What is self realization ??

[Guest guest]

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.

 

 

praNAms Prof. VK prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

Shankara while commenting on gIta verse 'vEdAvinAshinaM nityaM (chapter II

Verse 21) ) says the firm jnAna with respect to one's own true nature

which has generated in the mind (which can be called as knowledge of self)

is also one of the vrutti-s of mana, hence a false one. It is only from

the stand point of knowledge the Self is called jnAni but this has nothing

to do with the real nature of self. Shankara gives here the example of

dream & states that the the conclusions of right & wrong knowledge in dream

will be treated as *wrong* only after waking....prabhuji, dont you think

the guNa is also an adhyArOpa on nirguNa nirvishEsha brahman & should be

negated in the process of brahma jignAsa?? KIndly clarify.

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sada-ji.

 

(This answers Prof. Krishnamurthy-ji and Ram-ji also.)

 

Reference: Sadaji's post 39102.

 

About Self-Knowledge, there is no mixing of levels or parlance.

There is only one level and there is only one parlance. Both belong

to the phenomenal where we are engaged in this discussion. I mean,

as I have pointed out here earlier, the paramArthika point of view is

a point of view of the phenomenal – a conceptualization in the

phenomenal of what Brahman is like based on what is taught to us.

 

Chemistry-ignorant John learns chemistry and becomes chemistry-

knowledgeable. Learning is an action. The locus of both ignorance

and later knowledge is John. Removal of John's ignorance takes place

through his interaction with chemistry teachers, books and labs.

 

Self-ignorant John gains Self-Knowledge or self-realizes. Removal of

John's ignorance, in this case, *seems* to occur through his

interaction with scriptures, guru and above all himself. John was

self-ignorant means the locus of ignorance was John, the entity which

had false notions about himself. John is self-realized, however,

doesn't mean that the locus of self-knowledge is John, the one who

had false-notions about himself, because self-realization is *Brahman

shining without anything external to It*. The locus of self-

knowledge is not Brahman either because, advaitically, Brahman is one-

without-a-second and can't be a locus for a second something.

Besides and most importantly, Brahman is not an object of the action

of knowing like chemistry knowledge is the result of the action of

learning. In a nut-shell, self-realization is not the result of any

action at all although most of us engage ourselves in vain in

Herculean efforts throughout life to self-realize.

 

Chemistry-realization and self-realization cannot, therefore, be

equated even for purposes of discussion in the same manner as the

kataka-seed/water parallel is used. Even the latter parallel has its

own defect in the sense that water was the locus of the dirt. In

self-realization, Brahman is never the locus for anything at all at

any time.

 

Now, kindly tell me where is the question of levels and parlance in

this simple understanding.

 

If self-realization means `understanding' my real nature as described

in our scriptures and taught by our gurus, then I am self-realized

since 1989. However, I am still like Duryodhana, who understood the

Truth but lamented his inability to overcome the grip of false

notions. As you advise, I can only try to be what I am not and keep

singing His glory the way I can until I cannot any more. I am doing

exactly that. But, I have to acknowledge that I will be self-

realized only when my real nature shines forth in all its glory and

that the knowledge about the self I have gained so far has not yet

delivered that end result promised by the scriptures. That

knowledge, which has not delivered its intended (seeming) result yet,

is the one I called academic knowledge.

 

You have equated the word `unembodiedness' in Bhaskar-ji's quote

to `not owning a body'. The obvioius implication is that the body

(BMI) should remain unowned and intact somewhere in the scenario for

the jnAni to use it for loka kalyANaM. Bhaskar-ji's quote is from

Shankara's BSB commentary and, if Shankara had such a meaning in

mind, he would have explicitly mentioned so.

 

" Just as the slough of a snake lies on an ant-hill, dead and cast

away, so also lies this body. That bodiless immortal Soul is Brahman

only, is only light. " (Bri. Up. IV-4-7). " Kindly mark the

word `light'.

 

I would, therefore, take the word to mean `no *body* whatsoever at

all'. Sw. Shivanandaji in his BS commentary (I-1-4(4))

says : " Moksha is the same as Brahman. " In Brahman, there can't be

any BMIs for role-playing. Thus, we indeed have a paradox to resolve

between the intangibility of the unembodiedness called moksha and

availability of jnAnis in the phenomenal as distinct

individualities. The only reconciliation possible is to accept that

the jnAni's body and actions are only in the awareness of the ajnAnis

in the phenomenal as stated by Sw. Krishnanandaji and also Bh. Ramana

Maharshi. The jnAnis are pure Grace personified just for the sake of

the ajnAnis and a result of their combined ichchAshakti.

 

I would know self-realization only when I self-realize. In our

phenomenal, it is an anticipated event despite all our lofty talks to

the contrary. To think otherwise and imagine that only an

understanding is sufficient is just wishful thinking.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar-ji.

 

Yours 39098.

 

Yes. We might look like strange bed-fellows after all that

purNamadaH heat and fury.

 

Looking back on it, I get a feeling that it was all a matter of

semantics. But, I am sure I learnt a lot from it.

 

I have noted that you have continued your studies of Shankara bhASyAs

tirelessly in a commendable manner. That is admirable.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

____________________

 

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>... 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. Yes, it is only ajnAni who can say jnAni

> has upAdhi saMbanDha & he is doing vyavahAra by identifying himself

with

> them....

[Guest guest]

Shankara's BSB commentary and, if Shankara had such a meaning in

mind, he would have explicitly mentioned so.

 

" Just as the slough of a snake lies on an ant-hill, dead and cast

away, so also lies this body. That bodiless immortal Soul is Brahman

only, is only light. " (Bri. Up. IV-4-7). " Kindly mark the

word `light'.

 

I would, therefore, take the word to mean `no *body* whatsoever at

all'. Sw. Shivanandaji in his BS commentary (I-1-4(4))

says : " Moksha is the same as Brahman. "

 

 

praNAms Sri Nair prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

Yes, as I said before shankara in that same sUtra bhAshya (1-1-4) clearly

says that it is only due to mithyA pratyaya embodiedness of a jnAni

established...but jnAni is always unembodied only...bhAshya vAkya goes like

: tasmAt mithyApratyayanimittatvAt sasharIratvasya siddham jIvatOpi

vidushOsharIratvaM...

 

 

And Shankara without any ambiguity clearly says that mOksha or paramArtha

jnAna is not an event after *sharIra pAta* (death of physical body)..You

have rightly quoted the bruhadAraNyaka shruti...Here are the express

statements from shankara which further confirms the status of jnAni & what

exactly is the problem in accepting vidEha paramArtha mukti...:

 

 

ihaiva brahmaiva san brahmApyEti *na sharIrapAtOttarakAlaM* -

bruhadAraNyaka bhAshya (4-4-6)

 

 

sharIrE patitE asharIratvaM syAt, *na jIvataH iti chEt, na, sasharIratvasya

mithyAjnAnanimittatvAt, na hi AtmanaH sharIrAtmAnAbhimAnalakshaNaM

mithyAjnAnam muktvA anyataH sasharIratvaM shakyaM kalpayituM, *nityam

asharIratvaM, akarmanimitattvAt ityavOchAma...sUtra bhAshya 1-1-4

 

 

*atra ihaiva* pradeepanirvANavat sarvabandhOpashamanAt brahma samashnutE,

brahmaiva bhavati ityarthaH - Kathopanishad bhAshya -2-3-14

 

 

From the above it is quite evident that vidEha mukti (postumous mukti) is

not shankara's baby....*atra ihaiva*, na sharIrapAtOttara kAlaM* & other

categorical statements prove beyond any doubt that shankara's insistence is

only on sadyO mukti....

 

 

Enough said on this....

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhasker Prabhuji:

 

Since you always look for suggestive relevent comment, my reply has to

be just SILENCE!

 

with my warmest regards,

 

Harih Om!

 

Ram Chandrn

 

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> Since I've not directly said anything on Sri Sadananda prabhuji's

mail, I

> am afraid your example of post office is irrelevant here...

>

>

[Guest guest]

namaskAraH,

 

On 22/01/2008, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

> 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.

 

But Bhaskar-ji, there is no concept of liberation in paramArtha. The

distinctions between jnAnI & ajnAnI, saMsAra & mokSha, etc are valid

only at the vyavahAra level.

 

So when someone refers to " types of jnAnI-s " , it is only from the

vyavahAra perspective with respect to upAdhi-s.

 

There is nothing so complicated about it.

 

dhanyavAdaH

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

Hari OM!

This is very interesting question.

 

Can I really know what is self realization if I am not realized?

Can I really know what awake state is until I wake up?

 

I recall a parable by Ramakrishna Paramahamsa about this. A very

young sister asks her much elder sister who recently got married,

what it is like to be married! And the elder one tells her that

no matter however much she explains, she wouldn't understand

married life fully. But when she grows up and gets married in turn,

she would know it very easily. Even so, this question still

fascinates the mind and increases the curiosity.

 

Scriptures tell about it in many ways. Personally I feel, in whose

presence thought agitations become less, peace is experienced at

mental level, and clarity at intellectual level, no matter if that

soul speaks much, or just looks at silently, and wherein an

inexplicable but palpable presence is felt at all levels of our

personality provides signs of self-realization. After all

self-realization has to be, and must be self-evident any way.

 

Words may fail, but evidence doesn't. And that presence need not

be physical. Even words and thoughts have as much influence.

 

Teachings of Shankara, Vyasa, Valmiki, et.al greatly

separated in time and space from us, still seem to have much

influence on minds and hearts of many in every generation is

itself a testimony to that presence.

 

May be asking myself " how to self-realize " instead of " what is

self-realization " sheds more light and insight.

 

Hari OM!

-Srinivas

[Guest guest]

This reminds me of a Zen koan:

 

" Before I had realisation, mountains were mountains and rivers were

rivers, and when I had realisation, mountains were not mountains and

rivers were not rivers. After enlightenment mountains are mountains

and rivers are rivers.

 

Sai

[Guest guest]

Pranams

This has been a very illuminating discussion.

My pranams to Sada-ji, for his patient compassionate explanations.

I have been hardpressed for time to participate in many of the

wonderful discussions ongoing in this forum.

 

Perhaps I can pen a few thoughts - sincerely doubt they will provide

any more clarity that what Sada-ji has already explained.

 

When we ask a question " is a jnani embodied " or " does a jnani have a

body " - we are by default talking about a particular namaroopa.

So the discussion itself by default - by the very nature of the

question - has become centered onto a locus - which is this 5 feet 8

inches person, 55 years old, living in Bombay, etc who in our eyes

is " a realized one " . If we are talking about Brahman, then of course

it is One, without a second. But, we cannot bring a " jnani " into the

picture, and then enquire about Brahman minus any namaroopa.

 

There are two aspects to a jnani just like there are two aspects to

a ajnani. The sat aspect and the namaroopa or mithya aspect. For a

jnani there is abidance in the sat aspect, a Knowing, or Being, and

hence alone an abiding understanding of the mithya aspect FOr a

Jnani, everything is nonseparate from Brahman including this body -

he harbors no ownership over anything including " his " body. IN Lord

Krishna's words the tattva-vit - the knower of truth - clearly

understands that in reality " guna guneshu vartanate " - elements are

interacting among themselves.

 

As an example, you see a flower. what you are seeing are only

particles. in fact, you yourself are only particles. in fact

particles are seeing particles. in fact there is no seeing at all.

there are only particles. the whole " seeing " is only as though.

 

Similarly having understood his non-separateness from Brahman, the

seeming association with this mass of flesh blood and bones does not

create any delusion of ownership to the mind-intellect of the jnani.

Just as " mayyeva sakalam jaatam " - this body is also included in

the " sakalam " - what is the problem in that? - If you ask him when

is he giving a talk tomorrow? - he can easily say 8am - if you ask

him who he is - he is brahman - illuminating a namaroopa Swami so-

and so, and this namaroopa Swami is giving a namaroopa talk at a

namaroopa time - the reality being that there is no swami, no

talking, no time, no " thing " other than Brahman. Again, this is

purely a matter of understanding - intellectual understanding only -

there is no other kind. Prarabdha, being namaroopa, applies to the

prarabdha body and the prarabdha mind alone - how can it apply to

the satyam that the jnani knows himSelf to be.

 

In fact in the concluding verses of the vairagya shatakam, there is

some chillingly beatiful lines - the original sanskrit is as

movingly poetic as it is profound -

" Oh Mother Earth! Oh Wind, my Father! Oh Fire, my friend! Oh Water,

my good relative!Oh Sky, my Brother! With clasped hands this is my

concluding salutations to you!My association with you all resulted

in an accumulation of great merits, culminating in pure knowledge,

which helped me overcome the marvellous sway of Maya! May I now be

One with the Transcendent Truth! "

 

So the elements are thanked for partaking in a form that has helped

me across the sea of Samsara via the " amrtasya setu " of self-

knowledge.

 

Now while it is true that self-ignorance is only " as though " , and

Shruti, bhashyas, Guru, etc is also only " as though " , moskha also is

only " as though " . As Swami Dayananda-ji often says - " the Whole

blessed thing is only " as though " . One cannot categorize " self-

ignorance " in a as though bin and then put self-knowledge in

a " actual " bin.

The intellect which harbored a notion of separation, understands its

delusion for what it is. " If one thinks of oneself as free, one is

free, and if one thinks of oneself as bound, one is bound. " Thinking

makes it so. " - Ashtavakra Samhita

 

So when you say " If self-realization means `understanding' my real

nature as described in our scriptures and taught by our gurus, then

I am self-realized since 1989 " - that is true - if you understood " I

am " - but then you say " However, I am still like Duryodhana " - who

is this " i " who am still like Duryodhana - the " I " that illumines

your " i am self-realized " is also the " I " that illumines your " i "

that laments about being like Duryodhana. Abide in that " I " and all

notions about your ownership or relationship with this body, this

mind etc vanish. But as we all know, that is eaiser said than done -

it requires effort (action) - effort greater than emptying an Ocean

with a blade of grass one droplet at a time - why - for preparing

the mind to gain jnana-nishtha - and that is possible only by

accruing chittashuddhi/chittanaischalyam.. " I will be self-

realized only when my real nature shines forth in all its glory " -

can be a problem if one is waiting for a " mother of all events " to

happen - some awe-inspiring spectacular transcendetal

transformation! - that itself is labeled an obstacle to parAvidya -

why? - Because reality is being given to mithya - if mithya is real

then something has to happen for it to go away. If the dirt on my

cloth is real then i have to wait for a detergent to act, so the

cloth can be seen in its pure form.

Here my real nature IS shining forth in all its glory - HERE and

NOW - it has no choice but! - it is this ahankara " i " that has a

mistaken notion about my separateness or nonidentity with mySelf.

Self-knowledge puts mithya in its place - namaroopa clearly

understood is seen to be nothing but Brahman alone - " neti neti "

once understood, culminates in " poornamadam poornamidam "

 

Humble pranams,

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Hari OM

Shyam

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Sada-ji.

>

> Immense thanks for the input.

>

> Aren't we back to square one again?

> 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.

> >

> Madathil Nair

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dr. Shyam-ji.

 

Yours 39139.

 

I thank you very much for taking time to contribute your views.

I have explained my point of view ad infinitum. Others might say ad

nauseum! So, I don't find any point in commenting on every part of

your lengthy input.

 

Just one point all the same that says it all. You said:

 

QUOTE

 

Similarly having understood his non-separateness from Brahman, the

seeming association with this mass of flesh blood and bones does not

create any delusion of ownership to the mind-intellect of the jnani.

 

UNQUOTE

 

If self-realization is an 'understanding of one's non-separateness

from Brahman', then all that you have said is one hundred percent

right. I don't to the view that it is such an

understanding because I think I have it. It is total non-

separateness where the BMI and also the sakalam has completely

resolved into the totality of one's being. That has not *happened*

to me yet. There is no mind-intellect left then to perceive the non-

ownership of the mass of flesh, blood and bones called the body.

 

Please read the Sw. Krishnananda links I provided in one of my

earlier posts in this thread to understand what I am saying. Even

if I am wrong, Swamiji, who has contributed immensely to increase

our knowledge of vedanta, couldn't have ignored the type of

understanding you and others are presenting here as self-realization.

 

This is not to say I don't understand what you, Sada-ji et al are

saying. I do understand every bit of it all. In fact, I would have

chimed with you well a few years ago. I just find it difficult to

share your understanding totally. Hope you will appreciate my

predicament and pardon my insistence which has evoked our seniors'

compassion.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair