Four kinds of Non-existence (abhAva)

[Guest guest]

Dear

Madhava-ji,

 

You

say: “I

would humbly submit to you that I made no mistake. I am very clear about that!”

But

who is it that says this? Surely the mind! It is the mind that makes the

mistake (or not) and the mind that becomes clear on enlightenment.

And

you ask: “How much importance should I give to a Lion that chased me in my

dream?”

Whilst

you are in the dream, you must give serious importance to it! Similarly, whilst

we are in the process of mistaking the rope for a snake in the waking state, we

must be very careful indeed!

 

Best

wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dear respected Sada-ji,

 

You called my statement 'semantics'. I don't know in what sense you

used the word. If you meant it as words used to produce a desired

effect on the readers, then I have to defend my stance.

 

Let me begin by taking the three view points (references) from which

you have discussed the issue of jnAni's operation in the

transactional for lokakalyANaM.

 

I will begin from No. 3:

 

3. Brahman point of view: There is actually no point of view here.

What we have is a transactional point of view which we impose on

Brahman. So, it is essentially a transctional point of view and

should go with No. 1. ParamArthika can never be a reference point.

 

2. JnAni's point at the level of Ishwara where there is creator and

creation: This again is an imposed one and, like 3 above, is,

therefore, purely transactional. Besides, it is an improvised one

(to the scale of Michael-ji's Grand Interpretation) which we can do

away with in our current context simply because, from the point of

view of pure Advaita, we don't consider creation to have occurred at

all. Why then complicate the matter by bringing in an additional

reference of creator/creation. Perhaps, well-read scholars like

Bhaskarji et all can opine if this improvised reference should be

included in the consideration of the purely advaitic issue in hand.

 

1. Student's point of view where teacher - taught - teaching are

involved: This is the one and only reference point available to us.

Your (2) and (3) are in this very (1). They both have no independent

validity at least with regard to this particular discussion.

 

Conclusion: There is only one reference point for us and that is

this transactional. It is here alone where anyone can *operate*.

All pramANas are here, all teachings are here, all definitions/

vedantic terminology are here, all teachers are here. Here alone.

 

A brahmavid, who, by scriptural authority (of this transactional), is

Brahman, cannot be made to *operate* in this transactional, subject

to the laws of the transactional, without compromising the spirit of

advaita. The only plausible explanation then is that whomsoever a

student seeks out as a teacher in the transactional is only a

projection subject to the laws of the transactional. One may call it

Grace too.

 

It is as simple as that. Now kindly decide where is semantics in

this simple and harmless understanding.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

>

>

> --- On Wed, 8/20/08, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair 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-recipient s. Compassion too is

a

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

> transactions with all duality having ceased.

>

> Nairji - PraNAms

>

> The above statement, as I see, is just semantics. Yes from Brahman

point there is neither teacher nor taught. When jnaani knows I am

Brahman, from that reference there is no teaching either - just as

when I have awakened from sleep there are no more dream objects and

dream people.

>

> Yes you are right from the student's point the teacher is there and

student is leaning.

>

> We have now three references -

>

> 1. From the point of student - who sees the teacher-teaching and

student are real.

>

> 2. From jnaani's point at the level of Iswara where there is

creator and creation. Here the jnaani like Iswara knowing I am

Brahman still operates with in maaya as a teacher to the student who

comes to him. Like Iswara he has infinite compassion for the student

who comes to him with devotion.

>

> 3. From Brahman, all the discussion of that stop - there is no

student; no teacher and no teaching are there. It is one without a

second without any differences of any kind.

>

> The problem comes when one identifies a student, automatically the

discussion shifts from 3 to 2 or 1. You cannot have a student and say

teacher is stage 3 and student is stage 1 - each leg at two

extremities. The reason is one can have vyavahaara or

paaramaarthika - that is stage 1 or stage 3. Stage 2 falls within

vyavahaara only interlinking ajnaani and jnaani. Hence it is an

intermediate step.

>

> Hence when scripture says there is praarabda karma for a jnaani -

there are two ways of looking at it. From his reference I am Brahman,

there cannot be any karma, let alone praarabda. In fact there was

never a creation even to talk about realization. The teaching stop -

including these emails. Hence only at this reference - there is no

need for jnaani to say I was ajnaani - Bhaskar statement applies at

this level. At this level there was never ajnaani also for him to

become jnaani. No question of realization either - who is going to

realize what? Hence all talks stop here.

>

> Now we have to come down to level 2 or 1.

>

> Hence the teacher-teaching and Vedas and Upanishads etc are valid

at vyavahaara and we are pointing to the reality of Brahman from

vyavahaara only. The scriptures are only indicators of Brahman, which

is aprameyam.

>

> Hence when the scripture advises the student to go and approach a

teacher - tat vijnaanaartham sa gurum eva abhigacchet,

> samit paaniH shrotriam brahma nishTam| - it is advice to the

student to approach a teacher who is both learned in scriptures and

fully established in Brahman - that is brahma jnaani.

> and Krishna statement - tat viddhi praNipaatena pariprashnena

sevayaa| - advising the student to approach a teacher with humility

and ask relevant questions and Krishna also tells the responsibility

of the teacher -that when such student approaches it becomes

teacher's responsibility to impart that knowledge if he finds the

student deserves.

>

> There knowledge transaction can only occur in transactional

reality - that is vyavahaara only.

>

> As I see, you are putting student in vyavahaara and teacher in

paaramaarthika. That is what I mean by changing the reference states.

From the paaramaarthika point there is neither student nor teacher -

neither this list serve!

>

> Stage 2 comes as an intermediary between stage I and II. But both I

and II are in vyavahaara since from stage III nothing can be talked

about, since there is nothing other than Brahman.

>

> We are indebted to Shree Sastriji for patiently responding to the

best he can within his physical energy allows. We are grateful for

that. My problem is I cannot but respond if and when I can!

>

> My teacher, Swami Chinmayanandaji, used to say he has 1 and half

inch by 4 in instrument that is his tongue and as long as it is there

he cannot stop talking. It looks like Lord has given me fingers and

patience to type (although at times they create their own language -

but overall still makes some sense since people are reading what they

type) and cannot but answer not necessarily for the benefit of

questioner but those general readers of the list serve who may be

interested in reading.

>

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

[Guest guest]

2. JnAni's point at the level of Ishwara where there is creator and

creation: This again is an imposed one and, like 3 above, is,

therefore, purely transactional. Besides, it is an improvised one

(to the scale of Michael-ji's Grand Interpretation) which we can do

away with in our current context simply because, from the point of

view of pure Advaita, we don't consider creation to have occurred at

all. Why then complicate the matter by bringing in an additional

reference of creator/creation.

praNAms Hare Krishna

Sadananda prabhuji's Stage-II reference is really interesting, where he simply equates jnAni with Ishwara & saying, like Ishwara, jnAni too *holding* the mAya in control, impart knowledge to the able shishya...If I go by the upahita chaitanya logic, I've to say there is no difference between upAdhi-s of Ishwara & jnAni....Since this is the list exclusively dedicated to discuss *shankara philosophy* I hope there would be no problem if I ask for the shankara bhAshya reference for this innovative reference stage & My special request to Sri Shastri prabhuji to clarify whether it would be acceptable to use Ishwara as *paryAya pada* for jnAni....

On the other hand, with regard to *levels of reality*,I think, we are taking undue advantage of these two levels (vyAvahArik & pAramArthik) & framing our thoughts intelligently by widening the scope of vyavahAra. If anything / everything acceptable at the vyavahArik level, then there would have not been any *pUrvapaxi* in shankara siddhAnta is it not?? At what level shankara took *paramata* as pUrvapaxa?? is it not at the vyavahArik level !!?? if the answer is yes, then it is quite obvious that we cannot accommodate anything/everying in the name of *vyavahAra*....Though shankara often differentiates between shAstra drushti and laukika drushti, he uses these terms very judiciously without doing any *siddhAnta hAni*....I dont think anywhere shankara insists us to accept the jnAni's avidyA even after realization...may that be vyavahAra or pAramArthika..On the other hand, shankara repeatedly emphasizes that there is no vidyA-avidyA transactions in paramArtha...because it is where Atman & Atman ONLY nothing else..yatra tu asya *sarvaM* AtmaivAbhUt* is the declaration of shruti mAta. We cannot vyAvahArically give space to avidyA in jnAni & say at the transaction level, jnAni has the avidyA and prArabhdha karma & due to these clingings he will continue to do *avidyA vyavahAra*...No, this is what exactly the siddhAnta hAni, IMHO. Vidya-avidyA, the role of vidyA, the effect of avidyA etc. etc. are possible ONLY at the level of jIva, where there is wrong identification of his svarUpa with BMI...After the dawn of *true knowledge* of his, jnAni realizes that there was/is/never will be avidyA for anyone!! This is what exactly shankara says in sUtra bhAshya : 4-1-3, After one realizes that he is secondless brahman ( the self realization), there is no avidyA or non-apprehension to *ANYONE*!!! Why shankara had to say *anyone* here if the enlightenment is an unique event/experience to an individual and removal of ajnAna is limited to ONLY upahita chaitanya?? Why shankara here categorically saying there is no avidyA to anybody instead of saying, if you are realized, you dont have avidyA & you are brahman but others still have that avidyA ?? What is the purpose behind this assertion by shankara?? It is quite evident that, after getting the self-knowledge (Atma jnAna) a jnAni realizes that the nature of all this is absolute consciousness. From this standpoint, he sees no avidyA in anybody..for him Atman alone is below, Atman above, behind, front, right, left ...everywhere...(chAndOgya shruti 7-25-2)...sarvabhUtasthamAtmAnaM sarvabhUtAni cha Atmani, Ikshate yOga yuktAtmA sarvatra sama darshanaHa (gIta 6-29) Ignoring these shruti /smruti vAkya-s, if we say even in jnAni there is a trace of avidyA, then it is as good as saying there are two things in mOksha one is brahman & another is avidyA that is clinging to him..that makes us to believe that yEkamEvAdvitIya brahman is *sadviteeya*....Dont you think, this is siddhAnta hAni & damaging the very sanctity of advaita doctrine??

Hence, as per shankara's advaita, we should conclude that ONLY from the adhyArOpa drushti we have to accept avidyA, ofcourse, based on lOkAnubhava (naisargikOyaM lOkavyavahAraH -adhyAsa bhAshya)...so is the case with vidyA also. This shankara says very clearly in taitirIya upanishad bhAshya (2-8) :

Both viveka (discrimination) and aviveka (non-discrimination) are directly intuited to inhere in the antaHkaraNaM (inner organ, the mind). It is common knowledge that colour which is perceived is no property of the perceiver. And avidyA is objectified by one's own intuition as when one thinks 'I am ignorant', 'my knowledge is not distinct'. The discrimination due to vidyA is likewise intuited. Wise ones impart their knowledge to others and these others grasp it. vidyA & avidyA therefore have to be classed with name and form alone, and name and form are admittedly no properties of Atman. From the above bhAshya it is very clear that the method of vidyA and avidyA is employed ONLY by superimposition of knowership (jnAtrutva) on Atman in accordance with others' views, but in reality Atman is not even a knower. Kindly see what gaudapAda kArika (4-73) says on this *kalpita samvrutti*...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis

 

Please would you clear up a piece of seeming ignorance on my part

regarding rope and snake: if I see the snake as part of the dream

state, am I then awake? If so, then is the rope part of reality and

therefore not in the dream? If so, then what sort of reality is

that? There seems to be an oddity here, or is this merely nit-

picking? I guess I could deal with that by asking 'who picks'? I

hope this is not too trivial, beginners have to start from where

they are; maybe I have made it evident where I am - or am

not............

 

Gratefully

Simon

 

<dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Madhava-ji,

>

>

>

> You say: " I would humbly submit to you that I made no mistake. I

am very

> clear about that! "

>

> But who is it that says this? Surely the mind! It is the mind that

makes the

> mistake (or not) and the mind that becomes clear on enlightenment.

>

> And you ask: " How much importance should I give to a Lion that

chased me in

> my dream? "

>

> Whilst you are in the dream, you must give serious importance to

it!

> Similarly, whilst we are in the process of mistaking the rope for

a snake in

> the waking state, we must be very careful indeed!

>

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

[Guest guest]

--- On Thu, 8/21/08, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

 

Sadananda prabhuji's Stage-II reference is really interesting, where he simply

equates jnAni with Ishwara & saying, like Ishwara, jnAni too *holding* the mAya

in control, impart knowledge to the able shishya.

 

-------

Bhaskarji - PraNAms.

 

Here is my understanding.

 

I must say that you are trying to read more than what I said or meant. Jnaani

is one who realizes 'aham brahmaasmi' - 'Brahma vit brahma eva bhavati' is the

shruti. Hence, it involves understanding that I am the substantive of

jiiva-jagat and Iswara. That is the turiiyam. If you read carefully, he knows

that the upaadhiis are not the same as the upaadhiis of Iswara - upahita

chaitanya involves limitation of the upaadhiis even though he recognizes he is

limitless, the upaadhiis that he can use are limited due to praarabda. Since the

individual jiiva notion as limiting vishiSTa chaitanya is not there any more, he

recognizes that I am Brahman but utilizes the available equipments for loka

kalyaNam. This is what Krishna's advice too.

 

ISha jiiva yoH veshadhii bhidaa|

satva bhaavato vastu kevalam|| says Bhagaan Ramana

 

It is in the understanding of oneness of jiiva, jagat and Iswara - That is the

realization. In that understanding, there is no difference between jiivan mukta

and Iswara - only the difference is in vesha, the costume they are wearing. The

costume is the upaadhiis. Limitations of upaadhiis are not his limitations -

that is what realization means.

 

Bhaskarji - with all due respects, please do not ask me Shankara bhaashya

quotations - I am not a scholar. I tried to write what I understand as clearly

as my language permits and my fingers can type - even though there is big gap

between the last two, similar to the gap between the cup and the lip.

 

Hope I have answered your query.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Nairji - PraNams.

 

Your understanding is right. From the students point what you say is correct.

 

we are looking from jiivan mukta's point. That is no 2 comes from that

reference. It is still vyavahaara - since Iswara is also in vyavahaara. It is

not the student's reference but from the teachers's reference. 1 and 2 are not

the same, although both are within vyavahaara.

 

Jiiva mukta has realized that I am Brahman - stage 3 does come in that

understanding or realization. From His reference as we are discussing, he knows

that I am Brahman and at the same time He sees the plurality too even though the

he knows that the plurality is apparent and real. The reason he sees is because

of the equipments eyes and the mind behind the eyes. When the eyes are open -

one cannot but see. That is the perceptual limitation of the upaadhiis - but

understanding of what one sees involves intellect where intellect of jnaani

knows that this is only a perception of plurality but the reality is realization

that the substantive of all that is pure consciousness alone. That is what

realization means. Hence from jiivan mukta's reference as we are discussing the

topic, he sees the plurality but knows that the plurality that he sees because

of the equipments available, is only apparent. It is like the vision of gold

smith who sees the rings,

bangles and bracelets are different - naamakevaste - or name and utility sake

but all are gold only. If he put the ring on this finger and necklace he wares

on his neck - knowing very well that all are gold. He has no confusion in

transactional reality vs. absolute reality.

 

Here semantics word I used only in the sense that where we are placing the

reference.

I would not dismiss the stage 3 in the sense jnaani when he is in meditation

revels in himself by himself - while in transaction understand brahmaarpanam

brahma haviH .. etc.

Hence Krishna's statement - maya tatam idam servam jagat avyaka muurtinaa| I

pervade this entire universe in unmanifested form - that is Brahman only - and

that is the understanding of jiivan mukta also. At the same time like Krishna he

utilizes the upaadhiis that he has to the best he can for loka kalyaaNam.

Anyway I know you know. The difference comes from what reference the situation

is addressed.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- On Thu, 8/21/08, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

 

 

You called my statement 'semantics'. I don't know in what sense you

used the word. If you meant it as words used to produce a desired

effect on the readers, then I have to defend my stance.

[Guest guest]

--- On Thu, 8/21/08, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

Bhaskarji - PraNAms.

 

bhaskar :

And if I may add here... in that state of realization there is no difference

whatsoever (neha nAnAsti kiMchana) among jnAni/jivanmukta, Ishwara, (other)

jIva(s) & jagat..so, as you rightly pointed out the socalled difference lies in

avidyAkruta nAma rUpa vishesha or upAdhi-s.... Since the jnAni's realization is

that avidyA is vyAvahArik satya...it cannot hold water in the state of

realization. ...

 

Sadananda:If I can change little bit what you wrote - upaadhiis are avidyaakrita

in the sense that origination is due to praarabda karma and karma was due to

avidya.

But jnaani realization of vyavahaara satyam will be understanding it as just

superposition or mityaatmabuddhi - vyavahaara is there but no more satya but

understood as mithyaa - factually not theoretically!

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

 

Bhaskar:

I hope this statement would be valid even if I make it from the vyaavahaarika

level...Of course, you would agree with me that brahman/jnAni cannot have two

realities one at the vyavahArik level & another at the pAramArthik level..

 

Sadananda: The reality is only one - he will look at the vyavahaara as vibuuti

only - pasyame yogam iswaryam - Krishna himself gives a beautiful example - He

did not spare any one that is going against dharma. Yet he shows Arjuna that

everything is in Him that includes the student Arjuna too. Is Krishna Iswara or

jiiva or Jiivan mukta? Whatever, he must be a realized soul otherwise Gita has

no meaning.

-----------

 

Baskar:

It is because of the simple fact that for jnAni there is neither loukita nor

vaidika vyavahAra..coz. *ALL* vyavahAra is the effect of avidyA (avidyA kArya)..

 

Sadananda: Bhaskarji - vyavahaara is not avidya kaarya - it is maayaa kArya -

see Goudapaada kaarika - where he calls the so called creation as swaabhavika.

Avidya is a notion in the mind of jiiva only and it has no other reality

whatsoever; since he thinks he is an individual separate from the universe and

Iswara. As long as he thinks and feels separate he is separate like it is a

snake. Once he realizes that he, as a consiousness, is the total and then

everything is in him - mastaani sarva bhuutani - that is also the understanding

of jiivan mukta too. sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutani ca aatmani - says

Krishna - the self that I am is the self of all - and all are in myself - that

is a jiivan mukta.

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

Bhaskar:

..Hence, Shankara says in gIta bhAshya (2-69) : yOyaM loukikO vaidikashcha

vyavahAraH sa utpannAtmavivekajnA nasya sthitha prajnasya avidyAkAryatvAt,

avidyAnivruttau navartate... . Hope you would catch my concern here :-))

 

Sadananda: You have made the most important point Bhaskarji - that is exactly

why I do not quote Shankara Bhaashya besides the fact that my memory is limited

and it is getting more and more limited with age!

 

The point is, one has to understand the Bhaashya that includes from what

reference Shankara is making these statements. Bhashyas consider puurvapakshas

and siddhantas and done technically to establish the facts.

 

Therfore Bhashyas have to be studied and understand in its totality. quotating

bits and pieces here and there would generate more misunderstandings. Instead

understand clearly the implications and assimulate the knowledge and then define

in your understanding what the essence is. That is the formula I try to use most

of the time and present my understanding to the best I can.

As Shree Sastriji said, 'I have no confusion' -and that my friend is knowledge.

 

The jnaani can discard only the ignorant generated notions - that does not mean

he can discard vyavahaara - he discards his notions about vyavhaara- it only

means the avidya janita moha that moha involves vyavahaara is real and not

apparent. Those wrong notions - ignorant based notions about the world and about

himself are destroyed. That does not mean vyavahaara is destroyed. Hence

Mundaka Up. calls as aatma rati (reveling in himself) and aatma kreeDa (playing

and play involves duality) of jiivan mukta.

 

Hope I am clear now!

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Simon,

 

I don’t really understand your question I’m afraid,

Simon. If you see a snake in your dream, it is a dream snake – really!

(Unless, of course, you are seeing a dream snake when it is really a dream

rope.) I think you must have misread my answer to Madhva. There were two parts

to this:

Part 1 was: “Whilst you are in the dream, you must give

serious importance to it (i.e. the dream lion that was seen)!” –

This was an observation on the dream state.

and part 2 was: “Similarly, whilst we are in the process

of mistaking the rope for a snake in the waking state, we must be very careful

indeed!” – this was an observation on the waking state.

In part 2, all I was saying is that, in normal waking

experience, when we see a snake we need to be very careful because it might be

a poisonous one and we might be bitten. If the light is poor, of course, we

might bring a torch and discover that it is actually only a rope but it is only

then that we can cease taking care!

Both rope and (misperceived) snake are part of the waking state.

The dream state is not involved in this discussion. Does this clear up

the confusion?

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of andrewcrosby286

Thursday, August 21, 2008 10:20 AM

advaitin

Re: Four kinds of Non-existence (abhAva)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Dennis

 

Please would you clear up a piece of seeming ignorance on my part

regarding rope and snake: if I see the snake as part of the dream

state, am I then awake? If so, then is the rope part of reality and

therefore not in the dream? If so, then what sort of reality is

that? There seems to be an oddity here, or is this merely nit-

picking? I guess I could deal with that by asking 'who picks'? I

hope this is not too trivial, beginners have to start from where

they are; maybe I have made it evident where I am - or am

not............

 

Gratefully

Simon

[Guest guest]

Namaste dear Bhaskarji and Nairji:

 

First let me congratulate you both for raising some valid objections

to the description of the " Jivanmukta " depicting as the Nirguna or

(Isvara) Saguna Brahman. I do agree with you that it is impossible

to find a Jnani in the real who can meet all stipulations stated in

the Scriptures. Let me try to state my understanding from a

practical (transactional) point of view. Honestly that is all we can

do.

 

I am an economist (econometrician) by profession and in my profession

we always start with a conceptual model followed by an empirical

model. An economic conceptual model, for example demand for food will

require a supporting theory with a set of acceptable assumptions.

Most of the economists have no quarrel with respect to the conceptual

model, theory and assumptions. However there are always

disagreements when they try to estimate the conceptual model with an

empirical model. Often the question arises - How exactly the

empirical model portrays the conceptual model. The difficulties are

as follows during the estimation process of the conceptual model:

(1) Validating the assumptions (validity problems)

(2) Identifying all variables that affect the conceptual model

(identification problems)

(3) Quantifying all variables (measurement problems)

(4) Estimating all model parameters (estimation problems)

 

For example, an economic model to estimate consumer demand assumes

that all consumers have perfect information with identical behavior

and have same taste and resource. In the practical world, consumers

do behave differently – even identical twins behave differently!

These problems are well known and there are different schools of

thoughts for dealing with economic models. The Austrian school

(orthodox or classical school) believes that any empirical estimation

is absurd. Consequently they stayed away from estimating and

forecasting a conceptual economic model. The positive school (Neo-

classical school) believes that it is possible to develop and

estimate an empirical model from a conceptual model. Currently the

neo-classical school is the norm and economists use their creative

intelligence to develop, estimate and justify empirical models to

predict almost all world economic events. This does not mean that

Austrian school is absurd or incorrect. As a matter of fact the

orthodox school is more precise, less useful and irrelevant. The Neo-

classical school thoughts may probably less precise but they play a

significant role for the understanding and solving economic problems.

 

With a careful reading of what I have stated we will be able to

visualize the emerging similarity. The distinction between an

advaitic term such as " Jnani " has a conceptual meaning

(Paaramaarthika Sathya) and an empirical meaning (Vyavaharika

Sathya). Like the economists, some advaitins do not agree to describe

the Truth visualized at the absolute level to the empirical level.

This is their privilege and they have every right to reject them as

imprecise. There is nothing incorrect in stating the empirical

equivalent of what has been conceptualized at the absolute level. But

any such extension requires caution and should include limitations

with appropriate caveats. Just like economists often disagree with

other economists, Vedantins also disagree with their fellow

Vedantins.

 

Coming back to the ongoing discussions, the conceptual `Jnani'

doesn't strictly exist in the empirical world. Those who are willing

to accept the empirical version visualizes the Jnani or Jivanmukta in

human form. Strictly speaking the conceptual Jnani is the

unmanifested non-describable Nigruna Brahman. Every " Jnani " in the

transactional world is a manifested human being and how do we

reconcile this apparent contradiction. The orthodox theoretical

Vedantin needs to manifest to become the practical Vedantin to

describe the Jnani. Here the practical Vedantin gathers all

available evidences (parameters) from the scriptures and his/her own

intuitions to describe the empirical Jnani. We have all seen idols

and pictures of gods in the temples and at homes. The artists who

created them did not see those gods and then how did they create?

Artists (also poets) use their imagination and knowledge on key

parameters to create those idols and pictures. In India for example,

Ravivarma the famous artist drew the pictures of Rama, Krishna, Siva,

Lakshimi, Parvathi, Saraswati and other gods and goddesses. They have

become the norms for how a god or goddess should look. A large

percent of pictures of gods in calendars contain the photo images

from the original paintings of Ravivarma. The purpose of any idol or

picture is not what we see, but what it symbolically represents. A

good artist is able to penetrate our mind to visualize beyond what

has been conveyed through our senses! Only those who of us who can at

least temporarily silence our senses will be able to see the

Paaramaarthika Jnani without any attributes. In the Mundaka

Upanishad, the entire second part (also other Upanishads and Gita)

describe the Paaramaarthika Jnani: For example verse 2.1.2 describes:-

.. " Self-luminous is that Being, and formless. He dwells within all

and without all. He is unborn, pure, greater than the greatest,

subtler than the subtlest without breath, without mind. "

 

Also we have seen some human beings in this world who are unselfish,

highly motivated and conduct duties for the welfare of others, treat

everyone with dignity and compassion. In their presence we are able

to subdue our mind and experience peace and happiness. During my

childhood, I have seen my grandmother with such noble qualities. From

the morning till she went to sleep, she used to constantly utter

prayers in praise of Lord Krishna (Japa). She truly believed and

worked for the welfare of everyone in the family (and our neighbors)

continuously until her death without pain or complaints. I still

remember the day of her death. As usual she got up at 5 AM, conducted

daily duties which include morning routines, cooking meals, Puja

worship and prayers and serving food for everyone. After she fed

everyone, she had chest pains and died without eating her meals. For

me, she was Ishvara Swarupa and I don't need to go and look for

scriptural references to justify my characterization of my grand

mother. Some of us in this list would have come across with people

who meet the scriptural stipulations for a Karma, Bhakti or Jnana

Yogi. When we come across such noble souls, they serve as our Role-

model and provides us with the motivation to change our behavior. We

do make subjective judgments but the scriptural descriptions of a

Yogi or Jnani help us to be objective. By the way there is nothing

wrong in conducting an intellectual investigation of the authenticity

of what is being stated but it will be futile for us to reject

completely what has been stated. This is where we need the trust on

the scriptures, sages, saints and teachers to help us to develop some

stopping rules for intellectual analysis.

With my warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

But jnaani realization of vyavahaara satyam will be understanding it as just superposition or mityaatmabuddhi - vyavahaara is there but no more satya but understood as mithyaa - factually not theoretically!

 

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

I am afraid, we are forgetting the very purpose of this discussion & started saying the same things :-)) We started this discussion just to find out whether jnAni can have his memories of avidyA & its effects..Myself, Sri Nair prabhuji, Madhava prabhuji etc. tried to say there cannot be avidyA or its lesha (its residues) in jnAni but some of you prabhujis granted ajnAna/avidya to jnAni by bringing in the levels of reality....Now, discussion has taken the diversion, and now we are starting to find out whether jnAni can act or not in the post realization period... & ended in singing the same song :-)) I think, this is the high time to stop this discussion....Anyway, thanks for your time & patience prabhuji...I enjoyed this discussion...

By the way, vyavahAra means duality, it is nothing but avidyA kArya that also includes mAya...Hence while describing the mAya shankara says it is avidyAkruta, avidyakalpita, avidyAtmaka, avidyApratyupasthApita etc.etc. Then how come avidyA in only antaHkaraNa dOsha, when antaHkaraNa is itself a part of this mAya prapaNcha?? I will not go into the details of this problem...I know you call it hair splitting arguments & conclude that it does not serve any purpose in brahmajignAsa :-)) Let us leave it with that...

And now, with regard to bhAshya quotes, I would love to quote our paramAchArya's works to substantiate my claims...No matter, it might be my understanding or misunderstanding or out of context quotes..I think, if I quote bhAshya vAkya, I would get the clarification from the learned prabhujis like your goodself about the correct context & appropriate interpretation of the same...In that way, quoting bhAshya vAkya is of a more constructive & solid way in doing siddhAnta nirNaya. Simply pushing aside bhAshya quotes by citing routine excuses like these quotes are out of context, there is a level of reference to each & every vAkya in bhAshya, these are all bits & pieces quotes do not give overall understanding of the bhAshya etc. etc. would not add any *salt/taste * to already staled discussion is it not prabhuji :-))

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

In advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

> We started this discussion just to

> find out whether jnAni can have his memories of avidyA & its

> effects..Myself, Sri Nair prabhuji, Madhava prabhuji etc. tried to

say

> there cannot be avidyA or its lesha (its residues) in jnAni but

some of you

> prabhujis granted ajnAna/avidya to jnAni by bringing in the levels

of

> reality....

 

 

Namaste all.

 

I quote below (in my English translation) some sentences from 'WHO's

comments (in Tamil) on Ramana Maharshi's Forty Verses of Reality in

Tamil. These have direct bearings on the question of a JnAni's

memories.

 

On Verse 39: `Bondage' and `Mukti' are both only mental constructs.

So long as there is the thought of `bondage' the thought of `mukti'

also arises. The truth of `mukti' is only as much as the truth

of `bondage'. They are dual.

 

The basis for this duality (of concepts) is Ego. They arise only so

long as there is Ego. Once Ego vanishes, both of them die. There is

no question of one surviving the other.

….

Once Ego vanishes, the JnAni does not feel " There was Bondage

earlier; now it has gone " . He only thinks `I am free by nature'. He

is nitya-mukta-svabhAvaH.

 

Thus Bondage and mukti are both false. The thought that `there is

bondage, it has to go' occurs only in Ignorance. Both – Bondage as

well as Mukti – are not pAramArthika truths. They are used only in

instruction. All the objections that dvaita-advocates profess to

counter the VedAnta-siddhAnta forget this secret.

 

Two facts will be clear now. One, a jIvan-mukta does not consider

himself a jnAni or a mukta and others as ajnAnis in Bondage; because,

in his view there is no second to the only Self that he is aware of.

Secondly he does not consider that he has been freed from bondage.

Ramana Maharshi was once asked: " When did you get Enlightenment? " . He

replied; " Nothing came to me. I am always what I am ! " . Enlightenment

or Mukti does not come to one; it is always one's nature!.

 

Then what is the meaning of `mukti'. It is the absence of any

duality implied in `bondage' and `mukti'.

 

On Verse 40: ..... AtmA is aparokshha, that is, cannot be known as an

object. Self-existence is not to be inferred by logic or reasoning.

Self-existence is an ever-experiential truth. How can it be an object

of indirect knowledge? Therefore to cognize by the mind the nature of

Mukti is wrong. The ego-mind is not going to understand mukti in any

direct way. Because, mukti itself is the cessation of that ego.

Therefore, the mind or the intellect cannot cognize mukti directly.

Also any indirectly-cognized knowledge is not knowledge per se.

 

Thus the nature of mukti is not accessible to the mind or speech.

That is why Vedanta refers to the nature of the Atman as `neti,

neti'. Hence whatever you may say about the state of mukti is not the

final true statement.

 

PraNAms to Ramana Maharshi.

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Prof. V. Krishnamurthy prabhujiHare KrishnaImmense thanks for your very timely quotes from this work...It is another gem of quotes after ashtAvakra gIta which clearly establishes the fact & status of what a *real* jnAni is. And that parama jnAni, who is none other than our bhagavatpUjya pAda says when all duality is unreal and the Atman alone is real then it will have been concluded that all this human procedure, both mundane & scriptural is wholly in the region of avidyA...there being neither creation nor dissolution the one truth is that THERE ARE NO PERSONS BOUND BY SAMSAARA ETC...And this is what the pAramArthik truth that we have to find in vyavahAra :-))Sri VK prabhuji :Thus Bondage and mukti are both false. The thought that `there is bondage, it has to go' occurs only in Ignorance. Both – Bondage as well as Mukti – are not pAramArthika truths. They are used only in instruction. All the objections that dvaita-advocates profess to counter the VedAnta-siddhAnta forget this secret.bhaskar :Your observation reminds me bhagavatpAda-s very interesting commentary on gIta verse 13-2, wherein shankara discusses in detail about the problem in accepting the realities of bandha & mOksha...We say there is an *end* to beginningless (anAdi) avidyA and assert that there begins the mOksha (after annihilation of avidyA/ajnAna) which is nothing but anantha (endless) jnAna..which is simply against the logic....Shankara talks something like this in the commentary...(I am not able to collect the full details at the moment...Any help from Sri Sunder prabhuji !!?? ) Anyway, this would be an interesting reading for those who believe there is a beginning of mOksha/jnAna in the jnAni...Thanks onceagain Sri VK prabhuji for the appropriate quotes from advaita prakaraNa graNtha-s..Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!bhaskar