Four kinds of Non-existence (abhAva)

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Although your message is addressed to Respected Shri Sastri-ji, may I

request you to kindly provide an English translation as it appeared

on the List under a subject line with which other Members and I are

deeply involved.

 

I did try to understand your conclusion. However, I am not sure if I

have succeeded, my knowledge of Sanskrit being only rudimentary.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________

 

advaitin , Antharyami <sathvatha wrote:

>

> 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]

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.

praNAms Sri MN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Nice & precise summarization of the topic...I think, the whole discussion of ours is still revolving around above point i.e. avidyA memories of a brahma jnAni...As you have seen, we are yet to come to a common understanding on this issue due to asymmetrical usage of two levels of reality i.e. vyAvahArik & pAramArthik levels...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Nairji - PraNAms

 

First, my compliments to you to bringing back to the issue than to any

personalities involved. I agree with you that one has to have clear

understanding of what Brahmajnaanam means.

 

Here are few of the things we know.

 

1. Brahman does not need Brahman jnaanam - since it is eternal and one without a

second - hence jnaanam itself is of the swaruupa lakshaNa of Brahman.

That constitute paaramaarthika satyam - this aspect I am sure is clear to

everyone.

 

2. Realization question can come only at the level of jiiva who thinks he is

different from Brahman and there is a creation and therefore there is Iswara who

is the creator of the creation that he sees. Thus from Jiiva point there are

there things: 1. Jiiva, a conscious entity, who identifies himself with the

upaadhiis that that he has which are different form the other upaadhiis that

others have and the rest of the world, jagat that he has to transact with using

his upaadhiis. 2) the world that is separate from him and 3) Iswara, the

creator. He and Iswara are conscious entities and world is inert entity.

 

Jiiva is defined as therefore as conscious entity - and by entity we are

isolating it from the total consciousness which cannot be partitioned - Since we

are forced to partition as it appears to be localized in the upaadhiis - Vedanta

comes to our rescue saying that jiiva involves two aspects 1) the part-less

consciousness reflected in the upaadhiis (starting from buddhi) as cidaabhaasa

and 2) identification with the upaadhiis as I am the upaadhiis (BMI) while

transacting with it. The life in the jiiva therefore involves all pervading

consciousness 'as though' reflecting in the upaadhiis as cidaabhaasa. Hence as

long as 'life' in the upaadhiis exists there is a reflected consciousness by the

upaadhiis.

Since what I know is different from what you know, the internal knowledge

through each of the upaadhiis also occurs by the similar reflecting principle of

total consciousness. To understand the operation of the processes of knowledge

(as is being discussed in the knowledge series), we bring in Saakshii or

witnessing consciousness as intermediary between the part-less total

consciousness for illuminating the upaadhiis for knowledge.

Hence in understanding jiiva - we have three levels.

1. Saakshii swaruupa - consciousness 'as though' localized in the upaadhiis -

even though it is part-less total consciousness. The example that is given is

like 'pot-space' where pot-space is limited space in the pot - appear to be

parted from the total space - but it is one with the total space. How does one

look at pot-space? - Is it total space or only pot-space? This is the same

confusion in looking at jiiva saakshii with the total consciousness and that is

where the understanding of self-realization also comes in.

Pot-space can be looked as two ways: 1. it is only pot space limited by the pot

walls - that in terms of consciousness is called upahita caitanya or upaadhi

sahita caitanya.

Pot-space can also be looked as total space since space can never be parted and

there is no partition of the space. Hence from the point of consciousness

upahita caitanya is the same as total caitanya.

Hence the vision depends on the reference here.

To complete the story of jiiva - jiiva therefore involves the following things

like pot. 1) Total consciousness - one without a second - like total space.

2) That total consciousness 'as though' limited by the upaadhiis - like

upahita caitanya - like limited pot-space.

3) This upahita caitanya like limiting witnessing consciousness is now

reflected in the upaadhiis - as cidaabhaasa. - This is accounted according to

Vedanta by the famous ‘anupravesha shruthi statements' - Brahman entered into

the subtle bodies.

4) This reflected consciousness cidaabhaasa identifying itself with the

reflection as 'I am this' - this identification is birth of ego. Identification

is explained by Vedanta as due to lack of knowledge of ones own true nature.

 

One has to understand the last part or 4) - the notion of jiiva that I am this

comes by identification with 'this'. That is the ego part. The rest of the other

parts involves no identification - and natural process - that is saakshii and

the reflection of the illumination of the saakshii in the upaadhiis etc. There

is no ignorance involved in there. Reflection occurs because there is saakshii

that is self-illuminating and there is the subtle body like a mirror that is

reflecting.

 

Along with these jiiva notion, the saakshii through the reflecting medium of the

mind and the sense also perceives the world of objects external to the mind and

the senses and concludes that there is world of objects down there - the

conclusion is also part of the ego - since it involves identification of I am

this - and therefore I am not that. Inclusion of this with I am automatically

contributes to the exclusion of that as I am not that - that is how ego

crystallizes.

 

Now what is realization?

 

As we said before Brahman need not have to realize.

 

Ego will never realize since it always involves identification of I am this.

 

Then who realizes?

 

I, the conscious entity, who considers myself as I am a jiiva with the

identification of the upaadhiis, shift my identification from this to the

witnessing consciousness or saakshii or upahita caitanya as I am ever conscious

entity and not the upaadhiis or reflections that is occurring in the mind.

 

Where is the realization taking place - in the saakshii? No saakshii is ever

present and ever illuminating principle and does not need to realize anything.

The realization also takes place in the mind of jiiva only in the buddhi or the

intellect since knowledge can only takes place in the buddhi.

 

In the process of realization, what is accomplished is shifting my

identification as I am this to I am - pure limitless consciousness. Since this

realization is in the buddhi - the realization will be I am pure eternal

consciousness enlivening this BMI as reflected consciousness. Thus I am the

total space but due to pot-walls I am enlivening this pot as pot-space. Jiiva

mukta has not more delusion as I am this and not that. He may operate as though

I am this but that is at operational level but understanding level - like true

actor playing I am actor plying a given role.

 

Hence jiivan mukta is the one who realizes that I am the upahita caitanya or

consciousness that which is limitless and eternal as aham brahmaasmi but

currently as though enlivening these upaadhiis - BMI.

 

Hence we can think of the jiivan mukta 'as though' has a visa - he recognizes

himself as the total consciousness yet can operate the local upaadhiis as long

as the upaadhiis are available. Sarva bhuutastam aatmaana - sarva bhuttani ca

aatmani - I am in all beings and all beings are in me is the understanding of

jnaani as Krishna says. The fact that the presence of all beings are recognized

implies that jiiva sees all beings but no misunderstanding that they are really

separate but only apparently.

 

He never looses sight that he is total consciousness in spite of the limitations

of the upaadhiis that he is playing with. This is what jnaani implies.

 

Hence we can have jnaani living in the world - as Shankara says:

 

yogaratova, bhogaratova, sangaratova, sangha vihiinaH|

yadyat brahamani ramate cittam, nandati nandati nadatyeva||

 

He may be a yogi, he may be bhogi, he may be in the groups or he may be all

alone, it does not matter where he is; but his mind is always reveling in

himself by himself - aatmani eva atmaanaa tuShTaH.

 

That Nairji - is my understanding of jiivan mukta.

 

When the upaadhiis fall, there is no more reflecting consciousness; and

pot-space is one with the total space - the upahita caitanya is now nirupaadhika

caitanya - consciousness which 'as though' parted is now part-less.

 

That Nairji is my understanding of jiivan mukta which is in tune with what all I

have studied.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

--- On Mon, 8/25/08, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

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.

[Guest guest]

Pranams Sastriji:

 

Yesterday, I posted few golden rules for Satsangh (spiritual

discussions) with other Satsanghis and you have demonstrated through

your messages why they are important and valuable. You are truly

the role model for expressing the view points without over excitement

or grief.. Only persons with discriminating intellect and wisdom

can make the statement such as the following: – " I think I have

failed to make myself clear. I agree with everything that you say. "

I and many others in this list are learning every time that we read

your posts which has enhanced our knowledge and communication

skills. We are fortunate that you are with this list and we truly

appreciate and admire your willingness to share your insights. I hope

all Satsanghis in this list follow suit and exhibit their scholarship

with more humility.

 

What you have stated in this post once more explains the role of

Vedanta in clear terms to those who believe in Sankara's advaitic

theology. I have no doubt in my mind that what Bhaskerji, Nairji and

Madhavaji have been stating repeatedly in many forms are `irrefutable

facts.' Who can dispute the fact that " Atmajnana is ever-

existing? " In classical logic such statements are known as `logical

tautology.' A logical tautology is a statement always true regardless

of the truth values of other associated parts! Another example for

tautology is the statement, " Brahman knows the Brahman. " It is an

accepted fact that all Vedantins believe in the truth of Vedanta. The

question that needs our attention is: " Why do we choose to believe

what we believe? " My observation of all postings in this thread makes

me to believe that you (Sastriji) and Sadaji have been trying your

level best to get some reasonable answers and explanations to that

fundamental question. There are still lingering doubts on parts of

the answers provided and such doubts are inevitable because the

question is complex. Vedanta attempts to provide profound answers but

as Jivas we possess the doubting minds.. As long as we live as Jivas,

we likely influenced by force of `avidya' and that is the reason for

our lingering doubts. You have further explained why we need

shravanam, mananam and nididhyaasanam to become the Jivanmukta.

Thanks again for sharing your wisdom.

 

What you have explained here has compelled me to restate what I have

stated once on the resemblance between `Jiva' and the complex number

in mathematics. The simple equation, Jiva = Atman + imaginary *

(BMI) explains Vedanta in mathematical terms. Atman is real (true

both in mathematics and Vedanta). Jiva if identified with the Atman

is also REAL. Jiva's identification with BMI is imaginary or

illusionary. In mathematics, a complex number requires a complex

algebra and the operation of algebra of real numbers becomes

invalid. Similarly, the complex Jiva can operate only by the rules

of Vyavaharika Sathya. If we use Paramarthika Sathya for the Jiva, we

will violating the rules just like the violation illustrated for

complex number. With the Sadhana (practice) of shravanam, mananam and

nididhyasanam, we can get rid of the imaginary component BMI. When

Jiva has zero identification with BMI he becomes the Jivanmukta. What

it represents is the change in attitude in dealing with our life.

(For those interested on the role of shravanam, mananam and

nididhyaasanam in our life, please refer to this excellent post by

Sadaji advaitin/message/10060 .

 

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note to Satsanghis: This analogy between Vedantic truth about Jiva

and mathematical rule of operation of complex number is quite

appealing to me with some mathematics background. I do understand

that others may have difficulty in appreciating the analogy due to

various valid other reasons. Please feel free to express your

corrections, additions and clarifications.

 

 

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> 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

[Guest guest]

Dear Respected Shri Sada-ji,

 

Thank you very much for your detailed response (# 41426). I am

sorry my reply is a little delayed. I was indisposed the last couple

of days.

 

I had provided a summary of my understanding of brahmajnAna and

expected my flaws to be pointed out. However, instead of correcting

or improving my statements, you have gone deep into the dynamics and

mechanism of what I termed in my summary as falsity and false

identifications.

 

Besides, I notice a contradiction in the last part of your post

quoted below:

 

QUOTE

 

Hence we can have jnaani living in the world - as Shankara says:

 

yogaratova, bhogaratova, sangaratova, sangha vihiinaH|

yadyat brahamani ramate cittam, nandati nandati nadatyeva||

 

He may be a yogi, he may be bhogi, he may be in the groups or he may

be all alone, it does not matter where he is; but his mind is always

reveling in himself by himself - aatmani eva atmaanaa tuShTaH.

 

That Nairji - is my understanding of jiivan mukta.

 

When the upaadhiis fall, there is no more reflecting consciousness;

and pot-space is one with the total space - the upahita caitanya is

now nirupaadhika caitanya - consciousness which 'as though' parted is

now part-less.

 

UNQUOTE

 

In the translation of Acharya's verse, the jnAni is endowed with

a `mind'. In the last para above, upAdhis are expected to fall with

the emergence of nirupAdhika caitanya. Earlier in your post, you had

mentioned that " realization takes place in the mind of jiiva only in

the buddhi or the intellect since knowledge can only takes place in

the buddhi " . From this, I am getting an unfortunate impression that,

in your analysis, you don't include the `mind' and `intellect' among

the upAdhis that fall off.

 

Besides, we have been using confusing terminology in this

discussion. Terms like jnAni, jIvan mukta, brahmaniSta etc. are

freely used to refer to the same `entity'.

 

Perhaps, my disagreement with you arises from the fact that I was

taught Advaita in a direct manner without recourse to Ishwara etc.,

i.e. beginning from the logical division between the subject " I " and

the rest of all that that subject objectifies. That method is much

in tune with the way Advaita is expounded in " Advaita Makarandam " and

other similar treatises. I would, therefore, like to understand

brahmajnAna as described in the concluding verse of that magnificent

treatise quoted below:

 

upashAnta jagajjIva

shiSyAcAreshwarabhramaM

swatasiddhamanAdyantaM

paripUrNamahaM mahaH

 

(I , the Self-Efflulgence called Atman, am beginningless and endless,

full and self-evident, where delusions like jIva, world, teacher,

disciple and God have completely come to rest.)

 

If sarvAtmatwaM is understood from the above angle, it connotes that

I am all and that *all* is not a plurality of many things as we

understand it in the transactional. It means I am all that there is.

 

For such a Knowledge (not embodiment of Knowledge), therefore, where

is the need for further perambulations in a transactional which has

already come to rest? So, what did Shankara mean by the description

of a jnaani living in the world in the verse quoted by you? Without

compromising advaita, I would venture to say that that description is

only a transactional projection in the realm of avidya. Well, in the

transactional, Shankara himself and all the pramANas are only a

projection of ajnAnis, which have to come to rest when nirupAdhika

caitanya shines forth in all its glory! This is not a personal

conclusion. It is the only conclusion that fully abides by the

tenets of Advaita.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

When the upaadhiis fall, there is no more reflecting consciousness;

and pot-space is one with the total space - the upahita caitanya is

now nirupaadhika caitanya - consciousness which 'as though' parted is

now part-less.

praNAms

Hare Krishna

In otherwords, it is as good as saying, upahita chaitanya can become nirupAdhika chaitanya ONLY and ONLY after the *fall* of upAdhi-s, that means only *after* the physical death of jnAni. ...So, without our knowledge we are *linking* Atma jnAna with upAdhi-s & saying upAdhi rahita (nirupAdhika) Atma jnAna is ONLY a posthumous event!!!

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Nairji - PraNAms - thanks for noticing the contradictions! Let us try to resolve

those if we can.

 

Fundamental contradiction arises when I, an eternal-conscious entity identify

myself with this - BMI - which is inert and temporal. That is the beginning of

Arjuna's problem and our problem, nay fundamental human problem. All

explanations are to resolve this fundamental contradiction. Since contradictions

are notional, we should be able to resolve them when we understand that they are

notions.

 

Nairji - Since these posts are not between us but communication with the 1500+

members, I tried to respond keeping in mind the readers in mind - hence always

details that I can provide without much of contradictions or ambiguities

possible. We may not agree but there are others who are getting benefit out of

these posts- hopefully at least. That is the reason why we try to focus on the

issues than personalities.

 

Let us examine the contradictions that you have noted.

 

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

 

--- On Wed, 8/27/08, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

 

 

I had provided a summary of my understanding of brahmajnAna and

expected my flaws to be pointed out. However, instead of correcting

or improving my statements, you have gone deep into the dynamics and

mechanism of what I termed in my summary as falsity and false

identifications.

 

Besides, I notice a contradiction in the last part of your post

quoted below:

 

QUOTE

 

Hence we can have jnaani living in the world - as Shankara says:

 

yogaratova, bhogaratova, sangaratova, sangha vihiinaH|

yadyat brahamani ramate cittam, nandati nandati nadatyeva||

 

He may be a yogi, he may be bhogi, he may be in the groups or he may

be all alone, it does not matter where he is; but his mind is always

reveling in himself by himself - aatmani eva atmaanaa tuShTaH.

 

That Nairji - is my understanding of jiivan mukta.

 

When the upaadhiis fall, there is no more reflecting consciousness;

and pot-space is one with the total space - the upahita caitanya is

now nirupaadhika caitanya - consciousness which 'as though' parted is

now part-less.

 

UNQUOTE

Nairji:

In the translation of Acharya's verse, the jnAni is endowed with

a `mind'. In the last para above, upAdhis are expected to fall with

the emergence of nirupAdhika caitanya. Earlier in your post, you had

mentioned that " realization takes place in the mind of jiiva only in

the buddhi or the intellect since knowledge can only takes place in

the buddhi " . From this, I am getting an unfortunate impression that,

in your analysis, you don't include the `mind' and `intellect' among

the upAdhis that fall off.

 

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

Sada:

Upaadhiis include all the three BMI - because subtle body falls - there is no

more upahita caitanya - nir - upaadhika implies all bodies - gross, subtle and

causal.

 

By the by the difference between the death of realized and unrealized one is

discussed in the Ch. Up - 6th chapter. In the unrealized the subtle body and

causal body (vaasanaas) does not die - they move into different fields of

experiences to exhaust the next set of vaasanaas. Hence in the same

Bhajagovindam - Shankara says - punarapi jananam punarapi maraNam .. etc. For

jnaani - the subtle body also dies - in fact we can say that is the ultimate

death of jiiva!

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

Nairji:

 

Besides, we have been using confusing terminology in this

discussion. Terms like jnAni, jIvan mukta, brahmaniSta etc. are

freely used to refer to the same `entity'.

 

Sada: yes - they all mean the same - shotria could be different - hence the

advise for a saadhaka to approach a teacher who is both shotria and

brahmaniShTa.

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

Nairji:

Perhaps, my disagreement with you arises from the fact that I was

taught Advaita in a direct manner without recourse to Ishwara etc.,

i.e. beginning from the logical division between the subject " I " and

the rest of all that that subject objectifies.

 

Sada:

Nairji - Scriptures provide both descriptions of Brahman - saguNa and nirguNa -

Shankara takes niruguNa is the absolute truth while saguNa as part of adhyaaropa

apavaada - as intermediary teaching to be discarded by abheda vaakyaas - tat

tvam asi - aham brahmaasmi. Hence the ultimate teaching of jiiva - brahma

aikyatva vaakyam - or mahaavaakyams - or more correctly akhanDaarthaka bhodaka

vaakyam, indivisible nature of the absolute truth. The bheda vaakyas are valid

at relative level or vyaavahaarika level. Ramanuja and Maadhva give more

importance to them.

For saadhaka it is better to consider Iswara than meditating on the abosolute as

Krishna is going to tell us in the 12 Ch.

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

Nairji:

That method is much

in tune with the way Advaita is expounded in " Advaita Makarandam " and

other similar treatises. I would, therefore, like to understand

brahmajnAna as described in the concluding verse of that magnificent

treatise quoted below:

 

upashAnta jagajjIva

shiSyAcAreshwarabhr amaM

swatasiddhamanAdyan taM

paripUrNamahaM mahaH

 

(I , the Self-Efflulgence called Atman, am beginningless and endless,

full and self-evident, where delusions like jIva, world, teacher,

disciple and God have completely come to rest.)

 

If sarvAtmatwaM is understood from the above angle, it connotes that

I am all and that *all* is not a plurality of many things as we

understand it in the transactional. It means I am all that there is.

 

Sada: Beautiful Nairji - I took that text during the 2007 memorial day weekend

camp here in Washington.

 

Yes- that is the absolute truth - That is what mahaavaakya bodha involves.

The realization is to recognize the oneness of jiiva-Iswara-jagat - the very

substantive of all as Brahman in the understanding of aham brahmaasmi.

That is the absolute truth. By the by in the brahmachaari training course, in

Chinmaya Mission, Advaita Makaranda text is tought after all the completing all

the Upanishad texts.

 

Hence Kena Up. repeats again and again - It is not this that you worship is

Brahman - nedam yadidam upaasate. But Iswara is needed until them.

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

Nairji:

 

For such a Knowledge (not embodiment of Knowledge), therefore, where

is the need for further perambulations in a transactional which has

already come to rest?

 

Sada: Nairji - this is where the understanding or knowledge has to be

understood. Remember the example- I understand everything is nothing but

electrons-protons and neutrons. But even with that unifying understanding, I

transact differently with delicious food vs. stinky garbage. Here I have no

confusion or contradiction in understanding oneness at absolute level and

transaction at relative level. Advaitic understanding at absolute level does not

mean negation of the relative realities - it is understanding of the

absoluteness in the relative realities.

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

 

Nairji:

So, what did Shankara mean by the description

of a jnaani living in the world in the verse quoted by you? Without

compromising advaita, I would venture to say that that description is

only a transactional projection in the realm of avidya. Well, in the

transactional, Shankara himself and all the pramANas are only a

projection of ajnAnis, which have to come to rest when nirupAdhika

caitanya shines forth in all its glory! This is not a personal

conclusion. It is the only conclusion that fully abides by the

tenets of Advaita.

Sada: No problem in that. That is why jnaani plays in the world as aatma rati

and aatma kriiDa. We call him Guru brahma, guru vishnu gurur devo maheswaraH.

 

Only problem is niirupaadhika shines forth in all its glory - happiness when

there are no upaadhiis. when there are upaadhiis, it shines forth with the

upaadhiis. Hence jnaani knows that he is beyond upaadhiis - they are in him but

not he is in them - As they are available he can use them - since he does not

have any thing to gain as he has gained everything - it is used for the benefit

of the totality only. Since Brahman cannot act, being infinite, we bring in

Iswara - as Upaadhiis are being used by Iswara for the benefit of the humanity.

It is just the reference from which these statements are made.

 

From advaita point - there are level of understanding at absolute level and

transactions at relative level – there are no contradictions –

contradictions arise only when we mix up the two references - hence even the

scriptural teaching advaita follows adhyaaropa apavaada. Does Brahman create -

no. But there is a creation, how does one explain- hence advaita brings in

Iswara and maaya shakti. Mayaashakti involves both projection power and

covering. When ignorance that appear to cover is removed by proper pramaaNa,

the knowledge gets revealed. That is how all knowledge takes place. That

removes aavaraNa shakti. Vishepa shakti or projecting power is there as long as

upaadhiis are there. Hence there is no ignorance, plurality that one sees

become Iswara vibhuuti. That is the teaching of Krishna too. I pervade this

entire universe in unmanifested form - All being rise in me, sustained by me and

go back in to me. Nay from the absolute point, they are

not even in me- I am beyond all these - Look at my glory Arjuna.

 

Nairji, I have not found any contradictions in the above other than the

fundamental contradiction noted in the beginning.

 

Always happy (Sadananda) to discuss if you find any more contradictions.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

--- On Wed, 8/27/08, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

 

When the upaadhiis fall, there is no more reflecting consciousness;

and pot-space is one with the total space - the upahita caitanya is

now nirupaadhika caitanya - consciousness which 'as though' parted is

now part-less.

praNAms

Hare Krishna

In otherwords, it is as good as saying, upahita chaitanya can become nirupAdhika

chaitanya ONLY and ONLY after the *fall* of upAdhi-s, that means only *after*

the physical death of jnAni. ...So, without our knowledge we are *linking* Atma

jnAna with upAdhi-s & saying upAdhi rahita (nirupAdhika) Atma jnAna is ONLY a

posthumous event!!!

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

 

 

Bhaskarji - PraNAms - I must say you are interpreting my statement that is not

intended - that is incorrect understanding of what was written. 'in ather words

... etc is your interpretation of what I wrote.

 

Pot space knows that I am the total space even when there are walls separating

the pot-space from the total space. That Understanding has to be understood

which I have stated clearly in my post. Where as ajnanai thinks I am only a

small pot with limited space. Jnaani knows that he is the limitless space

conditioned now in the pot even though as space he is unconditioned. Please

examine the reference point these discussions have been made.

 

Pot - space has no more limiting udjuncts of the walls when the walls break.

Jiivamukta already understood even as a pot-space that I am total space, even

while understanding that pot is there to transact with other pots for

transactional purposes.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

For such a Knowledge (not embodiment of Knowledge), therefore, where

is the need for further perambulations in a transactional which has

already come to rest? So, what did Shankara mean by the description

of a jnaani living in the world in the verse quoted by you? Without

compromising advaita, I would venture to say that that description is

only a transactional projection in the realm of avidya. Well, in the

transactional, Shankara himself and all the pramANas are only a

projection of ajnAnis, which have to come to rest when nirupAdhika

caitanya shines forth in all its glory! This is not a personal

conclusion. It is the only conclusion that fully abides by the tenets of Advaita.

praNAms Sri MN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

That is beautifully articulated prabhuji...It is really a matter of regret that we are giving undue importance to the jnAni's body (upAdhi) & whenever we are talking about jnAna, we are forced to remind ourselves about jnAna/jnAni's unembodiedness...if jnAna is connected only with the jIvAtma/ upAdhi-s (socalled jIvAtma is only coz. of identification with upAdhi-s and there cannot be any jIvAtma when these upAdhi-s get sublated), how exactly does it matter whether the embodiedness or otherwise for brahma jnAni? Dont we always say brahma jnAna is upAdhi bAdhita jnAna?? As you have rightly pointed out, the notion of jIva who is capable of action, who is seeking liberation, who's doing sAdhana etc. etc. are all in the realm of ignorance only. shankara quotes in sUtra bhAshya (4-1-13) :The knower of brahman will have come to this conclusion that " I am brahman devoid of *all* agentship and experiencing fruits of actions for all the three periods of time. I was never an agent or experiencer even before this, nor am I such now, nor shall I be such in future " . With this, the remnants of avidyA or memories of avidyA also conspicuous by its absence in the jnAni.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste dear Nairji and Bhaskerji:

 

I have been following both of your standings from your posts and my

answers are on the basis of my understanding of what you have been

arguing. It is a well known fact that we are all still eating,

resting, thinking, writing and sending our messages only at the

transactional (vyAvahArika ) level. It is also a fact that we are all

anjnAnis and the degree of our anjnAnam varies and depends on

beliefs, convictions and understandings of what we learnt from

various sources. It is also a fact that we can't really `understand'

Sankara's definition of Jivanmukta as long we have anjnanam.

 

Those who refute what Sadaji has been explaining with great

scholarship with humility can be either the Brahman at the

transcendental level or an Anjnani at the transactional level. I and

many others like me are not surprised to see your disagreements. He

has stated as best as he can on the limitations numerous times. In

spite of his serious sincere efforts you both repeatedly `arguing' on

his statement on Jivanmukta. An understanding on the nature of

Jivanmukta is beyond human intellect that is filled with anjnanam.

I know Sadaji for over 15 years and he has been guiding the list from

the date of its inception from August 1998. He has also been

associated with Chinmaya Mission and he has a huge collection Advaita

Vedantic books. He was a devotee and disciple of Swami Chinmayananda

and thousands of members of Chinmaya mission greatly respect him for

his scholarship, friendship and humility. He has been studying

Vedanta and conducting Vedantic study groups, discourses and

spiritual camps to spread the message of Vedanta. He has been

unselfishly share his knowledge and wisdom without any reservation in

this list. He has been answering the questions raised by the members

sincerely with dedication, humility and love. I really don't

(can't ) understand your stands on the on going discussion.

 

Please take few moments to contemplate and read and write few times

before you post your remarks and allegations. I want both of you

take a serious reading of what Mahatma Gandhi once said: " At times, I

used to think that there are inconsistencies in Bhagavad Gita, later,

after contemplation, I was able to recognize that Gita is always

right! The apparent inconsistencies were only due to my ignorance and

misunderstanding of what Gita actually states!! " In the book, " The

message of Gita, " Gandhiji further emphasize the importance of faith

and devotion while reading the words of sages: A prayerful study and

experience are essential for a correct interpretation of the

scriptures. Those who would interpret the scriptures must have the

spiritual discipline. They must practice the yamas and niyamas - the

eternal guides of conduct. A superficial practice there of is

useless. Those who are lacking in bhakti, lacking in faith, are ill-

equipped to interpret the scriptures. The learned may draw an

elaborately learned interpretation out of them, but that will not be

the true interpretation. Only the experienced will arrive at the true

interpretation of the scriptures. A humble student will simply

say: " It is the limitation of my own intellect that I cannot resolve

this inconsistency. I might be able to do so in the time to come. "

That is how he/she will plead with himself and with others.

 

The notion of Jivanmukta is further explained in the next two

paragraphs. I am posting this to benefit the members who want to know

and I am aware of the limitations with respect to the notion of

Jivanmukta. If you don't agree with what is being stated, I fully

respect your observations.

 

The notion of Jivanmukta is quite unique to the school of Advaita

Vedanta Philosophy attributed to Sankara. The Advaita school of

Sankara envisages that Jiva (human) is already liberated and the

Atman (soul) is always free. Jivas who have had this realization are

called Jivanmuktas. Jivanmuktas live in the natural state of the

bliss of the Brahman (the Absolute Truth or Reality). The Brahman

theAbsolute Reality of Vedanta is known as 'Existence-Consciousness-

Bliss' (Sat-Chit-Ananda)'. The state of Jivanmukta is also

called `Self-Realization.' The Vedantic scriptures (more specifically

the works of Sankaracharya, the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita) declare

that the Jivanmuktas possess the knowledge of the Brahman (Brahma

Jnana). The knowledge of the Brahman is also known as the Paravidya

(absolute knowledge). Any knowledge other than Paravidya is

Aparavidya (relative knowledge) which consists of knowledge through

the senses (externally) and they include even the study of

scriptures.

 

The state of Jivanmukta can only be experienced internally. It

spontaneously evolves when one completely stops all worldly

distractions or glamour. It is just like waking up from a dream, we

only know when we are awake, not before. It is a divine vision of

equanimity that germinates intuitively. When that experience takes

shape, there is no more knowledge, no more ignorance, no perceiver,

nothing perceived, no perception. It is something devoid of the

triple of knower, knowledge and the known. Such enlightened persons

do not see this world as we do. All they see is the Divine and the

ever-present Infinite Love. The world of non-duality emerges where

there is no self, no non-self, but everywhere only Grace and Love.

There will be no more limitations of time, no action, no merit or

demerit, no happiness or sorrow and no more darkness. This is the

state of eternal enlightenment transcending all speech and thought.

Examples of realized Jivas include Ramana Maharishi, Ramakrishna

Parmahamsa and several others.

 

In conclusion, please take few moments to recognize the fact that we

are still a limited being with a limited understanding. We all have

lot more to learn before we make any attempts to refute what is being

stated and quoted.

 

With my warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " wrote:

>

> For such a Knowledge (not embodiment of Knowledge), therefore, where

> is the need for further perambulations in a transactional which has

> already come to rest? So, what did Shankara mean by the description

> of a jnaani living in the world in the verse quoted by you? Without

> compromising advaita, I would venture to say that that description

is

> only a transactional projection in the realm of avidya. Well, in the

> transactional, Shankara himself and all the pramANas are only a

> projection of ajnAnis, which have to come to rest when nirupAdhika

> caitanya shines forth in all its glory! This is not a personal

> conclusion. It is the only conclusion that fully abides by the

tenets of

> Advaita.

>

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:>

> That is beautifully articulated prabhuji...It is really a matter of

regret

> that we are giving undue importance to the jnAni's body (upAdhi) &

whenever

> we are talking about jnAna, we are forced to remind ourselves about

> jnAna/jnAni's unembodiedness...if jnAna is connected only with the

jIvAtma/

> upAdhi-s (socalled jIvAtma is only coz. of identification with

upAdhi-s and

> there cannot be any jIvAtma when these upAd

[Guest guest]

In spite of his serious sincere efforts you both repeatedly `arguing' on

his statement on Jivanmukta. An understanding on the nature of

Jivanmukta is beyond human intellect that is filled with anjnanam.

I know Sadaji for over 15 years and he has been guiding the list from

the date of its inception from August 1998. He has also been

associated with Chinmaya Mission and he has a huge collection Advaita

Vedantic books.

Humble praNAms Sri Ramachandra prabhuji

Hare Krishna

I dont know why you are bringing in personalities here in our objective discussion...I hold Sri Sadananda prabhuji at high esteem and I consider him one of the greatest proponent of advaita vedanta. Even today before coming to office I listened to his discourse on upadesha sAra ( audio cassettes Sri Sadananda prabhuji kindfully given to me when he visited Bangalore)... & I mentally prostrate before him before writing anything to him....There is absolutely no *personal grudge* here when we are discussing some issue with an objective point of view...I dont know why you have come to the conclusion that myself & Sri Nair prabhuji deliberately & unnecessarily arguing with him!! For that matter, even other prabhuji-s ( Sri Prof. VK prabhuji, Sri Madhava prabhuji etc.) also expressed their concerns about the ongoing discussion..The only crime (if you think so) myself & Sri Nair prabhuji still doing is stretching this issue further & firmly holding our views without any compromise...But as you know, we are not doing this just by some baseless arguments but to the best of our ability we are justifying our view points logically with appropriate support from shankara bhAshya vAkya. Under these circumstances, I am not able to understand your intention behind calling names in the on-going discussion...

I request Sri Sadananda prabhuji to clarify if this discussion giving him any impression of insult...I shall stop my discussion at once with an unconditional apology.

Sri Ramachandra prabhuji, I donot want go into the details of description what you have given in your mail about jIvanmukta..Anyway, the below is what myself & Sri Nair prabhuji are trying to say & that you yourself stated in your mail...

// quote //

When that experience takes shape, there is no more knowledge, no more ignorance, no perceiver, nothing perceived, no perception. It is something devoid of the triple of knower, knowledge and the known.

// unquote //

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

hare krishna ,namaskaramsan excellantly written message that was long due.[ On Wed, 27/8/08, Ram Chandran <ramvchandran wrote:

The state of Jivanmukta can only be experienced internally. It

spontaneously evolves when one completely stops all worldly

distractions or glamour. It is just like waking up from a dream, we

only know when we are awake, not before. It is a divine vision of

equanimity that germinates intuitively. When that experience takes

shape, there is no more knowledge, no more ignorance, no perceiver,

nothing perceived, no perception. It is something devoid of the

triple of knower, knowledge and the known. Such enlightened persons

do not see this world as we do. All they see is the Divine and the

ever-present Infinite Love. The world of non-duality emerges where

there is no self, no non-self, but everywhere only Grace and Love.

There will be no more limitations of time, no action, no merit or

demerit, no happiness or sorrow and no more darkness. This is the

state of eternal enlightenment transcending all speech and thought.

Examples of realized Jivas include Ramana Maharishi, Ramakrishna

Parmahamsa and several others.

 

In conclusion, please take few moments to recognize the fact that we

are still a limited being with a limited understanding. We all have

lot more to learn before we make any attempts to refute what is being

stated and quoted. ]absolutely true. one has to realise himself as the state of ever existing brahman and such a person i do not know whether he will ever be available write like us in this forum. i pray to lord krishna that we are all able to realise this in this birth and be free of the cycle of birth and death.in krishnabaskaran.

 

 

 

Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ram-ji.

 

I wish you had written a personal mail if you really felt that I

was " repeatedly arguing " . Afterall, I am also a Moderator of this

Group, an honour I expressed my wish to voluntarily relinquish long

ago in a mail addressed to you and the other Moderators.

 

You could also have written directly to Shri Bhaskarji, a very senior

and active Member very well-read (perhaps, the best well-read in our

midst) on Shankara whose teachings our List claims to uphold.

 

From his last post, I notice that Respected Sadaji has agreed that

the rise of nirupAdhika caitanya connotes the fall of all the

upAdhis. Since the upAdhis include the body, mind and intellect

which erect the transactional in front of our eyes, I should

reasonably imagine that the transactional will also fall off when

nirupAdhika caitanya (paramArtha) shines forth.

 

The following section of your statement (or quote I am not sure) also

says the same thing almost (although I won't call what is described

in there an 'experience'):

 

QUOTE

 

" When that experience takes shape, there is no more knowledge, no

more ignorance, no perceiver, nothing perceived, no perception. It

is something devoid of the triple of knower, knowledge and the

known. "

 

UNQUOTE

 

If the above is Sadaji's, Sastri-ji's and your conclusion, then I

have no further qualms. Then, the question of a Self-Realized one's

perambulations *in the already ceased transactional* remains to be

answered! I would like to leave it to the imagination of our Members

in order to save further repetitive arguments.

 

Your reference to the age, seniority, experience, contributions etc.

of personalities is unfortunate sentimentalism. I am sure I am

writing here because I enjoy doing so and I should imagine that that

is the case with everyone here, senior or junior. If any benefits

comes to others out of reading what is written, that is just a by-

product. That much then to altruism.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Nairji, Bhaskarji and Ramji, PraNAms to all.

 

First my sincere thanks to Shree Ramji for his kind words. I can understand his

concerns. Personally I am not all affected by discussions. If affected, I would

have stopped my responses. In fact, I feel privileged to address the issues as

they come. Only problem is if there are no other issues but repeating the same

arguments again and again, one looses the steam. The second problem is if

posters do not read the response and quickly respond presenting again the same

arguments, one wonders the purpose of the discussion. My motivation to discuss

is to present as best as I can, the Vedanta that I understand to those who are

interested. We are blessed with the new internet communication and if we can

make use of it to the best we can, we all can grow.

 

As Shree Sastriji kindly pointed out from his reference and it is true - I have

no contradictions or confusions, due to the grace of my teacher who lovingly

taught me all that I know, both in the class and outside the class. Hence

whatever that I share was that which was freely passed on to me, and I do it as

my aachaarya R^ina or my obligation to my teacher. That is one of the lessons he

taught me too, by his own living example as he was teaching until his last

breath of his life. Whatever I write, I do it only that I am fully convinced. I

took up the teaching only when H.H. Swami Tejomayanandaji, the current head of

Chinmaya Mission, asked me to do. I also want to remind the readers that we are

blessed to have Shree Sastriji participating so freely in spite of his health

considerations. He is an authority in Vedanta and joined the list at our request

and guiding us both as a moderator and as a participant. There is a way of

asking the questions to

such knowledgeable person. How we ask shows our culture. You can express your

understanding with respect, if you disagree with him, why you disagree in terms

of the basis for your disagreement and leave it with that. How we ask and even

how we express our disagreements reflects our culture and our growth too. I

know we all know these, but some of the posts (which motivated Shree Ram to

write a reminder) are not worthy of ourselves. Before we express the

disagreements let us first ask ourselves, have I listened or read correctly the

reference from which these comments were addressed. Have I identified the issue

correctly?

 

Yes issues need to be addressed until they are clear - or until we reach a stage

when it is better to study and understand more before I can address the issues

raised. One does not have to agree with the issues, but one should have a clear

understanding where one stands and why.

 

Bhaskarji - we have known each other for a long time. My sincere advise is

Shankara bhaashya's have to be understood in its totality. quoting bits and

pieces and say this is what Shankara says, actually does injustice to Shree

Shankara only. And asking for such quotes to justify the answer is also

meaningless. Shree Sastriji have studied extensively all the bhaashyaas and has

commented on many Vedantic books as his website shows. His knowledge is vast and

abundant. Even if you want to disagree with statement made, there is a polite

way of doing it. From my perspective understanding the essence is more

important some haphazard quotes of Shankara Bhaashya. Shankara Bhaashyas as

well as other great masterly works of other aachaaryas such as treasure for us.

They have to be studiend under a teacher to see the taatparyam correctly.

 

Now let us leave our personalities and address freely the issues that are

involved. That is the purpose of this list serve. I am posing the question

again.

 

Q. What is the status of jnaani?

 

Let us recall some facts. Jnaani has realized that I am Brahman (it is not I am

Iswara). I am Brahman which is substantive of jiiva-Iswara-jagat. Hence there

are no sajaati-vijaati-swagata bhedaas in Brahman. If one sees any bhedaas they

are only apparent and not real.

 

2. Does jnaani sees different bhedaas or not?

 

The correct understanding of advaita Vedanta is - he sees but he does not see,

he hears but he does not hear, he touches but he does not touch, etc. Are these

not contradictions - No, that is the only way how Vedanta can teach. Look at the

Brahman's description - at one stage it says - sarvataH paaNi paadaH, sarvatah

shrutimalloke - he has hands and legs everywhere - he has ears all over. sahasra

siirshaa purushaH - sahasraakshaa sahasra paat - He has thousands of heads and

thousands eyes etc. At the same time scripture also says - He has no eyes no

ears no hands etc too. The MunDaka sloka I quoted yesterday - yat adreshyam

agraahyam agotraam etc says exactly that. Are these not contradictions? No -

they are not - they describe the two reference states one can look at Brahman -

one from the absolute point - he has nothing other than himself no

sajaati-vijaati-swagata bhedaas. At the same time if I only have eyes

(representation of upaadhiis) then I can

seem him everywhere - since everything that I see is Him - he has thousands of

eyes.. etc. too. To see the eyes of the Brahman I must have eyes to see, to see

his thousands of ears, his thousands of hands, his thousands of legs and feet

etc, I must have capacity to see. As soon as I open my eyes I cannot but see

everything in front of me as varies of creation. Since Brahman is the material

cause for creation, I am seeing Brahman only with varies of bhedaasa that he

does not have! Hence scripture provides both descriptions - Brahman with form

and Brahman without form - With form it is nothing but his expression as his

vibhuuti - since they are apparent in him who has no form.

 

Where does jnaani fit in - jnaani means he knows all this as he knows he is

Brahman - That means he knows both aspects - the unmanifested eternal ever

present all pervading principle Brahman that he understood is not different from

him. He also understand that sarvam khalu idam Brahman - all this that he sees -

is apparent projection on Brahman - that includes his seeing as though it is

separate from him. Seer-seen duality he sees - but he knows that it is His

vibhuuti. He sees the student approaching and he teaches out of compassion -

knowing very well that the deserving student that approached him is nothing but

the Lord in that form only. Disciplining the student is part of that teaching

only. Recognizing other students who are not up to the mark is also part of

that teaching only. Hence vyavahaara can go on - knowing very well that

vyavahaara is part of the glory too.

That is the true knowledge that jnaana involves. It is not a contradiction but

correct understanding of the teaching of the Vedanta that it self appear to be

contradicting. Hence correct understanding of Vedanta comes through proper

teaching only.

 

--- On Thu, 8/28/08, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

 

 

From his last post, I notice that Respected Sadaji has agreed that

the rise of nirupAdhika caitanya connotes the fall of all the

upAdhis. Since the upAdhis include the body, mind and intellect

which erect the transactional in front of our eyes, I should

reasonably imagine that the transactional will also fall off when

nirupAdhika caitanya (paramArtha) shines forth.

 

Nairji - yes that is when death of the upaadhiis occur when there is no more

upaadhiis or from the pot's point there are no more pot walls.

But jnaani knows even before the pot walls broke that he as pot space is

nirupaadhi only but using the upaadhiis are part of vyavahaara.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste dear Nairji:

 

I am glad that you have come to some reasonable agreement as

indicated in your message. Your quoted message is the conclusion that

I got from the postings of Sastriji and Sadaji. This may explain why

I was surprised to see your posts with the repetition of the

same " doubts. " Sadaji has once again provided with explanations and

clarifications to your doubts. Coming with an Indian Cultural

Background, I have been advised my parents, grandparents and teachers

to pay due respect scholars for their age, seniority, scholarship,

experience and contributions. The purpose of this age-old tradition

to remind all of us the virtue of humility while expressing one's

scholarship.

 

We all (members and moderators) have the same privileges for posting

messages to the list and we all have to obey the rules and

regulations that governs this list.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

>

> QUOTE

>

> " When that experience takes shape, there is no more knowledge, no

> more ignorance, no perceiver, nothing perceived, no perception. It

> is something devoid of the triple of knower, knowledge and the

> known. "

>

> UNQUOTE

>

> If the above is Sadaji's, Sastri-ji's and your conclusion, then I

> have no further qualms. Then, the question of a Self-Realized

one's

> perambulations *in the already ceased transactional* remains to be

> answered! I would like to leave it to the imagination of our

Members

> in order to save further repetitive arguments.

>

> Your reference to the age, seniority, experience, contributions

etc.

> of personalities is unfortunate sentimentalism. I am sure I am

> writing here because I enjoy doing so and I should imagine that that

[Guest guest]

Humble praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Sri S prabhuji :

Personally I am not all affected by discussions. If affected, I would have stopped my responses.

bhaskar :

Thanks for your clarification prabhuji...That would give me a great relief & encouragement to share some of my concerns & observations.

Sri S prabhuji :

Only problem is if there are no other issues but repeating the same arguments again and again, one looses the steam.

bhaskar :

Repetition of some siddhAntic topics is quite common in bhAshya vAkya-s too..is it not prabhuji?? I would like to see this repetitive arguments as : consistency in presenting the thoughts...If the issue is not settled & the *nirNaya* is not coming forth, we have to repeat certain things again & again as a part of manana...That is the aim of shruti also otherwise what was the need for *tattvamasi* nine times in chAndOgya from uddAlaka :-))...We cannot everytime come up with new & innovative theory/arguments/observations when we have certain limited issues on hand...correct prabhuji??

Sri S prabhuji :

Bhaskarji - we have known each other for a long time. My sincere advise is Shankara bhaashya's have to be understood in its totality. quoting bits and pieces and say this is what Shankara says, actually does injustice to Shree Shankara only. And asking for such quotes to justify the answer is also meaningless.

bhaskar :

I am really at pain to see your repetitive accusation on me prabhuji...You seem to imply here that I am simply talking here in the air without understanding of the siddhAnta...Yes, I do agree that my understanding of the shankara siddhAnta may be different from that of socalled traditional understanding of shankara siddhAnta, but that does not mean that I am completely alien to the shankara siddhAnta. There is no need for me to hoot my own horn here by saying I am the proud desciple of my paramaguruji who has exclusively dedicated more than 6 decades in studying /contemplating on shankara siddhAnta. And I am the one who has taken *bhAshya shAnti* from one of this parama guruji's direct desciples...Certaininly I dont think I deserve the comments like this from your goodself prabhuji ..And it is also regret to note that despite my clarification in one of my previous posts, you are again & again accusing me of bits & pieces quotes. You would appreciate the fact that one cannot quote the whole of bhAshya to substantiate his/her claims...When we are discussing some topics & trying to do some siddhAnta nirNaya, the pace & style of the discussion goes in this manner only...It is not the bits & pieces, out of context quotes, it is the precise quotes out of whole prasthAna trayi bhAshya which I believe quite appropriate to the context of present discussion...If you dont think so, kindly educate me through *bits & pieces* quotes from shankara, really I dont mind & would like to see the contextual appropriateness of those quotes...

Sri S prabhuji :

Shree Sastriji have studied extensively all the bhaashyaas and has commented on many Vedantic books as his website shows. His knowledge is vast and abundant. Even if you want to disagree with statement made, there is a polite way of doing it.

bhaskar :

Again, I am unable to understand this type of allegations on me...I really dont know where have I offended, showed disrespect & argued in an offensive way with Sri Sastri prabhuji in this discussion.. If that is the case, Sri Sastri prabhuji has every right to mend my ways & he would have certainly done it openly in this list or off the list..It is onceagain surprising & painful for me to hear charges like this....

Is it really an unpardonable sin to disagree with the views of moderators of this list prabhuji?? Kindly clarify...

Sri S prabhuji :

From my perspective understanding the essence is more important some haphazard quotes of Shankara Bhaashya. Shankara Bhaashyas as well as other great masterly works of other aachaaryas such as treasure for us. They have to be studiend under a teacher to see the taatparyam correctly.

bhaskar :

Sri Sadananda prabhuji, it is very easy to push aside the quotes of shankara bhAshya by labeling it as *haphazard, bits & pieces, out of context quotes*...But it is a matter of fact that by claiming the essence & true understanding of siddhAnta on our *own* way, we are ignoring our parama AchArya & his works..

By the way, I would like to ask a simple & straight forward humble question here...How many of us, have studied shankara's prasthAna trayi bhAshya in a traditional way?? How many of us participated in the vidvat sabha & witness the style of debates take place there?? Kindly dont think I am asking this question out of arrogance or something of that order...Sri Sadananda prabhuji's repeated insistence on this issue compelling me to ask this question. I am not that much familiar with the teaching methods at Ramakrishna Ashrama & Chinmaya Mission etc. As far as my knowledge goes, there wont be a traditional way of teaching of *shankara vedanta in these institutions based on his prasthAna trayi bhAshya...Sri Sadananda prabhuji, kindly tell us the *method* of teaching at chinmaya mission...If you could permit me, I would also like to ask you whether you have undergone any *bhAshya shAnti* in a traditional manner...Kindly pardon me for asking this very personal question...I am forced to ask this question coz. of your repetitive statements like *bits & pieces, haphazard shankara bhAshya* etc. Normally I dont see this type of allegations from the prabhuji-s who have studied shankara bhAshya in a bonafide sAmpradAyik way...I onceagain would like to clarify here that this personal question is not out of any conceit ...just I am curious to know....

In the next post, I'd share my understandings on the remaining portion of your mail...which is the main topic of this discussion...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Please don't be glad yet. My conviction remains unchanged even

now. I don't think the latest explanation given by Respected Sadaji

about the transactions of a jnAni post-Self Realization is any

different from what he was saying (repeating!) before. I am leaving

it there.

 

I still go by the conclusion of Advaita Makarandam (quoted by me

before), which, without mincing words, clearly states what

BrahmanjnAnam is. There is no jIva, transactional, world or even

Ishwara for a BrahmajnAni. I am not quoting the verse again for fear

of being called repetitive.

 

For that matter, I am sure I have never been repetitive, although I

was talking about the same issue. In each message, I have looked at

it from different angles. Your saying that I have been repetitive

only shows that you haven't gone through my posts.

 

The cultural tradition is ok. I have no quarrels as long as the

application of it doesn't differentiate between senior, junior,

expert,layman, old member, new member and above all a detractor who

for his own good reasons airs a different opinion with solid

justifications.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran

wrote:

>

> Namaste dear Nairji:

>

> I am glad that you have come to some reasonable agreement as

> indicated in your message. Your quoted message is the conclusion

that

> I got from the postings of Sastriji and Sadaji. This may explain

why

> I was surprised to see your posts with the repetition of the

> same " doubts. " Sadaji has once again provided with explanations

and

> clarifications to your doubts. Coming with an Indian Cultural

> Background, I have been advised my parents, grandparents and

teachers

> to pay due respect scholars for their age, seniority, scholarship,

> experience and contributions. The purpose of this age-old

tradition

> to remind all of us the virtue of humility while expressing one's

> scholarship.

>

> We all (members and moderators) have the same privileges for

posting

> messages to the list and we all have to obey the rules and

> regulations that governs this list.

>

> With my warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

>

>

> advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

> <madathilnair@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > QUOTE

> >

> > " When that experience takes shape, there is no more knowledge,

no

> > more ignorance, no perceiver, nothing perceived, no perception.

It

> > is something devoid of the triple of knower, knowledge and the

> > known. "

> >

> > UNQUOTE

> >

> > If the above is Sadaji's, Sastri-ji's and your conclusion, then

I

> > have no further qualms. Then, the question of a Self-Realized

> one's

> > perambulations *in the already ceased transactional* remains to

be

> > answered! I would like to leave it to the imagination of our

> Members

> > in order to save further repetitive arguments.

> >

> > Your reference to the age, seniority, experience, contributions

> etc.

> > of personalities is unfortunate sentimentalism. I am sure I am

> > writing here because I enjoy doing so and I should imagine that

that

>

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Sri S prabhuji :

The correct understanding of advaita Vedanta is - he sees but he does not see, he hears but he does not hear, he touches but he does not touch, etc. Are these not contradictions - No, that is the only way how Vedanta can teach. Look at the Brahman's description - at one stage it says - sarvataH paaNi paadaH, sarvatah shrutimalloke - he has hands and legs everywhere - he has ears all over. sahasra siirshaa purushaH - sahasraakshaa sahasra paat - He has thousands of heads and thousands eyes etc. At the same time scripture also says - He has no eyes no ears no hands etc too. The MunDaka sloka I quoted yesterday - yat adreshyam agraahyam agotraam etc says exactly that. Are these not contradictions? No - they are not - they describe the two reference states one can look at Brahman - one from the absolute point - he has nothing other than himself no sajaati-vijaati-swagata bhedaas. At the same time if I only have eyes (representation of upaadhiis) then I can seem him everywhere - since everything that I see is Him - he has thousands of eyes.. etc. too.

bhaskar :

Here is what I am finding it difficult to understand your explanation prabhuji...I hope you are referring here gIta verse (13-13) sarvataH pAnipAdam....sarvamAvruttya tishTathi wherein bhagavan saying it has hands & feets every where..ears all around etc...and in the very next verse (13-14) the Lord says : sarvendriya guNAbhAsaM .....nirguNaM guNabhOktrucha..bhagavAn says IT is devoid of all senses...But here it is mentioned in the shankara bhAshya itself that 13-13 is adhyArOpa & 13-14 is apavAda...It does not say both are correct from two different levels...If what you are mentioning is *as per shankara* shankara would have definitely said that levels of reality are true here..On the other hand it has been repeatedly said that brahman can be known only through the *negation* of the superimposed qualities...So, gIta 13-13 is meant for teaching by means of superimposition which has been subsequently negated in the very next verse (13-14)...

Sri S prabhuji :

 

Where does jnaani fit in - jnaani means he knows all this as he knows he is Brahman - That means he knows both aspects - the unmanifested eternal ever present all pervading principle Brahman that he understood is not different from him. He also understand that sarvam khalu idam Brahman - all this that he sees - is apparent projection on Brahman - that includes his seeing as though it is separate from him. Seer-seen duality he sees - but he knows that it is His vibhuuti. He sees the student approaching and he teaches out of compassion - knowing very well that the deserving student that approached him is nothing but the Lord in that form only. Disciplining the student is part of that teaching only. Recognizing other students who are not up to the mark is also part of that teaching only. Hence vyavahaara can go on - knowing very well that vyavahaara is part of the glory too.

bhaskar :

Terminologies like glory, vibhUti etc. etc. tastes something like dualistic theory IMHO...If we go by strict non-dual philosophy of shankara it is better to conclude that creation, perception of this creation by jnAni *as his* vibhuti or otherwise, cause & its effect, religious works, vidyA-avidyA etc. etc. in the

sphere of avidyA only & at best these are all the teaching devices adopted just to convey the fact finally that brahman cannot be objectifiable...If we say vyavahAra can go on with the polish of glory/vibhuti, then it is nothing but avidyA-vyavahAra only... It is because in the very bhAshya of your above gIta quote (13-12) shankara clearly says : brahman is without genus and so cannot be expressed by words like *being*..not has it any quality in which case it could be expressed by an adjective of quality (glory / vibhuti etc.)..It is by its very nature it is free from all qualities. Nor can it be expressed by means of its action for it is action less..

But again, it is a digression from the main topic & we are forgetting the main *agenda* of this discussion i.e. jnAni's memories of avidyA & levels of reality of the jnAni...prabhuji, can we focus on these topics again....Ofcourse you know jnAni's vyavahara/teaching is NOT the main topic of this discussion.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Regarding the j~nAnI no longer having a mind or memories etc,

which was the original topic of discussion under this heading, Swami

Paramarthananda discusses this in connection with mANDUkya kArikA III.32.

 

He says that manonAsha must not be taken literally. What it

actually means is 'understanding the mind as mithyA'. As with the metaphor of

the clay pot, when Vedanta talks about destruction of the pot, it does not mean

physically breaking it, but understanding that it has no existence separate

from the clay. This is called j~nAna nAsha - destroying the pot through sheer

knowledge; negating the pot as substance and recognizing it is only name and

form. The destruction, whether of pot or mind is figurative only. Just as, when

we have figuratively destroyed the pot, we continue to use it, so with the mind

also. The wise man sees the world and knows that there is no substance called

'world'. No physical change happens to the world or our perception of it. The

difference is only in the perspective. A j~nAnI continues to use the mind just

as he continues to use the pot.

 

He says that, literally and physically, the mind should not be

destroyed, cannot be destroyed and need not be destroyed. If the mind is

physically destroyed, there would be no difference between a j~nAnI and a rock.

What would be the point of sAdhanA if the end result was that we became a

rock? And what would be the virtue of compassion, love etc? The scriptures say

that a j~nAnI is an embodiment of compassion etc. Since neither the Atma nor

the body have compassion, this must be a quality of the mind. Furthermore, all those

gurus and teachers who obviously still have a mind would have to be aj~nAnI-s

and therefore would only able to transfer aj~nAnam.

 

He says that the mind cannot literally be destroyed in any case.

It continues through death of body and is even there in potential form during

pralaya. And the mind need not be destroyed because everything other than Atma

is mithyA, i.e. does not really exist. Why should an unreal mind have to be

destroyed? This would be like trying to kill a rope-snake. All that needs to be

done is to understand its unreal nature.

 

We don't need to destroy the mind. satya Atma is the adhiShThAna

of the mithyA mind. We make use of the teaching to convert the ignorant mind into

a wise mind. The enlightened mind continues to exist but does not perceive a

real duality. As with the perception of sunrise, the experience continues but

you know it is mithyA. mithyA dvaita is as good as no dvaita.

 

The wise mind, which does not see real duality, is as good as no

mind. It no longer causes saMsAra. He concludes that every jIvanmukta has

destroyed the ignorant, problematic mind and replaced it with a wise mind.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis-ji.

 

Whoever here talked about destroying the mind!?

 

What was said was that there is absolutely no scope for a mind with

BrahmajnAna like there is no more any snake in rope jnAna. The pot

doesn't see its limitations any more for it has become absolute

space. This doesn't involve a violent breaking of its walls. The

erstwhile constrictive weight of the walls and the unfortunate

individuality they imposed on the pot just melt away in space-

jnAna. If I remember right, I had clearly said in the beginning

itself that with BrahmajnAna, the mind goes universal. And there is

Sw. Krishnananda supporting this view.

 

By the way, with all respects, if Sw. P. is right, then you are

already jnAni because you can distinguish between a problematic

mind and a wise mind. And, am sure having authored edifying works on

Advaita, you do have a wise mind.

 

I am afraide, perhaps, our current crop of teachers are very eager

to make vedanta palatable to their suspecting Western audience who

wouldn't take a second look at it if they are told that their dear

transactional has no more any validity with BrahmajnAna.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

>

>

> Regarding the j~nAnI no longer having a mind or memories etc,

which was the

> original topic of discussion under this heading, Swami

Paramarthananda

> discusses this in connection with mANDUkya kArikA III.32.

>

>

>

> He says that manonAsha must not be taken literally. What it

actually means

> is 'understanding the mind as mithyA'. As with the metaphor of the

clay pot,

> when Vedanta talks about destruction of the pot, it does not mean

physically

> breaking it, but understanding that it has no existence separate

from the

> clay. This is called j~nAna nAsha - destroying the pot through

sheer

> knowledge; negating the pot as substance and recognizing it is

only name and

> form. The destruction, whether of pot or mind is figurative only.

Just as,

> when we have figuratively destroyed the pot, we continue to use

it, so with

> the mind also. The wise man sees the world and knows that there is

no

> substance called 'world'. No physical change happens to the world

or our

> perception of it. The difference is only in the perspective. A

j~nAnI

> continues to use the mind just as he continues to use the pot.

>

>

>

> He says that, literally and physically, the mind should not be

destroyed,

> cannot be destroyed and need not be destroyed. If the mind is

physically

> destroyed, there would be no difference between a j~nAnI and a

rock. What

> would be the point of sAdhanA if the end result was that we

became a rock?

> And what would be the virtue of compassion, love etc? The

scriptures say

> that a j~nAnI is an embodiment of compassion etc. Since neither

the Atma nor

> the body have compassion, this must be a quality of the mind.

Furthermore,

> all those gurus and teachers who obviously still have a mind would

have to

> be aj~nAnI-s and therefore would only able to transfer aj~nAnam.

>

>

>

> He says that the mind cannot literally be destroyed in any case. It

> continues through death of body and is even there in potential

form during

> pralaya. And the mind need not be destroyed because everything

other than

> Atma is mithyA, i.e. does not really exist. Why should an unreal

mind have

> to be destroyed? This would be like trying to kill a rope-snake.

All that

> needs to be done is to understand its unreal nature.

>

>

>

> We don't need to destroy the mind. satya Atma is the adhiShThAna

of the

> mithyA mind. We make use of the teaching to convert the ignorant

mind into a

> wise mind. The enlightened mind continues to exist but does not

perceive a

> real duality. As with the perception of sunrise, the experience

continues

> but you know it is mithyA. mithyA dvaita is as good as no dvaita.

>

>

>

> The wise mind, which does not see real duality, is as good as no

mind. It no

> longer causes saMsAra. He concludes that every jIvanmukta has

destroyed the

> ignorant, problematic mind and replaced it with a wise mind.

>

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

[Guest guest]

--- On Fri, 8/29/08, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

 

I am afraide, perhaps, our current crop of teachers are very eager

to make vedanta palatable to their suspecting Western audience who

wouldn't take a second look at it if they are told that their dear

transactional has no more any validity with BrahmajnAna

------

Nairji - PraNAms.

 

I am not sure where the problem is! Whether it is teachers or with students.

You are using only snake/rope analogy, forgetting that there is mirage water

analogy too where knowledge that there is no water does not take away the

perception of mirage water. I would like to hear what Krishnanandaji said.

 

Actually, the objection that you are raising is the age old one and Ramanuja in

Shree Bhaashya as part of the untenables of advaita Vedanta avidya is discussed

elaborately in his mahaapuurvapaksha. Of course the Madhavaas pound on it too -

as there is no teacher to teach after his realization and the whole Vedanta has

to be thrown out since it is the teaching projected by an ignorant student who

sees a teacher who is not there - since if I understand correctly from the

student's point there is a teaching and from the teachers point there is no

student to teach. What makes the student project the correct teaching? We need

to bring God out of compassion has to come in the form of a teacher - which

exactly what the analysis has been presented!

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

PranAms

Thank you Dennis-ji for that excerpt from Pujya Swamiji.

 

I have been unable to participate in these discussions, and in the list in general, due to severe time constraints - and in this particular case, am also lacking in the patience and especially titikshA or forebearance :-) that someone like Sada-ji has in re-explaining these basic simple concepts over and again ad nauseaum to you dear Nair-ji(and Bhaskar-ji) - clearly there seems to be a mental block that is preventing you from understanding the functioning of a jnAni

[Guest guest]

Here is an analogy that presently has given me some understanding.

 

An ajnani sees moons (in the water) broken and continually changing.

 

The jnani also sees the same but is ever aware that they are all

(including self-ego) reflections of the same Moon.

 

(I don't know how to interpret Shankara here, but Sri Ramakrishna often

says that in samadhi there is total impossibility in transaction

whereas he comes to a lower state after samadhi when the mind

externalizes. At this stage, he sees that it is God who has become all

and plays through all.)

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

> QUOTE

>

> Hence we can have jnaani living in the world - as Shankara says:

>

> yogaratova, bhogaratova, sangaratova, sangha vihiinaH|

> yadyat brahamani ramate cittam, nandati nandati nadatyeva||

>

> He may be a yogi, he may be bhogi, he may be in the groups or he

may

> be all alone, it does not matter where he is; but his mind is

always

> reveling in himself by himself - aatmani eva atmaanaa tuShTaH.

>

>

 

Sadaji, this I saw as quoted by you. I accept that a jnani can be a

bhogi but would it be fair to say that the jnani can always detach

from the source of bhoga, excepting for minimal physical

sustenance. " I am a jnani but I cannot give up smoking, or watching

the Olympics. " seems a bit hypocritical. MY point is that if

asked/considered to renounce, they should be able to on the strength

of that complete awareness of Self (not that they must consider the

habit bad or good in itself), for Sannyasa (renunciation) is the

hallmark of the jnani.

 

(You can say smoking is a physical problem once the addiction sets

in, but where is this unknown boundary and when is it crossed? When

it is deeply psychological, the habit is called physical; and pure

jnana cannot free that person: the awareness is overturned by vasanas

in this real practice arena. Swami Vivekananda, Nisargadatta Maharaj

and Chinmayananda were all smoking addicts, if I am not mistaken.)

 

PS smoking is just an example here. My opinion is that jnana must

translate into life as renunciation without inhibitions (or

elimination of all binding psychological vasanas); otherwise at some

place, it is intellectual or ineffectual. We admire jnanis who imbue

peace and freedom, not slavery accompanied with an awareness of

slavery.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

My humble pranams to all Learned Members.

 

It would be great fun, just for a change and to play a little, to sit

together around a round table and (again, just-for-fun) have a

discussion where each of us will take the other's point of view and

try to defend it heartedly, convincingly and with the maximum

commitment.

I once was put in this situation and believe me, it may bring some

interest insights... because eventually we may come to the conclusion

that being behind the " other " 's point of view may not be as far from

ours as we believe.

After all, thoughts, ideas, theories, opinions and points of view are

" just " subtle objects of the mind that we should be able to discard

anytime.

 

Being only a student in Advaita, I apologize for this interruption on

a so heated subject, that it's teaching me a lot in quite an

unexpected way...

 

Thank you,

Mouna