How can/does a Guru teach?

[Guest guest]

Without repeating what has already been discussed threadbare many times over and then some, let me just ask one question to those who harbor a notion that a jnAni has no mind?

(the discussion is no longer centred on Ch 13 anymore - so have changed the thread title)

 

How does a Guru teach tat tvam asi to a ajnAni? How does the teaching transpire?

If as those who postulate that a jnAni has no mind, no upAdhis, is Brahman, is ekarupah, ekarasah, asangah, etc. so it naturally follows that a jnAni cannot teach because to teach you have to transact. Not only this, but anyone who teaches will be a ajnAni.

That includes Adi Shankara, Bhagwan Krishna, the ParamAchArya of Kanchi, Bhagwan Ramana etc will all be ajnAnis - after all if clearly they entertained transactions with "those on this side" of self-realization thay cannot retain their "jnAni"-hood. A ajnani student has a doubt - he asks the question to his Guru - to hear the question he needs a ear, both a physical ear and a subtle ear, and a mind to enliven it, and to speak his answer he needs a karmendriya a tongue, and sometimes if he has to demonstrate by holding a flower, like the Wise Buddha, he needs hands and a mind enliveing these karmendriyas as well! Clearly if anyone is able to do all of this, that One is seen to have a mind and cannot be a jnAni. So anyone who teaches will be a ajnAni. And finally the validity of a teaching that comes from a ajnAni will surely need to be not merely questioned but downright rejected - so the

teaching is rendered null and void. It is no different than someone claiming he has been to heaven and can describe it for you when you know that being alive and going to heaven and coming back are mutually contradictory situations at least in our day and age.

So

a.JnAni cannot teach

b. All teachers are ajnAnis including Lord Dakshinamurthy Ishwara

c.The teaching itself is invalid as a corollary

 

I am not bringing these up for the sake of debate but only because I feel a exercise in mananam on this point can help crystallize and hopefully clarify our own thinking.

 

Humble pranAms

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

--- On Mon, 1/12/09, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

Dennis Waite <dwaiteRE: Re: Gita Satsangh Chapter 13 Verses 1 to 2advaitin Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 7:50 AM

 

 

 

 

Dear Bhaskar-ji,

The j~nAnI is no longer identified with the vyaShTi mind. It is to this extent that he is no longer ¡limited by¢ it. But clearly he still has one, until the death of the body. Otherwise, he would no longer be able to function in the world. I think we have been around this circle before! If there are responses to the effect that it is only other, aj~nAnI-s who claim to see the j~nAnI¢s body still there, I will give up!

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

Recent Activity

 

 

8

New MembersVisit Your Group

 

 

Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

 

Y! Messenger

PC-to-PC calls

Call your friends

worldwide - free!

 

 

w/ John McEnroe

Join the All-Bran

Day 10 Club.

..

[Guest guest]

Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

 

> How does a Guru teach tat tvam asi to a ajnAni? How does the teaching

transpire?

 

Dear ShyamJi, Pranams

 

There is a saying in Art: " Beauty is in the eye of the beholder " .

For the ajnani " there is " a Jnani.

But for the Jnani there is NO ajnani.

It is a world of difference without being one, wouldn't you agree?

 

Yours in Bhagavan.

Mouna

[Guest guest]

Dear Mouna-ji,

Again, I disagree. For the j~nAnI, there *are* still

aj~nAnI-s. He knows that ‘they’ are equally brahman but he also knows that they

do not yet realize this truth (in their vyaShTi minds). If he did not recognize

this, why would he condescend to act as guru?

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Mouna

Monday, January 12, 2009 2:06 PM

advaitin

Re: How can/does a Guru teach?

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a saying in Art: " Beauty is in

the eye of the beholder " .

For the ajnani " there is " a Jnani.

But for the Jnani there is NO ajnani.

It is a world of difference without being one, wouldn't you agree?

 

 

 

 

 

 

,___

[Guest guest]

Dear Mouna-ji

PranAms. I do agree with you. Yes - to a jnAni everyone is poornam - the Whole. He does not see any duality whatsoever - no categorizing of people into knowers and non-knowers - his vision is ever - "Vasudeva Sarvam iti" - Everyone is Divine, EveryOne is Brahman.

And yet the poor ajnani fellow comes to him with an "as though" problem - who am I? where did I come from? why am i bound? how do i get free? - these questions of course stem from ignorance and this ignorance is "real" for this student - even if its not to the jnAni - and He in His Infinite compassion has to and does provide Guidance - how?? that is what we need to understand.

What I humbly submit differentiates Vedanta from any other spiritual philosophy such as "finding salvation in Heaven or Vaikuntha" type of philosophy is we shouldnt have to take recourse to statements like "you have to go there to find out"!

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

--- On Mon, 1/12/09, Mouna <maunna wrote:

Mouna <maunna Re: How can/does a Guru teach?advaitin Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 9:05 AM

 

 

Shyam <shyam_md@.. .> wrote:> How does a Guru teach tat tvam asi to a ajnAni? How does the teachingtranspire?Dear ShyamJi, PranamsThere is a saying in Art: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".For the ajnani "there is" a Jnani.But for the Jnani there is NO ajnani.It is a world of difference without being one, wouldn't you agree?Yours in Bhagavan.Mouna

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote:

>

> " Dennis Waite " <dwaite@> wrote:

> >

> > Again, I disagree. For the j~nAnI, there *are* still aj~nAnI-s. He

> knows

> > that 'they' are equally brahman but he also knows that they do

not yet

> > realize this truth (in their vyaShTi minds). If he did not

recognize

> this,

> > why would he condescend to act as guru?

>

> Dear Dennis-Ji

>

> I accept the disagreement, although it countergoes with what Jnanis

say.

> I never heard what I consider a Jnani say that he is the guru of

> anybody. (To be honest, DennisJi, sometimes I even disagree with my

own

> statements! that's life in vyavahara!)

> In the final analysis, all this discussion may not be very relevant

> after all, maybe the bottom line is that we will need to " get

there " to

> see for ourselves...

>

> Regards and Pranams,

> Mouna

>

> (Advaitic riddle#2: What's the Sun's perception of a sunrise?)

>

 

Namaste,

 

To add to the extensive quotation Mouna-ji provided earlier,,

here is a pithy one: (??Riddle #3!!)

 

http://www.advaitin.net/Vedanta%

20Classics/talks_with_sri__complete.pdf

 

OR

 

ttp://tinyurl.com/9455d4

 

 

Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi

27th December, 1938

 

" ....M.: He who instructs an ardent seeker to do this or that is not

a true master.

The seeker is already afflicted by his activities and wants Peace and

Rest.

In other words he wants cessation of his activities.

Instead of that he is told to do something in addition to, or in place

of, his other activities. Can that be a help to the seeker?

Activity is creation; activity is the destruction of one's inherent

happiness. If activity be advocated the adviser is not a master but

the killer. Either the Creator (Brahma) or Death (Yama) may be

said to have come in the guise of such a master. He cannot liberate

the aspirant but strengthens his fetters...... "

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunder-ji,

There is no riddle here. As Shankara points out (B.S.B 1.i.4?) mokSha

is an already-accomplished fact, not something that results from action,

transformation, purification etc. ‘Doing’ anything will not bring liberation.

All that is needed is elimination of the self-ignorance that leads one to

believe that one is not already free.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Sunder

Hattangadi

Monday, January 12, 2009 4:19 PM

advaitin

Re: How can/does a Guru teach?

 

 

 

To add to the extensive quotation Mouna-ji provided

earlier,,

here is a pithy one: (??Riddle #3!!)

 

 

 

 

 

" ....M.: He who instructs an ardent seeker to do this or that is not

a true master.

 

 

 

_

[Guest guest]

--- On Mon, 1/12/09, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

 

--------

 

One other thought which occurred: Why does Arjuna, at the end of

the Gita, having (presumably) realized the truth,

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

Dennis - Your arguments are right but about Arjuna's case it is better to leave

him alone - since He wanted a second dose of Giita after the war - which Krishna

teaches and is called anugiita. If he has realized after the teaching there is

no need for a second dose. In stead for your argument you can use Krishna

himself as he was fighting not that war but other wars - in fact throughout his

life.

 

I think the point Nairji and others are making is from Krishna's point is there

is no teaching but from the Arjuna's point there is. Such argument can never be

proved or disproved other than by Krishna.

 

Hence Scripture alone is the pramaaNa for settling this. Hence my question to

Brahmachariji.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadananda,

Understood. I must confess that I have never heard of anugIta.

Is this a published work (translated into English)?

As far as ‘teaching’ (or not) is concerned, ‘teach’

is a transitive verb (requiring an object) so is necessarily dualistic. The OED

defines it as to ‘show or explain to (someone) how to do something’.

It would not make sense to say that Arjuna was being taught but Krishna was not

teaching. Of course, nothing is happening from the standpoint of paramArtha

but, at the empirical level…

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin

[advaitin ] On Behalf Of kuntimaddi sadananda

Monday, January 12, 2009 7:22 PM

advaitin

Re: How can/does a Guru teach?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dennis - Your arguments are right but about

Arjuna's case it is better to leave him alone - since He wanted a second dose

of Giita after the war - which Krishna teaches and is called anugiita.<< >>

I think the point Nairji and others are making

is from Krishna's point is there is no teaching but from the Arjuna's point

there is. Such argument can never be proved or disproved other than by Krishna.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_._,___

[Guest guest]

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:> ... jnaani is superior to Iswara only in the sense that he realizes that in essence he is Brahman that is the substantive of everything including Iswara. In fact the concept of Iswara itself is sublimated in the knowledge of oneness. So there is nothing to compare as there are no two-s. > Realization is not something you do not already have - but recognize what you are in spite of what you see. This has to be clear otherwise we will be longing for experiences of absence of plurality than understanding the reality underlying the observed plurality. Dear Sadaji,Once again my humble Pranams to your Knowledge and the way you embody it through your postings, not only clear, but also so transparent that one can see through to what is pointing at.Thank you for your patience too.Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna

[Guest guest]

It contains Krishna's conversation with Arjuna when Krishna decided to return to Dwaraka after restoring to the Pandavas, their kingdom.

praNAms Hare Krishna

Interestingly, shankara himself says in geeta bhAshya that after hearing gItOpadesha (i.e. bhagavad geeta), arjuna has become 'samyagdarshi' and has attained samyagjnAna..(was shankara not aware of the anugita, where arjuna demanded for a second doze of geetOpadesha??) While on the subject, it is also interesting to note that, Kirshna also before delivering the second round of geeta, tells arjuna that he is not in that same 'cadence' as he was in first round (at kurukshetra battle field) to deliver the upadesha with same degree of intensity :-)) May be due to age factor :-)) who knows the god leela?? we can see & interpret things only through our conditioned minds :-))

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

By the by Bhaskarji - jnaani does not become Iswara - aham bhramaasmi is the teaching - which means I am - the substantive of all divisions - divisions of jiiva-jagata and Iswara - all three are limited by mutual exclusion. Brahman that I am - is paramam puurnam and sat swaruupam - says Ramana - parama puurna sat spurati hRit swayam - says in Upadesa saaara. It is not that I am going to become Brahman - I am Brahman even now. jnaani realizes that he is what he is in spite of apparent divisions of jiiva-jagat-Iswara. Then all this world becomes vibhuuti only.

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji Hare Krishna

Those are really words of wisdom prabhuji..I whole heartedly agree with you. Yes, jnAni does not become Ishwara, infact he does not want to become 'Ishwara'. If he aspires to become Ishwara, then this Ishwara-hood is also another level of transactional reality which jnAni does not want to achieve.. Hope you would agree with me that it is in the avidya vyavahAra we say both jIva & Ishwara have the mutually exclusive guNa-s...Since jnAni transcends this duality (i.e. Ishwara- jIva bedha), socalled *samashti* (macrocosmic mind) upAdhi of Ishwara & inert nature of this jagat, we cannot say even after the dawn of jnAna, jnAni maintains the localized BMI of his own!!...can microcosmic mind of jnAni hold sway over ishwara's macrocosmic mind & still maintains its individuality by quoting the statement nonduality inspite of duality?? Dont you think prabhuji it is as good as saying, " mirage water is not there, it is mere false appearance...but let me remove my shoes, lest it will get drenched " :-))

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

--- On Tue, 1/13/09, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

..Since jnAni transcends this duality (i.e. Ishwara- jIva bedha), socalled

*samashti* (macrocosmic mind) upAdhi of Ishwara & inert nature of this jagat, we

cannot say even after the dawn of jnAna, jnAni maintains the localized BMI of

his own!!...can microcosmic mind of jnAni hold sway over ishwara's macrocosmic

mind & still maintains its individuality by quoting the statement nonduality

inspite of duality?? Dont you think prabhuji it is as good as saying, " mirage

water is not there, it is mere false appearance.. .but let me remove my shoes,

lest it will get drenched " :-))

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

 

Bhaskarji - PraNAms

 

Bhaskarji, I would be very careful. Jnaani transcends duality - does not mean

anything external or internal - but by jnaanam only -transcending is only by

understanding - the cause-effect relationships are no more real but apparent-

jnaani understands that in spite of plurality that the BMI experiences - he

transcends the notion that I am the experiencer - he understands that in his

presence - as witnessing consciousness, the experiencer-experiencing and

experiencing are taking place. He can only see the experiences of his BMI not

others - since he is not Iswara or become one.

 

Mirage water is still seen but understood that water is not there in the mirage

water - not that mirage is not there - mirages are Iswara sRiShTi – notion

that waters in the mirage waters are real is jiiva sRiShTi - jiiva notion is not

there hence he transcends all the misunderstandings or erroneous notions of

reality that he associates to the mirage waters is gone. He understands that it

is apparent reflection and there no real waters there in the mirage water.

Jnanam involves understanding - which removes the ignorance that is the cause

for the projection. Iswara sRishTi is there because the BMI that sees is not

jiiva sRiShTi but Iswara sRiShTi only. Ramana was alive with BMI only because he

did not create the BMI – experiences of the BMI is different from the

experiences of other BMI’s around him- yet in his understanding, even though

as reflected consciousness he is enlivening the

experiencer-experiences-experiencing (tripuTi)– he is

constantly aware in the background that I am – I am – I am – I am –

aham aham spurati - the existence-consciousness-and infiniteness that I am -

in spite of the apparent plurality of the tripuTi. It is not absence of

experiences but absence of the notions that these experiences are real as in

mirage waters. Hence we use the analogy of drama as actor who knows that he is

actor and not the roles that he is playing. Hence we use the term vibhuuti. This

is there as long as BMI is there – hence it is called upahita caitanya. When

the BMI drops out then He is what He is – Brahman without the need for taking

any further births – we call it as Brahmaleen.

 

Hope I am clear.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

SAshtAng namaskarams Shri Chaitanya-ji

 

I am afraid you have mis-interpreted my simple questions to mean that I am postulating a jnAni retains a sense of ownership over his body or mind.

 

In earlier discussion on this same subject I have articulated my position very clearly and elaborately - i have uploaded the same onto my blog, which you may choose to read-

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

 

Humble pranAms

Hari Om

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam--- On Tue, 1/13/09, pranipatachaitanya <pranipatachaitanya wrote:

pranipatachaitanya <pranipatachaitanya Re: How can/does a Guru teach?advaitin Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2009, 7:11 AM

 

 

advaitin@ s.com, Shyam <shyam_md@.. .> wrote:>> Hari Om Shri Shyamji, Pranaams!If the question is thro what instrument the teaching takes place in tattvopadesha, we all agree it is through the vak and mind and even sometimes pointing thro the hands also. But the question is to whom these instruments belong. Here a little analysis of instrument-karana will serve. No arguments in the stick and the potter's wheel as instruments( karanas) in the karya(work) of pot making. But does the potter has the possessiveness on the instruments as mine. If a potter neednot have identity/possessive ness(abhiman) on the karanas like stick and potters'wheel, why insist a jnani to have the identity on BMI which he has burnt

thro knowledge? Already the world is full of ajnanis and why add some more by pulling from other side.In Shri Guru SmritiBr. Pranipata Chaitanya

 

 

 

Recent Activity

 

 

8

New MembersVisit Your Group

 

 

Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

 

Y! Messenger

All together now

Host a free online

conference on IM.

 

Health Groups

for people over 40

Join people who are

staying in shape.

..

[Guest guest]

PranAms Dear Mouna-ji

WHen you say providing guidance comes from Grace - is this Grace

separate from Brahman or other than Brahman. If it is Brahman then

who is guiding? whom? and for what? If it is other then Brahman,

whence is nonduality? Is not Grace alone providing the questions in

the student as well?

If Bhagwan Ramana is not the One speaking and only Grace speaking

through His tongue, then is it not Grace alone that is listening

through the ear of the student? Is not the only difference between

the two that while the former lacks a abhimAni Ego that stands in

the way and misappropriates ownership of not only the tongue but the

words that are spoken, while the latter's ahankAra has not yet been

annihilated in the abidance in wisdom to do the same?

 

Both have a BMI - one retains a notional ownership, the One doesn't -

in a nutshell this is all that Sada-ji has been explaining in my

humble opinion.

 

At one level Brahman/Grace/God alone IS.

At any other level, one is in vyavahAra alone. Any definition can be

relevant in vyavahAra alone.

 

Humble pranAms

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote:

>

> Respected and dear ShyamJi,

>

> And I do agree with you too!

> Providing guidance comes from Grace, not from the Guru or the

student.

> Defining the embodiment of Truth (Jnani), like defining Truth, it's

> not a simple issue to be treated in vyavahara, isn't it?

>

> Yours in Bhagavan,

> Mouna

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> How does a Guru teach tat tvam asi to a ajnAni? How does the

> teaching transpire?

 

Hari OM!

We know Guru literally means dispeller of darkness. Darkness of

ignorance. Asking how does Guru teach seems like asking how does sun

remove darkness. Sun can never know and see any darkness. Its very

nature is to dispel darkness. Just as sun lights up all the time,

Guru may be en " lightening " all the time.

 

Also, instead of asking how does Guru teach, I ask myself how do

I learn from the teaching. After all, teaching is already there in

that sentence, but realization of it is what matters. Guru may teach

by words, silence, look, gesture or whatever. Even so, unless

light of understanding dawns within, no amount of pouring from

outside seems to make much difference. In that sense the ultimate

Guru seems to be one's own consciousness.

 

Contrasting to Hanuman's leap across ocean surmounting great

obstacles, Ramayana colorfully portrays Ravana as one who could cross

same ocean so effortlessly! Moreover, Ravana was a great scholar and

seems to have known " tat tvam asi " and Vedanta too. Yet, despite all

the knowing and scholarship, he was swayed by anger, jealousy,

indiscretion etc., And Hanuman, even though a Gnaani and had all

siddhis, performed every action as only service to the Lord within.

--------

Hari OM!

-Srinivas

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

The problem, I am afraid, is with the summing up.

 

No one contended here that the body will vanish into thin air and the

mind will die out.

 

There is a body definitely. What is important is the relationship of

the realized one to that body. It is " summed up " that both the

unenlightened and enlightened *have* a body. What is the basis for

the conclusion that the realized one " has a body " ? *Has* connotes

possession. Neither Shankara nor Sw. GambhIrAnanda has implied a

possessive sense. True, the unenlightened one thinks that he is the

whole body. With regard to the enlightened one, the implication

that " he is in the body " doesn't connote any possessiveness to that

body. And that makes hell of a lot of difference.

 

Now to come to the mind – if he has to engage " in conscious decision

by the mind in order to renounce doership in actions " , then how can

he be continuously conscious of happiness. To be continuously happy

here means that the mind is permanently turned towards the Atman

(Self). That mind will not be available then to keep on

remembering " I am not the doer, I am not the doer " . The word 'vashI'

is said to mean an atmajnAni who has conquered the senses and turned

his mind permanently towards the Self. So, we have to assume that

the implied non-doership in actions is a spontaneous default of

that `state' where no more any exercise of the intellect is required

as in the case of an aspirant. Besides, the Self here cannot be an

object for the mind to derive happiness from. His is a

transcended `state' where the mind, Self and happiness are non-

different. That mind is, therefore, not the mind advocated here by

those who want to endow the self-realized one with BMI .

 

This understanding gels well with the last part of vivekachUdAmaNi

and AshtAvakra gItA, where it is implied that the realized one hardly

remembers his body, and the analogies of a potter's wheel turning on

its own on past momentum after it has been stopped and arrow already

shot into the air moving ahead to its target.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_________

 

 

>

> To sum up—what has been said above is that both the

> unenlightened and the enlightened have a body. But the enlightened

> thinks of himself as the body itself, while the enlightened person

> knows that he is the pure Self inhabiting a body.

> It is seen from the above that according to Shri Shankara the

> jIvanmukta continues to have a body till it falls on the exhaustion

> of the karma that gave rise to it.

> It was stated above that the jIvanmukta mentally renounces all

> action by seeing inaction in action. That means that he looks upon

> all his actions as akarma as stated in gItA, 4.18 (karmaNi akarma

> yaH pashyet) and not that he just sits all the time doing nothing.

> It means that he does not have the sense of doership. Mental

> renunciation of actions is a conscious decision by the mind (or the

> intellect aspect of the mind) to renounce doership of the actions.

> This is possible only if there is a mind. So it is clear that he

has

> a mind.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste.

>

> The problem, I am afraid, is with the summing up.

>

> No one contended here that the body will vanish into thin air and

the

> mind will die out.

>

> There is a body definitely. What is important is the relationship

of

> the realized one to that body. It is " summed up " that both the

> unenlightened and enlightened *have* a body. What is the basis

for

> the conclusion that the realized one " has a body " ? *Has* connotes

> possession. Neither Shankara nor Sw. GambhIrAnanda has implied a

> possessive sense. True, the unenlightened one thinks that he is

the

> whole body. With regard to the enlightened one, the implication

> that " he is in the body " doesn't connote any possessiveness to

that

> body. And that makes hell of a lot of difference.

>

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

Dear Nair-ji,

There is no dispute about the fact that the realized person has no

identification with the body. I did not specifically mention this in

my last post because, 1) I had mentioned it my immediately preceding

post

# 42934, and 2), when I said, " The enlightened person knows that he

is the pure Self " , it automatically follows that he does not

identify himself with the body and so it need not be specifically

stated.

I did not say that he should all the time be taking the decision

that he is not the doer. What I said was only that, to decide that

he is not a doer the mind is necessary.

I have stated my understanding.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

PraNAms Shri Sastriji.

 

Does a seasoned driver of a manual tranmission car use his mind in

changing gears? He is so spontaneous that the car in his hands works

like an automatic transmission vehicle. He is oblivious of what his

hands are doing.

 

I should imagine the realized one's non-action in action is akin to

that, he being totally immersed in the Self. No mind as we know of is

involved here. This may be a crude analogy. I hope it clarifies what

I am trying to say.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

___________________

 

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

 

> There is no dispute about the fact that the realized person has no

> identification with the body. I did not specifically mention this

in

> my last post because, 1) I had mentioned it my immediately

preceding

> post

> # 42934, and 2), when I said, " The enlightened person knows that he

> is the pure Self " , it automatically follows that he does not

> identify himself with the body and so it need not be specifically

> stated.

> I did not say that he should all the time be taking the decision

> that he is not the doer. What I said was only that, to decide that

> he is not a doer the mind is necessary.

> I have stated my understanding.

