Avidya - jnanAbhAva?

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadaji,

 

We are analysing the truth and different prakriyas (teaching

methodologies) which help us understand the truth.

 

If we can scripturally and logically establish that one prakriya helps

us understand the truth better than the other we have to say it

is better. I don't think one has to be defensive about this. I think

all our acharyas right from Shankara onwards have written from the

standpoint of what is right and they have condemned what is wrong

whether it was said by Buddha, Kumarila, Ramanuja, Madhwa etc.

 

I would just explain what are the implications of avidya as jnanAbhava

 

1. Avidya is said to be the cause of Adhyasa by acharyas. If avidya is

jnanAbhava then it cannot be the cause of Adhyasa as Abhava cannot be

the cause of anything.

 

2. If Adhyasa does not have a cause then all the references of

avidya/ajnana in the writings of Shankaracharya has to be interpreted

as absense of knowledge leading to false Knowledge(adhyasa). ( whether

we can interpret shankara's bhasyas in this way is another issue)

 

3. Then when knowledge takes place false knowledge is removed i.e.

adhyasa is removed. If there is no adhyasa then there is no perception

(no division of perceiver and perceived) and no possibility of

jivanmukti. There will be no enlightened guru-shishya paramapara.

 

4. Also knowledge cannot be removal of ajnana as you cannot and need

not remove abhava. So jnana will become something newly created. Then

the problem is anything created newly will also be destroyed. So again

if jnana can be destroyed it will lead to absence of jnana which is

ajnana. This will lead to anirmokshaprasanga (impossibility of moksha).

 

This is why we have to say that ajnana is sat-asad vilakshanam

(mithya) but kinchit bhavam asti (it exists in vyavahara). This is the

interpretation of our acharyas. Then ajnana is jnanavirodhi and we

only remove ajnana as jnana is always there. Even after the removal of

adhyasa karana (ajnana) the adhyasa continues for sometime due to

prarabdha, like a fan continues to rotate even after the power is

switched off. This gives the possibility of jivanmukti and an

enlightened guru-sishya parampara.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Jaishankarji - praNAms

>

> After long time! Yes we would like to hear from you, not necessarily

from who is right, but from the point of the analysis of the truth.

Yes please do post your understanding on the nature of avidya.

avidyaa is understood as sat asat vilakshanam or from the point of

the disucssion as bhaava abhaava vilakshaNam. Since it is the central

theme in the Ramanuja's untenables - we would like to hear from you.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Jaishankar-ji.

 

Greetings. Great to see you amidst us after a long pause. I recall

the electrifying exchange of thoughts you had with Atmachaitanyaji.

 

The last para of your post raises the following questions. Will you

kindly dwell on them at your convenience if they are worth

considering?

 

(a) ajnAna is sat-asad-vilakshanaM (mithyA). We all accept this.

But kincit bhAvaM asti is the problem. It looks like a deliberately

planned easy way out.

(b) Has this kincit bhAvamM granted to ajnAna Shankara's nod of

approval? Shri Subhanu Saxena's AdhyAsa BhASyaM treatise gives an

impression that Shankara wouldn't bother to go deep into the genesis

and mechanism of ajnAna. Instead, he would firmly insist that the

student concern himself with Brahman only.

© Are the Acharyas who introduced this kincit bhAvaM post-Shankara?

Who are they?

(d) On which model is this argument based? On " I (subject)

confronting the rest of the world of objects " model or " many

subjects " model?

(d) If it is the first, when the fan ultimately stops, what happens?

The parampara also vanishes?

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

____________________

 

advaitin , " jaishankar_n " <jai1971 wrote:

> This is why we have to say that ajnana is sat-asad vilakshanam

> (mithya) but kinchit bhavam asti (it exists in vyavahara). This is

the

> interpretation of our acharyas. Then ajnana is jnanavirodhi and we

> only remove ajnana as jnana is always there. Even after the removal

of

> adhyasa karana (ajnana) the adhyasa continues for sometime due to

> prarabdha, like a fan continues to rotate even after the power is

> switched off. This gives the possibility of jivanmukti and an

> enlightened guru-sishya parampara.

[Guest guest]

Jaishankarji - PraNams.

 

The analysis you have provided is beautiful. From the readers point, it would help if you can expand on the items that you have listed.

 

One point I would like to make is avidya 'appears' to cover the knowledge and it is locussed in the jiiva - just as I have ignorance of Chemistry or Physics. It is also attributed to be cause for vikshepa or projecting power. We need a caitanya vastu for projection. Because I do not know, I project implying that avidya is only an instrumental cause for projection to take place by mind supported by witnessing consciousness. May be that is the correct interpretation.

 

 

But there is still anyonya aasraya - interdependence from the point of muula avidya - jiiva-hood arises because of avidya and avidya is locussed on jiiva -By beginningless eternal cycle of births-sustenance-annihilation - one may escape from the anyonya aasraya problem. Just thinking loud. This is one of the criticism of Ramanuja.

 

The question that I would like to pose to you what is the nature of jiivanmukta - since that topic occupied for the last 50 or so posts here. Would like to hear your analysis.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda--- On Sun, 8/31/08, jaishankar_n <jai1971 wrote:

jaishankar_n <jai1971 Avidya - jnanAbhAva?advaitin Date: Sunday, August 31, 2008, 12:56 AM

 

 

Dear Sadaji,We are analysing the truth and different prakriyas (teachingmethodologies) which help us understand the truth. If we can scripturally and logically establish that one prakriya helpsus understand the truth better than the other we have to say itis better. I don't think one has to be defensive about this. I thinkall our acharyas right from Shankara onwards have written from thestandpoint of what is right and they have condemned what is wrongwhether it was said by Buddha, Kumarila, Ramanuja, Madhwa etc. I would just explain what are the implications of avidya as jnanAbhava1. Avidya is said to be the cause of Adhyasa by acharyas. If avidya isjnanAbhava then it cannot be the cause of Adhyasa as Abhava cannot bethe cause of anything. 2. If Adhyasa does not have a cause then all the references ofavidya/ajnana in the writings of Shankaracharya has to be interpretedas

absense of knowledge leading to false Knowledge(adhyasa) . ( whetherwe can interpret shankara's bhasyas in this way is another issue)3. Then when knowledge takes place false knowledge is removed i.e.adhyasa is removed. If there is no adhyasa then there is no perception(no division of perceiver and perceived) and no possibility ofjivanmukti. There will be no enlightened guru-shishya paramapara.4. Also knowledge cannot be removal of ajnana as you cannot and neednot remove abhava. So jnana will become something newly created. Thenthe problem is anything created newly will also be destroyed. So againif jnana can be destroyed it will lead to absence of jnana which isajnana. This will lead to anirmokshaprasanga (impossibility of moksha). This is why we have to say that ajnana is sat-asad vilakshanam(mithya) but kinchit bhavam asti (it exists in vyavahara). This is theinterpretation of our

acharyas. Then ajnana is jnanavirodhi and weonly remove ajnana as jnana is always there. Even after the removal ofadhyasa karana (ajnana) the adhyasa continues for sometime due toprarabdha, like a fan continues to rotate even after the power isswitched off. This gives the possibility of jivanmukti and anenlightened guru-sishya parampara.with love and prayers,Jaishankar advaitin@ s.com, kuntimaddi sadananda<kuntimaddisada@ ...> wrote:>> Jaishankarji - praNAms> > After long time! Yes we would like to hear from you, not necessarilyfrom who is right, but from the point of the analysis of the truth.Yes please do post your understanding on the nature of avidya. avidyaa is understood as sat asat vilakshanam or from the point ofthe disucssion as bhaava abhaava vilakshaNam.

Since it is the centraltheme in the Ramanuja's untenables - we would like to hear from you.> > Hari Om!> Sadananda> >

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " jaishankar_n " <jai1971 wrote:

>

> When we look at whether ajnana came first or jiva came first it is a

> problem of mutual dependence. As you said the traditional teaching

is

> they both are anadi (beginingless) so the above question becomes

> meaningless.

 

Namaskarams Sri Jaishankarji,

 

You have said ajnana/jiva is anadi. This does not seem the same as

saying " maya is anadi " . Maya has no independent existence (as

substratum) but is postulated (as Shakthi of Brahman) by the jiva

through its observed " effect " : duality.

 

But the cause of maya is attributed to Ishvara and a particular facet

of its effects upon the jiva. So far as jiva is concerned, can we not

say " maya precedes and is independent of both jiva and its ajnana " ?

 

Brahman reflects as if many through/in maya; the reflection includes

the jiva and its ajnana (of believing maya's suggestions of multiple

selves/identities to the reflections).

 

 

PS. regarding " only one subject and all else objects " , what if the

object status is also prescribed to the ego-me (the jiva here)? In

the reflection analogy, the one subject is Brahman reflecting as many

objects in maya but appearing as many ego-subjects through them all.

 

>

> I will say a jivanmukta is one who is free from any wants or needs.

As

> Krishna says 'na me parthasti kartavyam trishu lokeshu kincana.

> nAnavAptam avAptavyam varta eva ca karmani' - for me (as an

individual

> who has this knowledge) there is nothing in the three worlds that

must

> be done, nothing to be attained that has not been attained, (yet) I

> indeed engage in action.

 

Another verse is 2.59 where Sri Krishna says that even the taste

leaves when absolute Knowledge is attained.

 

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

>

> Namaskarams Sri Jaishankarji,

>

> You have said ajnana/jiva is anadi. This does not seem the same as

> saying " maya is anadi " . Maya has no independent existence (as

> substratum) but is postulated (as Shakthi of Brahman) by the jiva

> through its observed " effect " : duality.

>

> But the cause of maya is attributed to Ishvara and a particular facet

> of its effects upon the jiva. So far as jiva is concerned, can we not

> say " maya precedes and is independent of both jiva and its ajnana " ?

>

> Brahman reflects as if many through/in maya; the reflection includes

> the jiva and its ajnana (of believing maya's suggestions of multiple

> selves/identities to the reflections).

>

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

>

 

Dear Putranmji,

 

Namaskarams. Traditional teaching is that ajnana is from the

standpoint of the jiva and Maya is from the standpoint of Isvara and

there is no difference. Infact six entities are postulated as anadi

(beginning-less)

 

Brahman, Maya, Sambandha, Isvara, Jiva and Jagat.

 

Of these Brahman is satyam and Ananta (Endless), while the other five

are Mithya and Santa (have an end).

 

When all these are anadi none can precede the other as precendence

itself is a concept meaningful only in time.

 

Brahman is the cause of all Mithya Vastu but for Brahman the status of

being a cause itself is Mithya because for a Mithya effect Mithya

cause is good enough.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar

[Guest guest]

2008/9/1 putranm <putranm:

>

> Can you give your insight to this related question? Why do we, unlike

> Buddhists etc, say that there is a real substratum Brahman behind the

> mithya-vastus? Why not say, there is only maya, an illusion of

> changes? Is it scriptural knowledge or experiential knowledge?

>

 

Putran-ji, let me attempt an answer here. Jaishankar-ji will certainly

revert with a more nuanced one based on his vast knowledge.

 

To my mind there are 2 ways of answering the above:

 

1. The Atman cannot be denied because the statement " I don't exist " is

nonsensical (I need to exist in order to be able to make the statement

!! ). The question is what is this " I " . The advaitins hold that this

" I " is not the sense of individuality or what is called " ego-sense " .

Rather it is pure consciousness, i.e. the first person experience. In

other words, consciousness cannot be denied because the very denial

presumes it.

 

2. Any negation requires a substratum on which the negation is made

(see gauDapAda kArikA).

 

 

--

santoShaH paramo lAbhaH satsa~NgaH paramA gatiH I

vicAraH paramaM j~nAnaM shamo hi paramaM sukham II

- yoga vAsiShTha

 

Bliss for a devI upAsaka: <http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=3m84L2H3t80>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Jaishankar-ji.

 

I am still digesting your previous clarifications on 'kincit bhAva

asti'. I will revert to you on that later in more detail. I mean to

revisit the issue from a new angle with which I am more comfortable.

I don't want to bother you with a long post as your are travelling.

Besides, I am not ready yet with the points.

 

In the meanwhile, could you kindly clarify the following doubt.

 

In normal logic (I am not logician!), something that doesn't have a

beginning can't have an end, right? Only what is born perishes? End

has no meaning without beginning. Death has no meaning without

birth. What is the nyAyA that vedanta derives support from in

considering Maya, Sambandha, Isvara, Jiva and Jagat as anAdi?

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

 

> Can you give your insight to this related question? Why do we, unlike

> Buddhists etc, say that there is a real substratum Brahman behind the

> mithya-vastus? Why not say, there is only maya, an illusion of

> changes? Is it scriptural knowledge or experiential knowledge?

 

namastE everyone!

 

Dear thollmelukaalkizhu-ji,

 

In my humble attempt to answer this question, I shall quote from SrI

Sankara brahma sUtra bhAshya:

 

" aparOkSatvAt cha pratyagAtma prasiddheH "

" It(Atman) is known to exist on account of its immediate presentation "

-- adhyAsa bhAshya. I.I.I.

 

SrI Sankara explains in his brahma sUtra bhAshya.2.3.7., as below:

 

It is impossible to refute(deny) the existence of the Self because it

is the essential nature of everyone. For example consider

what a person says,

 

" I know at the present moment whatever is present. "

" I knew (at former moments) the nearer and the remoter past. "

" I shall know(in the future) the nearer and the remoter future. "

 

In the above example, the time changes from the past to the present to

the future. And accordingly the " Objects of Knowledge " also change.

But, the " knowing agent " doesn't change! I am the same being who knew

the past, know the present and shall know the future.

 

Suppose I saw an object yesterday and I see it again today. I may

doubt as whether it is the same object that I saw yesterday but I

never doubt as whether " I " that see the object now " was " the same

Self( " I " ) that saw it yesterday.

 

Further, Brahman can not be proved as an object externally in any

experimentation. SrI Sankara says as below:

 

Brahma sUtra bhAshya.2.3.7:--

 

AtmA tu pramANAdi vyavahArASrayatvAt prAgEva pramANAdivyavahArAt

siddhyati --

 

Meaning:-- " It cannot be proved, since it is the basis of all proof

and is established prior to all proof. "

 

" na hi agnEraushnyam agninA nirAkriyate. "

Meaning:-- The heat of a fire is not denied by the fire itself.

 

" ya Eva hi nirAkartA tadEva tasya svarUpam " -- Atman cannot be doubted

because it is the essential nature of him who denies it !!

 

sarvO hi AtmAstitvam pratyEti na nAham asmi iti - adhyAsa bhAshya - I.I.I.

Meaning:-- Everyone is Conscious of the existence of his own Self, and

no one thinks " I am not " .

 

-- (English translations of few verses by Dr.Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan).

 

 

## Now, to answer your question more specifically,

 

You wrote: Why not say, there is only maya, an illusion of changes?

 

My reply: To " whom " is this an illusion of changes? -- Surely to that

ever unchanging One! :-)

 

NOW IF SOMEONE OBJECTS MY STATEMENT SAYING:-- It is in the nature of

the illusion to consider itself fixed and unchanging and that is why

the illusion is so strong in the first place. Consider the analogy of

the flame and the rope: the flame constantly changes in essence, but

appears to be the same, and there is no constant thread that passes

through the entire length of the rope, but there are smallish threads

that interweave with each other and give the illusion of a continuous

substance.

 

MY REPLY TO THE ABOVE OBJECTION:-- There is an observer of flame and

rope existing separately who has an illusion of their continuity. The

rope never existed because it has no consciousness on its own. A rope

never said: I am a rope! And a flame never said: I am a flame!

But Man has the consciousness behind his own body-mind. This

Consciousness accounts for the continuity of his being!

 

ANOTHER OBJECTION BY KshanikavAdins:-- Now that I make a thought, I am

one being. At the next moment, I make another thought and I will be

another being. The first being will be dead and gone by the time I

make another thought to become another being. Hence, this illusion is

to that momentary being who himself is a part of the great illusion!

 

MY REPLY TO KshanikavAdins:-- Even of the above analysis of

kshanikavAdins, the very existence of " I " runs as a necessary

concomitant. Hence we say, " the negator cannot negate himself " !

 

Further, in kshanikavAda, when there is no individual apart from the

momentary being who dies as that particular moment is gone, how can

the past being condition the present one?

 

====================

 

SrI Sankara while dealing with the Buddhistic tenets, writes as below:

 

* " Knowledge " , " Memory " and " Recognition " become impossible without a

constant unchanging Subject.

 

* The proponents of Momentariness say that we mistake " identity " of

the Subject for the " Similarity " between two different cognitions in

cases of Recognition.

 

SrI Sankara points out that for a judgment of similarity to be possible,

 

# Either there should be two things -- which is not acceptable to the

proponents of Momentariness as one perception vanishes entirely before

another arises.

 

# Or there should be one mind grasping the similarity of two

successive momentary existences -- Which again makes them admit that

one entity endures for two moments and thus contradict the tenet of

universal momentariness!

 

 

## Finally to add my own understanding from Swami Vivekananda's

teachings:--

 

" Generalization " that arises out of a storage of similarities cannot

be made possible without an unchanging substratum on which the

detached facts of perception should unite. The notion of unchanging

substratum is not a mis-perception, for it is not in our sensual

perception. It is but a " logical necessity " .

 

This " unchanging substratum " cannot be argued to be a " Relatively

unchanging " one, for it goes onto Ad infinitum until a final or

convincing unchanging is appreciated. The very fact be, we cannot

apprehend the changing without postulating an unchanging background.

This should not be viewed in parts but has to be taken as a whole, for

we have no right to take one part of a whole as right and reject the

other at will. A clear analysis would show us that the notion of

relativity is dependent on the unchanging Subject, which is but pure

Consciousness!

 

Hope that makes some sense..

 

!! Aum namO brahmavidbhyaH !!

 

!! SrI Adi SankarArpaNamastu !!

[Guest guest]

Namaste Madathil-ji,

 

2008/9/1 Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair:

>

> Thanks for the prompt feedback. In fact, what you have said

> coincides with my conclusion too. We can avoid the problem of logic

> if the word anAdi is interpreted as something which has not begun at

> all in the first place (not as 'without beginning but coming to an

> end' as we normally assert). But, this view has faced some

> resistance in recent days.

 

When it is said that avidyA is anAdi, it does *not* mean that avidyA

is beginningless *in time*. Rather time itself is a product of avidyA,

hence avidyA is *logically prior* to time.

 

The adjective " anAdi " that describes avidyA indicates that avidyA is

logically prior (not temporally prior) to all phenomena. Temporal

priority is meaningless in the context of avidyA as time itself is a

product of avidyA.

 

--

santoShaH paramo lAbhaH satsa~NgaH paramA gatiH I

vicAraH paramaM j~nAnaM shamo hi paramaM sukham II

- yoga vAsiShTha

 

Bliss for a devI upAsaka: <http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=3m84L2H3t80>

[Guest guest]

Rameshji and Sampathji,

 

Thanks for your replies, Sampathji for being very extensive. From

your replies, the answer is that we base it on experiential or

logical knowledge. Can this conviction really belong to those yet on

the path, to one who is not yet a mukta? If not, can we presume that

when an advaitin argues or brings in the arguments of Shankara, etc,

they are really attesting to logic that supports scriptural

conclusions? Are we aiming at something further, to make this

conviction our own: which is the goal of mukti itself -- what is

blocking jnana/mukti if the advaitin is already firm with the logical

arguments -- if he is not free, then is he not also having the

conviction of illusion-being-reality and not-else but it (a

competition of maya and the self-revealing Reality), but only

propounding (in a sure manner) the advaitic conclusions of scripture?

 

So one reason for my asking Sri Jaishankarji is because he expressed

strong personal conviction in Sri Krishna's statements, to the effect

that he has attained mukti. So how would he characterize his

understanding in this matter --logical, scriptural, experiential?

 

(Some basis for my line of questioning: Sri Ramakrishna says that

doubts remain till God is realized.)

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

advaitin , " paramahamsavivekananda "

<paramahamsavivekananda wrote:

>

> advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote:

>

> > Can you give your insight to this related question? Why do we,

unlike

> > Buddhists etc, say that there is a real substratum Brahman behind

the

> > mithya-vastus? Why not say, there is only maya, an illusion of

> > changes? Is it scriptural knowledge or experiential knowledge?

>

> namastE everyone!

>

> Dear thollmelukaalkizhu-ji,

>

> In my humble attempt to answer this question, I shall quote from SrI

> Sankara brahma sUtra bhAshya:

>

> " aparOkSatvAt cha pratyagAtma prasiddheH "

> " It(Atman) is known to exist on account of its immediate

presentation "

> -- adhyAsa bhAshya. I.I.I.

>

> SrI Sankara explains in his brahma sUtra bhAshya.2.3.7., as below:

>

> It is impossible to refute(deny) the existence of the Self because

it

> is the essential nature of everyone. For example consider

> what a person says,

>

> " I know at the present moment whatever is present. "

> " I knew (at former moments) the nearer and the remoter past. "

> " I shall know(in the future) the nearer and the remoter future. "

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " > In the

meanwhile, could you kindly clarify the following doubt.

>

> In normal logic (I am not logician!), something that doesn't have a

> beginning can't have an end, right? Only what is born perishes? End

> has no meaning without beginning. Death has no meaning without

> birth. What is the nyAyA that vedanta derives support from in

> considering Maya, Sambandha, Isvara, Jiva and Jagat as anAdi?

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

 

Nairji

 

Namaskarams. When Vedantins argue with Naiyayikas and others, the

argument is that Naiyayikas say pragabhAva (prior non-existence) has

no beginning but has an end; similarly ajnana doesn't have a beginning

but ends.

 

If I ask you 'Do you know chinese?' you say 'No'. Then if I ask when

did the Chinese ignorance start you will say 'It was always there; it

didn't start at any particular time'. But as soon as you learn Chinese

that ignorance is removed/destroyed. So anadi but santa.

 

The idea is that the 5 anadi padarthas do not have any beginning in

time. Then are they a parallel reality? No as Brahman alone is satyam

and all others are Mithya, always even while you are reading this

post. Do they end in time? I would say they end along with time as

time also becomes mithya and is swallowed by self knowledge.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar

[Guest guest]

>

> Sri Jaishankarji, thanks for the explanation.

>

> Can you give your insight to this related question? Why do we, unlike

> Buddhists etc, say that there is a real substratum Brahman behind the

> mithya-vastus? Why not say, there is only maya, an illusion of

> changes? Is it scriptural knowledge or experiential knowledge?

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

 

thollmelukaalkizhuji ,

 

Namaskarams.

 

Veda is not a pramana for establishing atma's existence. Veda is a

pramana only in so far as it removes our wrong notions about atma. Any

pramanavyapara (knowledge transaction) presupposes the pramata

(knower) so there is no question of any need for a pramana to

establish the existence of atma. If I ask you are you there? What is

your answer? You will say 'I am'. Did you find out your own existence

by using any of the accepted 6 pramanas? No. That's why Atma is

svaprakasha (self revealing) and it is svatassiddha (self-existent).

 

As others have already pointed out here 'the Negater can never be

negated'.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar

[Guest guest]

Nairji,

 

Namaskarams. I have one question here. Is this written by Swami

Krishnananda in English or someone has translated from someother

language into english? I am very suspicious of translations because

they invariably distort the original at the most important places.

 

Anyway I won't agree that a jivanmukta cannot perceive plurality.

Perceiving plurality is not a problem but taking the plurality to be

real and more importantly taking one's own individuality to be real is

the problem. If we say that jivanmuktas don't perceive plurality we at

once imply that Bhagavan Krishna, Vyasa, Shankara etc. onwards upto my

own Guru are all not jivanmuktas. This is not acceptable.

 

The other problem is when Sw. Krishnananda wrote the above sentences

was he perceiving plurality or not? If yes then he is not a jivanmukta

as per his own statement. If not then he cannot talk or write about it.

 

I would say the jivanmukta's identity with his/her body is like the

identity of an actor with his/her character. Even when the actor is

crying as a beggar (Character) he/she is enjoying the applause from the

audience as an actor. Likewise whatever may happen in this jagat the

jivanmukta is firmly established in the purnAtma fully satisfied with

oneself.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar

 

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Putran-ji,

>

> Thought I would keep quiet for some time. That is not possible any

> more because Respected Sadaji has presented his views with a note

> that what he says is not what Bhaskarji and I are saying and that you

> seemed to have not accepted our views.

>

> Whether you accept our views or not, here is a link where Sw.

> Krishnananda has dealt with your question:

>

> http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/realis/realis_6b.html

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Ram-ji,

 

Thank you very much for taking the trouble of quoting my previous

writings. Appreciate it.

 

I have already explained my position to Shri Jaishankarji and I don't

think any of his questions now remain to be answered. If there are

any questions still to be answered, please let me know.

 

Of course, there is the issue of the actual meaning of avidya being

anAdi, which I will be addressing again. However, that has no

immediate relevance to brahmajnAna - the current bone of contention.

 

I don't think my stance has changed after I wrote to Maniji the post

you quoted. I was only requesting him not to disregard spiritual

experience in the name of understanding. This is an issue I took up

face to face with Sw. Dayananda Saraswti-ji when he visited us. I

then questioned his reported criticism of spiritual experiences. I

had written a post here (# 25725) about that meeting, when Swamiji

said : " I am not against experience per se. I am against purusuing

advaita for experience as a goal as all experiences are limited. There

definitely is anubhUti in right understanding when the imagined

shackles go off and one realizes that he is verily fullness. I don't

deny that. "

 

I still stand by this opinion.

 

I don't understand the relevance of my second message quoted by you

to the current dispute (the one addressed to Shri Goode).

 

I have not negated Shri Ramakrishna or Bhattathiripad. I love

reading NarAyaNIyaM. And I take all these gurus and their works as

Grace operating in my transactional where I am still a Devi bhakta to

the core.

 

I, therefore, fail to understand the change you are talking about I

have undergone. From the way it is expressed in your mail, I get a

feeling that you suspect I have changed my faith just because I have

some epistemological disagreement with the other Members here.

 

About Sw. Krishnanandaji's statements quoted by me, well they are

there in black and white in front of me. I have no reason to believe

that he has not written the same.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair