Guest guest Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 praNAms Hare Krishna After reading detailed description of various types of samAdhi-s, various degrees of jnAna & various types of jnAni-s, one very important & fundamental question coming to my mind..i.e. What is self realization according to shankara?? has he anywhere in his prasthAna trayi bhAshya talks about the various types of samAdhi?? has he differentiate anywhere shAstra vAkya janita jnAna & jnAna that is obtained in the state of samAdhi?? has he anywhere recommended that after obtaining jnAna through shAstra vAkya, anything needs to be done to get the *experience* of this jnAna in a particular state?? has he anywhere differentiates the jnAna between a brahmavit & jnAna that is occrued in other subsequent stages of this brahmavit?? I've read about the vrutti & phala vyApti jnAna in later advaita texts, which clearly indicates that there is something needs to be done between the gap of shAstra vAkya janita jnAna & experience of that jnAna.. I've not read this in any of shankara's prasthAna trayi works..(if it is mentioned anywhere kindly let me know)....As far as shankara is concerned, he is quite clear in his expression about mOksha. In 1-1-4 sUtra bhAshya he says : the nature of saMsAra, the experience of pleasure and pain of changing degrees of beings subject to defect like *avidyA* is well known from shruti-s, smruti-s and reasoning. Accordingly the shruti reaffirms this nature of saMsAra as described above when it says *there is indeed no freedom from the oppression of pleasure and pain for a being so long as it is embodied* (chAndOgya) and since contact of pleasure and pain is denied for the liberated one by shruti *pleasure and pain indeed do not touch one who is without a body* (chAndOgya ) it can be inferred that unembodiedness called mOksha is not an effect of meritorious deeds which are known through the vEdic injuctions (vidhi-s) " So, self realization, according to shankara, is nothing but removal of ignorance. Shankara does not say here removal of ignorance can happen only in the state of samAdhi...nor he declares here this *self realization * is an event in various types of samAdhi ...On the other hand, in this same sUtra bhAshya he further confirms the *immediate release* (jnAna samakAla yEva) He says : Moreover, shrutis like these point out that mOksha accrues *immediately* after the dawn of knowledge of brahman and thus precludes the necessity for anything else to be done in the interval before release. Sri Sureshwara too, in his work naishkarmya siddhi, quite categorically declares that ONLY shAstra vAkya janita jnAna can remove our ignorance... With these, kindly let me know how can I understand the gradations of jnAna & jnAni-s & his various samAdhi-s without compromising the shankara & sureshwara's declaration. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 Dear Bhaskar-ji, You ask: " What is self realization according to shaMkara?? " My own understanding also is that Enlightenment = self-knowledge and has nothing to do with states. Here is what he says from the bhAShya on BG 2.21: " Though the Self is void of all modifications, it is imagined through nescience, in the form on non-discrimination from the modifications of the mind, to be the perceiver of sounds and other objects brought before the mind. Similarly, the same Self, which is in reality beyond all changes of state, is called 'enlightened' on account of discriminative knowledge separating the Self from the not-self, even though such knowledge is only a modification of the mind and illusory in character (and implies no real change of state). " (From 'A shaMkara Source Book Volume 6; shaMkara on Enlightenment, Compiled and translated by A. J. Alston, Shanti Sadan 2004, ISBN 0-85424-060-8.) Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of bhaskar.yr 18 January 2008 11:41 advaitin What is self realization ?? praNAms Hare Krishna After reading detailed description of various types of samAdhi-s, various degrees of jnAna & various types of jnAni-s, one very important & fundamental question coming to my mind..i.e. What is self realization according to shankara?? has he anywhere in his prasthAna trayi bhAshya talks about the various types of samAdhi?? has he differentiate anywhere shAstra vAkya janita jnAna & jnAna that is obtained in the state of samAdhi?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2008 Report Share Posted January 18, 2008 --- bhaskar.yr wrote: > > Moreover, shrutis like these point out that mOksha > accrues *immediately* > after the dawn of knowledge of brahman and thus > precludes the necessity for > anything else to be done in the interval before > release. Bhaskar - PraNAms. You have studied Shankara Bhaashyaas. You have clear understanding what the fundamental problem is and what is the solution to the problem. Tat Tvam Asi is the basic teaching and realization of that drops all notions of samsaara. When I claim my true nature, there is no samsaara left. What is there is only my vibhuuti or you can say Iswara vibhuuti. Is there gradations in moksha - we are making dvaita in advaita moksha -when the truth is advaita - you know that very well and there is no need to ask anyone else about it particularly after studying the adhyaasa bhaashya of Shankara. The rest are gradations in gaining that clear understanding only. Although ‘you are that’ is direct teaching, to internalize that teaching or to firmly abide in that teaching the mind has to be pure, free from all the habitual misunderstandings. Hence there are gradations in the chitta suddhi. This may be expressed by various masters in various ways.There are seven steps discussed in the yoga vaashiShTa. If you look carefully they are steps in the clarity of the mind. Once we know the Brahman is partless there cannot be divisions in moksha or in one’s clear understanding. That is the fundamental advaita teaching. Brahma satyam, jagat mithyaa and jiivo brahmaiva na aparaH - if that is understood - the rest is nidhidhyaasanam. Once that clear understanding is there, noting should shake you. Many of the aachaaryas have addressed the issues from various angles that are not relevant to many of us. Once you are convinced of the truth, there is no reason to dwell in the directions that you know do not help you in your understanding. It will be more fruitful to move in the direction you are convinced and You will reach the destination faster and also engag in the discussions that you know are not helpful. I think the objection to your mail was not what you are asking, but the tone in which you posed the question. In the adhyaatmika vidya you know the rules of asking the questions - tad viddhi praNipaatena pari pransnena sevayaa - if you are interested in the truth. When you already know the nature of the truth, then the discussions that take you away from your understanding is meaningless to you. If you are strongly convinced about the incorrectness about it, you can politely say that you do not agree with it stating your reasons and leave it three. I did not follow the thread, and therefore not inclined to comment any further on it. Please do contribute and we are all in the learning mode and we can all learn from our mistakes. Hope this helps. Anyway that is how I approach the problem. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2008 Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 Namaste Sada-ji. The portions which I have excerpted below from your mail addressed to Bhaskarji represent a clear understanding of Advaita, which should be acceptable to one and all here. I am very happy that the lengthy debates here have ultimately clarified our understanding. Thanks to you, Sastri-ji, Rishiji and Bhaskarji for having made this possible. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ______________ advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > Is there gradations in moksha - we are making dvaita > in advaita moksha -when the truth is advaita - you > know that very well and there is no need to ask anyone > else about it particularly after studying the adhyaasa > bhaashya of Shankara. > > The rest are gradations in gaining that clear > understanding only. Although `you are that' is direct > teaching, to internalize that teaching or to firmly > abide in that teaching the mind has to be pure, free > from all the habitual misunderstandings. Hence there > are gradations in the chitta suddhi. This may be > expressed by various masters in various ways.There are > seven steps discussed in the yoga vaashiShTa. If you > look carefully they are steps in the clarity of the > mind. Once we know the Brahman is partless there > cannot be divisions in moksha or in one's clear > understanding. .... > .......... > Once that clear understanding is there, nothing should > shake you. Many of the aachaaryas have addressed the > issues from various angles that are not relevant to > many of us. Once you are convinced of the truth, > there is no reason to dwell in the directions that you > know do not help you in your understanding. ............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2008 Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 Namaste Bhaskar-ji and all. Bhaskar-ji, thanks for this gem of a BSB quote (your post 39050): QUOTE As far as shankara is concerned, he is quite clear in his expression about mOksha. In 1-1-4 sUtra bhAshya he says : The nature of saMsAra, the experience of pleasure and pain of changing degrees of beings subject to defect like *avidyA* is well known from shruti-s, smruti-s and reasoning. Accordingly the shruti reaffirms this nature of saMsAra as described above when it says *there is indeed no freedom from the oppression of pleasure and pain for a being so long as it is embodied* chAndOgya) and since contact of pleasure and pain is denied for the liberated one by shruti *pleasure and pain indeed do not touch one who is without a body* (chAndOgya ) it can be inferred that unembodiedness called mOksha is not an effect of meritorious deeds which are known through the vEdic injuctions (vidhi-s) " UNQUOTE The above quote can be dissected into following statements: 1. Embodiedness warrants pleasure and pain. 2. The liberated one has no contact with pleasure and pain. 3. The liberated one is without body. 4. Liberation (moksha) is unembodiedness. 5. Liberation (moksha) is not a culmination of Vedic meritorious deeds. A scrutiny of the above statements is possible only in our phenomenal. Such scrutiny of the first four statements points at the following conclusion: Unembodiedness offers no phenomenal tangibility. On the contrary, we have tangible realized ones operating amongst us. The only way we can reconcile this paradox of the phenomenal is to assume that an embodied realized one exists only in the eyes of the ajnAnis and that the realized one doesn't have any awareness of his embodiedness perceived by the ajnAnis. This would mean that the unembodiedness mentioned by Shankara is from the point of view of the realized one. The body of the realized one, which ajnAnis see, is subject to pleasure and pain because embodiedness warrants pleasure and pain. However, the realized one, being unembodiedness, is actually beyond all pleasure and pain. As Sw. Krishnanandaji points out, that body, its pleasure and pain, prArabdha etc. are only in the awareness of the ajnAni. The image of the embodied realized one, therefore, is stark ajnAna erected by adhyAsa for the eyes of the ajnAni only. Any comments from anybody please? PraNAms. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2008 Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 --- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote: > > The above quote can be dissected into following > statements: > > 1. Embodiedness warrants pleasure and pain. > 2. The liberated one has no contact with pleasure > and pain. > 3. The liberated one is without body. > 4. Liberation (moksha) is unembodiedness. > 5. Liberation (moksha) is not a culmination of Vedic > meritorious > deeds. Nairji - PraNAms. I would understand the statements this way. 1. Embodiidness - I would interpret this as the one who identifies himself with the body - I am this. 2. The liberated one enjoys the pain and pleasure just like everyone but also understands that they belong to the BMI and he is unaffected by them. He enjoys the icecream and gets burned by the hot aavakaaya, unless he is from Andhra. dukheshu anudvigna manaaH sukheshu vigata jvaraH .. etc. of Ch. II of sthitaprajna. 3. Both liberated and unliberated are without a body. The unliberated one identifies with the body that belongs to the prakRit while the liberated one knows the trith - he never had body and is always bodyless but still also enjoys the entertainment provided by the available body. It is a free entertaiment. 4. Liberation is owning his birth right - I am the sat chit ananda and all are in me and I am in all. sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutanica aatmani. 5. Liberation ends ownership of any deed - not the deed- akartaaham abhoktaaham - actions will go one but ownership of the actions is not there. Life involves action. Whether it is jnaani or jnaani - the story is the same. All actions are done by the prakRiti only, hence the results belong to the prakRiti only. Body - Sthuula, suukshma and kaaraNa shariiras which are triguNaatmikam, belong to prakRiti only. ajnaani is one who identifies himself with body - therefore he thinks starting from he has the body to he is the body. He needs to realize the truth that he is never a body and for that he has to go a teacher The shaastras advise him to approach a teacher and learn from him. Since he claims ownership and enjoyer ship, he asks for suffership also! jnaani is the one who ceases his identification with the body. He has the body but he knows that he is not the body. In fact the body is in Him. There are no ego-centric actions that are done through the body - ego centric actions being defined as selfish desire prompted actions. Since he has realized that he is Brahman, you can say Brahmna or Iswara utilizes the body available for loka kalyaaNam. He as a brahman acts but does not own the action. Hence Krishna calls him actionless action - as under his adhyaksha the appropriate actions are being performed. He is the God incarnate on the earth since there is no iota of selfishness in his actions. I Know we agreed to disagree, and but could not resist in pointing out my understanding for the benefit of members at large. Hari Om! Sadananda > > Any comments from anybody please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2008 Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 Namaste Sada-ji. Immense thanks for the input. Aren't we back to square one again? No. I want to think otherwise. Why? There is no more any disagreement with you. I agree one hundred percent with whatever you have said. But, there is a subtle disagreement. I would say that I am an ajnAni operating in the field of ajnAna. All that I have to learn (from the prastAnatrayI etc.), however sacrosanct they are, are also part of that ajnAna field. That would include you too (Nothing personal here, Sadaji; of course, you understand it. If not, I can grant you the company of Shankara, Vyasa, et al without the fear of being sacrilegious.) So, the interpretation provided by you based on our scriptures as interpreted by our illustrious teachers remains an ajnAni's idea of a jnAni. That should be one hundred percent acceptable to another ajnAni like me. In fact, we cannot do without it in our sphere of operation. The realized one, however, has already transcended all this and he doesn't any more confront the ajnAna field where we both are labouring with our interpretations. There is no more any prakriti out there for him to say prakriti is doing things. Then what to speak of a BMI? He is really disembodied in his disembodiedness. The ajnAni needs explanations because his ajnAna sphere of operation off and on produces certain unique individualities who he understands to be realized ones. That is what Shankara's statement quoted by Bhaskarji means to my at least. I can't explain it any better than this in words. PraNAms. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2008 Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 Namaste Nairji: Your observation stated below - addressed to Sadaji is reasonable. One of the ways to reconcile the `puzzle' posed by you could be to accept with conviction what is stated in the Scriptures as correct. Without that conviction, an ajnAni will likely reject the observations made from any source (from a jnAni, an ajnAni or the Scriptures) as long as he/she remains as an ajnAni. As you have pointed at the end of your post that any words from one ajnAni to describe the nature of jnAni will never be complete (sufficient) for the acceptance or rejection by another ajnAni. Though Sadaji's scholastic narrative picture of a jnAni is quite appealing, but still it doesn't provide conclusive evidence. Only the jnAni knows his/her own Nature! My understanding of BMI chart is just an academic illustration of the underlined problems that separates a jnAni from an ajnAni. When a jnAni becomes an ajnAni there can be no more BMI charts!! Essentially the puzzle will remain as a puzzle for an ajnAni until he/she realizes the truth. Since I am using words to describe my understanding they will likely be unsatisfactory and potentially incorrect. With my warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > So, the interpretation provided by you based on our scriptures as > interpreted by our illustrious teachers remains an ajnAni's idea of > a jnAni. That should be one hundred percent acceptable to another > ajnAni like me. In fact, we cannot do without it in our sphere of > operation. > advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > 2. The liberated one enjoys the pain and pleasure just > like everyone but also understands that they belong to > the BMI and he is unaffected by them. He enjoys the > icecream and gets burned by the hot aavakaaya, unless > he is from Andhra. dukheshu anudvigna manaaH sukheshu > vigata jvaraH .. etc. of Ch. II of sthitaprajna. > > 3. Both liberated and unliberated are without a body. > The unliberated one identifies with the body that > belongs to the prakRit while the liberated one knows > the trith - he never had body and is always bodyless > but still also enjoys the entertainment provided by > the available body. It is a free entertaiment. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2008 Report Share Posted January 20, 2008 Namaste Ram-ji. Your 39077. I find your point of view very balanced and acceptable. My only worry is that we are perhaps inadvertently playing down and contradicting the spirit of advaita by laying too much emphasis on role-playing through a BMI etc. *even after self-realization*. I accept that, pre realization, role playing with an understanding of advaita is an essential must. The exogenous compulsions of the new age where we have to confront a Wesern audience have probably diluted the original message of advaita due to fear of rejection and non- acceptance. Added to this is the emergence of Direct Approach- wallahs. We can't be blamed if these factors have created an urge in us to make the whole thing more palatable to the modern audience. Anyway, thank you very much. PraNAms. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 --- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair Nariji - PraNams. What is needed for the teaching to sink in is 1. appropriate qualifications of the student 2. qualification of the teacher. From the student point the four fold qualifications- In that Shraddhaa is important. That the teaching of the shaastras as explained by the teacher is indeed true - that shraddhaa is required for the teaching to sink in. From the teacher's point - the qualifications are 1. He must be competent teacher - a competent teacher is one who was a competent student before. That means he must have studied from a sampradaya teacher and also learned how to teach. 2. He must be fully established in Brahma niShTa. The first qualification we can easily find by his teaching. The second qualification we can never know. Hence faith in the teacher that he is realized is prerequisite for the student. Since the second is belief on the part of the student, let us concentrate on the first. The teaching has to have samanvaya - that is self-consistency and agreement with the scriptures. Unless that is fully established in the student's understanding it is difficult for a student to accept any teaching. Janaanam is opposite to ignorance and therefore does not eliminate anything other than ignorance. Identification with upaadhis as 'I am this' is the result of lack of knowledge of who am I. Hence knowledge can only be shifting my vision of myself and the world from what I think I am to what I am. Everything remains the same for both jnaani and ajnaani. One knows who he is and now operates the equipments correctly and the other does not know who he is and assumes that he is the upaadhis and suffers as a consequence of that misunderstanding. A jnaani uses the equipments without the identification that I am this - since he is Brahman, you can say brahman is using the equipments for the benefit of others. The statement is the same since jnaani knows who he is. Anyway that is my understanding. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Namaste to all. I have gone through this thread with interest. I do not wish to enter into any argument, but I would only like to say that my understanding happens to be exactly the same as what Sadananda-ji has stated in the following paragraph. S.N.Sastri In advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > >Janaanam is opposite to ignorance and therefore does > not eliminate anything other than ignorance. > Identification with upaadhis as 'I am this' is the > result of lack of knowledge of who am I. Hence > knowledge can only be shifting my vision of myself and > the world from what I think I am to what I am. > Everything remains the same for both jnaani and > ajnaani. One knows who he is and now operates the > equipments correctly and the other does not know who > he is and assumes that he is the upaadhis and suffers > as a consequence of that misunderstanding. A jnaani > uses the equipments without the identification that I > am this - since he is Brahman, you can say brahman is > using the equipments for the benefit of others. The > statement is the same since jnaani knows who he is. > > Anyway that is my understanding. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Namaste Sada-ji and Sastriji. Thanks a lot. Let me just close this debate by pointing out the following: 1. I cannot accept jnAnam as an opposite of ignorance in Advaita. JnAnam is and has always been there but ignorance has never been is the ultimate conclusion that is reached in Advaitic enquiry. It is therefore perilous to consider Advaitic jnAnam and ignorance as something akin to a pair of opposites, where the latter is removed by the entry of the former. 2. Sada-ji says: " A jnaani uses the equipments without the identification that I am this - since he is Brahman, you can say brahman is using the equipments for the benefit of others. " Well, if I am performing some social service or humanitarian action without knowing Advaita, even then it is Brahman using my equipment for the benefit of others. I may not admit it because of my ego. Besides, we are taught that Brahman doesn't get into any action. A non-jnAni like me can establish this point through advaitic logic. That is mere academic knowledge. There is a great difference between a jnAni and me. A jnAni as Brahman *knows it in himself* that it is against his very nature to engage in actions (even the non-action of BG). Why does he then have to get into the 'sham' of using his long- forgotten, redundant equipment and do a role playing? 3. We began from Bhaskarji's quote of BSB. Unless we hold on to it, this debate is likely to sweep us away into whirlpools of unnecessary debate. A dissection of the BSB quote yielded us a paradox, i.e. while unembodiedness termed as moksha offers no phenomenal tangibility, we have tangible realized ones operating amongst us. Sada-ji's interpretation addresses only the latter part of the paradox, i.e. the obvious presence of realized ones in the phenomenal. What about the first part which the quote terms as the " unembodiedness called mOksha " . Sorry for the bother, Sada-ji and Sastri-ji. This is just for the sake of clarifying and not arguing. All this may be a result of lack of shraddha on my part. But I won't be doing justice to myself unless I express my bafflement. PraNAms. Madathil Nair _______________ advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > > Namaste to all. > I have gone through this thread with interest. I do not wish to > enter into any argument, but I would only like to say that my > understanding happens to be exactly the same as what Sadananda-ji > has stated in the following paragraph. > S.N.Sastri > In advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda > <kuntimaddisada@> wrote: > > > >Janaanam is opposite to ignorance and therefore does > > not eliminate anything other than ignorance. > > Identification with upaadhis as 'I am this' is the > > result of lack of knowledge of who am I. Hence > > knowledge can only be shifting my vision of myself and > > the world from what I think I am to what I am. > > Everything remains the same for both jnaani and > > ajnaani. One knows who he is and now operates the > > equipments correctly and the other does not know who > > he is and assumes that he is the upaadhis and suffers > > as a consequence of that misunderstanding. A jnaani > > uses the equipments without the identification that I > > am this - since he is Brahman, you can say brahman is > > using the equipments for the benefit of others. The > > statement is the same since jnaani knows who he is. > > > > Anyway that is my understanding. > > > > Hari Om! > > Sadananda > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 I cannot accept jnAnam as an opposite of ignorance in Advaita. JnAnam is and has always been there but ignorance has never been is the ultimate conclusion that is reached in Advaitic enquiry. praNAms Hare krishna That is beautifully said prabhuji, I whole heartedly agree with you....Ofcourse, all advaitins would agree that there is no transactions like knowledge-ignorance (vidyAvidya vyavahAra) in brahman...When one discriminates himself as the witness of the mind & takes his stand there, he is nothing but absolute consciousness (paripUrNa jnAna svarUpa)..and he would realize that he was/is/will be never ever bounded by ajnAna...For example, when one gets the knowledge of rope, he wont say before getting the knowledge of rope there was a snake & after getting the knowledge of rope *snake* has gone!!! The correct knowledge of rope reveals the fact that it was ONLY rope even before the correct knowledge of rope... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Unembodiedness offers no phenomenal tangibility. On the contrary, we have tangible realized ones operating amongst us. The only way we can reconcile this paradox of the phenomenal is to assume that an embodied realized one exists only in the eyes of the ajnAnis and that the realized one doesn't have any awareness of his embodiedness perceived by the ajnAnis. This would mean that the unembodiedness mentioned by Shankara is from the point of view of the realized one. The body of the realized one, which ajnAnis see, is subject to pleasure and pain because embodiedness warrants pleasure and pain. However, the realized one, being unembodiedness, is actually beyond all pleasure and pain. As Sw. Krishnanandaji points out, that body, its pleasure and pain, prArabdha etc. are only in the awareness of the ajnAni. The image of the embodied realized one, therefore, is stark ajnAna erected by adhyAsa for the eyes of the ajnAni only. praNAms Sri Madathil prabhuji.. Hare Krishna prabhuji, I am very happy to note that unlike in pUrNamidaM discussions, both of us, this time, affably meeting some common point in this thread with regard to jnAni & his vyavahAra. I once again in complete agreement with what you have said above. Yes, it is only ajnAni who can say jnAni has upAdhi saMbanDha & he is doing vyavahAra by identifying himself with them....muktAtmanAM hi saMsAra saMsAritvavyavahArAbhAvaH sarvairEvAtmavAdibhirishyatE...announces shankara bhagavatpAda in gIta 13-2 bhAshya...At no stretch of imagination, we can say muktAtma still has vyavahAra through avidyA lEsha & due to this he has to reap the fruits of his prArabdha karma through upAdhi-s....This can be explained by a simple example... if we see two different persons sleeping, one might be snoring at the top of his voice and another one might be sleeping with all serenity & smiles....the difference between *noise* & *silence* lies in the mind of the *seer* who is seeing these two persons sleeping...But as far as those who are in the state of that dream-less sleep, they are ONE & ONLY ONE without *knowing* their external appearance... The paramount benefit of brahmavidyA is removal of ignorance & resultant 'Atyantika saMsAra abhAva' says shankara very clearly in taitirIya bhAshya 2-1 (prayOjanaM chAsyA brahmavidyAyA avidyAnivruttiH, tataschyAtikaH saMsArAbhAvaH). By this *atyanta* abhAva of saMsAra, how can a jnAni can *enjoy* pleasure & pain ?? Again shankara says in kEnOpanishad bhAshya (3-1) that sharIra, indriya maNO buddhi vishavEdanAsaMtAnasya ahaMkAra saMbandha ajnAna bIjasya nitya vijnAna ananyA nimittasya Atmatattva yAthAtmya vijnAnAT vinivruttAvajnAnabIjasya *vicchEda* AtmanO mOksha sa~JnA*...(Kindly bear with my translitearation) Here shankara clearly tells us that these are all seed of ignorance (avidyA bIja ....note this avidyAbIja not to be taken as bhAva rUpa avidyA as mUlAvidyAvAdins put it ) & *vicchEda* from this is mOksha...so, jnAni's socalled embodiedness is only in the *eyes* of ajnAni, but from jnAni's point of view , he never ever thinks that he is embodied he is always *ashareeri* only though for ajnAni-s he appears embodied.... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji Hare Krishna Sri Sada prabhuji : The rest are gradations in gaining that clear understanding only. Although ‘you are that’ is direct teaching, to internalize that teaching or to firmly abide in that teaching the mind has to be pure, free from all the habitual misunderstandings. Hence there are gradations in the chitta suddhi. This may be expressed by various masters in various ways. bhaskar : This is an interesting reconciliation with regard to what has been said by post shankara Acharya-s on jnAna & gradations in jnAni-s...I dont think those who have advocated the gradations in jnAni-s are in agreement with the above..I'd like to hear the views of other prabhuji-s in this list..It is a matter of fact that (I think you must have followed the discussion with regard to this in advaita-L list, the text which we have discussed at that time was jIvanmukti vivEka) gradation what we are talking here is not pertains chitta shuddhi but brahma vidyA!! (Kindly see Sri Shastri prabhujis quotes from vivEkachUdAmaNi), it's been said there, there is gradations in the *knowers* of brahman. Since they associate the term *brahma* with these various jnAni-s like bramavit, brahmavitvariyAn, brahmavidvara, brahmavidvarishTa etc......it is obvious that these gradations are applicable to those who have already completed the process of chitta shuddi, attained the pUrNa chitta shuddhi & are *already* elibigle for *brahma jnAna*. Here, it is said without any ambiguity that the *anubhava* of various types of samAdhi is the must, with out that nothing is going to happen....My concerns are related to that coz. shankara in the sUtra bhAshya makes one sweeping statement to negate these gradations in muktAvastha (enlightened state)...Here he says, muktyAvasthA he sarva vEdAntEshu *yEkarUpaiva* avadhAryatE, brahmaiva cha muktyavasthA, na cha brahmaNaH *anEkAkArayOgO* asti......Despite this clear clarification from shankara we are still finding the various degrees of brahma jnAna in brahma jnAni-s....It is jnAna that is paripUrNa in all respects is deserved to be called as brahma jnAna...if we find *anEka rUpa* in that jnAna, then that jnAna is not Atma jnAna or atmaikatva jnAna it is another type of mithyA jnAna only...This is what I am trying to convey in all my mails... Sri Sada prabhuji : I did not follow the thread, and therefore not inclined to comment any further on it. bhaskar : If your time permits kindly read Sri shAstri prabhuji's mail on gradations in samAdhi experience & subsequent mails...I hope from those mails it would be clear that the gradations what we are talking here is not about *chitta shuddhi* but closely related to brahmaikatva jnAna. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 Namaste dear Bhaskerji: I (neither Sadaji or Sastriji) will not have any problems that " you both cannot accept jnAnam as an opposite of ignorance in Advaita, " with your FRAMEWORK of thought. The notions of jnAnam and ajnAnam are our own CREATIONS for our own clarification and understanding of Advaita philosophy. I do believe that it is impossible to define jnAnam using words and ajnAnam represents this impossibility! What I have stated here is my understanding of your message and this notion of my understanding you may not accept. Honestly speaking, we have to accept the fact that not everyone will accept every statement that we make! Your statements within the quotes below do not contradict or support what was stated by Sadaji. " > That is beautifully said prabhuji, I whole heartedly agree with > you....Ofcourse, all advaitins would agree that there is no transactions > like knowledge-ignorance (vidyAvidya vyavahAra) in brahman...When one > discriminates himself as the witness of the mind & takes his stand there, > he is nothing but absolute consciousness (paripUrNa jnAna svarUpa)..and he > would realize that he was/is/will be never ever bounded by ajnAna " What you have stated are valid at the paramarthika (absolute) level of reality. What you have described is a tautology (redundant repletion of a meaning in a sentence using different words). Let me illustrate using an example to illustrate the difference between what you are saying and what Sadaji is saying using the following conversation: Enquirer: Where is the Post Office? X: Post Office is opposite to the city Railway Station – it should be understood that Sadaji assumes that the enquirer is aware of the location of the Railway Station. Y: Post Office sells stamps and delivers mails. There is no doubt that everyone will accept Y's reply and Y's reply is factually accurate. But still the enquirer did not get the answer that he/she was looking for. The enquirer's goal is to find the location of the Post office for which Y did not provide the answer. X's answer will be accepted and useful to those who know the location of the railway station. Even for those who do not know the location of railway station X's answer provides one more clue to what the enquirer is looking for! The enquirer can continue his/her enquiry by posing an additional question – where is the Railway Station? This is the path of the enquiry is recommended by the scriptures until the enquirer locates the post office!! Our Vedantic discussions here in the list is like finding useful clues to find (recognize or realize) the Brahman. It is my humble opinion that the answers provided by X resembles to the discussions provided by Sadaji. Y's answer resembles that of Bhaskerji! Bhaskerji's discussions do make me to believe that he is a puritan and doesn't want to accept any statement that deviates even an iota of difference from his belief. I do respect that and we can all disagree and still coexist with our differences. That is life!! With my warmest regards. Ram Chandran advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > > I cannot accept jnAnam as an opposite of ignorance in Advaita. > JnAnam is and has always been there but ignorance has never been is > the ultimate conclusion that is reached in Advaitic enquiry. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 --- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote: > 1. I cannot accept jnAnam as an opposite of > ignorance in Advaita. > JnAnam is and has always been there but ignorance > has never been is > the ultimate conclusion that is reached in Advaitic > enquiry. It is > therefore perilous to consider Advaitic jnAnam and > ignorance as > something akin to a pair of opposites, where the > latter is removed by > the entry of the former. Nairji - PraNAms The self-knowledge is opposite to self-ignorance just as chemistry knowledge is opposite to chemistry ignorance. I can make a statement that " Ignorance I never had I lost! " once I am fully realized my true nature. What you are referring to knowledge is pure unconditial or unquilified knowledge, which is the swaruupa of aatma. Remember atma bhoda sloka ajnaana kalusham jiivam jnaanaat abhyaasdvi nirmalam| kRitvaa jnaanam swayam nasyet jalam kaTaka renuvat|| As long as there is jiiva notion, there is ignorance of one's real nature (that is the definition of jiiva). The knowledge that we are taking about removes the ignorance like the way kaTAka Nut powder used to purify the water. Water is pure by nature - no dirt ( No ignorance) in pure water - it is colorless, oderless, etc. But becuase of dirt that does not belong to it, and that is sticking to it - it has to removed in order for us to enjoy by adding kaTaka nut powder, which while removing also removes itself by forming a sledge, which sinks to the bottom along with the dirt. It is in that sense self-ignorance (jiiva has that ignorance not the self) is removed by jiiva gaining the self-knowledge. He realizes that he is pure unadultareted eternal aatmaa that never had ignorance. That aatma which is of the nature of pure knowledge is not opposite to ignorance. We need to be careful, what ignorance we are referring to. > Well, if I am performing some social service or > humanitarian action > without knowing Advaita, even then it is Brahman > using my equipment > for the benefit of others. I may not admit it > because of my ego. > Besides, we are taught that Brahman doesn't get into > any action. Nairji - if you look carefully you are switching references. If you have clear undestanding that Brahmna is doing, then there is no question of I am performing some social service. Brahman in the form of Iswara does whatever he wants and you cannot go and claim the action as if you are doing. Iswara does whatever he does and it will not affect him either - he does it for lokakalyaanam - whatever he does! Brahman does not get into action - at paaramaarthika level - The whole thing is Brahman period. Once we say Brahman is doing we mean it is Iswara (sa guNa brahma) But if you notice that some action is going on, you have already comedown from Brahman level. If you are jnaani you will say - Iswara is doing. an ajnaani may say I am doing. The fact is no body is doing anything. As Goudapaada says - it is just swaabhaavikam! Doing while not doing is the nature of the reality! - Look at my glory Arjuna! Transforming without transforming is the nature of creation itself. A > non-jnAni like me can establish this point through > advaitic logic. > That is mere academic knowledge. There is a great > difference between > a jnAni and me. Nariji - there is no acadamic knowledge and practical knowledge. ShravaNa and Mananam - we are doing the second part - since doubts are lingering. Now tell me - I am existent conscious entity - is it an acadamic knowledge or practical knowledge. It is factual knowledge, period. I am ajnaani is also a notion in the mind. But these notions we make them more real and give gradations to the knoweldge - acadamic and non-acadamic. When scripture says you are sat, chit and ananda - it is pure factual knowledge that has to be owned - that is why it is called self-realization. It is not gaining some thing new - just trying to be what you are instead of trying to be what you are not! A jnAni as Brahman *knows it in > himself* that it is > against his very nature to engage in actions (even > the non-action of > BG). Nairji -From paaramaarthika point he never does any action. All from vyavahaara. Jnaani as long as he has upaadhiis, he has visa - He has clear understanding of who he is and at the same time watch the drama at the vyavahaara level. Why does he then have to get into the 'sham' > of using his long- > forgotten, redundant equipment and do a role > playing? Nariji - he does not - it is an actionless action - hence Krishna says - what is karma, what is akarma and vikarma, even the pandits have problem in understanding. So, he does but he does not. When we eat - we chant Brahmaarpanam brahma haviH .. etc. Please think it over. This applies not only to eating but to everything too. about the first part which the > quote terms as > the " unembodiedness called mOksha " . Jannai does not own any body. There is no problem and I do not see any paradox anywhere. To me it is very straight forward. > This > is just for the > sake of clarifying and not arguing. Nariji - no need to be sorry. We are claryfying the issues here. My teacher taught me one thing - keep singing His glory the way I can until I cannot any more. I keep responding only becuase the concepts need to be clarified based on the scriptural understanding. There is no problem in your keep questioning as long as the motive is to understand what exactly is the truth. Satya anveShaNa is the motive factor. >. But I won't be doing > justice to myself > unless I express my bafflement. > No Problem. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > > I cannot accept jnAnam as an opposite of ignorance in Advaita. > JnAnam is and has always been there but ignorance has never been is > the ultimate conclusion that is reached in Advaitic enquiry. > Namaste It is baffling to note that off and on we encounter such observations in our quest of learning about advaita. When it is said that jnAnam is an opposite of ignorance we are talking in the realm of worldly parlance. This is the vyAvahAric level talk. When it is said that jnAnam is the ultimate we are now in the realm of the Ultimate and so this is the Paramarthic level talk. Even here there should be no question of any talk because in the paramArthic level there is only one, no two! The two levels should not be mixed up in any observation or argument. But we always tend to commit the same mistake. A religious fanatic was trying to hurt a Sannyasi who was a well- known advaitin. The Sannyasi tried to protect himself. The opponent retorted: " Why, you proclaim non-duality and declare everything that is dual is only an appearance! Then why are you thinking that I am hurting you and protecting yourself? Why have you not taken it as unreal? " And the Sannyasi was quick to give the repartee: " Yes, my protecting myself is also unreal! " Our mistake of confusing the Vyavaharik and the PAramArthik in the same observation, is exactly like the opponent in the above story. PraNAms to all advaitins. profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2008 Report Share Posted January 21, 2008 --- Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > This is an interesting reconciliation with regard to > what has been said by > post shankara Acharya-s on jnAna & gradations in > jnAni-s...I dont think > those who have advocated the gradations in jnAni-s > are in agreement with > the above..I'd like to hear the views of other > prabhuji-s in this list.. Bhaskar - PraNAms Here is my understanding. The truth does not depend on my opinion or that of others. Aham brahmaasmi is jnaanam. Brahma has no sajaati vijaati and swagata bhedaas. Therefore Brahma jnaanam cannot have any divisions either. I am not going to comment on the slokas that I have not read. However I can comment on the possibilities of gradations not in jnaanam but in jnaanis. We can talk about gradations in internalizing this knowledge or talk about gradations in the degree a jnaani wants to be involved in the vyavahaara level. - or in Brahma niShTa - In all these we are not referring to gradations in jnaanam per sec but in the jnaanis - The gradations in jnaanis come into picture depending on how firmly they are abiding in that truth. Truth is the same - no divisions in that. They can comedown to vyavahaara level and transact like everybody else or sit in Himalayas keep reveling in that state. There is aatma rati and aatma kriiDa. So I would not be surprised if aachaaryas talk in terms of levels in jnaanis. But jnaanam is brahmaatmaika swaruupa jnaanam and there cannot be divisions in that. That is advaita. Hope I am clear. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Namaste to all. As my quotation from Swami Chandrasekhara Bharati's commentary on VivekachuDAmaNi was the starting point for these arguments regarding gradation of Brahmavits, I am writing this to clarify my position for the information of the members. The traditional teachers study not only the works of Sri Sankara but also of all the advaita AchAryas who have come tthereafter. They give equal importance to the works of all the AchAryas and do not go into questions such as whether they conform to Sri Sankara's views or not. This is mainly because, according to the traditional view, Advaita Vedanta means the upanishads and brahmasUtra as interpreted by Sri Sankara and supplemented by the other post-Sankara AchAryas. This is supported by a statement by one of the traditional AchAryas who is held in high esteem, BrahmAnanda. He says in his commentary on the SiddhAntabindu of madhusUdana sarasvati: " Vedanta sAstra is constituted of brahmasUtra, Sri Sankara's bhAshya on it, the bhAmati of vAchapati misra, the kalpataru of Sri amalAnanda and parimala of Sri appayya dIkshita. There are others who hold that vivaraNa of prakASatman and the commentaries on it are closer to Sri Sankara's views. It has been said by one of the traditional teachers: " Ancient preceptors of advaita who wrote commentaries and treatises on the sUtrabhAshya of Sankara with a view to determine its import were keen on establishing the unity of the self. And, in order to establish this, they advocated several theories which differ among themselves. All these differing theories, however, pertain only to the empirical stage, and hence they do not in any way stultify the non-dual nature of the self. Sureshvara, well-known as the author of the vArtikAs, states that by whichever theory one attains to the knowledge of Brahman, that theory must be taken to be the best; and there are many theories within the fold of advaita " . Thus I have been taught to give equal importance to the views of all Acharyas and I am following that. To some this may appear as unintelligent, wanting in discrimination, etc. I am not asking any one to accept my view. It is for each one to decide. At the same time I do not see any reason to reject what I have been taught, because it is said that in Atmavidya sraddha is very important and sraddha means accepting the teachings of the guru and the sAstra as true. For each one the teaching of his own guru is sacrosanct. When the basic approach about the meaning of the term Vedanta sAstra thus differs radically, arguments may go on interminably without any agreement being reached. I have written this to clarify my position and request that no one should take offence, because I have nothing against the views of any one. I believe that each one has the right to decide which AchArya's view he should follow. S.N.Sastri In advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: >--- Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > > This is an interesting reconciliation with regard to > > what has been said by > > post shankara Acharya-s on jnAna & gradations in > > jnAni-s...I dont think > > those who have advocated the gradations in jnAni-s > > are in agreement with > > the above..I'd like to hear the views of other > > prabhuji-s in this list.. > > Bhaskar - PraNAms > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Namaste dear Bhaskerji: I (neither Sadaji or Sastriji) will not have any problems that " you both cannot accept jnAnam as an opposite of ignorance in Advaita, " with your FRAMEWORK of thought. The notions of jnAnam and ajnAnam are our own CREATIONS for our own clarification and understanding of Advaita philosophy. praNAms Sri Ramachandra prabhuji Hare Krishna First of all you may please be noted that I was sharing my view points on the observation of Sri Nair prabhuji's mail...which for your ready reference I'm giving it below : //quote // > > I cannot accept jnAnam as an opposite of ignorance in Advaita. > JnAnam is and has always been there but ignorance has never been is > the ultimate conclusion that is reached in Advaitic enquiry. // unquote// Since I've not directly said anything on Sri Sadananda prabhuji's mail, I am afraid your example of post office is irrelevant here... Anyway, what exactly is vyAvahArik satya in advaita vEdAnta?? The Sanskrit word vyavahAra comprehends notonly the thought & expression but also our behaviour based on them is it not?? can we, the advaitins, take everything for granted in the name of vyavahAra?? If everything is possible & permitted in vyavahArik satya, why shankara has taken the trouble to answer queries from the pUrvapaxins?? Since they have accepted the advaita at ultimate stage, shankara would have easily given them the green signal to go ahead in the name of vyavahAra!! but as we know, that is not the case in prasthAna trayi bhAshya. It is acceptable if we talk about the existence of jIva apart from brahma, his upAdhi, karma, karma phala, his katrutva, bhOktrutva etc. from the empirical standpoint but problem comes when we drag the brahma to vyAvahArik realm and say brahman has the avidyA in vyavahAra but pAramArthically he does not have....It is to be noted that as soon as we mention the name of parabrahman, there is no room for us to attach anything to it (even vyavahArically!!!) Being a vaidika dharma follower, we should always keep in mind the paramArtika satyatva of ours while talking & dealing in vyavahAra...we should not lost ourselves & the goal just because we have the cushion of vyavahAra....We cannot accommodate all and sundry in the name of vyavahAra...The significance of certain terminology gets drastically changed when the same term is used from two different perspective i.e. vyAvahArik & pAramArthik...For example when we talk about the liberation, vyavahArically it is nothing but setting free or becoming free or freedom or independence etc...but when we talk about the same liberation from the vEdAntic pAramArthik view it is nothing but getting rid of avidyA...We cannot intermix these two different definitions in the name of vyavahAra & conclude all is well & OK in vyavahAra... Just my few thoughts Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Sastriji - my SaaShTanga praNAms. Thanks for clarifying your position - Can you give us the slokas nos in VivekacUDAmaNi I was trying to find them but could not easily locate. Hari Om! Sadananda --- snsastri <sn.sastri wrote: > Namaste to all. > As my quotation from Swami Chandrasekhara Bharati's > commentary on > VivekachuDAmaNi was the starting point for these > arguments regarding > gradation of Brahmavits, I am writing this to > clarify my position > for the information of the members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Namaste, all My understanding of Self Realization is, for one with self-realization, though there is no disappearance of non-self, i.e. Idam and Eswara, his identification with non-self disappears as self knowledge shines as wisdom in him that any identification with non-self was only apparent resulting in apparent bondage for him, and such a person is udAsEnaha, i.e. indifferent towards the non-self. Hari Om and with warm regards Mani R. S. Mani Never miss a thing. Make your homepage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Dear Sada-ji, The shloka is No. 454 in the sringeri Mutt publication. The number varies in Chinmaya Publication, but I do not have it with me now The shloka starts with-- prArabdham balavattaram khalu vidAm . There is an English translation of the commentary by P. Sankaranarayanan, published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. Regards, S.N.Sastri In advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > Sastriji - my SaaShTanga praNAms. > > Thanks for clarifying your position - Can you give us > the slokas nos in VivekacUDAmaNi I was trying to find > them but could not easily locate. > Hari Om! > Sadananda > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2008 Report Share Posted January 22, 2008 Sarvebhya NamaskaraH! 'As Advaitins we want to be 'detached' so dont send any mail with attachment'!! What a funny logic here? If this is the case then the very reason to come here & post anything makes us 'attached' to the internet & many more things! List Moderators' Note: Though the logic appears strange, that is one of the effctive ways to protect the personal computers. An infected attached file (an infected computer will send the infection through the attached file) can potentially damage 1700 computers (members!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.