[Guest guest]

--- On Thu, 1/15/09, pranipatachaitanya <pranipatachaitanya wrote:

 

 

 

Realisation is possible in otherworlds certainly in brahmaloka where

 

body is not there.

 

 

Pranipatachaitanyaji - PraNAms

 

Not sure if the MI can exist without a locus of a body, not necessarily human

body but a body - just as in dream - where there is a physical body for

transactions in the dream world - If Brahma loka is made of bhoutica elements

after panciikaraNam - then one can have appropriate body that is suitable for

that loka - just on the basis of analogy with physical bodies in the dream world

- visvam darpana dRisyam ... or sa kaale satyavad bhaati. The body is as real as

the loka in which it is there. At least that seems to be self-consistent.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>sa kaale satyavad bhaati.

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

Hari Om Shri Sadanandaji, Pranaams!

 

Agreed. Thanks.

 

In Shri Guru Smriti

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

Dear Nair-ji,

I take it that your views about jIvanmukta are based on what you

have learnt from your gurus who are or were great scholars and

perhaps even realized persons. I respect your views. I have no

desire to dispute your views or to win in a debate with you or any

one else. But I find that different views have been expressed by

learned persons on this question. I feel that, as a senior member of

this list, I have a duty to bring some of these views to the notice

of the members of this list so that they can consider them and come

to their own conclusion on which view to accept. It is not possible

for me to present all the other views and so I propose to confine

myself to presenting the view of one person who is acknowledged to

be an eminent scholar as well as a saint and perhaps a realized

person. I wish to make it clear that I am not asking you or any one

else to accept this view.

 

It has been my misfortune to have become the recipient of

some unpleasant remarks from you which made me regret having

accepted the post of Chief Moderator at the repeated insistence of

Ram-ji in spite of my reluctance. At my age when my sights are set

on the ultimate goal of life, the post of Chief Moderator is not an

honour to be sought after. However, this is just by the way.

 

The view I propose to present is that of kAvya KaNTa

gaNapati muni who was one of the earliest disciples of Ramana

maharshi. It was he who gave the name `Bhagavan' to Ramana. He has

composed many wonderful works. One of his works is a commentary in

Sanskrit on Bhagavan Ramana's sad-darshanam. This has been

translated into English by Shri T. V. Kapali Sastri, another great

scholar and a disciple of both kAvya kaNTa and Bhagavan Ramana.

I am reproducing below the relevant portion relating to

jIvanmukta in this English translation of kAvya kaNTa's Introduction

to his commentary on sad-darshanam, published by Ramanasramam,

Tiruvannamalai.

 

" Release is said to be a liberation of the soul or jeeva from

the bondage in which it is lost. This bondage has been described as

a knot tying spirit to matter. It has been also stated that the real

nature of this bondage consists in the play of the ego or the

apparent consciousness. Hence the shastras lay down that liberation

is nothing but the dissolution of the ego, and show the means of

such dissolution. Elsewhere is discussed the difference between the

bound man and the liberated. It is sufficient here to note what is

common to both in order to clear a possible misapprehension that

with the dissolution of the ego individuality also is dissolved.

When the ego is dissolved or reformed, individuality is not

destroyed. The self that supports the individuality is a continuous

conscious principle that survives the appearance and disappearance

of the ego and does not depend upon the ego for the preservation of

its individuality. This self, as has already been noted, is none

other than the infinite self which, in maintaining a manifold

individuality in its own movement of all-becoming, becomes the self

of each individual, in which, however, there is a play on the

surface of a figure of the self, called the ego or the apparent

self. This latter is a temporary formation and like every formation

is dissoluble in time. The individual in whom the bondage is

shattered and the ego is dissolved retains his individuality even

after the release, mukti. He can recall in his liberated state the

experiences of his former life in bondage and thus connect the past

of his distinct individuality in an unbroken continuity with the

present. The individuality persists in spite of the withdrawal of

the ego, and it is a mistaken notion that the ego is a permanent

mark or eternal expression of individuality. Perhaps, a real and

more enduring individuality commences only from liberation, in the

absence of the disfiguring ego and its interference. Therefore, the

liberated life of the jIvanmukta is an ideal realized in the

individual. So then, whether a soul is in bondage or released from

it, the individuality persists, because it is the direct concern of

the Infinite and not at all of the ego. Certain truths about the

mukta or the liberated soul are stated in the Ramana Gita (Ch. 7, 9,

14) to which we shall later make reference. Though experience alone

can verify their truth and one must have taken to spiritual life and

have had some kind of personal experience before one can understand

and appreciate them, the true state of the liberated man, mukta

purusha, is described there with many details regarding the

wonderful development that comes upon his body, life and mind, in

order to strengthen the faith of the intelligent critic of earnest

enquiry and to infuse interest and spirit into him " .

 

I am presenting the above passages without any comment of my own,

for the information of the members.

 

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Srinivas Nagulapalli " <srini_nagul wrote:

> I am humbled by my ever increasing ignorance.

 

praNAms Shri Srinivas-ji,

 

Your thoughts echo mine. Thanks for expressing them beautifully.

 

praNAms to all Advaitins,

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

dear sadaji ,

 

thank you for your persistence ! that was an awesome description

in kashmir shaivism what you described so succintly is called

prakasha-vimarsha-maya and it was wonderful to read such a clear

explanation of it . thank you for the mind which did persist !

 

-raji

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

 

> Baskarji - PraNAms

>

> I just posted one where I tried to answer your previous one.

>

> Who do you think realizes? Brahman does not need realization or

self does not need realization. BMI being inert cannot realize.

>

> What is wrong with BMI - whether it is jnaani's or ajnaani's? It

is just inert.

>

> ahankaara involves two aspects - I am and this is, what Swami

Chinmayanandaji calls as unholy marriage of the two.

>

> There in the BMI - consciousness gets reflected - that it is what

makes even the awareness that I am via the BMI. Without BMI there

is no knowledge or recognition that I am. Please think about it.

Light if it exists by itself cannot be known. There has to be object

that reflects the light not only to see the object even to recognize

or realize there is that which illumines the object. Hence the

presence of light is realized by recognition of the reflection of it

by the object. This is very important to understand. No realization

if there is no BMI.

>

> Self existent consciousness itself cannot require realization or

recognition -it is self-existent entity by itself.

>

> But when we say self-realization we need a reflecting medium for

recognition that I am that I am. Hence mana eva manushyaanaam

kaaraNam bandha mokshayoH| says amRitabindu. Mind is required to

recognize the reflection of the consciousness by the mind - that is

what is called upahita caitanya only. Pure consciousness cannot be

realized otherwise just as pure light without an object cannot be

recognized.

>

> For ajnaani - the reflected consciousness is taken as the real one

and there is the error.

> Jnaani - when He says I am not this - this part that is rejected

in the only the reflection part but in the processes shifting

ATTENTION to the one that is getting reflected - that illumination

of consciousness to recognize that I am the original consciousness

that is getting reflected in the mind. That the ego - that involve I

am = this, this part is rejected as na iti and shift my attention to

I am part - that happens only while the reflection is going on since

without reflection pure consciousness cannot be REALIZED.

>

> Realization has to be correctly understood - Hence I am

persistent - the persistence part comes from the mind only!

>

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sastri-ji.

 

Your 43036 refers.

 

With reference to para 1 of your message, I have to confess that I have

no gurus as such. What I know of vedanta is a mixture of what I have

heard, read, reconciled and assimilated from many sources. I add a bit

of commonsense to it - that is all.

 

I don't understand the relevance of what you say in the second para to

this discussion.

 

The rest of your message is the quote of KAvya KaNTa Muni which

contends that individuality survives realization. Well, Bhaskarji has

commented on this topic in his latest reply addressed to Sadaji. I go

with his opinion. I believe Br. Pranipatachaitanya-ji has also said

the same thing pointing at Kaivalya Upanishad.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

I think we are simply talking in our own circles...Anyway, kindly allow me to share my understanding once again :

KS prabhuji

Who do you think realizes? Brahman does not need realization or self does not need realization. BMI being inert cannot realize.

bhaskar :

shankara himself answers this question in sUtra bhAshya...realization is required for the one who is asking this question & having avidyA...So, above question can be answered from two different view points : from paramArtha : no mOksha, no sAdhaka, not even creation..so who realizes?? is a meaningless question...And from vyavahAra, yes there is a sAdhaka, there is a state of realization and there is a method/means to achieve it...

KS prabhuji :

 

What is wrong with BMI - whether it is jnaani's or ajnaani's? It is just inert.

bhaskar :

Yes, it is just an inert & anAtma vastu..why we are still wrangling around it & asserting as long as BMI is there for a jnAni & after BMI falls jnAni would become 'as it really is' etc. etc. & trying to bring two different status to jnAni's jnAna?? Does this inert body play that much important role in determining jnAni's jnAna??...Yes, there is nothing wrong with BMI..but giving undue importance to it at paramArthika level is the real problem..that we are doing here by attributing limited adjuncts to the jnAni who has *upAdhi rahita jnAna* of the ultimate.

KS prabhuji :

 

ahankaara involves two aspects - I am and this is, what Swami Chinmayanandaji calls as unholy marriage of the two.

 

There in the BMI - consciousness gets reflected - that it is what makes even the awareness that I am via the BMI. Without BMI there is no knowledge or recognition that I am. Please think about it. Light if it exists by itself cannot be known. There has to be object that reflects the light not only to see the object even to recognize or realize there is that which illumines the object. Hence the presence of light is realized by recognition of the reflection of it by the object. This is very important to understand. No realization if there is no BMI.

bhaskar :

I do agree with this whoheartedly...But do you still think even after the realization that light (chaitanya) which is illuminating restricts itself to a particular object (localized upAdhi-s of a jnAni) to say jnAni has the upahita chaitanya...When jnAni realizes that akhanda chaitanya, he illumines everything without any partiality to his own indriya-s..Whereas you are saying jnAni, even after realizatin maintains the localized senses & acts through his upahita chaitanya..As I said earlier, this is nothing better than ahaMkAra & mamakAra.

 

KS prabhuji :

 

Self existent consciousness itself cannot require realization or recognition -it is self-existent entity by itself.

bhaskar :

I agree prabhuji.

KS prabhuji :

 

But when we say self-realization we need a reflecting medium for recognition that I am that I am. Hence mana eva manushyaanaam kaaraNam bandha mokshayoH| says amRitabindu. Mind is required to recognize the reflection of the consciousness by the mind - that is what is called upahita caitanya only. Pure consciousness cannot be realized otherwise just as pure light without an object cannot be recognized.

 

bhaskar :

 

I dont know what to say about this dependence of the light on the object..it is a good example to prove the vyAvahArik dependence of the light on the objects...but does it apply to the " LIGHT " we are talking here in vedanta?? !! Anyway, this is for your kind information that there is an interesting dialogue between yAgnAvalkya & janaka in bruhadAraNyaka shruti (4-3-6) and here sage yAgnAvalkya concludes that Atman alone is the light of all aggregate of body, mind, senses, sun etc. It is with the aid of that light only we come to know the existence of this object is it not prabhuji?? If we go by your logic, in vedanta, it is as good as saying, kAraNa is dependent on kArya to show its face..gold ring/bangle/chain is required & indispensable for the gold to prove its existence!! No need to mention that this dependence plainly goes against our sushupti anubhava wherein BMI conspicuous by its absence!!. Anyway, let me try to share my understanding :

 

There is a mention in chAndOgya or prashna, ( I think, exact reference not coming to my mind) that 16 parts (shOdasha kala) which is getting dissolved in the puruSha, it seems you had concluded your mail in such a manner to convey that it is an individual soul that is dissolving into the Absolute but still maintains these kala-s ! If you see this maNtra, it is talking about the

dissolution of the 16 parts (imAh ShoDasha kalAh) such as prANa, shraddha, kham etc. I believe these

maNtra-s in a nut shell shows that all these 16 parts which are nAma-rUpa created through ignorance gets destroyed and THAT (chaitanya) which is undestructable is the Self, puruSha. This mantra is meant for conveying the sole reality of the Self without any limited adjuncts on its side :-))

 

I was looking at Nair prabhuji's quote of mundaka (3-2-9) yesterday, in the previous maNtra (3-2-8) it is said: yaTha nadhyaH syandamANAH samudrestaM gacchanti nAma rUpe vihAya taThA vidvAnnAma rUpAdvimuktaH parAt paraM purusha mupaiti divyaM (as the rivers flowing into the ocean and therein losing name & form become one with the supreme being who is the transcedental reality)...This shruti proves beyond doubt that there cannot be any individualized upAdhi-s to the jnAni & at the same time upahita chaitanya..though river water is sweet before merging, it will be salt & ONLY salt after merging..we cannot pick the sweetness of river water in ocean's salt water :-))

 

Elsewhere shri Sankara comments, when the names and forms are eliminated, the entity that remains undestroyed is called by the knowers of Brahman as puruSha.

 

Finally, our unwarranted bickering over nAma rUpa of jnAni forced us to conclude that there will be two stages in the jnAna of the jnAni..One is jnAna which jnAni entertaining living with his BMI and another is posthumous status of the jnAna. Interestingly this is the position of rival school of advaita, which Sri SSS quotes in one of his works :

 

// quote //

 

" Liberation is of two kinds. While a person is still alive in the body,

liberation for him means liberation from attachment, aversion and

infatuation, and their offspring such as conceit and the like. After the

death of the body, there is total and final liberation.

 

// unquote //

 

Sri KS prabhuji, I dont see you are stating something different from above.

 

 

Shortly, as per my understanding of the tattva of advaita, brahman is not just the Atman in humans and jnAna does not have the restrictive reflection in the upAdhi-s of the jnAni. It is the *ONLY THING* present in all, homogenous like saltwater in ocean. It doesn't /cannot have any specific name or form and it is neither inside nor outside anything to say jnAni has upahita chaitanya & limited localized adjuncts.

 

That's it prabhuji...I've said whatever I wanted to...if you have anything in contradiction to it..kindly bring it on with the support of shruti/shankara vAkya...We'll discuss it together..sothat we can avoid discussions like yours Vs mine...Otherwise, we shall stop this discussion by agreeing to disagree :-))

 

Humble praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar