Four kinds of Non-existence (abhAva)

[Guest guest]

Namaste to all.

Is it found on realization that avidyA never existed?

Please do not get irritated by my raking up this point again. You will see that I am writing this because I find genuine difficulty in coming to any conclusion on this point. I am not trying to establish any particular view as correct. This is just loud thinking.

I am brahman even now and I know (intellectually) that I am brahman because I have studied vedAnta. All of you who have studied vedAnta also know this. But I am not a jIvanmukta today because I have not yet realized that I am the pure AtmA and I have not given up identification with my BMI. Suppose, by God's grace and the good wishes of all of you, I get realization next year, in August 2009. If it is said that on realization avidyA is found to have never existed at all, it means that, by my getting realization next year it will follow that I am not deluded by avidyA even today because avidyA does not exist even today for me. If I am not deluded by avidyA even today, it means that I am a jIvanmukta even today. That means that I have already attained the ultimate goal of life and there is no need for me to practise karma yoga or bhakti yoga or shravaNa, manana, etc. My realization next year acts with retrospective effect.

Not only that. All of us who are studying vedAnta are sure to get realization in some future birth or other. The result of that will be that we are not deluded by avidyA even today. So we are all jIvanmuktas even now. So there is no need for us to do shravaNa, manana, etc.

We already know that every living being is brahman. Now we find that every human being is even now a jIvanmukta because vedAnta says that every one will get liberation at some time or other and whenever that happens, he or she becomes a jIvanmukta with retrospective effect. So every one is a jIvanmukta even now. Not only now, but always in the past because there is no time limit for the retrospective effect. What then is the need for the upanishads, the bhAshya, etc?

Is there any flaw in the above arguments?

It is true that there is always only brahman and nothing else. From the absolute standpoint there is no bondage and no liberation, as Ashtavakra gita and Mandukya karika say. But here we are speaking from the empirical (vyAvahArika) standpoint in which avidyA, world, and bondage have reality, being mithyA.

When brahman is realized as the only reality, nothing else exists, and so there can be no world and no avidyA. It would therefore be correct from this point of view to say that avidyA never existed. But before realization both avidyA and the world exist at the vyAvahArika level.

Now I find a genuine difficulty. One of the definitions of mithyAtva in Advaitasiddhi says that mithyA means that which is non-existent in all the three periods of time in the locus in which it appears. This means that both avidyA and the world which have their locus in brahman do not exist in all the three periods of time. So it would logically follow from this that avidyA also never existed. This however leads to the strange result stated in the opening paragraphs of this note. I am therefore puzzled as to what to decide.

On realization the world is found to have never existed and there was always only brahman. But before realization are we not deluded by avidyA into looking upon the world as real and to identify ourselves with our BMI? avidyA is also mithyA and it projects a world that is mithyA. After I get realization will it be a truthful statement if I say that I was not deluded by avidyA even in the past? I can say, "I now realize that the world never existed, and that I wrongly thought that it existed and was real". This wrong notion was due to avidyA, which means that avidyA did delude me.

PraNAms,S.N.Sastri

-- Hara Hara Sankara Jaya Jaya SankaraS.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

--- On Fri, 8/22/08, S.N. Sastri <sn.sastri wrote:

 

You will see that I am writing this because I find genuine difficulty in coming

to any conclusion on this point. I am not trying to establish any particular

view as correct. This is just loud thinking.

 --------------

Pujya Sastriji - Thanks for thinking loud enough that we all could hear!

 

You have made a fanstatic appeal for correct understanding of the advaita

vedanta concepts- vyavahaara, maaya, avidya and jiivan mukta.

 

This philosophy is not mono-ism but advaita - non-dualism. Hence the very word

advaita is based on the negation of the duality that is being experienced by

every one - including by jiivanmukta. The difference between jnaani and ajnaani

is one knows the duality is not reality or mithyaa and the other perhaps knows

as a thought but not as a fact. You have in a way emphasized the correct

understanding of advaita vedanta.

 

Our PraNAms

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> 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...

> Anyway,

> this would be an interesting reading for those who believe there is

a

> beginning of mOksha/jnAna in the jnAni...

>

>

 

Namaste,

 

The Shankara Bhashya on Gita 13-2 is available at:

 

http://tinyurl.com/5a8epg

 

http://www.sankara.iitk.ac.in/gitaindex.htm (in devanagari, roman, &

eight other indic scripts).

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> Namaste to all.

> Is it found on realization that avidyA never existed?

>

> Please do not get irritated by my raking up this point again. You

> will see that I am writing this because I find genuine difficulty

> in coming to any conclusion on this point. I am not trying to

> establish any particular view as correct. This is just loud

> thinking.

>..

> I can say, " I now realize that the world never existed, and that I

> wrongly thought that it existed and was real " . This wrong notion

> was due to avidyA, which means that avidyA did delude me.

 

Hari OM!

This made me remember a small Vemana poem(in Telugu), that left

deep impression on me.

 

# svaanubhavamu lEka Saastra vaasanacEta

saMSayaMbu pOdu saadhakunaku

citra deepamunaku cIkaTlu pOvunaa

viSvadaabhiraama vinura vEma#

 

Its rough translation may be:

" Without direct or living experience (sva + anubhava)

And only by scriptural knowledge(Saastra Vaasana)

Doubts are not cleared for aspirant (Saadhak)

Can darkness be dispelled by lamp-painting ? "

 

Light can never know what darkness is. Cannot even 'see' where

darkness exists. May be, ones who are in light or enlightened,

also cannot 'see' darkness or avidya.

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

Hari OM

-Srinivas

[Guest guest]

Dear Sastri-ji,

 

Here is how I addressed this question in ‘Book of One’:

 

“ This is really a language problem as much as anything. We

postulate this ‘ignorance’ to act as a ‘cause’ for our

misconception and this gives us the idea that it is an actual

‘thing’ that has existence. (Post-Shankara Advaitins called it

‘mulavidya’ (mUlAvidyA) or root ignorance, a concept that

was certainly never put forward by Shankara himself.) In fact, all that is

happening is that we are failing to differentiate between the Self and not-Self

– the process of adhyAsa. As soon as we recognise the truth, the

‘ignorance’ disappears along with everything else and is seen never

to have existed to begin with. To speak of it as ‘beginningless’

therefore makes us think of it as substantial, which it never really was.”

 

We are always brahman since there is only brahman but, prior to

realization, we ‘have the experience but miss the meaning’ as T. S.

Eliot put it. akhaNDAkAra vRRitti enables the mind to cease mis-taking the

reality and see it aright.

 

But there is no question (in my mind at least) but that

enlightenment is an event in time (from a vyAvahArika standpoint) and, prior to

that event, we mistakenly believe in a dualistic creation. Subsequently, we no

longer make that mistake but:

a) we still see the apparent creation, just as with the rising

sun metaphor and

b) we have the memory of our prior mistake even though we no

longer make it.

 

We are all already free but most do not know this. Finding it

out does not change the fact of the matter but it does change the way that the

mind views the apparent creation! If we want the benefits of realizing this

truth, there *is* a need for the shravaNa etc. Saying that ‘we are

deluded by avidyA’ is simply one way of expressing this which assigns a ‘cause’

for this wrong way of looking at things (presumably so that we do not feel so

bad about it!)

 

Incidentally, if you want to read lots of academic discussion

around this topic, then Swami Satchidanandendra’s ‘The Method of

the Vedanta’ is excellent. I tried to find some appropriate quotation but

the best one was from Sureshvara. I always have difficulty finding my way

around in this book I’m afraid.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of S.N.

Sastri

Friday, August 22, 2008 2:44 PM

advaitin

Four kinds of Non-existence (abhAva)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please

do not get irritated by my raking up this point again. You will see that I am

writing this because I find genuine difficulty in coming to any conclusion on

this point. I am not trying to establish any particular view as correct. This

is just loud thinking.

….

Not

only that. All of us who are studying vedAnta are sure to get realization in

some future birth or other. The result of that will be that we are not deluded

by avidyA even today. So we are all jIvanmuktas even now. So there is no need

for us to do shravaNa, manana, etc.

….

On

realization the world is found to have never existed and there was always only

brahman. But before realization are we not deluded by avidyA into looking upon

the world as real and to identify ourselves with our BMI? avidyA is also

mithyA and it projects a world that is mithyA. After I get realization will it

be a truthful statement if I say that I was not deluded by avidyA even in the

past? I can say, " I now realize that the world never existed, and that I

wrongly thought that it existed and was real " . This wrong notion was due

to avidyA, which means that avidyA did delude me.

 

PraNAms,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Shri Sastri ji,

NamaskAraH,

 

Jnana praAgabhAvapradhvamsAbhAvayor ajnAnam sambhavati iti sAmpradAyika vAkyam | tatra abhAva pramAna siddhatvAsca ajnAna sabda vAcyam upapatteH | JnAnAjnAnayoH itaretaram virodaH | tadanusArena jnAnapratiseda rupeNa ajnAnam nivartyate iti siddham | tatra vrtti rupa jnAnam eva vrtti rupa ajnanam virodaH ityabhiprAyaH | ataH jnAna-abhAva mAtremeva ajnAnam; vrtti visesanam iti abhyupagantavyam | vastutaH ajnAna svarupam, vrttirvina bhAvarupam iti siddhanta nirnayam | BhAvarupa parAmarsaH susupti sthale avagamyate | tarhi abhAva jnAna sAmagri-asambhavAt susuptau na jnAnAnubhavaH sambhavati | tatraiva ajnAnam bhAvarupam iti niscitam | ajnAnam jnAna-abhAvam va, bhAva rupam va iti pramAna-siddham sAksi-siddham ca | bhAva ajnAnam pramAna virodham na tu sAksi virodham | tatApi vrtti visista ajnanam sAksi virodam natu pramAna virodham iti vyavahriyate | tasmAt atyantA susuptyabhAva sthale ajnAnam kincidapi jnAyate iti siddham | tatasca ajnAnatatvam Aropitameva; svataH Caitanyameva ityabhidiyate |

 

Narayana SmrtiH,Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

Hare krishna, namakarams.

 

Shashtanga namaskarams to shri v.k. and sri sastry for the illuminating

writings and that they are available to give to us. Reading the mails for the

whole of last month on the subject has been very useful to persons like me. I was

only reminded of the bhuma vidya imparted by sanathkumara to naradha in

chandokya Upanishad - chapter 7.

 

I just thought this way on the rope snake analogy. Once the

mistaking of rope as snake has been cleared the next time the same person wouldn’t

be as frightened as before and would be reminded of the mistake done. He would

be even be courageous enough to explore it if he has even the slightest doubt. If this

applies to ordinary person like me what to talk about jnanis who know that

everything they see is mithya and still interact with the world.

 

baskaran

 

 

Connect with friends all over the world. Get India Messenger.

[Guest guest]

PranAms,

This topic was previously discussed threadbare as well, and always

makes for a interesting thread as in many ways it addresses the very

crux of the issue.

 

I have reproduced a series of my posts earlier on this topic on my blog

 

http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2008/02/self-realization-what-is-it.html

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

> What I have said above is from the vyAvahArika standpoint. From the

> pAramArthika standpoint there is nothing other than brahman. There

> is no jIva and no ignorance.

> Regards,

> S.N.Sastri

>

[Guest guest]

Dear shri Sastri-ji,

 

praNAms. It is an honor to respond to your question.

 

advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> Namaste to all.

>

> Is it found on realization that avidyA never existed?

>

 

yes.

 

> [...]

>

> I am brahman even now and I know (intellectually) that

> I am brahman because I have studied vedAnta. All of you who

> have studied vedAnta also know this. But I am not a jIvanmukta

> today because I have not yet realized that I am the pure AtmA

> and I have not given up identification with my BMI. Suppose,

> by God's grace and the good wishes of all of you, I get realization

> next year, in August 2009. If it is said that on realization avidyA

> is found to have never existed at all, it means that, by my getting

> realization next year it will follow that I am not deluded by

> avidyA even today because avidyA does not exist even today for me.

> If I am not deluded by avidyA even today, it means that I am a

> jIvanmukta even today. That means that I have already attained

> the ultimate goal of life and there is no need for me to

> practise karma yoga or bhakti yoga or shravaNa, manana, etc.

> My realization next year acts with retrospective effect.

>

> Not only that. All of us who are studying vedAnta are sure to get

> realization in some future birth or other. The result of that will

> be that we are not deluded by avidyA even today. So we are all

> jIvanmuktas even now. So there is no need for us to do shravaNa,

> manana, etc.

>

> We already know that every living being is brahman. Now we find

> that every human being is even now a jIvanmukta because vedAnta

> says that every one will get liberation at some time or other and

> whenever that happens, he or she becomes a jIvanmukta with

> retrospective effect. So every one is a jIvanmukta even now. Not

> only now, but always in the past because there is no time limit

> for the retrospective effect. What then is the need for the

> upanishads, the bhAshya, etc?

>

> Is there any flaw in the above arguments?

>

 

There is flaw in this argument. Jivanmukta lives in the present.

The past and the future do not bother such knowledgeable person.

Also, jivanmukta is beyond the concept of time. If a " jivanmukta "

worries in August 2009 about whether in August 2008 he/she was

tormented by avidya, he/she is not a jivanmukta. For a jivanmukta,

past is a blurr and the future does not exist. He/she lives in the

present. Thus, from my understanding, the question is invalid.

 

 

> It is true that there is always only brahman and nothing else.

> From the absolute standpoint there is no bondage and no liberation,

> as Ashtavakra gita and Mandukya karika say. But here we are speaking

> from the empirical (vyAvahArika) standpoint in which avidyA, world,

> and bondage have reality, being mithyA.

>

 

This statement can be questioned. The first sentence is from

the paramArthika and the second sentence is vyavahAra with an

intellectual understanding of paramArtha. I do not think one

can combine these two and straddle.

 

> When brahman is realized as the only reality, nothing else exists,

> and so there can be no world and no avidyA. It would therefore be

> correct from this point of view to say that avidyA never existed.

> But before realization both avidyA and the world exist at the

> vyAvahArika level.

>

 

Here, what is meant by the " world " ? One should distinguish here

between " avidya " and the " world " . If we say the " world " is the

observed duality of the birds, animals, humans etc: the jivanmukta,

sees the essence of this duality only and as brahman. The jivanmukta

" operates " in that observed duality as brahman. As for avidya, the

avidya ceases to exist for this jivanmukta. The main effect of

avidya is to percieve the observed duality as real. With the ceasing

of avidya for jivanmukta, he/she sees the world as unreal.

 

 

> Now I find a genuine difficulty. One of the definitions of mithyAtva in

> Advaitasiddhi says that mithyA means that which is non-existent in

all the

> three periods of time in the locus in which it appears. This means

that both

> avidyA and the world which have their locus in brahman do not exist

in all

> the three periods of time. So it would logically follow from this that

> avidyA also never existed. This however leads to the strange result

stated

> in the opening paragraphs of this note. I am therefore puzzled as to

what to

> decide.

>

> On realization the world is found to have never existed and there

was always

> only brahman. But before realization are we not deluded by avidyA into

> looking upon the world as real and to identify ourselves with our

BMI? avidyA

> is also mithyA and it projects a world that is mithyA. After I get

> realization will it be a truthful statement if I say that I was not

deluded

> by avidyA even in the past? I can say, " I now realize that the world

never

> existed, and that I wrongly thought that it existed and was real " .

> This wrong notion was due to avidyA, which means that avidyA did

> delude me.

>

 

My thinking in this is: the jivanmukta will not be bothered by what

happened in the past.

 

Shri Sastri-ji, I feel hesitant to write what I wrote above because

I am sure you know what I am writing. As I said at the beginning,

it is indeed an honor to respond to your question. I am a regular

visitor to your webpage and have learnt a lot from the excellent

material that you have placed there.

 

>

> PraNAms,

> S.N.Sastri

>

> --

> Hara Hara Sankara Jaya Jaya Sankara

> S.N.Sastri

>

 

 

regards

gummuluru murthy

-

[Guest guest]

Namaste dear Murthygaru:

 

Here is my understanding:

 

From the scriptural point of view, Jiva represents the Incorrect

Identification of Atman through Body, Mind and Intellect (BMI).

(Vyavaharika Sathya)

Jivannmukta represents the correct identification of Atman freed from

BMI. (Parmarthika Sathya)

 

Jiva due to ignorance owns BMI.

Jivanmukta due to wisdom disowns BMI.

 

To be consistent, the liberated (from BMI) Jivanmukta is the

Paramarthika Sathya and the imprisoned Jiva within BMI is the

vyavaharika Sathya.

 

Only Jivanmukta is the knower of the Jivanmukta and all intellectual

comprehension of Jivanmukta is at the most story telling. It may be

true that some stories (depending on the credibility of the story

teller) may be more believable than others. All these stories are for

the enjoyment of Jivas listening at the transactional level.

Jivanmukta transcends from both telling and listening to all such

stories and revels by detaching from BMI.

 

A more relevant and useful story for the Jiva is the one explaining

the importance of disowning BMI. The scriptures such as the Bhagavad

Gita provide several menus and recipe for salvation with detailed

instructions! The two most common ingredients for salvation for all

the menus is shraddha and sadhana.

 

It is always possible to find inconsistencies in all the stories that

we heard, hear and will hear for the comprehension of Paramarthika

for transaction. These inconsistencies provide absolute validity for

the statement that " Brahman alone knows the Brahman. "

 

With my warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

 

Note: It may be worthwhile to read a Visitadvaita philosophy of Sri

Ramanuja which can throw further insights on some of the objections

raised during the discussion. The philosophical approach held by Sri

Ramanuja is different from advaita. Sri Ramanuja proposes that

ultimate Reality, although one, is not Absolute without any

differentiation. He admits the reality of the world and the plurality

of souls within this world. The world is real illusion (mAyA as

Sankara proposes). Accordingly Ramanuja teaches three fundamental

categories of Reality: God (Isvara), soul (Jivatma), and world

(prakriti). He upholds that ultimate Reality is one as a unity. God

or Paramata as the creator of the world, is the inner soul of

existence. God sustains and controls both the individual souls as

well as matter. Soul and world are dependant on God for their very

existence and are related to God in the same way as the physical body

is related to the soul within. The oneness of Reality is understood

not in the sense of absolute identity, but as an natural unity.

Though there is absolute difference between God and the other two

categories of Reality, and for that matter between soul and world,

ultimate Reality is considered one. Ramanuja's philosophy for this

reason defined as " oneness of the natural unity " (visistadvaita).

Visistadvaita is most often translated as " differentiated " monism

(visistadvaita) as opposed to Sankara's absolute monism (advaita).

 

 

advaitin , " gmurthy_99 " <gmurthy wrote:

>

> >

>

> The first sentence is from

> the paramArthika and the second sentence is vyavahAra with an

> intellectual understanding of paramArtha. I do not think one

> can combine these two and straddle.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Respected Sastri-ji,

 

I was off-net for a couple of days. That is why this delayed

response.

 

May I submit, with great respect, that there is a big flaw in your

loud thinking.

 

If one asks any vedAnta teacher the question " Who is deluded? " , the

immediate answer would be " You, the asker of the question. " . So, as

far as your mail is concerned, the " loud thinker " is the one deluded

who guffaws " Is there any flaw in my arguments? " If you aren't a

realized person yet, then that loud thinker is well justified in

expecting liberation to occur in time in August 2009 because he is a

limited entity bound by space and time. He cannot think outside

space-time yet and I do not think it is ever possible for anyone to

do it at all.

 

Now, vedAnta says that that limited entity is a superimposition (sort

of actually non-existent apparition) on the real " You " – the Self,

like the snake on the rope. So, the Self-Realization of the limited

entity in August 2009 is the date of its very elimination as a

limited entity whereafter only " You " , the Self, shines as it ever has

shined and ever will shine. [Although I have used the present,

present perfect and future tenses here, I am sure you will kindly

note that the Self is not bound by space-time.]

 

The elimination of the limited entity, or rather its going unlimited,

occurring in time in August 2009 is in effect the end or rather

sublation of time and space too which applied only to the " loud

thinker " – the non-existent apparition on the real " You " – the Self,

Who is the Self of all other " loud thinkers " in the transactional.

The other " loud thinkers " and all that the limited entity encountered

thithertofore as a universe of objects of perception both inside and

outside himself in the frame-work of space and time are also then

sublated into the one and only one Self - the Totality.

 

Let us improvise on the rope-snake analogy and assume that it is the

rope that is deluded to believe that it is a snake. When rope

realization occurs for the rope, the snake is eliminated totally with

all its imagined, apparent snake attributes and the rope alone

remains with total rope-identity.

 

That is what happens in Self-Realization with the undoing of

adhyAsa. To postulate that space-time continues to erect a scenario

of teacher-taught duality and memory of a totally undone past in time

lingers after the annihilation of space-time post-Self-Realization is

an absurd proposition as far as true advaita is concerned, whatever

the text quoted in support of such a view.

 

Now to address the problem of mithyA – mithyA is that which was not

there, that which seems to be here now and that which will not be

there in future, which means all that we confront in our

transactional is mithyA. It is an appearanace bound by space-time.

Right, we can't attribute a locus to it on Brahman without

undermining Advaita. That is why I called it a non-existent

apparition.

 

To understand the problem better, kindly let me quote Shri Subhanu

Saxena from his brilliant treatise on " adhyAsa Bhashyam " at the web-

link http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/articles/adhyasa_bhashyam.htm

 

QUOTE

 

Put simply, our ignorance is confusing one thing for another, which

in the context of vedanta, is confusing the world of duality for the

real world, whereas the real world is one where no duality exists.

This confusion is an experience, and therefore its existence does not

need to be proved or disproved. Sureswara says this in his vArtikA:

 

Atah pramANato'shakyA'vidyA'syeti vIxitum

KIdrshI vA kuto vAsAvanubhUtyekarUpatah

Sambandha Vartika 184

 

In fact, one can never know ignorance as belonging to any one,

neither determine its nature nor conceive how it can possibly be at

all, for it is essentially the nature of experience itself.

 

(by the way, this affirms that, in shankara's tradition of advaita,

it is futile trying to establish the cause of avidyA, as, once it is

recognised and removed , *it is seen to never have existed at all*!

This is why shankara never taxes himself with detailed discussions

concerning where does this avidyA come from, and to whom does it

belong, as these matters become totally irrelevant once atman is

known. Later followers of shankara chose not to let the matter rest,

hence the elaborate theories regarding the root cause of avidyA, and

various discussions of the locus of avidyA. One imagines that, should

these discussions have happened in front of shankara, he would have

given them short shrift by saying something like " its about brahman,

not avidyA! Don't get distracted! " )

 

UNQUOTE

(Asterisks mine.)

 

To sum it up, the duality in which a limited " I " (subject) confronts

a world separate from itself is the non-existent apparition. When

that duality is removed, the subject and objectified world sublate

into one Whole, the Self alone, the totality. The Self (That)

postulated by vedAnta is pUrNaM and idaM vishwaM – when rightly

understood as non-separate from me – is also pUrNAM. Both are one

and the same with right knowledge.

 

If we have faith, let us not then *get distracted* about our error

(avidya, mithyA etc.), but dwell on the Supreme Brahman as Shankara

advises.

 

I have quoted your post in its entirety in order to ensure readers'

ease of reference.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

____

 

advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> Namaste to all.

>

> Is it found on realization that avidyA never existed?

>

> Please do not get irritated by my raking up this point again. You

will see

> that I am writing this because I find genuine difficulty in coming

to any

> conclusion on this point. I am not trying to establish any

particular view

> as correct. This is just loud thinking.

>

> I am brahman even now and I know (intellectually) that I am

brahman because

> I have studied vedAnta. All of you who have studied vedAnta also

know this.

> But I am not a jIvanmukta today because I have not yet realized

that I am

> the pure AtmA and I have not given up identification with my BMI.

Suppose,

> by God's grace and the good wishes of all of you, I get realization

next

> year, in August 2009. If it is said that on realization avidyA is

found to

> have never existed at all, it means that, by my getting realization

next

> year it will follow that I am not deluded by avidyA even today

because

> avidyA does not exist even today for me. If I am not deluded by

avidyA even

> today, it means that I am a jIvanmukta even today. That means that

I have

> already attained the ultimate goal of life and there is no need for

me to

> practise karma yoga or bhakti yoga or shravaNa, manana, etc. My

realization

> next year acts with retrospective effect.

>

> Not only that. All of us who are studying vedAnta are sure to get

> realization in some future birth or other. The result of that will

be that

> we are not deluded by avidyA even today. So we are all jIvanmuktas

even now.

> So there is no need for us to do shravaNa, manana, etc.

>

> We already know that every living being is brahman. Now we find

that every

> human being is even now a jIvanmukta because vedAnta says that

every one

> will get liberation at some time or other and whenever that

happens, he or

> she becomes a jIvanmukta with retrospective effect. So every one is

a

> jIvanmukta even now. Not only now, but always in the past because

there is

> no time limit for the retrospective effect. What then is the need

for the

> upanishads, the bhAshya, etc?

>

> Is there any flaw in the above arguments?

>

> It is true that there is always only brahman and nothing else. From

the

> absolute standpoint there is no bondage and no liberation, as

Ashtavakra

> gita and Mandukya karika say. But here we are speaking from the

empirical

> (vyAvahArika) standpoint in which avidyA, world, and bondage have

reality,

> being mithyA.

>

> When brahman is realized as the only reality, nothing else exists,

and so

> there can be no world and no avidyA. It would therefore be correct

from this

> point of view to say that avidyA never existed. But before

realization both

> avidyA and the world exist at the vyAvahArika level.

>

> Now I find a genuine difficulty. One of the definitions of

mithyAtva in

> Advaitasiddhi says that mithyA means that which is non-existent in

all the

> three periods of time in the locus in which it appears. This means

that both

> avidyA and the world which have their locus in brahman do not exist

in all

> the three periods of time. So it would logically follow from this

that

> avidyA also never existed. This however leads to the strange result

stated

> in the opening paragraphs of this note. I am therefore puzzled as

to what to

> decide.

>

> On realization the world is found to have never existed and there

was always

> only brahman. But before realization are we not deluded by avidyA

into

> looking upon the world as real and to identify ourselves with our

BMI? avidyA

> is also mithyA and it projects a world that is mithyA. After I get

> realization will it be a truthful statement if I say that I was not

deluded

> by avidyA even in the past? I can say, " I now realize that the

world never

> existed, and that I wrongly thought that it existed and was real " .

This

> wrong notion was due to avidyA, which means that avidyA did delude

me.

>

>

> PraNAms,

> S.N.Sastri

>

> --

> Hara Hara Sankara Jaya Jaya Sankara

> S.N.Sastri

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Nair-ji,

 

You say that: “To sum it up, the duality in which a limited

" I " (subject) confronts a world separate from itself is the

non-existent apparition.”

No, it isn’t. The world of seeming duality is mithyA, not asat.

And this is crucial. Subsequent to realization, the seeming world is known to

be mithyA. It is realized that, *despite the continuing perceived duality*,

its substantive is the non-dual brahman.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Dear Respected Sastri-ji,

>

> I was off-net for a couple of days. That is why this delayed

> response.

> To sum it up, the duality in which a limited " I " (subject)

confronts

> a world separate from itself is the non-existent apparition.

When

> that duality is removed, the subject and objectified world

sublate

> into one Whole, the Self alone, the totality. The Self (That)

> postulated by vedAnta is pUrNaM and idaM vishwaM – when rightly

> understood as non-separate from me – is also pUrNAM. Both are one

> and the same with right knowledge.

>

> If we have faith, let us not then *get distracted* about our

error

> (avidya, mithyA etc.), but dwell on the Supreme Brahman as

Shankara

> advises.

>

> I have quoted your post in its entirety in order to ensure

readers'

> ease of reference.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

Dear Shri Nair,

I am sorry you have thoroughly misunderstod what I said. I made it

clear at the very outset in my note that I was not comimg to any

definite conclusion. That is why I called it loud thinking, which

has given you a handle to ridicule me repeatedly as a loud thinker.

In fact I am no thinker at all, but only a confused jIva. But I am

not upset by your ridiculing, because it is said that a spiritual

aspirant should be grateful to those who ridicule or insult

him,since that helps him to cultivate vairagya.

You may please see that towards the end of my note I had referred to

Advaitasiddhi , a work by Madhusudana Sarasvati, and had said that

according to it avidya never existed. I quote below what I stated:--

 

" One of the definitions of

mithyAtva in

Advaitasiddhi says that mithyA means that which is non-existent in

all the

three periods of time in the locus in which it appears. This means

that both

avidyA and the world which have their locus in brahman do not exist

in all

the three periods of time. So it would logically follow from this

that

avidyA also never existed " .

 

This is what you are also saying. So you see that i am not after all

such an ignoramus. I only pointed out the difficulty that I felt on

the basis of this statement. I thank you for enlightening me.

Such vehemence as you have used in your note would be quite in place

if this was a political discussion. But we are disciussing advaita

and we can do it without ridiculing the other views and in a calm

manner. I know you did not mean any disrespect, but you were just

carried away by the force of your conviction.

I do not claim to be an authority on advaita.I pose doubts to myself

and try to find answers. Here I posed my doubt to the group because

I know that there are learned people like you who can clear my

doubt. And I am glad that I was not wrong in thinking so.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis-ji,

 

It seems I had been careful enough in wording my statement and you

have been careless to give it a very hasty reading.

 

I am calling the 'duality per se' an apparition. May be you are

singling out the adjective " non-existent " to call it asat and corner

me.

 

Please see what Shri Saxena says in the very first sentence of his

writing I quoted:

 

" Put simply, our ignorance is confusing one thing for another, which

in the context of vedanta, is confusing the world of duality for the

real world, whereas the real world is one where no duality exists. "

 

We confuse " the world of duality for the real world " like in Sw.

Chinmayanandaji's favourite analogy of a " ghost on the post " . The

word 'apparition' is, therefore, not irrelevant.

 

As far as I know a ghost or apparition too is mithyA because one

happens to see or experience it like the water in a mirage. Asat is

that which is truly non-existent like the horns of a rabbit or the

son of a barren woman.

 

I can't accept this last sentence of your post:

 

" It is realized that, *despite the continuing perceived duality*, its

(the world's) substantive is the non-dual brahman. "

 

Realization is where realization alone exists. In other words,

realization (Knowledge) itself is Brahman without a realizer or

realized. It is not the realization of Brahman as the " substantive

of something else " . Whatever that " something else " has already been

folded back irrevocably. So, there is no scope for a " continuing

perceived duality " . I have not negated the world here. Instead, it

has been seen to be assimilated back to its Truth without even an

iota of duality.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

____________________________

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Nair-ji,

>

>

>

> You say that: " To sum it up, the duality in which a limited " I "

(subject)

> confronts a world separate from itself is the non-existent

apparition. "

>

> No, it isn't. The world of seeming duality is mithyA, not asat. And

this is

> crucial. Subsequent to realization, the seeming world is known to

be mithyA.

> It is realized that, *despite the continuing perceived duality*, its

> substantive is the non-dual brahman.

>

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dear Respected Sastri-ji,

 

May be you are right I was vehement and carried away by my

conviction. But, honestly, there was no ridicule meant in my

repetition of " loud thinking " . I was only pointing out that

the " loud thinker " is the limited entity. How can I ridicule you, a

senior to me by age and scholarship? Instead I am extremely indebted

to you because you have been very helpful to me both on and off-List.

 

I tender my profound apologies to you for any offence you felt from

my side even if it is an unfortunate misunderstanding.

 

I had read the last part of your post about mithyA. It was in that

context alone that I quoted Shri Saxena.

 

Like you, I am also a learner and stand to benefit from your

scholarship. Like respected Shri Gummuluru Murthy-ji, I am a

frequenter to your very informative website, a link of prominence in

my list of favourites.

 

Thanks and best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Nair-ji,

I concede that I may have been guilty of over-hasty reading. I

have noted a tendency to latch onto a particular sentence that I perceive to be

wrong and then perhaps gloss over the rest. (I always seem to be in a hurry to

get on with something else!)

You are right in your assumption that I was picking up on the

word ‘non-existent’. But it is ever-so important to be careful in

word usage when discussing topics such as this if we are to avoid misunderstanding

on the part of the reader (especially if the reader is not reading very

carefully!).

I did not read Shri Saxena’s words too carefully either because

I baulked at the phrase ‘real world’. What can the phrase “…the

real world is one where no duality exists” mean?

I’m afraid that I don’t know what you mean by “Realization

is where realization alone exists”. Since I define ‘realization’

as an event in the mind, it makes no sense to speak of realization alone

existing. Similarly, ‘realization (Knowledge) itself is Brahman without a

realizer or realized’: Realization is something that occurs for a person in

vyavahAra so again your statement does not make any sense.

You conclude that “Instead, it has been seen to be

assimilated back to its Truth without even an iota of duality.”

I would have to ask: seen by whom? Not by brahman, surely, since

for brahman to see anything would be duality – seer and seen. It is seen

by the person in vyavahAra that “*despite the continuing perceived

duality*, its (the world's) substantive is the non-dual brahman. " , as I said

before.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Madathil

Rajendran Nair

Sunday, August 24, 2008 10:37 AM

advaitin

Re: Four kinds of Non-existence (abhAva)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Dennis-ji,

 

It seems I had been careful enough in wording my statement and you

have been careless to give it a very hasty reading.

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis-ji.

 

As usual, my comments are in [}

 

___________

 

>But it is ever-so important to be careful in word usage when

> discussing topics such as this if we are to avoid misunderstanding

on the part of the reader (especially if the reader is not reading

very carefully!).

 

[MN: Frankly, very sorry about it. Will be careful in future.]

________________

 

> I did not read Shri Saxena's words too carefully either because I

baulked at the phrase 'real world'. What can the phrase " .the real

world is one where no duality exists " mean?

 

[MN: My understanding is that the world (including the seeing

limited entity) is Brahman misunderstood. When the misunderstanding

goes, Real world (Brahman) shines forth without duality.]

__

>

> I'm afraid that I don't know what you mean by " Realization is where

> realization alone exists " . Since I define 'realization' as an

event in the

> mind, it makes no sense to speak of realization alone existing.

Similarly,

> 'realization (Knowledge) itself is Brahman without a realizer or

realized':

> Realization is something that occurs for a person in vyavahAra so

again your

> statement does not make any sense.

 

[MN: Like sat, chit and Ananda are not separate but just synonyms

for Brahman, Realization is also Brahman. Realization is chit

(Knowledge). Since the intended meaning is Brahman, it can't brook

any divisions. How can Fullness without an outside have a divisive

inside? I can't buy your understanding that realization is something

that occurs in vyavahAra. That can't be advaita! All our mundane

realizations are aparAvidya. Self-realization is parAvidya.]

__

>

> You conclude that " Instead, it has been seen to be assimilated

back to its Truth without even an iota of duality. "

>

> I would have to ask: seen by whom? Not by brahman, surely, since

for brahman to see anything would be duality - seer and seen. It is

seen by the person in vyavahAra that " *despite the continuing

perceived duality*, its (the world's) substantive is the non-dual

brahman. " , as I said before.

 

[MN: That is the treachery of language again, Dennis-ji. Perhaps,

I used that word 'seen' because I was writing in the transactional

and Self-Realization is still a visualization for me. Actually, I

didn't mean the presence of any seer. Please ignore the " It will be

seen... " part. The world of divisions including the seeing limited

entity is assimilated into the Whole. Non-daul Brahman can't have a

seer witnessing It's glory.]

______________________

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

[Guest guest]

Dear Nair-ji,

It does not seem possible for any meaningful exchange of views

when you define and use words in non-standard ways.

You say: “Like sat, chit and Ananda are not separate but

just synonyms for Brahman, Realization is also Brahman. Realization is chit (Knowledge).

Since the intended meaning is Brahman, it can't brook any divisions.”

Well, yes, if ‘realization’ means ‘brahman’

then of course there are no divisions. But where is your precedent for using

the word in this way? My understanding is that ‘realize’ is a verb

meaning that someone (a ‘realizer’ if you like) discovers something

to be x that they previously thought to be y. My on-line Oxford dictionary

gives: “become fully aware of (something) as a fact; understand clearly”.

‘Becoming aware of something’ means duality. ‘Understanding

clearly’ means mind. This is (I thought) what the word means and how

people use it. You cannot use a word in a totally novel way and expect to be

understood without prior special definition or explanation.

So, your sentence “Realization is where realization alone

exists " actually meant ‘brahman is where brahman alone exists’.

I have no problem with this, although it does not seem to be saying very much.

So, can we talk about what happens when someone becomes enlightened?

Apologies, of course, if my post seems confrontational – you

know that there is no hostility intended and I know you can handle it! J

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis-ji.

 

Please don't worry. I can very well handle the situation even if my

detractor is confrontational. But, please rest assured you are not.

In fact, I enjoy confrontation in small doses.

 

As far as I am concerned, I go by Oxford or Merriam Webster when I

have a language (English of course) problem. Not about vedAnta.

 

I don't, therefore, understand what you mean by *non-standard way*.

Realization (I meant Self-Realizaton and you can't have missed it

unless deliberately!) is Knowledge - knowledge knowing which nothing

else remains to be known. A *situation* where nothing else is to be

known is Fullness (Ananda) and that Fullness cannot brook any

division into the erstwhile knower, known and knowing because it is a

Totality without limits. That is all what I meant. Is this non-

standard?

 

Other scholars of the List can perhaps explain this to you in more

detail quoting authority. I don't have any at hand right now and my

writing what I have written above derives from what I remember to

have learnt from established vedAnta teachers. And I have found them

very rational.

 

I cannot talk about what happens when someone becomes enlightened

because Enlightenment or Self-Realizaton is not a happening or a

becoming with an afterwards in time. Besides, those in the

transactional who look for such an 'event' is never likely to spot

it. They may expect a dropping of the body or a mahAsamAdhi. But,

to my eyes, that again is only ignorance projecting a mundane

occurrence. Why should I worry about mundane visualizations and

descriptions when the clarion call of vedAnta is to transcend them to

my actual Limitlessness?

 

Please don't reply me if you still feel that I am non-standard. I am

disappointed I can't tune my frequency to the range of your standard

receiver.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Nair-ji,

>

> It does not seem possible for any meaningful exchange of views when

you

> define and use words in non-standard ways.

>

> You say: " Like sat, chit and Ananda are not separate but just

synonyms for

> Brahman, Realization is also Brahman. Realization is chit

(Knowledge). Since

> the intended meaning is Brahman, it can't brook any divisions. "

>

> Well, yes, if 'realization' means 'brahman' then of course there

are no

> divisions. But where is your precedent for using the word in this

way? My

> understanding is that 'realize' is a verb meaning that someone

(a 'realizer'

> if you like) discovers something to be x that they previously

thought to be

> y. My on-line Oxford dictionary gives: " become fully aware of

(something) as

> a fact; understand clearly " . 'Becoming aware of something' means

duality.

> 'Understanding clearly' means mind. This is (I thought) what the

word means

> and how people use it. You cannot use a word in a totally novel way

and

> expect to be understood without prior special definition or

explanation.

>

> So, your sentence " Realization is where realization alone exists "

actually

> meant 'brahman is where brahman alone exists'. I have no problem

with this,

> although it does not seem to be saying very much. So, can we talk

about what

> happens when someone becomes enlightened?

>

> Apologies, of course, if my post seems confrontational - you know

that there

> is no hostility intended and I know you can handle it! J

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

[Guest guest]

Realization (I meant Self-Realizaton and you can't have missed it

unless deliberately!) is Knowledge - knowledge knowing which nothing

else remains to be known. A *situation* where nothing else is to be

known is Fullness

praNAms Hare Krishna

Yes, it will be a situation where in nothing else to be known it is because of the fact that pramAtrutva (being a knower) is itself the figment of avidyA and it will be sublated by the Atma jnana...Hence shankara says in gIta bhAshya *shAstra vAkya janita jnAna indeed removes the very knowership of Atman*.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

You are atma (brahman) even today. But are you enlightened today? Are you a liberated person today? If atma is the same as enlightenment, you should be enlightened even today. You are brahman now, but until you actually realize it you are not a realized or enlightened person,. Do you think I am so ignorant of the fundamental proposition that we are all brahman even today that you have to teach me that? Is there no difference between being brahman and being enlightened?

S.N.sastri

praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Kindly pardon me if my mails giving you the impression that I am here to teach !! I would like to onceagain confirm that I am here to learn not to teach!! My style of writing may give you an impression that I am debating & dictating terms...but that is not at all my intention...I can say that is only my language limitation & I dont know the better way to express my thoughts......But I am really surprised to see your doubts in the mail...Dont you think prabhuji whatever you wrote in your mail supports only *prApya mukti vAda*?? that which shankara clearly refuted in the prasthAna trayi bhAshya?? mOksha is not an achievement, it is *nitya prApta* that is what I am trying to say here. And you continue to argue that if we are already mukta & our svarUpa is *nitya siddhA* why on the earth we should strive for mOksha then?? this question is what I was not really expecting from the prabhuji like you who has studied shankara bhAshya since decades that too in a traditional method. Dont you think prabhuji, shankara himself answered these questions beyond any doubt in his commentaries?? Now we are in avidyA, and we need vidyA to remove this avidyA, okay prabhuji agreed...But in advaita tradition, it has been repeatedly emphasized that Atman is always yEka rUpa. In that case, how can avidyA-vidyA can bring Atman bandhA-mOksha vikAra?? can we say these avidyA-vidyA bring vishEsha avasthA like baNdhAvasthA & mOkshAvasthA to Atman?? It is only our mundane reading that there exists avidyA and *after* getting vidyA here goes our avidyA...When we see snake in place of rope due to avidyA, there exists *bhAva vikAra* due to that wrong perception and when I realize the rope as rope through vidyA, there goes my fear but this trasaction does not anyway bring any *visheshatva* /vikAra* to the svabhAva of vastu i.e. rope...likewise, my vidyA-avidyA vyavahAra cannot/will not bring any vishEsha vikAra to my *nitya siddhA* Atma svarUpa...That is the reason why I've been repeatedly saying *there is NO vidyAvidyA vyavahAra in absolute non-dual brahman. AvidyA is a *bharAnti* due to trasactions we do through limited adjuncts (dehEndriyAdi upAdhi vyApAra)...This avidyA does not have any impact on our *nitya shuddha buddha mukta chaitanya*...

With this, now we can take the crux of your observation that 'though Atman's true nature is brahman, due to some reason (avidyA), this true nature of ours going behind the screen and after doing sAdhana & after attaining jnAna this screen (veil of ignorance) will be pushed aside and brahma svarUpa of Atman will be revealed in *muktAvasthA*!!?? or in otherwords, Atman with the aid of some sAdhana (karya) gets the vikAra i.e. from *baNdha to mOksha*...No, this stand of *prApya mukti vAda* is what shankara vehemently refutes in bruhadAraNyaka & sUtra bhAshya. *(a) In sUtra bhAshya (1-1-4) it has been said : yasya tu utpAdyO mOkshaH tasya mAnasaM vAchikaM kAyikaM vA kAryaM apekshate iti yuktaM...taThA vikAryatve cha, *tayOH pakshayOH mOkshasya dhruvaM anityatvaM, na hi dadhyAdi vikAryaM, utpAdyaM vA ghatAdi nityaM drushtaM lOke*. *(b) And in bruhadAraNyaka (4-4-6) it is still more clear : bhAvAntarApattau hi mOkshasya sarvOpanishat vivakshita arThaH Atma yEkatva AkhyaH sa bAdhitO bhaveth...........na cha svAbhAvikAt svabhAvAt anyat nityaM kalpayituM shakyaM...svAbhAvikashchet agnyushNavat AtmanaH svabhAvaH, sa ha shakyate purusha vyApArAnubhavI iti vaktuM....

From the above bhagavatpAda's words, it is quite evident that the Atman is nitya asangi, avikAri & Atma jnAna is NOT *utpAdya vikAra* in Atma svarUpa. Nor that we can say Atman's true svarUpa is blurr due to avidyA & gets its glamour & brightness back only after the dawn of jnAna...Shankara elsewhere gives the example of nakshatra-s (stars) which seem to lost its brightness due to sun light & get back its light only in the night !! and says Atma svarUpa is not like this..In short, the essence of all these is very simple & straightforward : Atma jnAna (mukti) is not an event in time, it is ever existing one...

Kindly educate me if these bhAshya-s are out of context or out of the scope of current discussion...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Nair-ji,

 

To answer my question about what happens on realization - nothing

*really* happens. ‘Before’ everything was brahman; after

everything is brahman (and the ‘before’ and ‘after’ is

also only an illusion). Even this is saying too much, of course, since the

truth is beyond language. This is the ‘view’ from the standpoint of

paramArtha.

It seems that what you are trying to do is to describe enlightenment

*only* from the pAramArthika standpoint and you cannot do this! As I

say, from this standpoint, the concept has no meaning. (How could brahman ‘become’

enlightened?) No concepts have meaning because there cannot be any concepts.

There cannot be anything other than brahman. If you attempt to speak about how

things are for you now (i.e. in vyavahAra), then when you go on to talk about

enlightenment you have to stay in vyavahAra. If you suddenly switch to a pAramArthika

description, you are mixing levels and no longer talking sense.

I did understand that you meant ‘self’ realization

but the argument still applies. When you can say that “Enlightenment or

Self-Realization is not a happening or a becoming with an afterwards in time,”

you are trying to make a pAramArthika statement. But, at the vyAvahArika level,

you claim not to be enlightened now and (presumably) anticipate that you might

become enlightened at some time in the future. It therefore follows logically

that, within this vyAvahArika context, enlightenment must be an event in time.

You cannot mix the two levels.

The same thing is happening with one of your early statements to

the effect that there is no world for the enlightened one (“There is then

no more a world of aj~nAnI-s down there remaining or clamoring to be

emancipated by me”): The world cannot disappear on enlightenment, for the

simple reason that it did not exist in the first place (as something separate

from brahman). This is a pAramArthika statement. But, from the vyAvahArika point

of view, the appearance clearly does exist. Eyes register reflected light off

apparent objects for both realized and unrealized. The realized man crosses the

road without getting knocked over, just as does the unrealized man. The

difference lies in the self-knowledge (or not) in the mind that interprets

these images. The unrealized see everything as separate; the realized see only

brahman.

I hope this analysis may bring our views closer together.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> With this, now we can take the crux of your observation

that 'though

> Atman's true nature is brahman, due to some reason (avidyA), this

true

> nature of ours going behind the screen and after doing sAdhana &

after

> attaining jnAna this screen (veil of ignorance) will be pushed

aside and

> brahma svarUpa of Atman will be revealed in *muktAvasthA*!!?? or

in

> otherwords, Atman with the aid of some sAdhana (karya) gets the

vikAra

> i.e. from *baNdha to mOksha*...No, this stand of *prApya mukti

vAda* is

> what shankara vehemently refutes in bruhadAraNyaka & sUtra bhAshya.

>

>

> *(a) In sUtra bhAshya (1-1-4) it has been said : yasya tu utpAdyO

mOkshaH

> tasya mAnasaM vAchikaM kAyikaM vA kAryaM apekshate iti

yuktaM...taThA

> vikAryatve cha, *tayOH pakshayOH mOkshasya dhruvaM anityatvaM, na

hi

> dadhyAdi vikAryaM, utpAdyaM vA ghatAdi nityaM drushtaM lOke*.

>

>

> *(b) And in bruhadAraNyaka (4-4-6) it is still more clear :

> bhAvAntarApattau hi mOkshasya sarvOpanishat vivakshita arThaH Atma

yEkatva

> AkhyaH sa bAdhitO bhaveth...........na cha svAbhAvikAt svabhAvAt

anyat

> nityaM kalpayituM shakyaM...svAbhAvikashchet agnyushNavat AtmanaH

> svabhAvaH, sa ha shakyate purusha vyApArAnubhavI iti vaktuM....

>

>

> From the above bhagavatpAda's words, it is quite evident that the

Atman is

> nitya asangi, avikAri & Atma jnAna is NOT *utpAdya vikAra* in Atma

svarUpa.

> Nor that we can say Atman's true svarUpa is blurr due to avidyA &

gets its

> glamour & brightness back only after the dawn of jnAna...Shankara

elsewhere

> gives the example of nakshatra-s (stars) which seem to lost its

brightness

> due to sun light & get back its light only in the night !! and

says Atma

> svarUpa is not like this..In short, the essence of all these is

very simple

> & straightforward : Atma jnAna (mukti) is not an event in time, it

is ever

> existing one...

>

>

> Kindly educate me if these bhAshya-s are out of context or out of

the scope

> of current discussion...

>

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

>

> bhaskar

 

Dear Shri Bhaskar,

I think I have failed to make myself clear. I agree with everything

that you say. Atma jnAna is ever exisiting because Atma is jnAna

itself. But have you and realized that we are that Atma? Are we not

still identifying ourselves with our body? So we are striving to

attain Atma jnAna which is eternal. If we already have AtmajnAna

what is there that we have to get?

So Atma jnAna is eternally existing. But I have yet to get the

realization that I am the Atma and not the body. Is it not then

something which I have yet to get and which is not present today?

THe other things you have said are all all right. How can I deny

them? You need not have taken the trouble to give all these

quotations.

No doubt mukti is not some newhstate to be attained. It is only the

realiztion of my own nature. This is all well known to you and me.

But is it not some thing that you and I have not yet got and are

striving for by doing shravaNam, etc and expecting to get in the

future? So is my getting mukti not an event in time? Is it already

existing? It is not already existing

because I am not a mukta today. I suppose you agree that you and I

are not muktas today and we are looking forward to " becoming " one in

thw future.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

But is it not some thing that you and I have not yet got and are

striving for by doing shravaNam, etc and expecting to get in the

future? So is my getting mukti not an event in time? Is it already

existing? It is not already existing

because I am not a mukta today. I suppose you agree that you and I

are not muktas today and we are looking forward to " becoming " one in

thw future.

Humble praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Yes, what you said is correct...Those who are still in avidyA vyavahAra (including myself) can say I've avidyA, I am entagled in saMsAra and I need vidya to get rid of this problem...so, for those who are still identifying themselves with BMI, have the time & space boundaries & say mukti is a future special event in their lives...But can the jnAni who is ashrIri in all the three times (trishvapi kAlEshu abhoKtA, akartA) can assert like this?? I think this is what we have been discussing sofar in this thread...Does not shankara say jnAni is always *krutakrutya*..A jnani cannot think himself that *before* Atma jnAna he was kartru & bhOktru and *after* jnAna he has akartA, abhOktA status...His realization reveals him the fact that : trishvapi kAlEshu akatrutva, abhoktrutva svarUpaM brahhAhamasmi nEtaH purvamapi kartA bhOktA vA ahamAsaM, nEkAnIM, na api bhavishyatkAle' says shankara & confirms * iti brahmavidavagacchati* and concludes that yevaM yEva cha mOksha upapadyate....(sUtra bhAshya 4-1-13)

Anyway, I & others have said enough on this....Let us not go back to that issue once again...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Respected Sastri-ji and Bhaskar-ji.

 

Instead of trading allegations and vexing over imagined slights, I

thought let us better list the ideas together in order that we can

take a fresh look at the issue in hand.

 

I have, therefore, compiled the following summary of what I think

BrahmajnAna is. Grateful for your and others' comments, if any.

______________

 

I am always Brahman and I do not know that.

 

Instead, I have false identifications. I think I am the BMI, very

limited and the world is separate from me. I am thus a bundle of

false knowledge that operates in falsity and suffers.

 

My knowing when I Self-realize is not the usual knowing of the

transactional like my knowing chemistry or the taste of sugar or my

girl-friend.

 

It is an " I am I am Knowledge " – a full blossoming of Self-Evidence -

without knower, knowing, known division.

 

It is actually Brahman knowing Brahman where there is no more any

false identifications or false identifier (limited entity).

 

It is, therefore, wrong to consider BrahmanjnAna as a false identity

gaining right identity although it looks that way in the phenomenal

and we, therefore, have a tendency to consider Self-Realization as

something taking place or gained on a future date by an erstwhile

sufferer.

 

Loosely used statements like " jIva is Brahman " and " jIva suffers due

to false identifications " add to our confusion.

 

jIva is actually the " I " principle in the mahAvAkya " I am Brahman " .

That jIvA cannot suffer. Suffering itself is a falsity.

 

BrahmajnAna is like a mirror shining on its own when the dirt on it

is removed.

 

In the mirror analogy, the dirt of course existed before its removal.

 

In BrahmajnAna of Brahman knowing Brahman, the false identifications

and falsity never existed at all in the absolute sense, which means

there was not any creation or suffering at all in the absolute sense.

 

Instead of calling it illusion, vedAnta uses a special term " mithyA "

to describe the falsity that did not exist in the absolute sense.

 

There is, therefore, no memory of previous false identifications in

BrahmajnAna or for a BrahmajnAni. Being Absolute, jnAna and jnAni

are one and the same.

 

No memory of the previous falsity can exist in jnAna because nothing

can be added or additional to or subtracted from Brahman.

 

Self-Knowledge is always " I am I am " or Brahman knowing Brahman, a

fully-blossomed Self-Evidence of Limitlessness.

____________________________

 

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair