Guest guest Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 --- bhagini_niveditaa <bhagini_niveditaa wrote: although Shri > Nairji in all his > infinite wisdom, has asked me not to resort to > tangential > quotations , i am still going to quote an Arabic > Proverb : bhaginiji - PraNAms. Thanks for your sentiments. I do however concur with Nairji that tangential quotations and topics out of the main theme will distract the chain of thoughts and do not serve the purpose of serious discussions on the issues raised. Let us help each other with self realization. Ultimately that is all that counts. I hope you agree with this. Thanks again for your kind words. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 praNAms Sri Ramesh K prabhuji Hare Krishna If I write anything in reply to your observation, prabhuji-s in this list would think that it is only vAda without *sAra*...Anyway, if you have studied texts like jIvanmukti vivEka, paNchadashi etc. you would have not said distinctions pertains to upAdhi-s of jnAni-s...There in those texts, distinctions were not among tall jnAni-s, dwarf jnAni-s, fat jnAni-s to say their jnAna is one & custodians of that jnAna are different (no pun intended please....)...when some text say yAjnAvalkya is *kEvala* brahmavit & NOT brahmavitvarishTa, prahlAda is not brahmavidvarishTa etc. it does talk about *quantity* of jnAna in them about brahman...their upAdhis hardly come into the picture in these distictions...If you are saying me, there might be a tall jnAni & dwarf jnAni or a smart jnAni & a dull jnAni in this world & they may appear differently & behave differently due to their physical structure & antaHkaraNa but there jnAna is one & without second..I dont have any problem in accepting it...but problem starts when you find distinctions in brahma jnAna & start saying there is gradations in jnAna...By the way, you cannot link jnAnAvastha of a jnAni to some particular *vishEsha avasthA* to link different upAdhi-s to jnAni-s in vyavahAra...na cha vyavahArAbhAvaH avasthAvishEsha nibaddhObhidhIyate...is the words of bhAshyakAra in sUtra bhAshya...Anyway, since here upAdhi is not the issue, jnAna is the issue...Kindly comeback if you have any say on that...otherwise let us agree to disagree & stop this discussion amicably :-)) Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 Pranams Nairji. Thank you for your response. Your insistence is really wonderful because it provides opportunity for helping all of us dwell on and attempt to understand many important concepts - please do not be apologetic about it. I did read the links to Sw.Krishnananda-ji's discourse that you kindly provided. Thank you for the same. Some excerpts from this discourse and then my comment: " Nor can we understand the argument that there can be any duty for the liberated soul. " " The fact that many others remain unliberated even when one soul is freed, does not compel the liberated one to have relations with others, for the simple reason that the liberated one is no other than the trans-cosmic Absolute. " " It is said that, because the individual is inseparable from its environment, the liberated soul has to work for the redemption of the other unliberated souls, if its own salvation is to be complete. " My comment: The primary thrust of Swamiji's entire elaborate discourse is directed primarily against the Buddhist concept of a bodhisattva - which as you well know is a concept that enjoins a liberated soul to tirelessly and unceasingly work for the liberation of all other jivas bound in samsara - final emancipation cannot take place till each and every jiva has been liberated. Why does Buddhism have this fallacious concept? Because for the Buddhists, mithya is not clearly understood. There being no underlying substratum which is Satyam, for them then, the illusion becomes " real " . And the " real " illusion has to go - becuase the illusion can never become Satyam, there being no Satyam at all - and so all the participants of the illusion have to be freed - thereby achieving a grand nothingness! [Of course there are multiple technicalities and schools and subschools of thought in this - none of which is even remotely relevant for us students of vedanta.] So what Swamiji is very pointedly and convincingly discarding is this particular concept, and he while elaborating the vedantic concept of jivanmukti rightly asserts that having been enlightened or liberated there is absolutely no question of the jnani having to do anything - or having to work for the benefit of other jivas who are not yet liberated. In advaita of course there is no other thing - no other person who needs to be liberated - All is Brahman Alone.When we say the jnani may choose to teach advaita to a student, please understand that in the jnani's vision [a]there is no abhimana no kartrtva-buddhi no ahankara no sense of a " i " as a individual, and the student is poornam - which he or she is! At the same time, the jnani's mind and intellect does not (fortunately) get " sublated into the totality of being " - hence alone we have the Shankara bhashyas, the Vartikas, the tikas, we have the Upadesa Sara etc etc - why - we even have the Holy Bhagawad Gita. In any case this was my reading of what the revered Swamiji is trying to convey esp in and through the entire section of jivanmukti and the relation of the Universe and the liberated Self. I shall also be responding to Shri Bhaskar prabhu-ji's post and will try to cover some more of the subtleties of this issue (based on my understanding of course). Humble pranams Hari OM Shri Gurubhyo namah Shyam Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair advaitin Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:21:22 PM Re: What is self realization ?? Namaste Dr. Shyam-ji. 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. Madathil Nair ______________________________\ ____ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Search. http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2008 Report Share Posted January 23, 2008 Dear Nairji, You can address me as Sai. I wish I could say that I *understand* this koan. I have merely quoted it because it appeared, to my feeble mind, that the koan was talking about a process similar to one that happens when one 'gets it'. I have not progressed beyond making empty quotes. I am still looking for a way to understand the overwhelming flow of teachings from this group. Sai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 " What is self realization ?? " Forever an interesting question. IMO any answer is as good as any other, since it isn't something to be chased/achieved at the end of a path. I like to say it's death, because the 'person' comes to an end. Same as when the body dies, agreed? Really the body is utterly irrelevant -- it's the " me " that fears death, not the body. I like to refer to " the ego-momentum " -- that momentum pointed out by the ancients as if a spinning torch appearing as a circle of fire. That momentum must end, but it cannot end itself - such attempts only speed it up. There's no explanation of if/what/when/why it ends. Peace... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > > So when someone refers to " types of jnAnI-s " , ............> > > But we often tend to forget here we are referring to jnAni who is brahman > himself ...so *types* of jnAnI-s is simply a wrong notion of ajnAnis- > .......... > bhaskar With reference to the above discussion of the members, I would like to submit that a detailed explanation of this issue is available in " Yogataaraavali of Adisankaracharya " , Commentary by K. V. Krishna Murthy, English Translation by Dr. Vemuri Ramesam, Published by Institute of Scientific Research on Vedas, Hydearabd, India, 2007, pp: 96. The title of the concerned Chapter is " Comparison of the " Stages " in Yoga-based and Knowledge-based Spiritual Paths (Yoga Bhumikas and Jnana Bhumikas) " at pages 82 - 95. A few Extracts follow: " Satvapatii is the fourth stage of Knowledge-based Path..........The practitioner who reaches this stage is called " KNower of Brahman (Brhmavit). " In spite of reaching this level an achieving an understanding tht " I am Brahman " , the seeker needs to be on constant vigil to retain that thought without break.........Verse 20, Ch. Unmani Yoga, Yogataaraavali makes a reference to this state. ........ Non-attachment (Asamsakti) is the fifth stage of the Knowledge-based Path. The seeker who reaches this stage is christened as " Better Knower of Brahman(Brahmavidvara).............A seeker may achieve the meditative state of feeling " I am Brahman " through constant contemplation on Brahman. But impressions of objective world (i.e. impressions from past births related to worldly objects) gain strength and overtake that feeling. ........ The sixth stage is Non-perception of objects (Padarthabahavan). The seeker in this stage is termed " Master Knower of Brahman brahmavid vareeyan). " .......The meditative state gets easily jolted by the impressions of his own past births in the fifth stage. The meditative state in the sixth stage, in contrast, is not affected by one's own past impressions. Still it is susceptible to be affected by unexpected disasters in the environment or by persons who are determined to disturb the seeker............. When the sixth stage is firmly established, it gets transformed automatically to the next and final stage.........The seeker who attains this stage is called Excellent Knower of Brahman (Brhamavid varishta).................... The classification into various stage described above helps an aspirant to grade himself on the path of liberation. An outsider cannot judge the stage a seeker is in. A seeker has to make an assessment by himself. Table 1 can facilitate such a self- assessment............ " I hope the above info is of some help. Thanks and regards, ramesam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 Of course , Sadaji ! aLL THE NINE MODERATORS SHOULD STAND BY ONE ANOTHER AND SUPPORT one another , no matter what ! After all, the kauravas were 100 in number and pandavas were Five in number but when they were together against a common enemy , they were 105 in number ! AND HOW CAN ONE EVEN GO AGAINST NAIRJI - NOT EVEN THIS SHAKTI ! Sadaji , do you think all the posts in this group are promoting 'self realization' ? on the contrary , some of them are self serving posts - either promoting one's guru or one's institution ! in between these two , shankara's vedanta gets diluted a lot - ! something to think about ! ! BUT , OVER THE YEARS , I HAVE BECOME A 'HAMSINI' - I KNOW HOW TO SEPEARTE THE MILK FROM THE WATER ! ( USE MY vIVEKA) read this from our beloved Bhaskar prabhuji : " Hence, my paramaguruji H.H. Sri Sri Satchidaanandendra Saraswati mahAswamiji's clarion call is " go back to shankara's prasthAna trayi bhAshya if you need any clarification in siddhAnta nirNaya because they are self sufficient to clarify anything & everything in advaita vEdAnta " .... NOW , I HAVE A GROUP CALLED SADHNANA SHAKTI which is devoted to the teachings of my 'parama' guru Brahmanshakti ! Similarly , our bhaskar prabhuji could also start a group for his paramaguru Sri Sri Satchidaanandendra Saraswati and propagate his paramaguru's teachings ! A very easy solution to a complex problem ! Bhaskarji keeps asking about list policies and then exceeds his quota of postings by posting more than 3 posts a day ! all these only go to show how in his zeal and enthusiasm to promote His paramaguru , he even overlooks the list guidelines ! ! i had a long conversation with shastriji on my 'mobile BUT ' and let me share this with you , sadaji - our shastriji is the most enlightened vedantin i have ever met - very sweet and very humble ! i am surprised you have not still met him being in the same city ! do not let go of this opportunity ! sadaji , it is through this list , i have met many knowledgeble souls and therefore this is one 'attachment ' i would never give up ! This satsangha started by our beloved Ramji is like a 'sandalwood' tree - whoever comes in contact with a sandalwood tree also gets the 'fragrance' of the sandalwood tree ! to that extent , this list has served its purpose ..... now , Enlightenment is a matter of individual experience and cannot be distributed in a capsule form ! let us leave it at that ! i am enjoying my stay in India and get a lot of satisfaction in taking care of my 86 +old mom and infant granddaughter ! Paropakaram idam shariram - this body is meant for service to others! on 28th, i will be back in the States - to my mundane life of 'earning ' a Bread ! this visit , i did not go to any Holy places - my weay head was resting on my Mother's lap and my hands were servicing my mom and my granddaughter ! love to all What is self realization , sadaji ? at the end of the day - self has no bmi ! but the advaitins in this list come under different shapes and sizes ! somewhere along the line , for wamnt of a . advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > --- bhagini_niveditaa <bhagini_niveditaa > wrote: > although Shri > > Nairji in all his > > infinite wisdom, has asked me not to resort to > > tangential > > quotations , i am still going to quote an Arabic > > Proverb : > > bhaginiji - PraNAms. > Thanks for your sentiments. I do however concur with > Nairji that tangential quotations and topics out of > the main theme will distract the chain of thoughts and > do not serve the purpose of serious discussions on the > issues raised. Let us help each other with self > realization. Ultimately that is all that counts. I > hope you agree with this. Thanks again for your kind > words. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 OK to interject? advaitin , " bhagini_niveditaa " <bhagini_niveditaa wrote: > > Sadaji , do you think all the posts in this group are > promoting 'self realization' ? on the contrary , some of them are > self serving posts - either promoting one's guru or one's > institution ! For what it's worth, this is a topical list (not general nondualism) - and please no offense, but I think all topical lists are subject to a little dogma. Just the nature of the beast, IMO. > in between these two , shankara's vedanta gets diluted > a lot - ! something to think about ! I don't think so - for one, it's all out there in books/writings already :-). Honest, not trying to put you on the spot but from here it looks a little silly to get emotional about... > ! BUT , OVER THE YEARS , I HAVE > BECOME A 'HAMSINI' - I KNOW HOW TO SEPEARTE THE MILK FROM THE > WATER ! ( USE MY vIVEKA) Don't forget Vairagya, brother... they go hand in hand. Peace... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 --- bhagini_niveditaa <bhagini_niveditaa bhaginiji - PraNAms. just want to bring to your attention - As you know, others are doing therefore it is OK to do is not a defense, even in court. Occasionally if it is done, the distraction may be tolerated. But if it becomes post after post, then moderators have to step in. One can start a different topic and start the discussion on the tangential topic without taking the current discussion off tangent - What Nairji asked you not to do is the right thing. As a member at large, I agree with him. Of course, as a co-moderator, I would endorse him, not because moderators have to support each other, but because it is more meaningful for everyone to have a separate topic discussion than take the current topic into off-tangents paths. I am glad you are enjoying the Indian trip. We are also not looking for our visit back to States - but when Chennai starts heating up, the mood will change. Mouna is visiting us tomorrow. Take care bhaginiji - but still not supportive of off-tangent posts that distract the main topic. It is for everybody's benefit to curtail that type of posts. Nairji is absolutely correct in that. Not because he is co-moderator but because it is the right thing to do. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 --- vijaya <ramesamvijaya wrote: > > With reference to the above discussion of the > members, I would like > to > submit that a detailed explanation of this issue is > available > in " Yogataaraavali of Adisankaracharya " , Ramesamji PraNAms - Do not know - is the authorship authenticated to Adi Shankaracharya? Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 all these only go to show how in his zeal and enthusiasm to promote His paramaguru he even overlooks the list guidelines ! ! praNAms Hare Krishna I think our beloved mAtAji must not be in her elements when she was framing this baseless allegation on me... Kindly let me know in how many mails I am imposing my paramaguruji's views on this list?? When my paramaguruji himself asking us to goback to *shankara's views*, how can I do this marketing job on behalf of him :-)) Since this list is dedicated to propagate advaita vEdAnta *as taught* by shankara bhagavatpAda, I said, my paramaguruji also saying the same thing....It may kindly be noted that I've not quoted not even a single sentence from my paramaguruji's independent works to hear this idiotic comments....When it comes to shankara siddhAnta & its deliberation on it, to the best of my ability I've been quoting ONLY shankara bhagavatpAda's works...Even in that para which mAtAji passionately quoted in her last mail to prove me *wrong* has nothing to do with marketing business...FYI here it is again : // quote // " Hence, my paramaguruji H.H. Sri Sri Satchidaanandendra Saraswati mahAswamiji's clarion call is " go back to shankara's prasthAna trayi bhAshya if you need any clarification in siddhAnta nirNaya because they are self sufficient to clarify anything & everything in advaita vEdAnta " .... // unquote // Any sensible person would know that this is only a statement which is demanding the mumukshu-s to stick to their paramAchArya for the understanding of their own school of thought....Dont we have this basic agenda in our list policies?? mAtAji, you may please be noted that if at all I need to do this marketing job on the cyber net, I've better ways & means to do it.... It is a common propoganda trick that when you want to distract people from your own problems you shout loudly about something else. Thanks for your understanding. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 The practitioner who reaches this stage is called " KNower of Brahman (Brhmavit). " In spite of reaching this level an achieving an understanding tht " I am Brahman " , the seeker needs to be on constant vigil to retain that thought without break praNAms Sri Vijaya prabhuji Hare Krishna There is an assurance in shruti that *the knower of brahman (brahmavit) would become brahman itself*...brahmavit brahmaivabhavati - muNdaka shruti..Neither in shruti nor in shankara bhAshya on this maNtra, it has been said that *after brahmavit* there are somany subsequent steps to become specialist knower of brahman i.e. brahmavidvarishTa...And shankara in gIta bhAshya says the dawn of this brahmajnAna would eliminate the very notion of doership/knowership & sublates the triputi i.e. pramAtru, pramEya & pramANa....but as per the above observation, it seems that there is a difference between *brahmavit* of mundaka shruti & *brahmavit* of yOgatArAvaLi...what is that difference?? whether *the knowing of brahman* above refers to ONLY intellectual understanding of brahma tatva?? Kindly clarify. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 Namaste Dr. Shyam-ji. Thanks for your research findings on Sw. Krishnanandaji's views. I am very poor about historical facts. My knowledge of the history of Indian philosophical thoughts is next to nothing. You may be right in your assessemnt. I am not quite sure. However, there is a contradiction, I am afraid, in the last para of your post vis-a-vis Swamiji's following unambiguous statement: QUOTE The Prarabdha in the Jivanmukta is not experienced by his consciousness; it is not a content of the Absolute-Consciousness; it is existent only to the other ignorant Jivas who perceive the existence or the movements of his body. http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/realis/realis_6a.html UNQUOTE The survival of the mind and intellect after the occurrence of brahmajnAna sounds very strange to my advaitic mind. While saying this, I do accept UpadesasAra, BG and their authors as Grace manifesting and showing the way to the ignorant JivAs. Does the apparent divergence in our views on this topic in this foolish phenomenal matter so much after all, Shyamji? PraNAms. Madathil Nair ___________________ advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote: > he (Sw. Krishnanandaji) while elaborating the vedantic concept of jivanmukti rightly asserts that having been enlightened or liberated there is absolutely no question of the jnani having to do anything - or having to work for the benefit of other jivas who are not yet liberated. In advaita of course there is no other thing - no other person who needs to be liberated - All is Brahman Alone.When we say the jnani may choose to teach advaita to a student, please understand that in the jnani's vision [a]there is no abhimana no kartrtva-buddhi no ahankara no sense of a " i " as a individual, and the student is poornam - which he or she is! At the same time, the jnani's mind and intellect does not (fortunately) get " sublated into the totality of being " - hence alone we have the Shankara bhashyas, the Vartikas, the tikas, we have the Upadesa Sara etc etc - why - we even have the Holy > Bhagawad Gita. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 I am sorry, Sai. I should have scrolled down to the bottom of your post. I will be careful next time. PraNAms. Madathil Nair _______________ advaitin , " Indian Rediff " <indianrediff wrote: > > Dear Nairji, > > You can address me as Sai. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Dear Bhaskar prabhu-ji Pranams - and thank you for your kind words. I am happy to share with you my understanding. From a jnani's perspective everything is Brahman alone. To a ajnani there are three things - i, this mithya jagat, and the satyam Brahman. To a jnani both the i and the mithya jagat which very much includes " his " karya-karana sanghata. When everything is known to be Brahman then there is no " other thing " to label as " mithya " - the entire mithya is seen to be satyam alone. Let us examine the BG and Krishna's words.. yoga samnyasta karmanam jnana sachinna samsayam atmavantam na karmani nibadhnanti dhanamjaya 4.41 O Dhananjaya (Arjuna), actions do not bind one who has renounced actions through yoga, whose doubt has been fully dispelled by Knowledge, and who is not inadvertent. And Shankara in his commentary clearly explains this as follows: The Lord says: He is jnana-samchinna-samsayah, one whose doubts (samsaya) have been fully dispelled (samchinna) by Knowledge (jnana) characterized as the realization of the identity of the individual Self and God. O Dhananjaya, he who has thus renounced actions through yoga, atmavantam, who is not inadvertent, not careless; him, karmani, actions, seen as the activities of the gunas (see 3.28); na nibadhnanti, do not bind, (i.e.) they do not produce a result in the form of evil etc. Since one whose doubts have been destroyed by Knowledge-arising from the destruction of the impurities (of body, mind, etc.) as result of the practise of Karma-yoga-does not get bound by acitons owing to the mere fact of his actions having been burnt away by Knowledge Further in a different section tad-buddhayas tad-atmanas tan-nisthas tat-parayanah gacchanty apunar-avrttim jnana-nirdhuta-kalmasah vidya-vinaya-sampanne brahmane gavi hastini suni caiva sva-pake ca panditah sama-darsinah The sama-darsinah that is being talked about is with reference to none other than the tad-buddhaya - the Ones whose intellect is absorbed in that. Please read Shankara's commentary on this ensuing section. The point is yes - the Enlightened Seer is non-separate from Brahman. He does not harbor any vision other than that of Brahman. " Safely " encoscned in that vision, any transactions that " his " body has to engage in is witnessed unattachedly. So let us say a question is posed to ,just to take a example, say Ramana Maharshi, " He " of course hears the question, understands it, and can articulate a appropriate reply. Which karya-karana-sanghata partakes in this transaction - from our standpoint - " his own " - after all some other ear cannot hear the question and some other intellect cannot formulate an answer - right? In fact if every enlightened person were to be " absorbed " into " Brahman " who could ever find a Guru? If then, you actually find one, you can be sure he has not yet been enlightened! :-) Now if you say - no..no..from the standpoint of the Maharshi He is with certitude absorbed into nirguna Brahman, he is akarta, etc..then my answer is yes - of course from HIS standpoint He IS akarta.. He has no abhimana over anything including the body-mind that is " as though " housing Him from the prior prarabdha of " ITS " ajnana-based ahankara. Ok...now..you may say fine - in that case, since he is akarta, let us simply say that Ishwara or Grace is speaking and He Himself is not, Grace or Ishwara or Devi is writing the Upadesa Sara and not the Maharshi. He never decides to do anything as He does not have a will - it is Ishwara's will or the Cosmic will. Well let me ask you this then? Who is writing this email right now? Who else but Ishwara or Grace alone. Who is reading this note right now? Ishwara alone. The eyes reading it - Ishwara. The intellect processing it - Ishwara. Even the mind accepting or rejecting it - Ishwara alone! But what do I, the ajnani, do - I misappropriate ownership of this body/mind/organs and say these are " my " eyes, this is " my " view; this is " my " thought. Why? Because of kartrtva buddhi/abhimana/ahankara alone. For a Jnani nothing changes except this wondrous misappropriation comes to an end - why? because the avidya-born " agent " responsible for is dead and gone.So when a Jnani speaks what is heard is as good as Ishwara's words, what is written is as good as Ishwara's thoughts - there is no avidya based " individual " who seemingly comes in the way. Now to your question " can a jnani have a satyam and a mithya part? " Let us hear Krishna's words: " apareyam itas tv anyam prakrtim viddhi me param jiva-bhutam maha-baho yayedam dharyate jagat " O mighty-armed one, iyam, this; is apara, the inferior (Prakrti)-not the higher, (but)-the impure, the source of evil and having the nature of worldly bondage. Viddhi, know; anyam, the other, pure; prakrtim, Prakrti; me, of Mine, which is essentially Myself; which, tu, however;is param, higher, more exalted; itah, than this (Prakrti) already spoken of; Jiva-bhutam, which has taken the form of the individual souls, which is characterized as 'the Knower of the body (field)', and which is the cause of sustenance of life; and yaya, by which Prakriti; idam, this; jagat, world; dharyate, is upheld, by permeating it. Here is Bhagwan Himself! - saying he has a mithya aspect - Prakrti and a satyam aspect - Atman or Brahman. Can what is true for Bhagwan not be true for a Jnani? :-) It boils down to this - for a ajnani - Maya or Prakrti is samsara, a raging tormenting sea that requires tremendous effort to cross and transcend - for a Jnani the very same prakrti is His - His vibhuti. He IS the sustainer of this show of plurality and this plurality is also HIM alone. The wave having arisen, has to recognize itself as water - having done that - its wave " ness " then is immaterial - it can rise it can fall it can rise and fall again and again - every wave is its wave alone - nothing can take away from its abiding sense of poornatvam as water. Like I said in my previous email, one can from a paramarthic standpoint say that there is only satyam,JNANAM,anantam Brahman, and naught else. But as soon as we utter the word " JNANI " , at once there comes into play three things - a ajnani who is handing out this label, a " individual " Jnani, and Brahman, whom the ajnani has faith the aforesaid Jnani is " one with " . The blemish is in us. The Seers " know " - in the words of the Mundaka - atma vido viduh - the " Knowers " know! Humble pranams, Shri Gurubhyoh namah Hari OM Shyam Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr advaitin Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:29:48 AM Re: Re: What is self realization ?? Hare Krishna After reading your thoughtful insights, Sri sadananda prabhuji's reconciliatory replies & seeing Sri Shastri prabhuji's all embracing approach towards advaita, I think I am missing something or misunderstanding something in respect of *jnAni's vyavahAra in this empirical world* Can jnAni who is brahman himself have sat & asat vikAra like the above within himself ?? Even after realization of dEsha,kAlA, dEhAtIta jnAna, how can the jnAni say since I am in *this body* I am only jnAni but not brahman ?? Change settings via the Web ( ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Terms of Use | Un Recent Activity 8New Members Visit Your Group Finance It's Now Personal Guides, news, advice & more. Y! Messenger PC-to-PC calls Call your friends worldwide - free! Weight Loss Group on Get support and make friends online.. ______________________________\ ____ Never miss a thing. Make your home page. http://www./r/hs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 vijaya wrote: > - > A few Extracts follow: > > " Satvapatii is the fourth stage of Knowledge-based Path..........The > practitioner who reaches this stage is called " KNower of Brahman > (Brhmavit). " In spite of reaching this level an achieving an > understanding tht " I am Brahman " , the seeker needs to be on constant > vigil to retain that thought without break.........Verse 20, Ch. > Unmani > Yoga, Yogataaraavali makes a reference to this state. > ....... > The knower of Brahman becomes Brahman. The question of effort and vigilance cannot arise in Self-Realization at all. Satvapatii refers to Self-Realization where the Self becomes effortlessly and spontaneously evident. Even if a Jnani is in samadhi and/or engaged in prayer or meditation, or other works, there is no effort being made whatsoever by anyone. The ancient sages have told us that Self-Realization is not gaining of anything new but simply a recognition of our true nature. We are, in fact, always Self-Realized. Self is always Self-Evident to It Self. When the mind has been purified to a degree, upon hearing from the Guru, " You are That " the conviction arises, " Yes, I Myself am indeed Brahman, the One without a second. It is Me that the scriptures are referring to " . This conviction becomes stronger with reflection and grace and the Self is reflected more and more in the subtle intellect. Nirvikalpa Samadhi reveals fully the Self-Nature of the Self as Sat-Chit-Ananda. Sri Ramana has said that even then, one should be vigilant and practice until the Self becomes spontaneously self-evident. That is the Sahaj or natural state of the Jnani. As stated earlier, the differences are not in the Jnana whether in fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh stage but differences in experiences of Jnanis (mental and physical states and how they are perceived and honored). The differences in experiences of Jnanis are due to their previous merits. The question of effort and or vigilance does not arise in a Jnani. These are all previous stages. Namaste and love to all Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 hariH OM! sai-ji, pranaam. the actual koan is phrased closer to the following: " when i began my zen study, mountains were mountains and rivers were rivers; after i advanced, mountains were no longer mountains nor rivers rivers; after enlightenment mountains were again mountains and rivers were rivers. " (note: the so-called " oxherding pictures " of zen describes this in detail..) the above three stages might be described thus: 1. in the beginning, the novice remains for sometime comparable to what the common and therefore naive view of the world is, being content with the idea that things are simply what they appear to be and nothing more (mountains are mountains, etc); 2. whereas after progressing on the path, things are no longer regarded as simply what they seem to be, as such, and begin to take on progressively deeper philosophical and metaphysical meanings (mountains are no longer mountains, etc); 3. while, after some [variable] period of time, the investigative/pragmatic journery finally results in enlightenment (moksha), where the world is experienced as the Self itself, *naturally* (mountains become again mountains, etc.) this state is the vedantic equivalent of being immersed in sahaja samadhi, the *natural* state. it is for the above reason that buddha remained silent whenever questioned about the nature of reality. to my understanding, his mission was geared specifically to show the way to the " buddha nature " (paramartha of paramatman), and in order to achieve this [what buddhists refer to as the " transmission of the lamp, " akin to the jnanamarga], he refrained from metaphysical speculation, as well as, of course, speculation on the nature of the relative world (vyavahara of maya). this is also why he was regarded as an atheist, where it was erroneously interpreted that his silence, in effect, discounted any reality of the existence of the soul. here is where sankara's advaita made the next vital step in apprehending maya, where he refered to it as [the seeming paradox of being] real yet unreal, or relatively real, and therefore finally proclaiming its nature as indescribable (anirvachaniya). ramana as well as ramakrishna paramahamsa, among others, reiterated this doctrine of mayavada. obviously this latter has spawned vigorous debate, where the majority of advaitins, as well as apparently most proponents of the other major spiritual (religious) philosophies also conclude that the world is simply unreal (mithya). namaskaar, frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 This is not in reply to any particular post on this subject, but only an elucidation of the subject itself. The contrast between the unenlightened and the enlightened person is brought out in the following sentences in chandogya up. VIII. 12. 1:- - Surely, for the one with a body (sasharIra) there can be no elimination of the desirable and the undesirable. But the desirable and the undesirable cannot surely touch the one without a body (asharIra). 'The one with a body' means the ignorant man and `the one without a body' means the realized person. Sri Sankara explains the meanings of the terms `sasharIra' and `asharIra' in his bhAshya on this mantra as follows:-- 'Being with a body' or embodiment for the Self which is by nature without a body, consists in its (Self's) identification with the body through the wrong notion in the form `I am the body indeed, and the body verily am I'. Unembodied means freed from the idea of identity with the body, through the knowledge of its (Self's) own nature of unembodiedness. Thus the difference between the ignorant man and the realized one is that the former has identification with the BMI and the latter does not. As a consequence the former feels joys and sorrows but the latter does not. In his bhAshya on gItA 5.13 Sri Shankara says: " The embodied one, who is unenlightened, who perceives merely the aggregates of the body and organs as the Self, thinks, " I am in a house, on the ground, or on a seat " . But, for one who realizes the Self as distinct from the aggregate of body, etc., it becomes reasonable to have the conviction, `I am in the body' " . That is to say, the ignorant man considers himself to be the body itself, but the enlightened considers himself to be only the Self dwelling in a body. Thus here again the difference between the ignorant and the enlightened has been brought out as consisting in identification or non-identification with the BMI. Self-knowledge removes only the ignorance which was the cause of a wrong attitude towards the BMI. Sri Shankara says further in the bhAshya on the same gItA shloka: Even in the case of one in whom has arisen discriminating wisdom and who has renounced all actions, there can be, like staying in a house, the continuance in the body itself, ---the town with nine gates--- as a consequence of the persistence of the remnants of the results of past actions which have started bearing fruit (prArabdha karma), because the awareness of being distinct (from the body) arises while one is in the body itself. S.N.Sastri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Humble praNAms Sri Shyam prabhuji Hare Krishna Thank you very much for taking time to clarify my doubt in an elaborated manner. As usual, you quite clear in sharing your understanding & to the point...I was just curious to know the context of this BG verse which you have quoted to say that even bhagavan has satya & asatya part in him... Sri Shyam prabhuji: Now to your question " can a jnani have a satyam and a mithya part? " Let us hear Krishna's words: " apareyam itas tv anyam prakrtim viddhi me param jiva-bhutam maha-baho yayedam dharyate jagat " O mighty-armed one, iyam, this; is apara, the inferior (Prakrti)-not the higher, (but)-the impure, the source of evil and having the nature of worldly bondage. Here is Bhagwan Himself! - saying he has a mithya aspect - Prakrti and a satyam aspect - Atman or Brahman. Can what is true for Bhagwan not be true for a Jnani? :-) bhaskar : prabhuji dont you think, this geeta verse (is it in 7th chapter??) is there to establish bhavan's tattva & his pervasion?? sAnkhya-s say paNcha tanmAtra-s, ahankAra, mahat & avyakta are achEtana tattva...but bhagavan here establishing that his pervasion covers these elements also... how can it be related to asat (avidyA) vyavahAra of a jnAni?? In 5th chapter, lord says jnAnEna tu tadajnAnaM, yEshAM nAshitamAtmanaH, tEshAmAdityavajnAnaM, prakAshayati tatparaM...going by this shankara says in bruhadAraNyaka bhAshya (which I've quoted y'day) that jnAna & ajnAna cannot have the same locus in one purusha...Hence I asked that doubt prabhuji...Anyway, thanks for your clarification at the end of your mail as below : Sri shyam prabhuji : But as soon as we utter the word " JNANI " , at once there comes into play three things - a ajnani who is handing out this label, a " individual " Jnani, and Brahman, whom the ajnani has faith the aforesaid Jnani is " one with " . The blemish is in us. The Seers " know " - in the words of the Mundaka - atma vido viduh - the " Knowers " know! bhaskar : that is beautifully said, I am in complete agreement with you prabhuji. Yes, the blemish is ONLY in us...The *seers* of triputi i.e. jnAni's jnAtrutva, jnEya & jnAna...But as far as jnAni is concerned he is nitya, shuddha, buddha, mukta yEkAtma *without* any blemishes...as such... Thanks onceagain for your precious time prabhuji. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Namaste Shastri-gAru. May I call you gAru? Does Shankara call him a jnAni? PraNAms. Madathil Nair _______________ advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > Sri Shankara says further in the bhAshya on the same gItA shloka: > Even in the case of one in whom has arisen discriminating wisdom and > who has renounced all actions, there can be, like staying in a > house, the continuance in the body itself, ---the town with nine > gates--- as a consequence of the persistence of the remnants of the > results of past actions which have started bearing fruit (prArabdha > karma), because the awareness of being distinct (from the body) > arises while one is in the body itself. > S.N.Sastri > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Namaste Dr. Shyamji. Your message 39216 addresseed to Bhaskarji. You said: QUOTE > Like I said in my previous email, one can from a paramarthic standpoint say that there is only satyam,JNANAM,anantam Brahman, and naught else. But as soon as we utter the word " JNANI " , at once there comes into play three things - a ajnani who is handing out this label, a " individual " Jnani, and Brahman, whom the ajnani has faith the aforesaid Jnani is " one with " . The blemish is in us. The Seers " know " - in the words of the Mundaka - atma vido viduh - the " Knowers " know! UNQUOTE One hundred percent agreed. Yes, as soon as we utter the word " jnAni " . Yes, the blemish is with us the ajnAnis. This is what I and Sw. Krishnanandaji have been saying all along and Shri Bhaskarji also if I understand him right. Then, why are we arguing? Just because having said this, you go further and grant the jnAni a mind and intellect, a 'visa' like Sada-ji calls it. The conceptualizaion of jnAnihood takes place in the phenomenal. We ought to be advaitic in our conceptualization. We, therefore, have no right to grant the jnAni a mind and intellect, since advaita says that we cannot add anything to the jnAni,who is alrady full and Brahman. Neither do we have the right to split him into parts like body, mind and intellect. Moksha is divisionless Brahman as Sw. Shivanandaji said. PraNAms. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Dear Bhaskar prabhu-ji Humble pranams. [Parts of this post (in the interest of time) are also addressed to Nair-ji as the subject-matter is the same] This verse is from Chapter 7 as you rightly pointed out. I noticed for the second successive post that you have used the term " asat " when I have used the term " mithya " - the first time around I ignored it as a casual " slip " - the only reason I bring it up is not in the least bit as a semantic squibble, but because I think it is very crucial in discussing this subject matter. There is a world of difference between the two concepts - as any devoted follower of Shankara's works such as yourself knows only too well. It is absolutely true that there can never be sat and asat in the same locus - they being of opposite polarity like night and day. In the Gita itself we have the immortal lines " nasato vidyate bhavah naabhavo vidyate satah. " But Bhaskar-ji mithya is NOT asat - this is the beauty of Vedanta. There is nonduality IN the very duality that is apparent and hence mithya. Mithya does not have to go away - mithya understood is nothing but satyam. The pot does not need to be broken to appreciate the clay much less the gold necklace melted into " pure " gold. Mithya and Satyam are forever in the same locus! Anything other than satyam jnanam anantam brahman has two aspects - the sat aspect and the mithya (NOT asat!) aspect. Take Ishwara - what is sat about Ishwara is Brahman, what is mithya is Maya - his inscrutable " anirvachaneeyam satasatvilakshaneeyam " Power. Take a Jnani - what is Sat about the Jnani is the verysame Brahman - which he is established in - what is mithya is Ishwara's Maya-prakrti - that fashioned this karya-karana-sanghata borne out of " a " avidya-borne ahankara which no longer is - that sanghata now is only " as though " harboring him - in reality the Jnani as Brahman is all-pervading, One, without a second. But this does not mean that his intellect and mind are " gone " - if that were so - like I said in my previous post - please explain to me how could anyone teach? who would be a Guru? Only a brahmavit, a tattvavit, a brahmanishthaa, can be a Guru - when Krishna says " tattva-vit tu maha-baho guna-karma-vibhagayoh guna gunesu vartante iti matva na sajjate " - if a tattva-vit has no mind and no intellect then please explain to me if this " iti matva " is possible or makes any sense? What prolific intelligence Bhagwan Shankara had to write all these bashyas! - what an Ocean of compassion! - and all this intelligence without an intellect?? and compassion without a mind?? Can Brahman -- which is akarta, nirguna, asanga have Compassion? So if you say Bhagwan Shankara wrote the Shankarabhasyams ;-), and many other works, one has to perforce admit that as an individual Bhagwan Shankara (and this is true for any other Jnani - take your own ParamaGuruji as another example) did have a razor-sharp intellect and a overwhelmingly compassionate mind. This does not in any way compromise on advaita precisely because of the difference between " mithya " and " asat " Advaita is understanding the nonduality that is inherent in the duality. Understanding that my eyes, the intellect that sees, the act of seeing, and what is seen are One and that One is " I " - the light of all lights -jyotisam jyoti, shrotrasya shrotram, etc. THIS is nonduality IN duality. Then alone can this Brahma-vit bless so many others - not because " he " has a obligation to - but because Grace or the Cosmic Order is allowed to use his BMI to benefit others - there being no " ahankara " to impede Its functioning. See what Shankara says in his commentary on BG 3.22-25, " if, like Me, you or some one else possesses the conviction of having attained Perfection and is a knower of the Self, it is a duty of such a one, too, to help others even if there be no obligation on his own part. O scion of the Bharata dynasty, yatha, as; some avidvamsah, unenlightened poele; kurvanti, act. saktah, with attachment; karmani, to work, (thinking) 'The reward of this work will accrue to me'; tatha, so; should vidvan, the enlightened person, the knower of the Self; kuryat, act; asaktah, without attachment, remaining unattached. Why does he (the enlightened person) act like him (the former)? Listen to that: Cikirsuh, being desirous of achieving; lokasamgraham, prevention of people from going astray. 'Neither for Me who am a knower of the Self, nor for any other (knower of the Self) who wants thus prevent people from going astray, is there any duty apart from working for the welfare of the world. Hence, the following advice is being given to such a knower of the Self:' I do not know about you, but to me in the unambiguous words, Krishna is not talking about Knowers of the Self who have been rendered bereft of both mind and intellect. The mithya involved in this transactionality does not compromise on the advaitic substratum in which it occurs. Ahankara is purely notional. To pretend that manas and buddhi can " resolve " into Brahman, can be sublated into " Pure Being " or any concept of that kind is absurd - manas and buddhi ARE Brahman - everything IS Brahman - then where can there be any question of something that will resolve into Brahman - that too at a point in the future time when time again is Brahman - it is like saying the wave's waveness will one day resolve into water - there is no wave other than water! - there is no intellect other than Brahman. And so by referring to a Jnani's intellect we are not partitioning Brahman - even conceptually. So for a Jnani - the body, mind and intellect are also not other than Brahman, his shishyas if any are also similarly not other than Brahman, their asking him questions is also Brahman and his answers is also Brahman Alone. Advaita is never compromised in " His " vision. Hari OM Shri Gurubhyo namah Shyam Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr advaitin Friday, January 25, 2008 4:01:43 AM Re: Re: What is self realization ?? Humble praNAms Sri Shyam prabhuji " .I was just curious to know the context of this BG verse which you have quoted to say that even bhagavan has satya & asatya part in him... " " whether jnAni, who has realized his *satyasya satya* svarUpa can have *asat* (avidyA) part also in him ?? If yes, how can he be called *satya* svarUpa? can satya svarUpa accommodates a partial space for asat also in its domain?? can jnAni who is brahman himself have sat & asat vikAra like the above within himself ?? Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskarRecent Activity 8New Members Visit Your Group Finance It's Now Personal Guides, news, advice & more. Mechanic Group What to do after you pop the hood. Parenting Zone Share experiences with other parents.. ______________________________\ ____ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Search. http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 Dear Shri Shyam, Your post is most wonderful and full of substance. I agree with all that you have said. I feel that you should send such posts more often. I do not now have the physical energy to type out such long notes or enter into arguments. I enjoyed reading your note. Best wishes, S.N.Sastri In advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote: > > Dear Bhaskar prabhu-ji > Humble pranams. [Parts of this post (in the interest of time) are also addressed to Nair-ji as the subject-matter is the same] > > So for a Jnani - the body, mind and intellect are also not other than Brahman, his shishyas if any are also similarly not other than Brahman, their asking him questions is also Brahman and his answers is also Brahman Alone. > Advaita is never compromised in " His " vision. > > Hari OM > Shri Gurubhyo namah > Shyam > > > > > > > Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr > advaitin > Friday, January 25, 2008 4:01:43 AM > Re: Re: What is self realization ?? > > Humble praNAms Sri Shyam prabhuji > > " .I was just curious to know the context of this BG verse which you > have quoted to say that even bhagavan has satya & asatya part in him... " > > " whether jnAni, who has realized his *satyasya satya* svarUpa can have *asat* (avidyA) part also in him ?? If yes, how can he be called *satya* svarUpa? can satya svarUpa accommodates a partial space for asat also in its domain?? can jnAni who is brahman himself have sat & asat vikAra like the above within himself ?? > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > > bhaskarRecent Activity > 8New Members > Visit Your Group > Finance > It's Now Personal > Guides, news, > advice & more. > > Mechanic Group > What to do after > you pop the hood. > > Parenting Zone > Share experiences > with other parents.. > > > > ___________________ _______________ > Looking for last minute shopping deals? > Find them fast with Search. http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php? category=shopping > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 Namaste Sastri-ji and Dr. Shaym-ji. YES, THERE IS BRAHMAN ALONE FOR JNANI, HE IS ONE AND THE ONLY ONE AND THEREFORE BRAHMAN WITHOUT ANY SCOPE FOR SEPARATION (TIME AND SPACE). However, for Sastriji and Dr. Shyamji (Nair-ji included) there is only an *understanding* that separation is naught and everything that they see around is Brahman. While Nair-ji doesn't want to stop with that understanding, Dr. Shyamji and Sastriji think that they have reached where they should. I am afraid we are repeating the same thing again and again and feeding our egos. So, I am retiring from this debate. I also feel that, fundamentallly, there is actually no divergence of views between the two sides. Can we, therefore, call what is happening mAyA?! ajnAna it definitely is! Before concluding, may I acknoweldge, with thanks to every participant, that this satsangh has indeed broadened the horizons of my knowledge. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ______________ advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > > Dear Shri Shyam, > Your post is most wonderful and full of substance. I agree with all > that you have said. I feel that you should send such posts more > often. I do not now have the physical energy to type out such long > notes or enter into arguments. I enjoyed reading your note. > Best wishes, > S.N.Sastri > __________________ > In advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md@> wrote: > > > > Dear Bhaskar prabhu-ji > > Humble pranams. [Parts of this post (in the interest of time) are > also addressed to Nair-ji as the subject-matter is the same] > > > > So for a Jnani - the body, mind and intellect are also not other > than Brahman, his shishyas if any are also similarly not other than > Brahman, their asking him questions is also Brahman and his answers > is also Brahman Alone. > > Advaita is never compromised in " His " vision. > > > > Hari OM > > Shri Gurubhyo namah > > Shyam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 Dear Shyam-ji, Brilliantly expressed! My own view is that mithyAtva is possibly the single most important concept in the teaching of advaita and yet I encounter whole books on advaita that do not even mention it! One slight 'complaint' is that there are quite a lot of untranslated Sanskrit words in your post so that I worry that some members may not give your post the attention it deserves. Plus, I would like (with your permission) at some later date to add this to the essays at my website and more Sanskrit means more editing work for me! L Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Shyam 25 January 2008 20:22 advaitin Re: Re: What is self realization ?? Dear Bhaskar prabhu-ji Humble pranams. [Parts of this post (in the interest of time) are also addressed to Nair-ji as the subject-matter is the same] This verse is from Chapter 7 as you rightly pointed out. I noticed for the second successive post that you have used the term " asat " when I have used the term " mithya " - the first time around I ignored it as a casual " slip " - the only reason I bring it up is not in the least bit as a semantic squibble, but because I think it is very crucial in discussing this subject matter. There is a world of difference between the two concepts - as any devoted follower of Shankara's works such as yourself knows only too well. 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.