not 'I have found a Truth'.

 

'A truth ' is satyam and

" THE TRUTH " is satyasya satyam.

 

The goal is " satyasya satyam " and not satyam.

THE TRUTH includes and transcends all 'a Truth' .

 

" I AM " is " I AM " only and nothing else.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy