Four kinds of Non-existence (abhAva)

August 19, 2008

Namaste all,

I have been enjoying this spate of posts on this topic, which has led

us on to the peak of advaitic experience! I think some shlokas from

the last chapter of AshhTaavakra Gita would be quite a fitting

conclusion to this thought process. Here are some shlokas:

#5: kva kartA kva ca vA bhoktA nishhkriyaM sphuraNaM kva vA /

kvAparokshhaM phalaM vA kva nissvabhAvasya me sadA //

Meaning: Where is the doer or the enjoyer, where is cessation of

thought or the rising of thought, where is directed knowledge or

reflected knowledge, for me who am very impersonal?

Explanation: Each cognition involves first a mental modification in

the form of the object and then a revelation of the object by

consciousness reflected on that mental modification. This process

generally applies in the case of worldly knowledge but not in the

case of Transcendental Consciousness.

#7: kva pramAtA pramANaM vA kva prameyaM kva ca pramA /

kva kimcit kva na kimcid-vA sarvadA vimalasya me //

Meaning: Where is the knower, or the means to knowledge, or the

object of knowledge, or knowledge itself? Where is anything and where

is nothing for me, who am very pure?

#13: kvopadeshaH kva vA shAstraM kva shishhyaH kva ca vA guruH /

kva cAsti purushhArtho vA nirupAdheH shivasya me//

Meaning: Where is instruction? Where is scriptural injunction? Where

is the disciple or the preceptor? Where indeed is the object of life

for me who am absolute good and free from limitation?

#4: kva prArabdhani karmANi jIvan-muktir-api kva vA/

kva tad-videha-kaivalyaM nirvisheshhasya sarvadA //

Meaning: Where are the karmas which are said to haved begun? Where is

mokshha-in-life and where is mokshha-in-death, for me, the ever-

undifferentiated?

Explanation: To a brahma-jnAni mokshha-in-life is a contradiction and

is as much a creation of ignorance as bondage. He denies life itself

and so denies liberation altogether. Liberation presupposes bondage,

but the Self is ever existent, ever unborn, ever free. It has never

been born; it has never been in bondage. The very idea of liberation

or mokshha is a serious limitation to the seeker of wisdom, for it

screens him from the true nature of the Self. The same logic applies

to mokshha-at-death, in which state the Self is permanently

disassociated from the body. But this idea of emancipation

presupposes the truth of the body and of bondage and goes directly

against the true nature of the Self.

#14: (Very last shloka of Ashtaavakra Gita):

kva cAsti kva ca vA nAsti kvAsti caikaM kva ca dvayaM /

bahunAtra kimuktena kimcin-nottishhTate mama //

Meaning: Where is Existence, where is non-existence? Where is unity,

where is Duality? What need is there to say more? Nothing emanates

from Me.

Explanation: The Self alone is the Reality. Nothing exists besides

the Self. There is no appearance even, for appearance is brought

about by Ignorance; and the negation of Ignorance can only take place

in Ignorance. Nor is Ignorance to be recognized. For the assertion of

Ignorance implies the existence of something other than the Self.

There is neither bondage nor liberation. The Self is ever free!

PraNAms to AshhTaavakra and all the advaitins!

profvk

August 19, 2008

The same logic applies

to mokshha-at-death, in which state the Self is permanently

disassociated from the body. But this idea of emancipation

presupposes the truth of the body and of bondage and goes directly

against the true nature of the Self.

praNAms Sri VK prabhuji

Hare Krishna

How beautifully said!! I think I have to read this advaita prakaraNa graNtha completely onceagain.... Yes, if we ascribe *saMpUrNa* mukti ONLY *after* the physical death, it presupposes the truth of the body!! same is the case with jnAni's prArabdha karma & *his* upahita chaitanya...which are presupposes the reality of jnAni's body & carrying this reality to even after realization though his realization reveals him that he indeed *always* asharIri...Anyway, in advaita, to accommodate anything/everything, we have the extra cushion in the name of vyavahAra & pAramArthika...put the jnAni's body, chaitanya bordered by upAdhi, his prArabdha karma etc.etc. in the compartment of vyavahAra & leave it with smile :-))

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

August 19, 2008

Shree Madhava - PraNAms

--- On Tue, 8/19/08, Madhava Turumella <madhava wrote:

As I learnt it the Brahman (or the one who realized Brahman)

becomes the PURE himself. An analogy of Mirror is given here. You

go in front of a mirror and it reflects your own self. So if I look

black in Mirror I can't blame the mirror for reflecting me black. I

am naturally black. Mirror will not have any memory of who is

standing in front of him.

------------

Madhava - I know you know but for the general readers, I have to restate these.

Actually Brahman never becomes pure since he is pure all the time. Becoming

pure can happen only if there is impurity at some time. A jnaani or anjnaani

both are pure and Brahman only; the difference is one knows and one does not

know. The slokas you quoted applies when one is realized or not realized.

ajnaana kale api aham brahmaasmi - even when I am ignorant, I am pure,

unadulterated eternal ever effulgent Brahman only. I do not become Brahman.

Nothing can become Brahman since there is nothing other than Brahman. That is

the fact. Realization of that fact, not as a thought, but as fact is

realization. Like in Mr. Jones storey that he has to realize that he is man and

not a rat, irrespective what cat thinks of him. So even when he thought he was a

rat, he was man only. He does not become man for him to realize that he is a

man. We all know this but yet we say we are looking for becoming Brahman -

Paaramaarthika is there where vyavahaara is. These are

not two differnt levels - but only involves clear understanding of the facts.

Looking for some experience of Brahman is also becomes a problem in the

realization of the very fact that one need to have to look for Brahman since one

is already Brahman. Only worng notions should be dropped. Hence this post too.

-------------

Madhava

I think my edge here is that I do not want to give any kind of

validity to Maya / avidya.

---------

Sadananda: Madhava please note that by that very statement you are in fact

validating Maya and avidya - please think about it.

------------

Madhava:

Is there a vyavahaarika level at which the Brahman behaves in the

world? I don't think so.

--------

Sadananda:

Madhava, please examine your words again. If you say 'Brahman behaves' - by the

very verb you are already in vyavahaara. Brahman being Brahman (infinite) cannot

behave or not behave 'in the world'? Maya comes into picture when 'I " is there

to think or not to think what Brahman does! We are not talking about Brahman -

we are talking about I, the conscious entity.

---------

Madhava:

Then how could you explain the great

masters like Sri Shankara, Sri Ramana, Swami Chinmayananda and

Swamini Saradapriyananda? Incidentally I have asked this very same

question my teacher Swamini Saradapriyanandaji when I was living in

the Ashram and learning Upanishads. She told the following " you

think I exist, so I AM... the moment you walk out of this Ashram I

exist only in your memory... Even though I cease to exist, I still

exist as long as you exist, the moment you cease to exist you and me

will exist in someone elses memory... From the absolute reality, I

never cease to exist as there is no such thing called -- coming in

to existance ---

it is you --- out of avidya --- falsely thinking I came in to

exististance. .. So look from that standpoint "

----------

Sadananda: The statements of swamini are valid not only for her but even for us

too - whether we are jnaanis or ajnaanis. Because I see the world different from

me, I am bringing all the nine yards - the creator, creation, the world and I am

a seer and this is seen. This is true for a jnaani or ajnaani - only difference

is as Swamini pointed out jnaani knows and ajnaani does not.

Fundamental point to know is knowledge does not eliminate the world. knowledge

eliminates only ignorance about the world. Knowledge that this is wood and

table is only a name for a form of a wood does not eliminate the table - I see

the table and also recognize that it is nothing but wood only in that form. I

can still transact with the table knowing that both table and chair are wood

only in different forms. Knowing that table and chair are the made of same wood

does not negate their different vyavahaarik usages.

Same way about the world - a jnaani now knows that world is nothing but Brahman

in varieties of names and forms. Knowledge of Brahman as the basis for myself

and the world does not eliminate the plurality that is seen through the

equipments. I am still a seer and the world is seen - whether I am a jnaani or

not. Hence transaction at that vyavahaara can go on with the paaramaarthika

knowledge that everything is nothing but Brahman that I am. I give simple

example that knowing everything is nothing but electrons, protons, and neutrons

does not make me not to discriminate between garbage and food. Knowing

everything is the self that I am does not make me not to distinguish between

seer and the seen.

From the point of jnaani - the world becomes vibhuuti - pasyam me yogamaiswaram

- look at my glory Arjuna.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

August 19, 2008

--- On Tue, 8/19/08, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

Now, there is one more point we all must heed. Jnaani being Brahman,

there is no way a shiSya still languishing in avidya can have any

transactions with Him.

-----------

Sadananda:

Shree Nairji -PraNAms.

I do not think we must heed to anything! I just responded to Shree Madhava's

mail. But here I restate some facts that I understand whether we heed or not.

jnaani as well as ajnaanis are Brahman with not sajaati, vijaati and swagata

bhedas - any differences of any kind. All transactions are by definition is

vyavahaara only - whether avidya is there or not.

----------

Nairji:

So, the shiSya's guru, be he Shankara or Bh.

Ramana Himself, is only a vyAvaharik representation (projection, I

think, would be a better word) in the realm of avidya.

Sadananda: I would put it as projection by the power of maaya (hence

vyavahaarika). From jnaani's point it is maaya - since he knows that avidya he

had is now lost as shree sastriji mentioned. From ajnaani's point since he takes

the teaching, the teacher and the student are real, it is avidya about maaya!

Maya is menifestation of the teacher-taught and teaching plurality. Avidya

involves taking those manifestations as reality. For a teacher it is aatma kRida

or play of the Lord, if he want to be humble - Why does he play humbel and

compassion etc - so that student can learn that too - adhayt aachariti shreShTaH

... As Krishna says I follow the rules even though there is that I need to gain

in three worlds since if I do not follow the ajnaanis imitate without

understanding.

---------

Nairji:

Loka kalyANaM is the want of the still wanting. Not of a jnAni. (He

cannot be accused of compassion because He has nothing aside of Himself

to be compassionate with.)

--------

Sadananda: Not true. Jnaani operates like Iswara - As long as upaadhiis are

there, there is no difference between Iswara and jnaani - he will be using the

upaadhiis with in their limits to the best he can. Please study Gita - Krishna

says about jnaani - He has no self-motivation for an action - he spontaneously

acts for the benefit of the totality. I pervade my finger and my eye - hence if

my finger goes accidentally into my eye, I do not prosecute the finger - I use

the same finger to sooth the eye that was hurt. It is the same way.

It may be semantics here - I am Brahman is the knowledge - now Brahman 'as

though' operates the local equipments for the benefit of the world. Hence

jnaani is the Iswara in the world - guru brahma guru vishnu .. etc.

---------

Nairji:

So, the gurus who roam about triggerring

auspiciousness all over through writings, lectures, meditation camps,

audio-video, MP3s, and other Groups, etc. are all the projection

of the wanting ignorant. [i am (ignorant!), Advaitin is.]

It is wrong on our part to mix our Gurus, however exalted they are in

sature, with jnAni.

---------

Sadananda:

Nairji, if you want to be that careful - you have to include jnaanis too in the

list. Ultimately that there is a jnaani separate from the wanting ignorant as

you say is also ignorance only when there is only one without a second.

In my understanding you are intelligently transgressing paaramaarthika with

vyaavahaarika!, while accepting the two in your very first statement that we all

agree, etc. The power of maaya is incredible!

Nairji - Looks like we both are self-consistent!

Hari Om!

Sadananda

August 19, 2008

Namaste:

The on-going discussions at the intellectual level do demonstrate

some apparent contradictions if we apply logic as the only means to

understand the various statements in the scriptures and the words of

saints, sages and advaitic scholars. The scriptures have already

recognized that " intellectual and logical means " will not answer all

the questions that arise in our mind. The scripture says that The

Paaramaarthika Sathya can be recognized (realized) only by the

purified mind. We do need to recognize the fact that to claim " I am

the Brahman " is only possible if and only if the mind is pure. As a

Jiva, the only relevant question to me is: " Who am I? " As long as

this question remains, I am not the Brahman! How do I stop my

intellect to ask this question one way other? How do I stop my

intellect to stop seeing duality and plurality? How do I empty all my

thoughts from my mind? These questions often arise to all Jivas in

different forms, names and times.

The scripture provides a framework to burn all those thoughts with

the fire of " knowledge. " This knowledge is not the intellectual

knowledge (Apara vidya) but it is the knowledge of the SELF (Para

Vidya). Scripture rightly states (See the Upanishads, Gita and

Vivekachoodamani) that even reading the scriptures or hearing the

words of Guru, Sages and Saints to enhance or satisfy one's

intellectual curiosity alone will fall under the Apara vidya. The

understanding of the scriptures should be focused towards the

Brahmanic knowledge (Brahma vidya) and that means one has to single-

mindedly practice everything that is suggested in the scriptures

without raising any questions. The intellect no doubt will rise with

the question - " How do I know that the scriptures is right? " The

Scripture answers this question beautifully by saying that Shraddha

(Faith with conviction) is the fundamental ingredient for knowing the

Brahman. Faith is the means to believe what we don't see. When we

demonstrate that faith by practicing the words of scriptures

(Sadhana) we will be able to see what we believe. Without faith, the

mind and the intellect will be wandering (and wondering) without

getting any clues to the question - " Who am I? "

There are number of frameworks and religions and each one provides a

platform for practicing our life to reach the ultimate goal of

liberation or salvation or nirvana. Each framework requires a set of

assumptions, a model for practicing one's life to reach the ultimate

truth. No model will become operative unless we have full faith on

the frame-work and the implied assumptions.

Without any faith, we will be looking for the Truth in a pathless

land. When J.K. made his famous statement - " Truth is a pathless

land, " we should recognize and appreciate what he really implied. It

is my understanding that he wants us to reject all statements

externally made by others and implicitly he seems to suggest that the

minds should be freed from all thoughts. We can turn internally to

find the answer to the Truth if and only if all external thoughts get

fully erased! Here again, we need to have full faith on what J.K. has

implied and fully practice what he said! Once again it is not

intellectually reading and arguing about what he has said but

practice to negate all thoughts that arise in the mind.. Isn't it not

that we have come back to square one!

These are the some of the random thoughts that came to my mind after

reading the ongoing thought provoking discussions. These are all

subject to corrections by other learned members of the forum. I want

to thank all the participants for providing me this opportunity to

share my thoughts.

With my warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

August 19, 2008

Namaste dear Sada-ji.

I think I have detailed my understanding, within the limits of my

linguistic capabilities, loudly, clearly and unambiguously without

mixing vyAvahArika and paramArthika. Another word from me,

therefore, would be superfluous.

Immense thanks for sharing your thoughts with me. Appreciate it.

Best regards.

Madathil Nair

________________

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

..........

> In my understanding you are intelligently transgressing

paaramaarthika with vyaavahaarika!, while accepting the two in your

very first statement that we all agree, etc. The power of maaya is

incredible!

August 19, 2008

Apologies for jumping into the discussion half-way through and

before I have read the remaining half! But I believe I can see the mistake that

is being made here by Nair-ji and Madhava-ji.

It is the mind that is initially ignorant (and sees the snake or

believes that ‘I am a saMsArin’). And it is the mind that gains

enlightenment and subsequently sees the rope or recognizes that ‘I am

brahman’. Both before and after the enlightenment event, the mind is in

seeming duality and there is no problem at all in subsequently acknowledging

that ‘I previously saw a snake but I now know it to be a rope’ or ‘I

previously believed myself to be a saMsArin but now know myself to be brahman’.

From the pAramArthika standpoint, there is only ever brahman, just as, from the

sun’s standpoint there is only ever light. But the mind functions ever at

the vyAvahArika level and sees the duality whilst knowing it to be non-dual,

just as we, knowing that the earth rotates and orbits the sun, nevertheless still

see the sun apparently rising and setting.

Best wishes,

Dennis

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Madhava

Turumella

Monday, August 18, 2008 2:33 PM

advaitin

Re: Four kinds of Non-existence (abhAva

Can the ever resplendent Glorius SUN know the presence of Darkness?

then where is darkness? we know absence of Sun *is* darkness. But

if we tell the Sun that there is Darkness and if the Sun listens to

our bodha looks around for darkness --- he is never going to find it

because where he is.... IT IS NOT THERE... BRAHMAN ALONE EXISTS.

Love & Light,

Madhava

August 19, 2008

Dear Sastri-ji,

Are you not confusing j~nAna and j~nAna phalam in this analysis?

Surely, the j~nAnI continues to ‘inhabit’ the body until death of

that body? And surely it is the body that is subject to pain and discomfort and

the mind that is subject to emotional ups and downs? Enlightenment is the event

in mind that once and for all eliminates the self-ignorance that previously

existed so that the knowledge that ‘I am brahman’ is fixed

irrevocably and not ‘merely intellectual’. This final knowledge

means that it is known beyond any doubt that ‘who-I-really-am’ is

not affected by the emotional and physical pains but surely it does not mean

that they cease? You are not suggesting that Ramana and Nisargadatta did not

experience the physical pains of their bodily illness or that Ramana did not

experience the emotional suffering in response to some of the events related in

the writings about him?

I am not sure what is meant when people talk about ‘experiencing’

brahman after realization (but not before). The absolute truth is that we ‘experience’

brahman both before and after. How could we not when there is only brahman? The

difference is that we did not know this to be so prior to enlightenment. Surely

enlightenment is about knowledge and not experience.

This being so, I find it somewhat strange when so many people on

the group speak of ‘us’ as opposed to j~nAnI-s. My belief is that

there are many on this group who are enlightened and it is simply misplaced

humility that causes them to claim otherwise. And I would certainly place

yourself in this category. You may not have the phalam but the j~nAnatvam seems

unquestionable.

Best wishes,

Dennis

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of snsastri

Monday, August 18, 2008 3:03 PM

advaitin

Re: Four kinds of Non-existence (abhAva)

We who have studied vedAnta know intellectually that we are brahman

even now and that the world has no reality. But the difference

between us and a jnAni is that we still look upon the world as real

and we are affected by the joys and sorrows which we consider as

coming to us from the world, while the jnAni is not affected.

The jnAni was no doubt brahman even

before he attained Self-knowledge, but he experiences it only after

realization. Before that he did not experience it and so he had

ignorance. He, like all of us, considered the world to be real and

was affected by joys and sorrows. The past cannot be changed. The

fact that he was ignorant earlier cannot be erased by the subsequent

attainment of Self-knowledge.

August 19, 2008

Dear Dennis-ji.

I promised Sada-ji that I don't want to add any more words. But,

you are compelling me to add more verbiage.

With BrahmajnAna there is no more any mind. Or, at least, the mind

has gone universal. There is therefore no more any individual mind

to appreciate your so-called vyAvaharika and think dual.

I haven't, therefore, made any mistake. Shri Madhava-ji can clarify

his point of view himself. Being one who gives a lot of advice to

spiritual aspirants, he can fend himself well.

Best regards.

Madathil Nair

_______________

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Apologies for jumping into the discussion half-way through and

before I have

> read the remaining half! But I believe I can see the mistake that

is being

> made here by Nair-ji and Madhava-ji.

>

> It is the mind that is initially ignorant (and sees the snake or

believes

> that 'I am a saMsArin'). And it is the mind that gains

enlightenment and

> subsequently sees the rope or recognizes that 'I am brahman'. Both

before

> and after the enlightenment event, the mind is in seeming duality

and there

> is no problem at all in subsequently acknowledging that 'I

previously saw a

> snake but I now know it to be a rope' or 'I previously believed

myself to be

> a saMsArin but now know myself to be brahman'. From the

pAramArthika

> standpoint, there is only ever brahman, just as, from the sun's

standpoint

> there is only ever light. But the mind functions ever at the

vyAvahArika

> level and sees the duality whilst knowing it to be non-dual, just

as we,

> knowing that the earth rotates and orbits the sun, nevertheless

still see

> the sun apparently rising and setting.

August 19, 2008

Namaste Nairji:

Whether we like (accept) it or not, we all make mistakes because we are

still under the spell of avidya. Everything what you and I have said or

utter in the present or future also will be within the vyavaharika.

Your assertions including - " With BrahmajnAna there is no more any

mind. Or, at least, the mind has gone universal. There is therefore

no more any individual mind to appreciate your so-called vyAvaharika

and think dual; " also fall within Vyavaharika. Every assertion, or

conjecture we make about the Paramarthika also falls within Vyavaharika

level of reality. Our mind has the capacity and creative power to make

all sorts of assertions and projections and even makes the assumption

that it is right! There can be no assertions when we are inside

the " black-hole " or realizing the " the Brahman. " This is the paradox

(paradise) of Vedanta where we don't know that we don't know! The good

news for all of us is that we are in the same boat that crosses the

Samsara Sagara!!

With my warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Dear Dennis-ji.

>

> I promised Sada-ji that I don't want to add any more words. But,

> you are compelling me to add more verbiage.

>

> With BrahmajnAna there is no more any mind. Or, at least, the mind

> has gone universal. There is therefore no more any individual mind

> to appreciate your so-called vyAvaharika and think dual.

>

> I haven't, therefore, made any mistake. Shri Madhava-ji can clarify

> his point of view himself. Being one who gives a lot of advice to

> spiritual aspirants, he can fend himself well.

>

August 19, 2008

Dear Nair-ji,

Apologies if we have been around this discussion before (memory

is not what it used to be!)

So you are saying that enlightenment is literally analogous to

waking up from a dream; that, just as the dream ceases totally, so the world

ceases totally for the one who has self-realized.

But you are also saying by implication that, in the analogy, the

dream characters can still communicate with the previous dream character who

has now awakened and (from the latter’s point of view) is no longer part

of the dream. Surely this is contrary to the teaching of advaita, in which the

three states are mutually exclusive. Is what you are saying not equivalent to

saying that real water can satisfy the dream thirst of the dreamer or a real

doctor can cure the ills of the sick dreamer?

We seemed to have reached an agreed impasse in which you, as

opposed to myself and Sada-ji (at least!), agreed to differ but I still feel

sure it must be possible for one view to prevail when we are all operating within

reason and logic.

Best wishes,

Dennis

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Madathil

Rajendran Nair

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:49 PM

advaitin

Re: Four kinds of Non-existence (abhAva)

With BrahmajnAna there is no more any mind. Or, at least, the mind

has gone universal. There is therefore no more any individual mind

to appreciate your so-called vyAvaharika and think dual.

_______________

August 19, 2008

namaste all. The discussion on this topic is

interesting. This was discussed in one form or

other earlier also. Please allow me to insert

myself into this topic.

shri Dennis-ji says:

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Nair-ji,

>

> Apologies if we have been around this discussion before (memory

> is not what

> it used to be!)

>

> So you are saying that enlightenment is literally analogous to

> waking up from a dream; that, just as the dream ceases totally,

> so the world ceases totally for the one who has self-realized.

>

I like to put this analogy: say, we have a difficult

mathematical or some other problem which we are trying

to solve. Finally we understood and we solved the

problem. Some confusion in our understanding

caused the original difficulty. With the clearing

of this confusion, we arrived at the solution. Now,

we cannot re-create the situation (confusion)

again. Thus, finding the solution (or solving the

problem) is an irreversible step.

Similarly, once the rope is realized as the rope,

the snake vanishes. We may have a slight recollection

of the " fangs " of the snake briefly, but the essential

snake dissolves from the memory.

In adhyAsa bhAShya, shri shankara says, the adhyAsa

(e.g. mistaking the rope for a snake) arises out of

a dosha (blemish) of the instrument of perception.

(smriti rUpaH paratra pUrva driSTAvbhAsaH). Once

this blemish is corrected, the rope is seen to be

the rope. A consequence of this is: we cannot

oscillate between the rope perception and the snake

perception.

Similarly, we cannot oscillate between prapanca and

the brahman. If the blemish (the misunderstandings)

are cleared, brahman shines and the adhyAsa prapanca

dissolves. We cannot go back again to the perception

of prapanca.

Any corrections in this understanding are appreciated.

regards

gummuluru murthy

--------------------

August 20, 2008

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Sastri-ji,

>

> Are you not confusing j~nAna and j~nAna phalam in this analysis?

Surely, the

> j~nAnI continues to 'inhabit' the body until death of that body?

And surely

> it is the body that is subject to pain and discomfort and the mind

that is

> subject to emotional ups and downs? Enlightenment is the event in

mind that

> once and for all eliminates the self-ignorance that previously

existed so

> that the knowledge that 'I am brahman' is fixed irrevocably and

not 'merely

> intellectual'. This final knowledge means that it is known beyond

any doubt

> that 'who-I-really-am' is not affected by the emotional and

physical pains

> but surely it does not mean that they cease? You are not

suggesting that

> Ramana and Nisargadatta did not experience the physical pains of

their

> bodily illness or that Ramana did not experience the emotional

suffering in

> response to some of the events related in the writings about him?

Dear Dennis-ji,

What I said was that the jnAni is not affected by joys and sorrows.

So it is the same as what you are saying. The body of the jnAni is

also made up of the same chemicals as ours and so it is also subject

to the same ills, but the jnAni has no identification with the body

and so he does not feel anything. Ramana had sarcoma and Ramakrishna

Paramahamsa had cancer of the throat, but they did not suffer like

ordinary human beings. This statement may lead to some objections

from some members who hold a different view. I wish to avoid

controversies because, unlike Sada-ji I do not have the physical

energy to go on answering objections. There was no confusion in my

mind.

VedAntins do not speak of mukti as 'jnAnaphala' because a phala

means that it is some thing produced and is perishable, while mukti

is not produced and is eternal.

>

> Dennis--

> I am not sure what is meant when people talk about 'experiencing'

brahman

> after realization (but not before). The absolute truth is that we

> 'experience' brahman both before and after. How could we not when

there is

> only brahman? The difference is that we did not know this to be

so prior to

> enlightenment. Surely enlightenment is about knowledge and not

experience.

Sastri--

I used the word experience only to ditinguish it from mere

intellectual knowledge which we have acquired by study. It means

only realization. In Sanskrit it is called 'anubhuti' which

translates as experience.

>

> Dennis-

> This being so, I find it somewhat strange when so many people on

the group

> speak of 'us' as opposed to j~nAnI-s. My belief is that there are

many on

> this group who are enlightened and it is simply misplaced humility

that

> causes them to claim otherwise. And I would certainly place

yourself in this

> category. You may not have the phalam but the j~nAnatvam seems

> unquestionable.

Sastri__

We are all brahman but only the person who has given up completely

his identification with his body is a jnAni. It is not an easy thing

to become a jnAni. With respect , I must say that we have scholars

in this group, but no jnAni. I am nowhere near that.

As I said above, there is no jnAnaphalam separate from jnanam. When

the jnAnam is not merely intellectual, and becomes aparoksha

anubhUti then the person is a jnAni. Till then he is only a scholar

who can give beautiful lectures and write good articles.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

> advaitin [advaitin ]

On Behalf

> Of snsastri

> Monday, August 18, 2008 3:03 PM

> advaitin

> Re: Four kinds of Non-existence (abhAva)

>

> We who have studied vedAnta know intellectually that we are

brahman

> even now and that the world has no reality. But the difference

> between us and a jnAni is that we still look upon the world as

real

> and we are affected by the joys and sorrows which we consider as

> coming to us from the world, while the jnAni is not affected.

>

> The jnAni was no doubt brahman even

> before he attained Self-knowledge, but he experiences it only

after

> realization. Before that he did not experience it and so he had

> ignorance. He, like all of us, considered the world to be real and

> was affected by joys and sorrows. The past cannot be changed. The

> fact that he was ignorant earlier cannot be erased by the

subsequent

> attainment of Self-knowledge.

>

August 20, 2008

Dear Dennis-ji,

No need to be apologetic.

We have discussed this topic before. The only difference is that,

this time around, I am finding some Members sharing my frequency.

That is a consolation.

This is just to answer your questions and not to prolong the debate.

Please see within below portions excerpted from your post.

___________________________

Dennis-ji asks:

So you are saying that enlightenment is literally analogous to waking

up from a dream; that, just as the dream ceases totally, so the world

ceases totally for the one who has self-realized.

[MN: That is a perilous analogy and might give rise to complications

because you and I already have difference of opinion on avastAtraya.

Your last off-List post on avastAtraya is still active on my desk. I

was about to reply it when I was forced to take a break from writing

due to some personal problems. I intend to get back to you soon on

that. Let the dreams sleep till then, please.]

[MN: What I intend to say is that Enlightenment or Self-Realization

is a total *irreversible* resolution of all duality into the Self

where the erstwhile individual mind goes totally universal. Please

see the 'precipitation analogy' I used before in one of my recent

posts on this thread (# 41275). To use the oft-repeated inadequate

analogy: there was this individual wave and it *realized* itself to

be the ocean. In its current 'oceanity', there is no more

any 'waviness'. It is then naive to ask if the body of the wave

still exists and what happened to the other waves. The ocean only

remains and *to be* the ocean is not just an understanding of how it

is like being an ocean. There is a world of difference between the

two and we seem to sadly miss on it.]

[MN: In a similar manner, the Self-Realized is his oceanic Self.

Will a question " What happened to his erstwhile invidual mind, body,

the objective world hithertofore inhabited by him and its objects? "

or any questions at all will then arise? Haven't they been already

shelved irreversably? Who is there to ask questions and whom to ask

when duality has ceased? Please, please note that I am not talking

about a person who has an understanding of how it is like to be self-

realized based on the academic knowledge he has gleaned from pramANAs

and teachings. Cessation of duality is not an understanding.]

[MN: I would, therefore, define Self-Realization as the vyAvahArika's

(transactional or phenomenal) totally going paramArthika (Absolute

Reality) where the transactional was always paramArtha in essence and

its 'transactionalness' was only seeming and not of any real

substance. That in effect is the irreversible de-adhyAsa of

adhyAsa. Respected Shri Gummuluru Murthy-ji, I notice, has drawn a

similar conclusion in his latest post # 41299, if I have understood

him right.]

_______________________

Dennis-ji continues:

> But you are also saying by implication that, in the analogy, the

dream

> characters can still communicate with the previous dream character

who has

> now awakened and (from the latter's point of view) is no longer

part of the

> dream. Surely this is contrary to the teaching of advaita, in which

the

> three states are mutually exclusive. Is what you are saying not

equivalent

> to saying that real water can satisfy the dream thirst of the

dreamer or a

> real doctor can cure the ills of the sick dreamer?

[MN: I haven't said anything of that sort. I am sure you are

referring to somebody else's writing. On the mutual exclusivity of

the three states - there sure is something I have to say. I will get

back to you on that off-List later. I wouldn't like to mix issues.]

_________________________

Dennis-ji concludes:

> We seemed to have reached an agreed impasse in which you, as

opposed to

> myself and Sada-ji (at least!), agreed to differ but I still feel

sure it

> must be possible for one view to prevail when we are all operating

within

> reason and logic.

[MN: I thought so initially. But, no more. Looks like Ram-ji is

right. Averment and self-righteousness are unavoidable compulsions

of the transactional. I wouldn't like to give myself in to them.]

______________________

Best regards.

Madathil Nair

August 20, 2008

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

> Loka kalyANaM is the want of the still wanting. Not of a jnAni.

(He

> cannot be accused of compassion because He has nothing aside of

Himself

> to be compassionate with.)

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

Dear Nair-ji,

You say that the jnAni is not concerned with Lokakalyan and cannot

be " accused " of compassion. I suppose you consider compassion to be

a weakness (or a strength) of the ignorant (ajnAni) only. How do

you reconcile this with the following shlokas/statements?

1. gItA, 4.34— " Know That (Self) through prostration, asking

questions, and service. The jnAnis who have realized the Truth will

impart the knowledge to you.

Shri Shankara says in his bhAshya on this shloka: If you ask

questions about bondage and liberation, and about knowledge and

ignorance with humility the jnAni will impart the knowledge to you.

The jnAni has nothing to gain by imparting knowledge. It therefore

follows that he does so only to help the disciple to attain

realization. Is this not Lokakalyan?

2. UpadeshasAhasrii- Part I. chapter 1. para 2- The means to

liberation, namely, knowledge, should be explained again and again

by the teacher to the student until it is firmly grasped.

Para 6 makes it clear that the teacher referred to is one who is

established in brahman, apart from being learned. So it is a jnAni.

This means that the jnAni will teach a deserving student. This is

also Lokakalyan.

3. VivekachUDAmani- shloka 34 says that the guru must be a jnAni and

a shrotriya. (The shloka No.s vary in different editions).

shlokas 39, 40 say: There are great and good persons who, like the

spring season, are ever intent on doing good to the world. Having

themselves crossed the ocean of samsAra, they help others to do so

without any motive (of personal gain). The assuaging of the

sufferings of others is natural to the great. Does not the moon cool

the surface of the earth scorched by the rays of the sun?

This clearly says that the jnAni helps others to cross over samsAra

out of compassion for them.

All the above extracts show that the jnAni has compassion for others

and he teaches deserving disciples who approach him in the right

manner.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

August 20, 2008

Dear Murthy-ji,

I agree that, in the rope snake metaphor, once we see that it is

really a rope, we can no longer see the ‘snake’. However, I would

argue that we still recall perfectly well that we did erroneously see a snake

previously. Also it is my understanding that, in respect of whether the j~nAnI

still sees the world, the metaphor that is more usually employed is that of the

sun (apparently) rising and setting.

Best wishes,

Dennis

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of gmurthy_99

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:53 PM

advaitin

Re: Four kinds of Non-existence (abhAva)

Similarly, once the rope is realized as the

rope,

the snake vanishes. We may have a slight recollection

of the " fangs " of the snake briefly, but the essential

snake dissolves from the memory.

….

Similarly, we cannot oscillate between prapanca and

the brahman. If the blemish (the misunderstandings)

are cleared, brahman shines and the adhyAsa prapanca

dissolves. We cannot go back again to the perception

of prapanca.

Any corrections in this understanding are appreciated.

regards

gummuluru murthy

--------------------

August 20, 2008

Dear Respected Sastri-ji,

My clarifications:

1. Compassion is not weakness. It is a strength. I note that my use

of the word 'accused' has created the confusion. I wanted to make it

sound humorous. I didn't anticipate the opposite result.

2. I have no quarrels with GItA, Upadesasahasri and even

VivekachUdAmaNi with regard to a compassionate teacher imparting

brahma vidya to a disciple because it is a fact of life which I see

happening all around. How can I deny that?

3. The only difference in my point of view is that such knowledge

imparting and the participants therein are products of avidya

projected by the ignorant knowledge-recipients. Compassion too is a

part of it. JnAni *in reality* has nothing to do with such

transactions with all duality having ceased.

4. I also admit that the word 'jnAni' or terms conveying a similar

meaning are used to describe such compassionate teachers in the

quoted texts. However, if jnAni is brahmavid, then he is Brahman

Himself. Here we have a problem with Advaita. How can Brahman come

down to teach ajnAnis? The only way we can circumvent this question

is to fall back on avidya and attribute the whole scenario to the

projection of ajnAnis. You can call it their combined ichchAshakti.

And that shakti belongs very much to the realm of avidyA. The holy

books that instruct aspirants to seek out compassionate, qualified

teachers rooted in Brahman are also in the same realm!

5. Alternatively, you can bring in Ishwara and describe the whole

scenario as a vyAvaharika projection (as Sadaji put it). However, I

would like (4) above as otherwise I will have to submit explanations

for the term Ishwara. That is an additonal job.

Hope I am clear.

Best regards.

Madathil Nair

____________________

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

> You say that the jnAni is not concerned with Lokakalyan and cannot

> be " accused " of compassion. I suppose you consider compassion to be

> a weakness (or a strength) of the ignorant (ajnAni) only. How do

> you reconcile this with the following shlokas/statements?

> 1. gItA, 4.34— " Know That (Self) through prostration, asking

> questions, and service. The jnAnis who have realized the Truth will

> impart the knowledge to you.

> Shri Shankara says in his bhAshya on this shloka: If you ask

> questions about bondage and liberation, and about knowledge and

> ignorance with humility the jnAni will impart the knowledge to you.

> The jnAni has nothing to gain by imparting knowledge. It therefore

> follows that he does so only to help the disciple to attain

> realization. Is this not Lokakalyan?

> 2. UpadeshasAhasrii- Part I. chapter 1. para 2- The means to

> liberation, namely, knowledge, should be explained again and again

> by the teacher to the student until it is firmly grasped.

> Para 6 makes it clear that the teacher referred to is one who is

> established in brahman, apart from being learned. So it is a jnAni.

> This means that the jnAni will teach a deserving student. This is

> also Lokakalyan.

> 3. VivekachUDAmani- shloka 34 says that the guru must be a jnAni

and

> a shrotriya. (The shloka No.s vary in different editions).

> shlokas 39, 40 say: There are great and good persons who, like the

> spring season, are ever intent on doing good to the world. Having

> themselves crossed the ocean of samsAra, they help others to do so

> without any motive (of personal gain). The assuaging of the

> sufferings of others is natural to the great. Does not the moon

cool

> the surface of the earth scorched by the rays of the sun?

> This clearly says that the jnAni helps others to cross over samsAra

> out of compassion for them.

> All the above extracts show that the jnAni has compassion for

others

> and he teaches deserving disciples who approach him in the right

> manner.

>

August 20, 2008

Dear Sastri-ji,

I respect your wishes and will not prolong the basic discussion.

Just one point, though, which I feel needs clarification. You say: “VedAntins

do not speak of mukti as 'jnAnaphala' because a phala means that it is some

thing produced and is perishable, while mukti is not produced and is eternal.”

Surely, that we are already perfect and complete is already the

case but that we know this is usually not the case. Enlightenment is the event

in time when this becomes known to the mind. It is my understanding that, when

this (akhaNDAkAra vRRitti) occurs the person is then deemed to be a j~nAnI.

Whether or not the person then also experiences peace of mind, freedom from

fear etc. depends upon the prior attainment of sAdhanA chatuShTaya sampatti. For

those in whom this was not complete, further nididhyAsana is required. So

teaches Swami Paramarthananda, at least.

Best wishes,

Dennis

August 20, 2008

Namaste.I am unclear as to what is meant by "come down" when it is asked how Brahman can come down to teach. There is no "coming down" as I understand it. Brahman is already there - is IT in fact. This ties in a bit with the compassion comments you make.My Teacher (Sadhvi Chaitanya, a disciple of Swami Dayananda Saraswati) explains the compassion of the Teacher in this way:She says imagine someone who is bitten by a snake and needs help. It is easy for the average person to render assistance. They can easily sympathize with the bitten person and have no troubles helping them. now imagine someone who only thinks they were bitten by a snake and is deathly afraid. There is no problem, but the person believes there is and is in much pain and fear. It takes much compassion to handle that situation. The average person who sees that would just think "What an idiot - there's no snake - get over it". The compassionate person (the jnani who understands what is going on and understands the problem is "as though" real to the sufferer) would walk the person through and get them to the point where they can realize they have not really been bitten. Talking that example, we can see that the Guru must be able to teach a student how to "fix" a problem that does not even exist. THAT takes compassion! Also, that is just Brahman removing the veil of ignorance. I do not see any "coming down" - just the removal of the veil of ignorance.I hope that made sense, and if the explanation is not clear, it is certainly my fault in relaying it and not that of my Teacher whose teachings are so clear.Pranams,Edadvaitin From: madathilnairDate: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:48:23 +0000 Re: Four kinds of Non-existence (abhAva)