Guest guest Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Namaste Shri Sastriji. A well-thought-out answer indeed! Kindly see wtihin under your statements. > Brahman is defined as satyam jnAnam anantam. Brahman is jnAnam or > knowledge. jnAnam is its very nature and not an attribute. [MN: prajnAnaM brahma. Is prajnAnaM the 'nature' of brahman here? If yes, then sat and Ananda can also become the nature of brahman. Then brahman becomes multi-natured. That amounts to saying brahman has attributes. So the correct understanding, in my humbel opinion, is: brahman = prajnAnam = sat = Ananda.] > The derivation of the word jnAnI is—jnAnam asya asti iti jnAnI. One who has knowledge is a jnAnI. [MN: Yes. The lexicon might say so. That is just grammar. Can we do advaita by blindly following such definitions. Certain words are used in advaita to convey specific means far removed from their general meaning in specific contexts. You yourself had warned me against this danger some time ago during our discussion on akhaNDAkAra vritti.] > If we say that Brahman and jnAnI are the same it would amount to saying that Brahman has knowledge. Then jnAnam would not be the very nature of Brahman but something different from it. So it is not correct to say that Brahman is a jnAnI. jnAnI means `knower'. Brahman is looked upon as a knower only when associated with an upAdhi. [All duality dissolves in self-realization. Where is there a difference between jnAni, jnAnaM and brahman then? They are the same. It is as simple as that.] >This is stated in the following shloka:-- > Upadesha sAhasrI - (Metrical portion)-Ch.18. Verse 65—The Self is > said to be knowing things on account of the superimposition of the > agency of the intellect on it. Similarly, the intellect is called a > knower owing to the superimposition of Consciousness on it. > (Translation of Swami Jagadananda). [MN: What is stated is true with regard to pre-realization. With the eliminationi of superimpsition in realization, the agency of intellect also vanishes. That is why we say that the realized one has transcended his mind.] > But it is correct to say that the jnAni is Brahman. In fact every > one, whether jnAni or ignorant, is Brahman. [MN: Right.] >But the muNDaka upanishad says that the knower of Brahman `becomes' Brahman, which means that he has realized that he is Brahman, whereas others think of themselves as different from Brahman. [MN: Quite right if you can accept my understanding of that realization. I mean that realization not to harbour any duality of a knower and known. That is the real point under dispute between us.] I might not be able to respond immediately if you reply as I am travelling in a few hours. Best regards. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 Brahmans continious " engagement " is already giving benefit to many miraculous lifes. An invisible roleplay, the mind can't see and understand. Everybody is playing his/her role as good as he/she can....all are equal in front of God. The power of God let a whole world, filled up with many actors, flow in continious peace. To know such peace, is to know Brahman, means the Self. To don't know such peace....is to think on personal engagements and many other " important " tasks....etc....no choice about this. .... few thoughts... Kind Regards, Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 --- On Wed, 1/28/09, snsastri <sn.sastri wrote: Brahman is defined as satyam jnAnam anantam. Brahman is jnAnam or knowledge. jnAnam is its very nature and not an attribute. The derivation of the word jnAnI is—jnAnam asya asti iti jnAnI. One who has knowledge is a jnAnI. If we say that Brahman and jnAnI are the same it would amount to saying that Brahman has knowledge. Then jnAnam would not be the very nature of Brahman but something different from it. So it is not correct to say that Brahman is a jnAnI. jnAnI means `knower'. Brahman is looked upon as a knower only when associated with an upAdhi. This is stated in the following shloka:-- ------------ Sastriji - My SaShTanga praNAms - For the clarity of this teaching. Yes satyam jnaanam anantam are swaruupa lakshaNas not attributive. While jnaani normally involves tripuTi - knower-known-knowing. In the case of Brahmajnaanam - it is not knowledge of - since knower and known become one in the very knowledge leading to brahmavit brahma eva bhavati, knower of Brahman becomes Brahman. Beautiful post. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 advaitin , " jaishankar_n " <jai1971 wrote: > > Dear Pranipata Chaitanyaji > > NamaskArams. Please see below > > > 1. Upanishad declares bothways – brahma eva idam sarvam as well > > sarvam khalu idam brahma. And also ayam Atma brahma. (Brahman is all > > this, all this is Brahman, This Atman is Brahman. > > Jai: I agree > > > > > 2. Brahman is not a jnAni is equal to saying Atman is not a > > jnAni means Atman does not possess jnAna which is directly against > > shruti vAkya – yaH sarvavid sarvajnaH. > > Jai: I disagree here. You are confusing svarUpajnAna and vrittijnAna > here. A jnAni is one in whose mind the akhandAkAra-vritti (mental > modification revealing the whole) has taken place. This happens in > vyavahAra only as paramArtha-brahman does not require any self > realization. That jnAni-upAdhi-upahita-chaitanya only claims that 'I > have known(the truth)' like the student in kenOpanishad who says > 'manye viditam' - 'I conclude that it is known'(Atma/brahman/ultimate > truth). Further sarvavid sarvajnaH etc are only with respect to the > mAyopAdhi and are part of mithyA. In Nirguna Brahman there is no > sarvajnatvam etc. > > > > 3. Logically also one cannot be a non-knower(ajnAni) atleast > > with respect to itself. That is why Vedanta says one's declaration > > that `I do not know myself' proves he knows himself. > > > > Jai: 'I know myself' and `I do not know myself' etc. only implies > vyavahAra. Brahman is not a 'knower' because there is nothing else to > be known. If you say Atma is a jnAni then do you say that Atma has > pramAtrtvam? In that case Atma will become anitya. > > Sankara in Taittiriya Bhasya on 'satyam jnAnam anantam brahma' > > vijnAtrsvarUpa-avyatirekAt karaNadinimitta-anapekshatvAt brahmaNah > jnAsvarUpatvepi nityatvaprasiddhi | atah naiva dhatvarthah tat > (jnAnam), avikriyArUpatvAt | ata eva ca na jnAnakartr ; tasmAt eva ca > na jnAnasabdavAcyamapi tat brahma | tathApi tadAbhAsavAchakena > buddhidharmaviSayeNa jnAnaSabdena tallakSyate na tu ucyate... > > Translation: Because Brahman is not different from the conscious one > (Self) and has not to rely on the sense-organs and other instruments > of knowledge we must understand that though essentially of the nature > of Consciousness, brahman is yet eternal. His Consciousness is not > what is connoted by the root (namely, the temporary act of knowing), > in as much as it is immutable. And for the same reason, brahman is not > the agent of the act of knowing. For the same reason brahman cannot be > designated by the word 'jnAna'. On the other hand, by the word 'jnAna' > which refers only to a semblance of his (Consciousness) and denotes a > state (dharma) of buddhi, brahman is indicated, but not designated > ...... > > > > 4. I(Atman) am self-evident(svada-siddhaH) so know me > > (Atman/Brahman) at all times. > > > > Jai: Even categories like svata-siddhaH and parata-siddhaH etc. are > relevant only in vyavahAra and only as lakshana for brahman/Atma, to > reveal that brahman/Atma. > > > > So jnAni is brahman but brahman is not jnAni contradict shruti, yukti > > and anubhava. > > Jai: This is your wrong conclusion. Please read the sruti and Sankara > bhaSyA properly. > > > > > I am sure I have not mixed up levels. Any level you take this is the > > position. > > Jai: You have definitely mixed up vyavahAra and paramArtha. > > > with love and prayers, > > Jaishankar. Dear Jaishankar-ji, This is just to express my appreciation of your excellent and precise presentation. Regards, S.N.Sastri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > Brahman is looked upon as a knower only when associated with an upAdhi. Hari Om Shri Shastriji and Shri Sadanandaji, Pranaams! I had not told jnAni is nirupAdhika brahman anywhere. The subject matter is in the upAdhi of the jnAni is that the same ahamkAra(AbhAsa-caitanya) that is continuing to function which should have been destroyed by akhandAkAravritti before raising of knowledge itself. Now your statement is confirmation that it is only the brahman in upAdhi of jnAni in case of brahma-vid whereas in case of ajnAni his ajnAna veils the brahman and the ahamkAra(chidAbhAsa) is functioning as the knower. The way I put was if brahman is all this how can we exclude jnAni. As you have also said both in case ajnAni and jnAni it is brahman only in upAdhi but owing to veiling ajnAni's ahamkAra functions as I from upAdhi whereas in jnAni since the ahamkAra is destroyed it is as if brahman directly without veiling shines. Again I repeat, for this understanding we need not mix up any levels be paramArthika or vyavahAra. In Vedanta brahman-Atman, omkAra-brahman, brahman-brahmavit, brahman- Guru are considered without any trace of difference. In Shri Guru Smriti, Br. Pranipata Chaitanya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 advaitin , Baskaran <baskaran42 wrote: > > it is high time we understand our limitations in this regard and try > instead to become one to know the truth ourselves with god's grace > and wait till he wills Hari OM! This is the most enlightened, sincere and touching post any seeker can possibly write, as far as I can imagine. No hypocrisy. Once I mistook an artificial tree to be real one in someone's house. It was so exquisitely made, right down to the details of leaves, stems and even shading of certain parts- I think there is simply no way to distinguish it from real one. It looks like a tree, gives shade like a tree, sways to wind like a tree! Just one difference. Doesn't bear fruits no matter how much watered. But real tree cannot avoid giving fruits. Ultimate proof of tree lies in the fruits it bears. Proof of our understanding lies in the lives we lead, which no one knows better than ourselves. To borrow your words in " becoming one to know the truth " . No about reforming any, but transforming oneself. Also, tree need not assert it is the real one, or even ask for its fruits to be seen. Mere fact it bears them is enough. Shankara chose not to be that polite, and roars " paSyannapi ca na paSyati mooDah " - " seeing truth fools still cannot see it " ! ------------- Hari OM! -Srinivas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > > Namaste to all. > So it is not correct to say that Brahman is a > jnAnI. jnAnI means `knower'. > S.N.Sastri > Hari Om Shri Sastriji, Pranaams! brahman when refered as a 'knower' the term kavi is used. (BG 8.9). In Shri Guru Smriti, Br. Pranipata Chaitanya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2009 Report Share Posted January 29, 2009 advaitin , " pranipatachaitanya " <pranipatachaitanya wrote: > I had not told jnAni is nirupAdhika brahman anywhere. > > The subject matter is in the upAdhi of the jnAni is that the same > ahamkAra(AbhAsa-caitanya) that is continuing to function which should > have been destroyed by akhandAkAravritti before raising of knowledge > itself. > > Now your statement is confirmation that it is only the brahman in > upAdhi of jnAni in case of brahma-vid whereas in case of ajnAni his > ajnAna veils the brahman and the ahamkAra(chidAbhAsa) is functioning > as the knower. > > The way I put was if brahman is all this how can we exclude jnAni. > > As you have also said both in case ajnAni and jnAni it is brahman > only in upAdhi but owing to veiling ajnAni's ahamkAra functions as I > from upAdhi whereas in jnAni since the ahamkAra is destroyed it is as > if brahman directly without veiling shines. > > Again I repeat, for this understanding we need not mix up any levels > be paramArthika or vyavahAra. > > In Vedanta brahman-Atman, omkAra-brahman, brahman-brahmavit, brahman- > Guru are considered without any trace of difference. > > In Shri Guru Smriti, > Br. Pranipata Chaitanya Dear Chaitanya-ji, I wish to add the following to what I had written earlier. I am writing this for the information of the members in general and not with reference to any of your statements. A brahmajnAni is one in whose mind brahmajnAnam has arisen from the mahAvAkyas and ajnAnam has been destroyed. Mukti is only the removal of the identification with the BMI caused by ajnAnam. But Brahman is eternally of the nature of pure consciousness. There is no question of jnAnam arising in brahman and destroying ajnAnam. So how can brahman be equated with brahmajnAni? sarvam khalvidam brahma—all this is brahman—means that all this that we experience, all that is dRishyam, has no reality, but it is all only the appearance of brahman. This is like the statement " The snake is a rope " , which means that what was wrongly thought to be a snake is found to be nothing but a rope. We cannot say " The rope is a snake " , because the snake never had any existence. We can only say that the rope appeared as a snake. Similarly, we cannot say " brahman is the world " , because the world has no real existence. We can only say that brahman appears as all the things in the world. Since the brahmajnAni is also in the world till his body falls we can say that it is brahman that appears as the brahmajnAni, just as brahman appears as all other human beings, animals, birds, rivers, mountains, etc.. But that is not the same thing as saying that brahman and brahmajnAni are the same. Best wishes, S.N.Sastri > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Humble praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji Hare Krishna Sri Sastri prabhuji : A brahmajnAni is one in whose mind brahmajnAnam has arisen from the mahAvAkyas and ajnAnam has been destroyed. bhaskar : And this ajnAnam also includes that he is shareeri and he has the association with BMI..After arising of this jnAna, this mind cannot be the mind of an individual..Shankara gives the kAtaka powder example to clarify this...After dawn of jnAna, there cannot be avidyAkruta upAdhi sambaNdha..In fact as you know, shruti (chAndOgya 7-25-2) begins its teaching about Atman by saying Atman alone is below, Atman above, Atman behind, Atman in front, Atman on the right, Atman on the left, All this is Atman alone...The word Atman itself means that which pervades all is it not prabhuji?? if this jnAna is there in a jnAni, how can he still say this is the BMI of me & this is the upahita chaitanya (reflected consciousness) through which I operate etc. Sri Sastri prabhuji : Mukti is only the removal of the identification with the BMI caused by ajnAnam. But Brahman is eternally of the nature of pure consciousness. There is no question of jnAnam arising in brahman and destroying ajnAnam. So how can brahman be equated with brahmajnAni? bhaskar : if the identification with his BMI has been removed by the jnAni through jnAna, then what remains is ONLY consciousness which is niravayava in its very nature...so he himself is pure consciousness without any fabrication of BMI (of his own)..That is reason why brahmajnAni is not a different entity from brahman or vice versa... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 hare krishna, namaskaramsthe following quotes in the referred mail i thought has some useful pointers on the subject under discussion. The Nonduality Highlights - NDhighlights The following quotations, from Annamalai Swami and Patrul Rinpoche, were posted to the “Adi Da Is Dead “ comments forum at the Nonduality Blog: http://nonduality.org/20081128adi-da-is-deadcomments/: Question: "Going back to the question of how to determine who is and who is not a jnani, can we come to some valid conclusion by studying his life and teachings? Will not his state be somehow reflected in the life that he leads?" Annamalai Swami:â€You cannot determine the answer to this question by studying the teachings or the behaviour of a person you think might be a jnani. These are not reliable indicators.Some jnanis might stay silent;others may talk a lot. Some are active in the world, some withdraw from it. Some end up as teachers while others content to stay hidden. Some behave like saints, where as others act like madmen. The same peace can be found in the presence of all these beings, since this peace is not affected by modes of behavior, but there may be no other common factors." Question: "Jnanis are supposed to have an equality of vision . Cannot we decide whether someone may be a jnani on the basis of whether he treats people around him equally?†Annamalai Swami: “Jnanis remain absorbed in the Self at all times and their apparent behavior is just a reflection of the circumstances they find themselves in. Some may appear to be egalitarian. Others may not. They play their allotted roles, and though they may seem to be involved in them as ordinary people would be , they are not really touched by any of the events that occur in their lives. Equal vision may be there , internal equanimity may be there, but don’t expect all jnanis to behave in a prescribed , egalitarian way.â€may lord krishna bless us all.baskaran Download prohibited? No problem. CHAT from any browser, without download. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Brahman is defined as satyam jnAnam anantam. Brahman is jnAnam or knowledge. jnAnam is its very nature and not an attribute.The derivation of the word jnAnI is—jnAnam asya asti iti jnAnI. One who has knowledge is a jnAnI. If we say that Brahman and jnAnI are the same it would amount to saying that Brahman has knowledge. Then jnAnam would not be the very nature of Brahman but something different from it. So it is not correct to say that Brahman is a jnAnI. jnAnI means `knower'. Brahman is looked upon as a knower only when associated with an upAdhi..praNAms Sri Sastri prabhujiHare krishnaIf we go by this line of arguments then we cannot even say brahma is jnAnam or knolwedge and satyaM or real..The only available definition for Atman (even this word 'Atman' is not a proper label to IT & good only in transactional world says shankara in chandOgya bhAshya)...is neti neti nothing else...Shankara makes his stand clear in taitirIya bhAshya (2-1) that brahman cannot be denoted by the epithet jnAnam because brahman is devoid of genus and other specific features...So is the case with *satyaM* also, continues shankara, satyam really refers to the genus being inhering in external objects and when brahman is described as satyaM (real) it is only indicated by that term..But brahman is not actually expressed by the term 'satyaM'..One can refer bhAshya portion of taitireeya upanishad 2-1...Yes, we do agree jnAni means knower...but does not shankara say jnAna removes the very knowership (jnAtrutva) of this jnAni ?? Kindly see geeta bhAshya (2-69) wherein shankara without any ambiguity declares : The final pramANa (shruti) takes away the very nature of being a knower pertainining to Atman, and simultaneously with taking it away, invalidates itself as a means just as a means of knowledge obtaining in a dream does on one's waking..Same thoughts has been expressed by shankara in sUtra bhAshya also (2-1-14). The knowledge 'I am brahman' (ahaM brahmAsmi) rouses no further enquiry because the knowledge arising out of it relates to the unity of the self of all...Here shankara clearly says consequent to intuition of the secondless self, there would remain nothing else apart from IT...This knowledge of non-dual Atman would wipe out all the distinctions of tripod i.e. jnAtru, jnEya & jnAna.Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > > > Humble praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji > > > Hare Krishna > > > Sri Sastri prabhuji : > > > A brahmajnAni is one in whose mind brahmajnAnam has arisen from the > mahAvAkyas and ajnAnam has been destroyed. > > > bhaskar : > > > And this ajnAnam also includes that he is shareeri and he has the > association with BMI..After arising of this jnAna, this mind cannot be the > mind of an individual..Shankara gives the kAtaka powder example to clarify > this...After dawn of jnAna, there cannot be avidyAkruta upAdhi > sambaNdha..In fact as you know, shruti (chAndOgya 7-25-2) begins its > teaching about Atman by saying Atman alone is below, Atman above, Atman > behind, Atman in front, Atman on the right, Atman on the left, All this is > Atman alone...The word Atman itself means that which pervades all is it not > prabhuji?? if this jnAna is there in a jnAni, how can he still say this is > the BMI of me & this is the upahita chaitanya (reflected consciousness) > through which I operate etc. > > > Sri Sastri prabhuji : > > > Mukti is only the removal of the identification with the BMI caused by > ajnAnam. But Brahman is eternally of the nature of pure consciousness. > There is no question of jnAnam arising in brahman and destroying ajnAnam. > So how can brahman be equated with brahmajnAni? > > > bhaskar : > > > if the identification with his BMI has been removed by the jnAni through > jnAna, then what remains is ONLY consciousness which is niravayava in its > very nature...so he himself is pure consciousness without any fabrication > of BMI (of his own)..That is reason why brahmajnAni is not a different > entity from brahman or vice versa... > > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > > > bhaskar > Dear bhaskar, what would this mentionned " pure consciousness " percieve?.......when there are no " fabrication of BMI(of his own) " ....? is there any definition about " pure consciousness " ?.... how can you know that such " pure consciousness " is Brahman?... What would be the effect of such " pure consciousness (Brahman) " ?.... (if not, absolute nothingness/emptyness)?.... ..... Kind Regards, Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Dear Dennis Travis, What is your definition for absolute nothingness? Regards. Madathil Nair ______________ advaitin , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > what would this mentionned " pure consciousness " percieve?.......when > there are no " fabrication of BMI(of his own) " ....? > > is there any definition about " pure consciousness " ?.... > > how can you know that such " pure consciousness " is Brahman?... > > What would be the effect of such " pure consciousness (Brahman) " ?.... > (if not, absolute nothingness/emptyness)?.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > Dear Dennis Travis, > > What is your definition for absolute nothingness? > > Regards. Dear Madathil Nair, would say " peace " , " Brahman " . Kind Regards, Marc > > Madathil Nair > ______________ > > advaitin , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > what would this mentionned " pure consciousness " > percieve?.......when > > there are no " fabrication of BMI(of his own) " ....? > > > > is there any definition about " pure consciousness " ?.... > > > > how can you know that such " pure consciousness " is Brahman?... > > > > What would be the effect of such " pure consciousness (Brahman) " ?.... > > (if not, absolute nothingness/emptyness)?.... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Namaste Nair-ji, Thank you for the summary. Please see below my observations (reflecting my understanding of the subject).Harih OmNeelakantanadvaitin , "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair wrote:>> Namaste to all contributing to this thread.> > > Further discussion, if at all permitted, should address our point of > view as reiterated below:> > 1. Shruti says that a knower of brahman becomes verily brahman.> 2. A knower of brahman is called jnAni.By Whom? This is from the transactional point of view (vyavahAra), is it not? In brahman, where is the question of names?> 3 If jnAni is brahman, there cannot be more than one jnAni.This can be from the absolute point of view only (paramArtha). But then, from the absolute level, there is brahman only one without a second.> 4. Besides, with reference to jnAni there cannot be anything else.The term jnAni can only be meaningful in transactional reality. I feel we really cannot talk about the jnAni's frame of reference without referring to transactional reality.> 5 Thus, a jnAni cannot possess BMI as BMI connote duality and > externality.From a transactional reality, they (apparently) do. Again, I am taking the position that we can refer to anyone as jnAni only in vyavahAra. I would say the same about Ishvara.> 6. That we have had jnAnis like Shankara and Bh. Ramana Maharshi and > the descriptions of men of knowledge in our holy books seem to > contradict the above understanding. Considering all such descriptions are only in vyavahAra, I don't see a contradiction.> 7. Where is the error? The error cannot be with jnAni or brahman. > 8. It can be only with the ajnAnis of the transactional who perceive > the jnAni with a BMI performing actions.> 9. The logical advaitic conclusion should, therefore, be that > plurality of jnAnis, jnAni's BMI and actions are attributes imposed > on the Truth by ajnAnis due to their ignorance because they are in > the transactional and the transactional is a distortion of the Real. OK, but why do you single this out as an error? All that is seen in vyavahAra including my own BMI is due to the same error, is it not?> 10. Since the plurality of jnAnis confronted in the transactional > guide, teach and prod us towards Realization, they are Grace > personified amidst us, although from pure advaita point of view, they > are products of our ignorance only.> I agree, but how do we get to know that Shankara, Ramana, Nisargadatta, etc. are jnAnis? What is special about our perception of their (apparent?) BMI that makes them different to us? Why do we attach significance to their words? If Neelakantan uttered the same words, should he be treated differently? If not, why not?If the jIvanmukta cannot have a BMI (please note - I am not talking about having identification with BMI), is there a difference between jIvanmukti and videha mukti? Harih Om.> Let us take care not stray away in our discussions from the above > salient points.> > Best regards.> > Madathil Nair> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > > Brahman is defined as satyam jnAnam anantam. Brahman is jnAnam or > knowledge. jnAnam is its very nature and not an attribute. > Namaste, This last line says it all----Creation Hymn Rig Veda. " Whence this creation has come into being; whether it was made or not; he in the highest heaven is its surveyor. Surely he knows, or perhaps he knows not. " So the question is as old as time itself. According to the night sky description the Veda is c 8000. B.C. However that is compararively recent so it must be much older and hoary with age, though written down later. The question being posed is Brahman a knower or not.....Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 ===================== Posted through Grouply, the better way to access your like this one. http://www.grouply.com/?code=post ===================== Posted through Grouply, the better way to access your like this one. http://www.grouply.com/?code=post Hello fellow Advaitins, Doesn't the Gita, in Chapter III, clarify this (these?) issue with simplicity to spare when K says: " Every 'action' is really performed by the gunas. Man, deluded by his egoism, thinks: 'I am the doer.' " Some examples of 'action': 'feeling' a pain, 'Perceiving' a world, 'meditating,' 'gaining' a realization, etc. One simply comes to realize that ALL action is not-Self. K explains (Chp III) " ...you must realize that 'I' (meaning your very own Self) am beyond action and changeless. Action does not contaminate 'Me.' ... Because they understood this, the ancient seekers for liberation could safely engage in action. " Don't take this all to mean you must hold something in your mind, or set apart a portion of your jivan mind in some 'meditative save zone,' and call that zone 'Self' (Atman). No, there is only one Self, and you've known it all of this life, and in every dream. You give it the personal name 'me.' This 'Me' person never acts, and is never touched by the actions of self & others. Ajnanis make the error of wrongfully identifying this 'Me' with the gunas. Rightly identify 'exclusively' with your very own Self, uncontaminated with body-mind-action, and leave the jiva/gunas (the world dream) to their own affairs. (Never attempt to interfere with the actions of gunas, or you will immediately fall into illusion.) From this pure stance of Self-hood you will easily fit K's description: " Even when he is engaged in action He remains poised in the tranquillity of the Atman. " (Chp III) Peace, Non Sum Gift Gita Quotes for those who have born with me: " The illumined ... thinks always: 'I am doing nothing.' No matter what he sees, hears, touches, smells, eats; no matter whether he is moving, sleeping, breathing, speaking, excreting, or grasping something with his hand, or opening his eyes, or closing his eyes: This he knows always: 'I am not seeing, I am not hearing: It is the senses that see and hear and touch the things of the senses.' " (Bhagavad Gita, Chapter V) " The body and the mind, the sense-organs and the intellect are insturments only; He know himSELF (as) other than the instrument. " (Bhagavad Gita, Chapter V) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > The question being posed is Brahman a knower or not.....> Namaste, The answer, in rhetorical questions also, in the Upanishad is: yenedaM sarvaM vijAnAti taM kena vijAnIyAt ? Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known ? vijnAtAram are kena vijAnIyAt? - Through what should one know the Knower? Brihadaranyaka Upan. 2:4:14 Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Namaste, Sri Tonyji, You have mentioned: <<The question being posed is Brahman a knower or not......Tony>> I think we take Brahman as an entity like you and me. And that is why such a doubt comes. Brahman is knowledge itself, and Brahman, if I am right, cannot have any “ships†let alone knowership. With warm regards, R.S.Mani R.. S. Mani Check out the all-new Messenger 9.0! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Namaste! My reply in the post below somehow appeared as bold - it appeared in italics in my editing, but came out in bold when viewed. Please note that the bold lettering was accidental. My apologies. Thank you. Neelakantan advaitin , " Neelakantan " <pneelaka wrote: > > > Namaste Nair-ji, > > > > Thank you for the summary. Please see below my observations (reflecting > my understanding of the subject). > > Harih Om > > Neelakantan > > > advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " > <madathilnair@> wrote: > > > > Namaste to all contributing to this thread. > > > > > > Further discussion, if at all permitted, should address our point of > > view as reiterated below: > > > > 1. Shruti says that a knower of brahman becomes verily brahman. > > 2. A knower of brahman is called jnAni. > > By Whom? This is from the transactional point of view (vyavahAra), is it > not? In brahman, where is the question of names? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Bhaskar - PraNams - See my comments below to your response to Shree Sastriji. --- On Fri, 1/30/09, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: Brahman is defined as satyam jnAnam anantam. Brahman is jnAnam or knowledge. jnAnam is its very nature and not an attribute. The derivation of the word jnAnI is—jnAnam asya asti iti jnAnI. One who has knowledge is a jnAnI. If we say that Brahman and jnAnI are the same it would amount to saying that Brahman has knowledge. Then jnAnam would not be the very nature of Brahman but something different from it. So it is not correct to say that Brahman is a jnAnI. jnAnI means `knower'. Brahman is looked upon as a knower only when associated with an upAdhi.. ------------ praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji If we go by this line of arguments then we cannot even say brahma is jnAnam or knolwedge and satyaM or real..The only available definition for Atman (even this word 'Atman' is not a proper label to IT & good only in transactional world says shankara in chandOgya bhAshya)...is neti neti nothing else...Shankara makes his stand clear in taitirIya bhAshya (2-1) that brahman cannot be denoted by the epithet jnAnam because brahman is devoid of genus and other specific features...So is the case with *satyaM* also, continues shankara, satyam really refers to the genus being inhering in external objects and when brahman is described as satyaM (real) it is only indicated by that term..But brahman is not actually expressed by the term 'satyaM'..One can refer bhAshya portion of taitireeya upanishad 2-1... --------- Bhaskar - all that you wrote is what Saastriji said again and again - These definitions - satyam jnaanam anantam are from vyavahaara point only. All your explanation is just support what Saastriji said - nothing that contradicts his statements so far - now let us move on. ---------------------- Bhaskar: Yes, we do agree jnAni means knower...but does not shankara say jnAna removes the very knowership (jnAtrutva) of this jnAni ?? Kindly see geeta bhAshya (2-69) wherein shankara without any ambiguity declares : The final pramANa (shruti) takes away the very nature of being a knower pertainining to Atman, and simultaneously with taking it away, invalidates itself as a means just as a means of knowledge obtaining in a dream does on one's waking..Same thoughts has been expressed by shankara in sUtra bhAshya also (2-1-14). The knowledge 'I am brahman' (ahaM brahmAsmi) rouses no further enquiry because the knowledge arising out of it relates to the unity of the self of all...Here shankara clearly says consequent to intuition of the secondless self, there would remain nothing else apart from IT ----------- Bhaskar upto this no one disagrees - No point in repeating again and again the same things. the knowledge is mithyaa and ignorance is mithyaa - the understanding that I was Brahman, I am Brahman and I will be brahman -is also mithyaa too. Braham being of the nature of infinitness does not need this understanding. He is pure consciousness, jnaana swaruupam - not jnaanam as knowledge of - and even this word including advaita - is only from the point of vyavahaara only. Since Brahman that I am is nityam, satyam, jnanaam and all that AND beyond all that - no words to describe as yathoo vaachoo nivartante apraapya manasaa saha - words and mind return back without describing - Hence all descriptions are within mithyaa only or vyavahaara only. No advaitin disagrees with this - hence no need to repeat again. Now you are making your conclusion which you have never so far established with your quotes. Baskar your last statement does not follow the last statement. None of your scriptual quotes establishes this: ------ Bhaskar: ....This knowledge of non-dual Atman would wipe out all the distinctions of tripod i.e. jnAtru, jnEya & jnAna. -------------- This is your conclusion and does not follow from any of your references. I can conclude differently from yours based on the quotes you have provided. If I want to wipe of ego - I am giving reality to the mithyaa only - That is the reason whey ego cannot be eliminated by any amount of doing -since the very ego is involved in the very doing. Elimination of ego involves clear understanding that it is false and no reality to it. what gets eliminated is the reality aspect attriibuted to it. Then its presence of inconsequential like shadow is recognized as not real. The problem is if they are getting wipedout they become real not mithyaa - it is like saying NOW there is no more water in the mirage - If the mirage has to dryout its water you need heat and wind to slowly evoperate that water. But even Heat and Air cannot dry the mirage water. Knowledge alone wipes out water in the mirage only means I recognize there was never real water before, now and there will ever be - that involves understanding of absolute absence of water. What is there is apparent water and I do not go after the apparent water to quench my thirst. Hence knowledge does not wipe out the triad but wipes out the misunderstanding of the reality given to the triad - just as knowledge removed the reality of existence of water in the mirage. Knowledge is opposite to ignorance and not opposite to water. It removes the ignorance only. Similarly,one understands that Brahman is never with any triad even before this knowledge took place, now or in the future. I do not become brahma jnaani - I become Brahman -Brahma vit brahma EVA bhavati. But remember he is not Brahman now - he was brahman before he thought he was a jiiva. It is just recognition of who he is all the time - yogaratova, bhogaratova ...The fact is I cannot really become Brahman which is infiniteness, it only means I realize I was Brahman even when triad existed, even when it disappears as in deep sleep state - I am Brahman and I will be Brahman - with or without any existence or non-existence of triad that is when awake or in deep sleep. Hence the statement of Krishna - BhuumiraaponalovaayuH .. and apreyam .. All these 8-fold projection is my LOWER nature - the which is beyond and supporting as substantive is my HIGHER nature and I pervade everything. Hence there is no problem with BMI or with dvaita. If I have eliminate dvaita I am giving reality to it in the very process of trying to eliminate it. I just have to understand that everything is nothing but Brahman even when it is appearing as plurality - just as there is no sunrise or sunset even though sun appears to be rising or setting. I have true knowledge of all experiences - that include the presence (wakind and dream) and absence as in deep sleep of triad. That will be exactly the state of mind of jiivanmukta since is embodied as jiivan but he is mukta since he is liberated from his ignorance. That is exactly what is the meaning of upahita caitanya. Bhaskarji from my point so far you have not provided any references that contradicts this. All your references so far do not negate the above - of course your conclusions yes -and they do not necessarily follow your quotes. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 > > the knowledge is mithyaa and ignorance is mithyaa - the understanding that I was Brahman, I am Brahman and I will be brahman -is also mithyaa too. Braham being of the nature of infinitness does not need this understanding. He is pure consciousness, jnaana swaruupam - not jnaanam as knowledge of - and even this word including advaita - is only from the point of vyavahaara only. > > Since Brahman that I am is nityam, satyam, jnanaam and all that AND beyond all that - no words to describe as yathoo vaachoo nivartante apraapya manasaa saha - words and mind return back without describing - Hence all descriptions are within mithyaa only or vyavahaara only. > Namaste Sadaji, Kindly allow me to ask a fundamental question here regarding your above 2 paragraphs. Since consciousness is Brahman, then it is the ego working all the time - thru karma yoga, svadhyaya, prayer,meditation, japa, sravana, manana, niddhidhyasana etc to get rid of the notion that being is this body-mind complex. Brahman is Brahman and will be Brahman. It is this non-Brahman or un-atman that has the sense of separation, isolation and a so -called goal or target. All seeking is in this dependent reality called BMI. Knowledge is never in the dependent equipment called mind. The BMI is trying to realize that it is powered like everything else in the cosmos by Atman. So it is un-atman seeking the universal atman all the time. How can this atma-jnana occur in the intellect ? humble pranams, Shailendra > > Now you are making your conclusion which you have never so far established with your quotes. > > Baskar your last statement does not follow the last statement. None of your scriptual quotes establishes this: > ------ > Bhaskar: > ...This knowledge of non-dual Atman would wipe out all the distinctions of tripod i.e. jnAtru, jnEya & jnAna. > -------------- > This is your conclusion and does not follow from any of your references. I can conclude differently from yours based on the quotes you have provided. > If I want to wipe of ego - I am giving reality to the mithyaa only - That is the reason whey ego cannot be eliminated by any amount of doing -since the very ego is involved in the very doing. Elimination of ego involves clear understanding that it is false and no reality to it. what gets eliminated is the reality aspect attriibuted to it. Then its presence of inconsequential like shadow is recognized as not real. > > The problem is if they are getting wipedout they become real not mithyaa - it is like saying NOW there is no more water in the mirage - If the mirage has to dryout its water you need heat and wind to slowly evoperate that water. But even Heat and Air cannot dry the mirage water. > > Knowledge alone wipes out water in the mirage only means I recognize there was never real water before, now and there will ever be - that involves understanding of absolute absence of water. What is there is apparent water and I do not go after the apparent water to quench my thirst. > > Hence knowledge does not wipe out the triad but wipes out the misunderstanding of the reality given to the triad - just as knowledge removed the reality of existence of water in the mirage. Knowledge is opposite to ignorance and not opposite to water. It removes the ignorance only. > > Similarly,one understands that Brahman is never with any triad even before this knowledge took place, now or in the future. I do not become brahma jnaani - I become Brahman -Brahma vit brahma EVA bhavati. But remember he is not Brahman now - he was brahman before he thought he was a jiiva. It is just recognition of who he is all the time - yogaratova, bhogaratova ...The fact is I cannot really become Brahman which is infiniteness, it only means I realize I was Brahman even when triad existed, even when it disappears as in deep sleep state - I am Brahman and I will be Brahman - with or without any existence or non-existence of triad that is when awake or in deep sleep. > > Hence the statement of Krishna - BhuumiraaponalovaayuH .. > and apreyam .. All these 8-fold projection is my LOWER nature - the which is beyond and supporting as substantive is my HIGHER nature and I pervade everything. > > Hence there is no problem with BMI or with dvaita. If I have eliminate dvaita I am giving reality to it in the very process of trying to eliminate it. I just have to understand that everything is nothing but Brahman even when it is appearing as plurality - just as there is no sunrise or sunset even though sun appears to be rising or setting. I have true knowledge of all experiences - that include the presence (wakind and dream) and absence as in deep sleep of triad. > > That will be exactly the state of mind of jiivanmukta since is embodied as jiivan but he is mukta since he is liberated from his ignorance. That is exactly what is the meaning of upahita caitanya. > > Bhaskarji from my point so far you have not provided any references that contradicts this. All your references so far do not negate the above - of course your conclusions yes - and they do not necessarily follow your quotes. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 --- On Mon, 2/2/09, bhatnagar_shailendra <bhatnagar_shailendra wrote: Since consciousness is Brahman, then it is the ego working all the time - thru karma yoga, svadhyaya, prayer,meditation, japa, sravana, manana, niddhidhyasana etc to get rid of the notion that being is this body-mind complex. Brahman is Brahman and will be Brahman. It is this non-Brahman or un-atman that has the sense of separation, isolation and a so -called goal or target. All seeking is in this dependent reality called BMI. Knowledge is never in the dependent equipment called mind. The BMI is trying to realize that it is powered like everything else in the cosmos by Atman. So it is un-atman seeking the universal atman all the time. How can this atma-jnana occur in the intellect ? ------------- Shailendraji - PraNAms The correct understanding is ego is not just inert but consciousness identified with the inert. That 'I am = this' is the ego. anaatma being inert cannot realize. aatma need not have to realize. Ego also cannot realize since it was notion that 'I am this'. Then who realizes - the one who is asking the question. I, the consciousness identified with 'this' is ego. I have to drop that identification by realizing that I am 'not this, neti, and realize that 'I am' that 'I am' as pure I am without the need of this, which is existence-consciousness. This realization can only occur in the intellect in the sense that the all pervading consciousness gets reflected in the intellect and this reflection only can be perceived or known. With out the intellect present, there cannot be any reflection either. That is why pure light cannot be seen by itself - you need an object where the light can get reflected even to recognize the presence of light. We say that sun is shining but how do we know that there is sunshine out there - only by the reflection of the light by the objects outside. Without the objects present, no sunshine can be recognized even though sun may be brilliant. It is exactly the same situation. I have to know that I am pure light but reflected in the intellect that I can 'see' - hence Krishna says - One who sees alone sees - yaH pasyati ... saH pasyati. By the reflections I know the original. Original consciousness (OC) without the reflected consciousness (RC) need not have to know and I may say cannot 'know' also since there are not knower-known-knowing distinctions in it to 'know'. That proves the point which Bhaskarji and Nairji miss - you need the upaadhi's even for jnaani to recognize that I am not uppadhis but that because of which upaadhis are known. you need a pot for the potspace to know that I am - potspace within the pot and at the same time as a space unlimited and unbroken and infinite - that is upahita space. That is what is involved in self-realization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Namaste, Sri Sadaji, and others Sri Sadaji has mentioned: << you need the upaadhi's even for jnaani to recognize that I am not uppadhis but that because of which upaadhis are known. you need a pot for the potspace to know that I am - potspace within the pot and at the same time as a space unlimited and unbroken and infinite - that is upahita space. >> Is it not like the need of a thorn to remove a thorn embedded under my knee? And, of course after removal of the thorn from the foot, both the thorns, i.e. one that gave pain, and the other that helped to remove the pain, ARE THROWN AWAY. Warm regards R.S.Mani Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > ------------- > Shailendraji - PraNAms > > The correct understanding is ego is not just inert but consciousness identified with the inert. That 'I am = this' is the ego. > > anaatma being inert cannot realize. aatma need not have to realize. > > Ego also cannot realize since it was notion that 'I am this'. > > Then who realizes - the one who is asking the question. > I, the consciousness identified with 'this' is ego. I have to drop that identification by realizing that I am 'not this, neti, and realize that 'I am' that 'I am' as pure I am without the need of this, which is existence-consciousness. > > This realization can only occur in the intellect in the sense that the all pervading consciousness gets reflected in the intellect and this reflection only can be perceived or known. With out the intellect present, there cannot be any reflection either. That is why pure light cannot be seen by itself - you need an object where the light can get reflected even to recognize the presence of light. We say that sun is shining but how do we know that there is sunshine out there - only by the reflection of the light by the objects outside. Without the objects present, no sunshine can be recognized even though sun may be brilliant. It is exactly the same situation. I have to know that I am pure light but reflected in the intellect that I can 'see' - hence Krishna says - One who sees alone sees - yaH pasyati ... saH pasyati. By the reflections I know the original. Original consciousness (OC) without the reflected consciousness (RC) need not have to know and I may > say cannot 'know' also since there are not knower-known-knowing distinctions in it to 'know'. > > That proves the point which Bhaskarji and Nairji miss - you need the upaadhi's even for jnaani to recognize that I am not uppadhis but that because of which upaadhis are known. you need a pot for the potspace to know that I am - potspace within the pot and at the same time as a space unlimited and unbroken and infinite - that is upahita space. > > That is what is involved in self-realization. > Sadanandaji, In this mail, you mention six different entities : Ego, intellect, Original Consciousness, Reflected Consciousness, jnani and I. Could you explain how these entities are related to each other, how they exist before realization, and how each would appear after realization? That will hopefully provide more clarity to this discussion. Regards, Raj. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.