Enlightened Empirical Engagements!!!

[Guest guest]

Dear Peter,

I think that probably Sada-ji’s last two (brilliant) posts

will have answered this question. The point I was making is that snake qua

snake and world qua world do not exist. Of course, both have an adhiShThAna (substrate)

that does exist. The rope-snake is a metaphor only and we allow that the rope

has ‘real’ existence for that purpose. The world is the actual

example and here it is brahman that is the only reality. We never say the world

is asat because pratyakSha (perception pramANa) validates it. Hence we call it

mithyA, not being real in itself but neither being unreal. (If you start to

talk about the rope-snake as an actual situation rather than a metaphor, then

you have to introduce prAtibhAsika to speak about the totally illusory snake.)

From the standpoint of absolute reality, you have to say

(although of course you can’t say anything in paramArtha!) that there is

no mithyA, mAyA, jIva, j~nAnI, advaita etc. From the standpoint of vyavahAra,

which is where all of these discussions, scriptures, teachers, enlightenment

etc take place, mithyA and mAyA do not ‘disappear’. mithyA is the ontological

status of the entire world appearance, gross and subtle, and it has brahman as

its sat adhiShThAna; mAyA is the interim explanation that advaita provides

for how Ishvara ‘creates’ all of this appearance.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Peter

Friday, February 06, 2009 9:40 PM

advaitin

RE: Re: Enlightened Empirical Engagements!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just

to help clarify my own understanding... we may say there never was a snake...

and... the world does not disappear because it never existed in the first

place. Is there a slight danger here of making ''snake " and

" world " a non-existing thing 'asat' ? If we take snake and

world as an appearance, 'mithya', neither real nor unreal, can we say

there never was any mithya? Or that there never was any maya?

 

 

 

 

 

Best

wishes,

 

 

 

 

 

Peter

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

>

> From the standpoint of absolute reality, you have to say (although

of course

> you can't say anything in paramArtha!) that there is no mithyA,

mAyA, jIva,

> j~nAnI, advaita etc.

 

>From the standpoint of vyavahAra, which is where all of

> these discussions, scriptures, teachers, enlightenment etc take place,

> mithyA and mAyA do not 'disappear'. mithyA is the ontological status

of the

> entire world appearance, gross and subtle, and it has brahman as its sat

> adhiShThAna; mAyA is the interim explanation that advaita provides

for how

> Ishvara 'creates' all of this appearance.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

Does this mean that :

1. absolute reality is just a theoretical notion which nobody can

ever experience ?

or

2. a jnani gets to experience that reality (at the time of

realization), but again is pulled down into the duality of mithya (

which means that realization was just a temporary state of non-mithya

experience) ?

 

Wouldn't it be logical to assume that, on realization a jnani abides

for ever as turiya, which pervades through waking, dream and

deep-sleep states (rather than experiencing the dualities as seen by

waker and dreamer) ?

 

Regards,

Raj.

[Guest guest]

Dear Raj,

Pranams

 

may I offer my understanding.

 

The clue, or one of the clues, seems to be in the definition of the two words

you use:

experience and abiding.

 

As far as I understand the words:

-- Experiencing is done by the mind, experiences come and go, just like states.

-- Abiding is beyond the mind, it is resting in what you timelessly are, turiya.

 

> Wouldn't it be logical to assume that, on realization a jnani abides

> for ever as turiya, which pervades through waking, dream and

> deep-sleep states (rather than experiencing the dualities as seen by

> waker and dreamer) ?

 

My understanding, using the above definitions: The jnani ABIDES forever as

turiya while

EXPERIENCING continues.

The jnani does not loose his mind on realization so the mind will go on

experiencing.

Experiencing what? Duality.

 

The jnani knows turiya to be real, while the ajnani holds experiences to be

real.

 

The jnani is a jnani when abiding irrevocably as turiya.

 

Otherwise your below questions apply:

 

> Does this mean that :

> 1. absolute reality is just a theoretical notion which nobody can

> ever experience ?

> or

> 2. a jnani gets to experience that reality (at the time of

> realization), but again is pulled down into the duality of mithya (

> which means that realization was just a temporary state of non-mithya

> experience) ?

 

What you refer to is nirvikalpa samadhi, which is a state, an experience, which

comes and

goes. It is not jnana (ref. question 2) AND it is not a theoretical notion

either (ref. question

1).

 

If you choose different definitions for those two words " experiencing " and

" abiding " (than I

just did), you will formulate different conclusions.

 

I don't know whether these words are used in the scriptures and whether

there are any definite statements about them. Maybe the learned members with

knowledge of Sanskrit can help.

 

Om Shanti

Sitara

 

 

 

advaitin , " rajkumarknair " <rajkumarknair wrote:

 

> Does this mean that :

> 1. absolute reality is just a theoretical notion which nobody can

> ever experience ?

> or

> 2. a jnani gets to experience that reality (at the time of

> realization), but again is pulled down into the duality of mithya (

> which means that realization was just a temporary state of non-mithya

> experience) ?

>

> Wouldn't it be logical to assume that, on realization a jnani abides

> for ever as turiya, which pervades through waking, dream and

> deep-sleep states (rather than experiencing the dualities as seen by

> waker and dreamer) ?

>

> Regards,

> Raj.

>

[Guest guest]

--- On Sat, 2/7/09, Sitara <smitali17 wrote:

 

-- Experiencing is done by the mind, experiences come and go, just like states.

-- Abiding is beyond the mind, it is resting in what you timelessly are, turiya.

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

Sitaraji - PraNAms

 

your explanation is correct - mind abiding in the knowledge only means it firmly

understands as fact not as idea - 'That I am man' - is firmly rooted in mind

that there will never be a time I have a doubt about it. I do not have to do

japa or keep reminding myself that I am a man, I am man, etc. Nothing can

disturb me from that knowledge.

 

When mind abides in the knowledge - aham brahmaasmi - there will never be any

doubt at any time for me even to remind myself that I am Brahman and not this

BMI - I will never be shaken from that knowledge. That is what abiding in that

knowledge means. There will never be misunderstanding and therefore the

associated delusion.

 

Once one fellow went to swami chinmayanandaji and asked - swamiji, I have been

attending your classes for a long time, I have studied all the scriptues and I

know I am Brahman, but how come I am suffering?

 

Swamiji looked at him and asked That is also my question - if you know you are

brahman, how come you are suffering?

 

JK puts this beautifully - it is not an understanding as an understanding as a

thought but it is an understanding as an understanding as a fact.

 

 

> Wouldn't it be logical to assume that, on realization a jnani abides

 

> for ever as turiya, which pervades through waking, dream and

 

> deep-sleep states (rather than experiencing the dualities as seen by

 

> waker and dreamer) ?

 

 

 

My understanding, using the above definitions: The jnani ABIDES forever as

turiya while

 

EXPERIENCING continues.

 

The jnani does not loose his mind on realization so the mind will go on

experiencing.

 

Experiencing what? Duality.

 

 

 

The jnani knows turiya to be real, while the ajnani holds experiences to be

real.

 

 

 

The jnani is a jnani when abiding irrevocably as turiya.

 

 

 

Otherwise your below questions apply:

 

 

 

> Does this mean that :

 

> 1. absolute reality is just a theoretical notion which nobody can

 

> ever experience ?

 

> or

 

> 2. a jnani gets to experience that reality (at the time of

 

> realization) , but again is pulled down into the duality of mithya (

 

> which means that realization was just a temporary state of non-mithya

 

> experience) ?

 

 

 

What you refer to is nirvikalpa samadhi, which is a state, an experience, which

comes and

 

goes. It is not jnana (ref. question 2) AND it is not a theoretical notion

either (ref. question

 

1).

 

 

 

If you choose different definitions for those two words " experiencing " and

" abiding " (than I

 

just did), you will formulate different conclusions.

 

 

 

I don't know whether these words are used in the scriptures and whether

 

there are any definite statements about them. Maybe the learned members with

 

knowledge of Sanskrit can help.

 

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

Sitarji - your understanding is perfect. Yes scriptures use the word - Brahma

nishTaa - one who abides in the knowledge that I am Brahman or firmly

established in that knowledge. Ramana uses the word dRiDaiva nishTaa - for firm

abidance in myself - the self that I am.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis,

 

Thank you for a very clear answer. I think the weakness lies in my own question! There's something 'there' I'm feeling I need to clarify for myself but just haven't found the right words for it as yet! When I do I ask again.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Dennis Waite07 February 2009 11:02advaitin Subject: RE: Re: Enlightened Empirical Engagements!!!

 

 

Dear Peter,

I think that probably Sada-ji’s last two (brilliant) posts will have answered this question. The point I was making is that snake qua snake and world qua world do not exist. Of course, both have an adhiShThAna (substrate) that does exist. The rope-snake is a metaphor only and we allow that the rope has ‘real’ existence for that purpose. The world is the actual example and here it is brahman that is the only reality. We never say the world is asat because pratyakSha (perception pramANa) validates it. Hence we call it mithyA, not being real in itself but neither being unreal. (If you start to talk about the rope-snake as an actual situation rather than a metaphor, then you have to introduce prAtibhAsika to speak about the totally illusory snake.)

From the standpoint of absolute reality, you have to say (although of course you can’t say anything in paramArtha!) that there is no mithyA, mAyA, jIva, j~nAnI, advaita etc. From the standpoint of vyavahAra, which is where all of these discussions, scriptures, teachers, enlightenment etc take place, mithyA and mAyA do not ‘disappear’. mithyA is the ontological status of the entire world appearance, gross and subtle, and it has brahman as its sat adhiShThAna; mAyA is the interim explanation that advaita provides for how Ishvara ‘creates’ all of this appearance.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of PeterFriday, February 06, 2009 9:40 PMadvaitin Subject: RE: Re: Enlightened Empirical Engagements!!!

 

 

 

 

 

Just to help clarify my own understanding... we may say there never was a snake... and... the world does not disappear because it never existed in the first place. Is there a slight danger here of making ''snake" and "world" a non-existing thing 'asat' ? If we take snake and world as an appearance, 'mithya', neither real nor unreal, can we say there never was any mithya? Or that there never was any maya?

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

 

 

Peter

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Raj,

Whether or not you accept that absolute reality is non-dual, it

must be a reality (by definition); it couldn’t be theoretical. Of course,

while in ignorance, we can have no end of erroneous theories about reality!

The other point about a reality that is non-dual is that, again

by definition, it could not be ‘experienced’ because there would

have to be an experiencer and an experienced, which would then not be non-dual.

Thus, neither a j~nAnI nor an aj~nAnI can experience this non-dual reality.

And this non-dual reality is *always* the case (otherwise

it would not be reality, which has to exist in past, present and future). It is

the case now for both j~nAnI and aj~nAnI. The difference is simply that the

j~nAnI’s mithyA mind knows this to be the case, while the aj~nAnI’s

mithyA mind does not know and hence mistakenly believes that he is a separate.

limited jIva.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of rajkumarknair

Saturday, February 07, 2009 12:17 PM

advaitin

Re: Enlightened Empirical Engagements!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does this mean that :

1. absolute reality is just a theoretical notion which nobody can

ever experience ?

or

2. a jnani gets to experience that reality (at the time of

realization), but again is pulled down into the duality of mithya (

which means that realization was just a temporary state of non-mithya

experience) ?

 

Wouldn't it be logical to assume that, on realization a jnani abides

for ever as turiya, which pervades through waking, dream and

deep-sleep states (rather than experiencing the dualities as seen by

waker and dreamer) ?

 

Regards,

Raj.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sitaraji, Dennisji, Sadanandaji and all others who provided

valuable insights ,

 

Let me humbly submit my views with this final post.

 

advaitin , " Sitara " <smitali17 wrote:

>

> Dear Raj,

> Pranams

>

 

> As far as I understand the words:

> -- Experiencing is done by the mind, experiences come and go, just

like states.

> -- Abiding is beyond the mind, it is resting in what you timelessly

are, turiya.

>

 

RAJ : Okay, I will go with this terminology.

 

>

> My understanding, using the above definitions: The jnani ABIDES

forever as turiya while

> EXPERIENCING continues.

> The jnani does not loose his mind on realization so the mind will go

on experiencing.

> Experiencing what? Duality.

>

 

RAJ:

I guess this is where Bhaskarji, Madathil-ji and I diverge from the

general view in the group.

 

For a jnani, abiding in turiya cannot be a theory or intellectual

gymnastics. It is a fact for the jnani (just as having

knower-knowing-known distinction is a fact for ajnanis like us). He is

one with turiya, where there is no more distinction between knower,

knowing and known. How can he experience duality ?

 

" For where there is a duality, " says the Brihad-Aranyada Upanishad,

" there one sees another; there one smells another; there one tastes

anothers; there one speaks to another; there one touches another;

there one understands another. But where everything has become just

one's own self, then whereby and whom would one see? "

 

To say that jnani still sees/experiences his body, mind, intellect

etc. as separate from the rest of the world is simply diluting the

grandeous of advaita to fit into our thought-framework.

 

I guess we are so used to the world of duality, that we don't want to

give it up even for the sake of our true nature. We want our petty

existence to continue - our families, wealth, status etc. So we don't

want our relationship with the known to change even after realization,

the fundamental shift of consciousness which dissolves the distinction

between knower and known.

 

 

>The experiencing as we know involves a knower, known and

> The jnani knows turiya to be real, while the ajnani holds

experiences to be real.

>

> The jnani is a jnani when abiding irrevocably as turiya.

>

 

RAJ :

Agreed. So how can a jnani, who abides irrevocably as turiya, get

down to the status of being an experiencer of duality ? I don't think

it is possible.

Once again, this is my personal belief based on my understanding of

advaita.

 

Regards,

Raj.

[Guest guest]

Dear Raj,

pranams

 

RAJ:

> I guess this is where Bhaskarji, Madathil-ji and I diverge from the

> general view in the group.

 

Yes, I agree, except that I think there are more in this group who would share

your view.

 

> Once again, this is my personal belief based on my understanding of

> advaita.

 

Your understanding differs from mine, as you said yourself. As I have followed

several

threads now, where these two positions clashed, I am not going to continue the

argument.

It seems obvious to me that neither of the two " parties " is going to change

their viewpoint.

 

Om Shanti

Sitara

 

 

> > As far as I understand the words:

> > -- Experiencing is done by the mind, experiences come and go, just

> like states.

> > -- Abiding is beyond the mind, it is resting in what you timelessly

> are, turiya.

> >

>

> RAJ : Okay, I will go with this terminology.

>

> >

> > My understanding, using the above definitions: The jnani ABIDES

> forever as turiya while

> > EXPERIENCING continues.

> > The jnani does not loose his mind on realization so the mind will go

> on experiencing.

> > Experiencing what? Duality.

> >

>

> RAJ:

> I guess this is where Bhaskarji, Madathil-ji and I diverge from the

> general view in the group.

>

> For a jnani, abiding in turiya cannot be a theory or intellectual

> gymnastics. It is a fact for the jnani (just as having

> knower-knowing-known distinction is a fact for ajnanis like us). He is

> one with turiya, where there is no more distinction between knower,

> knowing and known. How can he experience duality ?

>

> " For where there is a duality, " says the Brihad-Aranyada Upanishad,

> " there one sees another; there one smells another; there one tastes

> anothers; there one speaks to another; there one touches another;

> there one understands another. But where everything has become just

> one's own self, then whereby and whom would one see? "

>

> To say that jnani still sees/experiences his body, mind, intellect

> etc. as separate from the rest of the world is simply diluting the

> grandeous of advaita to fit into our thought-framework.

>

> I guess we are so used to the world of duality, that we don't want to

> give it up even for the sake of our true nature. We want our petty

> existence to continue - our families, wealth, status etc. So we don't

> want our relationship with the known to change even after realization,

> the fundamental shift of consciousness which dissolves the distinction

> between knower and known.

>

>

> >The experiencing as we know involves a knower, known and

> > The jnani knows turiya to be real, while the ajnani holds

> experiences to be real.

> >

> > The jnani is a jnani when abiding irrevocably as turiya.

> >

>

> RAJ :

> Agreed. So how can a jnani, who abides irrevocably as turiya, get

> down to the status of being an experiencer of duality ? I don't think

> it is possible.

> Once again, this is my personal belief based on my understanding of

> advaita.

>

> Regards,

> Raj.

>

[Guest guest]

" rajkumarknair " <rajkumarknair wrote:

 

> So how can a jnani, who abides irrevocably as turiya, get

> down to the status of being an experiencer of duality ? I don't think

> it is possible.

 

Dear Raj-Ji,

 

I agree with you. There are two ways of considering the Jnani, or the

word Jnani, in my understanding.

One is that I-Consciousness principle that is the sustratum of reality

or Brahman, " We " are all That. We are all " Jnani " without or with

knowing it. Jnani is another way of depicting Brahman (sorry for the

scriptural un-orthodoxy in a poetical form).

The other is to see a Jnani as a body (or BMI) and that could ony be

done from the point of view that one considers oneself a body. In this

case we will say that a Jnani experiences duality, since one is

considering Him/Her/It/I through the colored glass of duality itself.

In this case we also start to attribute an individual " life " to the

" Jnani " .

This last view may suit well for teaching purposes like Bhagavan

Krishna, Adi Shankaracharya and others explaining how the Jnani " acts "

or " feels " .

Eventually, in the final analysis, all these concepts drop because they

are only... concepts.

(When we all going to be deep asleep tonight, where will all this

discussion be?)

Naked Silence prevails throughout.

The whole thing seems like a dog trying to bite its tail, plenty of

Catch 22 situations.

 

The question: Is a Jnani concerned about all this?

An answer may come: Who is asking the question, the Jnani?

 

Yours in Jnana,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

praNAms to all the followers of this thread.

 

The following is an excerpt titled Jivanmukta,

from praNava vaartika of Shri Sureshwaracharya.

The excerpt is from Dakshinamurthy Stotra by Shri

Alladi Mahadeva Sastri, published by Samata books,

pages 206-208.

 

==

For him who sees the all-pervading tranquil, secondless,

blissful Atman, there remains nothing to be attained or

known. Having achieved all aspirations, he becomes wise;

he always remains a jIvanmukta. Fixed in Atman with all

his being, he never indeed sees the universe. No doubt

he becomes aware of the dual universe occasionally

when he is awake to the world around; but then he sees

it not as something different from the Conscious Atman,

in as much Consciousness runs through all. On the other

hand, he sees the universe as false, like the confusion

of the four quarters, or like the appearance of many

moons. Then, owing to the accumulated praarabdha-karma

-- karma which has already begin its effects -- he is

aware of a semblance of the body. The shruti says that

he has to wait only till death; and even the continuance

of the praarabdha in the case of a liberated one is a

mere illusion. This person, having known the Reality,

is always free from bonds and never otherwise. On the

exhaustion of the fruits of the praarabdha, he attains

at once the Vishnu's state, which is beyond the darkness

of avidya, free from all false appearances -- the pure

stainless Consciousness which is beyond the reach of

thought and speech, free from all designated objects, and

devoid of anything which has either to be acquired or

cast aside; which is Bliss ans Wisdom in one solid mass.

==

 

praNAms to all Advaitins

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

--- On Sun, 2/8/09, rajkumarknair <rajkumarknair wrote:

 

 

For a jnani, abiding in turiya cannot be a theory or intellectual

 

gymnastics. It is a fact for the jnani (just as having

 

knower-knowing- known distinction is a fact for ajnanis like us). He is

 

one with turiya, where there is no more distinction between knower,

 

knowing and known. How can he experience duality ?

 

--------

Raj - praNams -

 

There is a problem in the above understanding: Krishna taught Arjuna. Ramana

wrote Vedantic books - upadesa saara and Satdarshan. It is not ajnaani's

imagination – they can only imagine ajnaana not jnaana since by definition

they do not know jnaana to imagine, by definition. Since there are no jnaani’s

left to teach, everybody will remain as ajnaani’s eternally. We can throw all

the Vedantic books since it is only imaginations of ajnaanis since jnaanis are

not there to write and whatever that is written is the imaginations of ajnaanis

only. What a pathetic situation?

 

Vedanta does not to this kind of ignorance propagation.

 

abiding in turiiyam mean only abiding in the knowledge of I am - is the

substantive of all - jiiva-jagat-Iswara. Abiding in the knowledge that

ring-bangle-necklace is nothing but turiiyam gold means the substantive of all

is gold and gold alone. Ring, necklace and bangle do not have any absolute

reality - they are there for transactional purposes.

 

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

 

 

 

" For where there is a duality, " says the Brihad-Aranyada Upanishad,

 

" there one sees another; there one smells another; there one tastes

 

another; there one speaks to another; there one touches another;

 

there one understands another. But where everything has become just

 

one's own self, then whereby and whom would one see? "

 

--

Raj – this is true even for ajnaani too. It is something to understand –

PrakRiti does all the actions of seeing, etc for both jnaani and ajnaani – One

knows and the others think that they are the doer - kartRitva bhava and suffer

due to that notion.

-----------

raJ:To say that jnani still sees/experiences his body, mind, intellect

 

etc. as separate from the rest of the world is simply diluting the

 

grandeous of advaita to fit into our thought-framework.

ks:

Absolutely not. In fact the other way – you are infact making dvaita more real

than what advaita says – By saying they are not there after knowledge is

giving more reality to dvaita – advaita is understanding the substantive of

all three state – waking-dream and deep sleep is that ‘so-called’ turiiyam

– caturtam manyante – It is called the fourth – not that is fourth

different from first, second and third. We only have three states no fourth

state- it is the recognition that I am is in all the three states as their very

substantive – like gold is the fourth from ring, bangle and bracelet.

 

As I have already discussed that one need an object to see the RC and RC is same

as OC in OC there is neither object or RC either – that means from Brahman

point there is nether jnaani or ajnaani.

 

The rest is all confusion not two ways of looking at it.

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

 

RAJ:

I guess we are so used to the world of duality, that we don't want to

 

give it up even for the sake of our true nature. We want our petty

 

existence to continue - our families, wealth, status etc. So we don't

 

want our relationship with the known to change even after realization,

 

the fundamental shift of consciousness which dissolves the distinction

 

between knower and known.

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

 

KS:Experience of duality is not the problem and experience of advaita is also

not the problem Duality is not a problem – any drama is not a problem –

paying a role is not a problem – but taking the duality is real is the problem

THAT IS DUE TO IGNORANCE. - We are all experiencing advaita all the time. What

is lacking is knowledge. Knowledge of what we experience - similar to knowledge

of the oneness of gold in ring, bangle and necklace - or knowledge of all

experiences that involve duality. Knowledge does not dissolve anything other

than ignorance which is its antidote. Experiences are with BMI -jnaani has BMI -

if it has become melted down with self-realization then I will join you happily

- only problem is we will not have jnaani teaching us - we will be in ajnaana

only forgetting the fact that jnaani would not become jnaani without the proper

teaching which is not possible if all the jnaanis disappear from the face of the

earth. When thieves bet

Bhagavaan ramana - he said jokingly that he also received puja from them.

Ajnaanis were not there to feel the puja done by the thieves to Bhagavan.

-

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

>The experiencing as we know involves a knower, known and

 

> The jnani knows turiya to be real, while the ajnani holds

 

experiences to be real.

 

>

 

> The jnani is a jnani when abiding irrevocably as turiya.

 

>

 

 

 

RAJ :

 

Agreed. So how can a jnani, who abides irrevocably as turiya, get

 

down to the status of being an experiencer of duality ? I don't think

 

it is possible.

 

Once again, this is my personal belief based on my understanding of

 

advaita.

 

----

KS - there is fundamental problem in the above arguments - there is no climbing

up for jnaani for him to come down. Do I have to come down somewhere to see

sunrise and sunset once I understood sun does not rise or set and it is the

earth that is moving around?

 

Do I start eating garbage instead of healthy food, once I know that the

substantive of both is the same - electrons, protons and neutrons? That does

knowledge of oneness or turiiyam in all does not remove the apparent

distinctions based on they are packed.

 

Knowledge only reveals the truth of all experiences - experiences can be

contradictory but absolute knowledge cannot be contradicted. That is the glory

of the knowledge which removes the ignorance not removes the experiences.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Raj-ji!

 

After reading the following in your post, I am left with some questions.

 

We, ajnAnis continue to see the BMI of a jnAni and interact with it.

We even call it Bhagavan or Swamiji or Maharaj. But you say the jnAni

can have nothing to do with that BMI. Would I be correct in stating

then, that a jnAni is not available to us after all? That a jIvanmukta

cannot exist as far as as we are concerned? All we are left with is a

certain BMI. There is no reason to treat it differently from whoever

it was before the so called dawn of jnAna.

 

Harih Om!

Neelakantan

 

advaitin , " rajkumarknair " <rajkumarknair

wrote:

>

>

> Dear Sitaraji, Dennisji, Sadanandaji and all others who provided

> valuable insights ,

>

> Let me humbly submit my views with this final post.

>

> advaitin , " Sitara " <smitali17@> wrote:

 

> RAJ:

> I guess this is where Bhaskarji, Madathil-ji and I diverge from the

> general view in the group.

>

....

> To say that jnani still sees/experiences his body, mind, intellect

> etc. as separate from the rest of the world is simply diluting the

> grandeous of advaita to fit into our thought-framework.

>

....

>

 

> Agreed. So how can a jnani, who abides irrevocably as turiya, get

> down to the status of being an experiencer of duality ? I don't think

> it is possible.

> Once again, this is my personal belief based on my understanding of

> advaita.

>

> Regards,

> Raj.

>

[Guest guest]

hare krishna, namaskaramsOn Sun, 8/2/09, Ramakrishna Upadrasta <uramakrishna wrote:

For him who sees the all-pervading tranquil, secondless,

blissful Atman, there remains nothing to be attained or

known. Having achieved all aspirations, he becomes wise;

he always remains a jIvanmukta. Fixed in Atman with all

his being, he never indeed sees the universe. No doubt

he becomes aware of the dual universe occasionally

when he is awake to the world around; but then he sees

it not as something different from the Conscious Atman,

in as much Consciousness runs through all. On the other

hand, he sees the universe as false, like the confusion

of the four quarters, or like the appearance of many

moons. Then, owing to the accumulated praarabdha-karma

-- karma which has already begin its effects -- he is

aware of a semblance of the body. The shruti says that

he has to wait only till death; and even the continuance

of the praarabdha in the case of a liberated one is a

mere illusion. This person, having known the Reality,

is always free from bonds and never otherwise. On the

exhaustion of the fruits of the praarabdha, he attains

at once the Vishnu's state, which is beyond the darkness

of avidya, free from all false appearances -- the pure

stainless Consciousness which is beyond the reach of

thought and speech, free from all designated objects, and

devoid of anything which has either to be acquired or

cast aside; which is Bliss ans Wisdom in one solid mass.a beutiful excerpt in right time. i feel that all questions asked by us who are all in duality and as such how can we discuss/argue the concept about a gnani who is beyond words once we accept that he is brahman.only a gnani can know how a gnani is.baskaran

 

 

Bollywood news, movie reviews, film trailers and more!

[Guest guest]

The reference is to gauDapAda kArikA 1.17. (The previous mantra says that, when the jIva gains self-knowledge, he wakes up (from ignorance) and realizes that he is not the waker, dreamer or deep-sleeper but the non-dual turIya.)

The key point here is the contention that, upon gaining knowledge, the world does NOT disappear because it never existed in the first place. What actually goes away is the mistaken belief that there was a world.

praNAms Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji

Hare Krishna

I think above two statements would be the clincher to determine the socalled BMI of jnAni is it not?? When jiva realizes he is not the waker, dreamer etc. what does it mean?? BMI what we are attributing to jnAni pertains to which state?? dont we say BMI is the part of this dvaita prapancha?? When he is not the waker or dreamer, where is the question of BMI that belongs to waking / dreaming states?? I think above statement is supporting our stand that his realization reveals him the fact that he was/is/will never be a waker/dreamer/sleeper?? If anyone concurs this then they have to agree that the world which has the corresponding existence to these states & respective BMI-s pertains to these states also would not exist...Elsewhere, kArika says sA cha mAya na vidyate, mAya iti avidyamanasya AkhyA (4-58) ..mAya does not exist, the idea being that the term mAya relates to something non-existing...It is in this spirit only we are saying the jnAni does/can not have the notion that he has the avidyAkruta prAkrutik shareera of 'his' own...It does not anyway mean, this unembodiedness is the result/effect of jnAna to say before jnAna he was in the body & after jnAna he is not in the body etc.. OTOH, we have been saying this unembodiedness is the reality of the jnAni forever..jnAni's body never existed before to say now it is gone....Though he looks like an embodied one his real status is always unembodied only...(ashareeri ONLY)

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Hence shankara clearly says - world is mityaa because it is SEEN - dRisyatvaat. Jnaani knows world is mithyaa. That means he sees but does not take what he sees as satyam since he knows the seer He is the real satyan.

praNAms prabhuji

Hare Krishna

I think you are missing the point here prabhuji...We are questioning the very pramAtrutva of the jnAni...Seeing means here what?? if we say jnAni sees this world, through which means/karaNa/instruments he would see the world?? Ofcourse it is through 'his' BMI is it not?? now what is this BMI?? does it not part & parcel of this dvaita prapancha?? How can he see without thinking that he is pramAtru?? how can he see this dvaita prapancha without identifying himself with his own BMI?? dont you still think it is avidyAkruta vyavahAra?? When knowership itself sublates after the dawn of jnAna where is the question of seeing, knowing, doing vyavahAra?? It is only our ignorance which makes us to infer that jnAni is pramAtru & he uses the dEha, buddhi, indriya, mana etc. Shankara quotes one slOka to say how pramAtrutva is adhyasta on nirvishesha Atman..I request you to translate this sloka & share your understanding : anvEshtavyAtma vijnAnAt prAk pramAtrutvaM AtmanaH, anvishtaH syAt pramAtaiva pApmadOshAdi varjitaH..This sloka quotes by shankara in the 4th sUtra of brahma sUtra by saying it is sampradAya vida vachanaH ( statement of knowers of tradition) ..By the way, as a matter of fact, this is what you, yourself have elaborately explained while presenting your notes on adhyAsa bhAshya : dehEndriyAdishu ahaM mama abhimAna rahitasya pramAtrutvAnupapattau pramANapravruttyanupapatteH...Would you please mind to explain me this statement onceagain with the light of your recent stand that regard to jnAni's localized BMI prabhuji ?/

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

The reference is to gauDapAda kArikA 1.17. (The previous mantra says that, when the jIva gains self-knowledge, he wakes up (from ignorance) and realizes that he is not the waker, dreamer or deep-sleeper but the non-dual turIya.)

The key point here is the contention that, upon gaining knowledge, the world does NOT disappear because it never existed in the first place. What actually goes away is the mistaken belief that there was a world.

praNAms Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji

Hare Krishna

I think above two statements would be the clincher to determine the socalled BMI of jnAni is it not?? When jiva realizes he is not the waker, dreamer etc. what does it mean?? BMI what we are attributing to jnAni pertains to which state?? dont we say BMI is the part of this dvaita prapancha?? When he is not the waker or dreamer, where is the question of BMI that belongs to waking / dreaming states?? I think above statement is supporting our stand that his realization reveals him the fact that he was/is/will never be a waker/dreamer/sleeper?? If anyone concurs this then they have to agree that the world which has the corresponding existence to these states & respective BMI-s pertains to these states also would not exist...Elsewhere, kArika says sA cha mAya na vidyate, mAya iti avidyamanasya AkhyA (4-58) ..mAya does not exist, the idea being that the term mAya relates to something non-existing...It is in this spirit only we are saying the jnAni does/can not have the notion that he has the avidyAkruta prAkrutik shareera of 'his' own...It does not anyway mean, this unembodiedness is the result/effect of jnAna to say before jnAna he was in the body & after jnAna he is not in the body etc.. OTOH, we have been saying this unembodiedness is the reality of the jnAni forever..jnAni's body never existed before to say now it is gone....Though he looks like an embodied one his real status is always unembodied only...(ashareeri ONLY)

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Raj-ji,

 

Taking a peek from a wayside cafe I spotted this gem of yours.

 

I salute you for the clarity and power of your expression.

 

Please don't go yet.

 

You are right - there definitely is a dilution of the original

vedantic view and I suspect it has unfortunately happened due to our

fear that the vyAvahAric West might reject us if we stuck to our

ancient moorings. Alas, we have made an international flotsam of

vedanta! Alas, Alas! We are then blaming the simple, poor neos for

the decadence into which we have turned in the name of the

traditional!

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

advaitin , " rajkumarknair " <rajkumarknair

wrote:

>

Let me humbly submit my views with this final post.

> I guess this is where Bhaskarji, Madathil-ji and I diverge from the

> general view in the group.

>

> For a jnani, abiding in turiya cannot be a theory or intellectual

> gymnastics. It is a fact for the jnani (just as having

> knower-knowing-known distinction is a fact for ajnanis like us). He

is

> one with turiya, where there is no more distinction between knower,

> knowing and known. How can he experience duality ?

>

> " For where there is a duality, " says the Brihad-Aranyada Upanishad,

> " there one sees another; there one smells another; there one tastes

> anothers; there one speaks to another; there one touches another;

> there one understands another. But where everything has become just

> one's own self, then whereby and whom would one see? "

>

> To say that jnani still sees/experiences his body, mind, intellect

> etc. as separate from the rest of the world is simply diluting the

> grandeous of advaita to fit into our thought-framework.

>

> I guess we are so used to the world of duality, that we don't want

to

> give it up even for the sake of our true nature. We want our petty

> existence to continue - our families, wealth, status etc. So we

don't

> want our relationship with the known to change even after

realization,

> the fundamental shift of consciousness which dissolves the

distinction

> between knower and known.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Neelakantan-ji.

 

This is a hurried answer - rather an intervention. I am sure Raj-ji

will answer you.

 

The rose is Brahman. The star is also Brahman. They both are

available to us as *rose* and *star* for our transactional

interactions. Similarly, a jnAni, the embodiment of Truth, who is

verily Brahman, is also available to us for ineraction as Grace

amidst us in the form of gurus, avatArAs, avadhUtAs etc.

 

For the jnAni, however, there cannot ba a plurality of jnAnis and a

band of ajnAnis to be made knowledgeable. He doesn't even have his

pre-jnAni ajnAnihood. His continuation and perambulations in his pre-

jnAni ajnAnihood BMI is the want of the other ajnAnis.

 

Hope I am clear. I notice that you had addressed a message to me in

this thread which I couldn't attend to as I was travelling. I hope

to return to you later when I finish my sojourn in about a week.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

advaitin , " Neelakantan " <pneelaka wrote:

>

> Namaste Raj-ji!

>

> After reading the following in your post, I am left with some

questions.

>

> We, ajnAnis continue to see the BMI of a jnAni and interact with it.

> We even call it Bhagavan or Swamiji or Maharaj. But you say the

jnAni

> can have nothing to do with that BMI. Would I be correct in stating

> then, that a jnAni is not available to us after all? That a

jIvanmukta

> cannot exist as far as as we are concerned? All we are left with is

a

> certain BMI. There is no reason to treat it differently from whoever

> it was before the so called dawn of jnAna.

>

[Guest guest]

For a jnani, abiding in turiya cannot be a theory or intellectual

gymnastics. It is a fact for the jnani (just as having

knower-knowing-known distinction is a fact for ajnanis like us). He is

one with turiya, where there is no more distinction between knower,

knowing and known. How can he experience duality ?

praNAms Rajkumar Nair prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Yes, for experiencing any duality, he needs to have an individual BMI & identity with it...Moreover, if it is a real duality experience for him For we cannot say it is sublated duality..Because in the real experience of duality there is no room for us to infer jnAni would see Atman/brahman everywhere...At the most we can say jnAni's absolute understanding is nothing but mere intellectual understanding...If it is mere intellectual understanding than he the jnAni is nothing better than me, the only lip service vedantin:-)) For a jnAni, there is nothing but brahman, there is nothing that can be called duality & its experience...For him socalled body, mind, intellect, ahaMkAra etc. is brahman, this multifarious world is brahman, for him top, bottom, left, right, inside, outside everything brahman nothing else...Truth knowers know that there is nothing independent apart from IT...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Nair-ji ,

 

I'm a little baffled now : all along this discussion , I thought

your stand was that a Jnaani cannot have BMI intact . This post

however , seems to contradict that . Clearly , this could possibly

be an error on my part to understand ( we all seem to be playing

very defined parts in the whole drama within this group itself ! )

and so here are some questions

 

a. " Similarly, a jnAni, the embodiment of Truth, who is

verily Brahman, is also available to us for ineraction as Grace

amidst us in the form of gurus, avatArAs, avadhUtAs etc. "

- What does available as grace mean : is there a spirit or a form ?

- Given the guru / avadhuta etc had a BMI that we can see and they

use , for instance , a tongue to deliver a lecture etc , why the

negation of the existence of BMI ?

 

b. " His continuation and perambulations in his pre-jnAni ajnAnihood

BMI is the want of the other ajnAnis. "

 

- Is there a suggestion that the BMI of the guru / avadhutha is a

projection from the minds of the ajnanis ?

- If that's the case , isn't that true all the time anyway : that

the BMI is the object in which the universal consciousness is

reflected ?

 

c. It seems to me that there really is no dispute on this long

thread and the following facts are relevant and open for

interpretation , depending on the ontology of the subject-object

that one takes

 

- BMI is mithyaa , regardless of state of jnana . It's only a

question of whether the subject gets past the object and focusses on

what's making the object visible / conscious !

- pre and post jnana existence of BMI is irrelevant from the

perspective of the brahman ( by brahman , i refer to the subject who

has shed his ignorance and sees no subject object distinction ) .

its relevant only for the ajnani . given we are still debating

this , we are not jnani's yet and therefore ,as ajnanis this will be

an infinite regress discussion , since each one can only speak from

a limited perspective and ontology that is specific to a limited

subject.

 

d. Apologies for any errors that I may have made in understanding

your stand . My excuse is that I am ajnani and therefore limited and

can only see through my filters Happy to receive feedback !

 

Regards

 

/ Raji /

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

 

>

> The rose is Brahman. The star is also Brahman. They both are

> available to us as *rose* and *star* for our transactional

> interactions. Similarly, a jnAni, the embodiment of Truth, who is

> verily Brahman, is also available to us for ineraction as Grace

> amidst us in the form of gurus, avatArAs, avadhUtAs etc.

>

> For the jnAni, however, there cannot ba a plurality of jnAnis and

a

> band of ajnAnis to be made knowledgeable. He doesn't even have

his

> pre-jnAni ajnAnihood. His continuation and perambulations in his

pre-

> jnAni ajnAnihood BMI is the want of the other ajnAnis.

>

[Guest guest]

praNAms Smt. Rajalakshmi mAtAji

Hare Krishna

Since Sri Nair prabhuji and me belong to same school (atleast in this discussion :-))...I hope you wont mind my bit on your below observation. Anyway, you can wait for a detailed reply from Sri Nair prabhuji also.

RL mAtAji :

a. " Similarly, a jnAni, the embodiment of Truth, who is

verily Brahman, is also available to us for ineraction as Grace

amidst us in the form of gurus, avatArAs, avadhUtAs etc. "

- What does available as grace mean : is there a spirit or a form ?

bhaskar :

I think Sri Nair prabhuji has made his point clear above..guru-s are available for us in the name and form..Dont we have definite idea of name and form of our advaita AchArya-s?? If we are talking about bhagavan ramANa, we dont think about shankara's name & form, if we are talking about shankara we are not thinking about names & forms of nisargadatta maharaj, if we are talking about H.H. Sri Sri chandrashekhara bhArati we are not thinking about names and forms of Ramakrishna paramahaMsa...Though in spirit they are one and the same, the name & forms we impose on them is due to our ajnAna...

RL mAtAji :

- Given the guru / avadhuta etc had a BMI that we can see and they

use , for instance , a tongue to deliver a lecture etc , why the

negation of the existence of BMI ?

bhaskar :

I dont think we the ajnAni's are negating the existence of BMI...Their bodies are as real as our bodies...Their embodiment is as real as our embodiment...This is called vyAvahArika ajnAna drushti..or dehAtma buddhi drushti...But shAstra says that jnAni's realization reveals him that he is always unembodied one only, even if we see he is talking, walking, seeing, meditating, teaching etc. it only looks like that for us...but he is neither doer, nor enjoyer, nor meditator...For jnAni, there cannot be separate existence that can be called as jnAni's BMI & ajnAni's BMI...For him sarvaM brahma mayaM..

RL mAtAji :

 

b. " His continuation and perambulations in his pre-jnAni ajnAnihood

BMI is the want of the other ajnAnis. "

 

- Is there a suggestion that the BMI of the guru / avadhutha is a

projection from the minds of the ajnanis ?

bhaskar :

Yes, thinking that Atman has the limitations of the body or Atman has the boundaries of the BMI is only in the view of ignorants who cannot elevate themselves from dehAtma buddhi to dehAteeta paramArtha svarUpa.

RL mAtAji :

- If that's the case , isn't that true all the time anyway : that

the BMI is the object in which the universal consciousness is

reflected ?

bhaskar :

Scriptures repeatedly says there is no Atma-anAtma vastu bedha in the jnAni..the reality of reflecting consciousness is the later invention which has been termed as avidyAkruta by shankara himself..Reflection requires tripod i.e. bimba, pratibimba & medium...These tripod will be sublated in the jnAni & he sees nothing apart for IT.

 

RL mAtAji :

- BMI is mithyaa , regardless of state of jnana . It's only a

question of whether the subject gets past the object and focusses on

what's making the object visible / conscious !

- pre and post jnana existence of BMI is irrelevant from the

perspective of the brahman ( by brahman , i refer to the subject who

has shed his ignorance and sees no subject object distinction ) .

its relevant only for the ajnani . given we are still debating

this , we are not jnani's yet and therefore ,as ajnanis this will be

an infinite regress discussion , since each one can only speak from

a limited perspective and ontology that is specific to a limited

subject.

bhaskar :

you are true mAtAji..BMI has the relevance ONLY to ajnAni-s..This never ending discussion is due to our special affiliations with our body, mind & intellect & we are always eager to advocate our own brand of theories..some does with the aid of shAstra & AchAryOpadesha & admits openly that they are still dvaitin-s talking advaita...some others wont ready to accept this naked truth :-))

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

dear bhaskar-ji ,

 

thanks for the clarifications . however , i must admit i'm still

baffled : if we are agreed that this conversation / schools / stands

are relelvant only from the ajnaani's perspective , then what's the

dispute about the BMI of the jnani ? could you clarify what is your

stated position on this ?

 

thanks !

 

ps : i would prefer to be called by my name ( without getting into

an argument regarding nama-rupa etc and am hesitant in accepting

roleplay , which seems to tie us down to vyavahaarika ! thanks

 

 

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> praNAms Smt. Rajalakshmi mAtAji

>

>

> Hare Krishna

>

>

> Since Sri Nair prabhuji and me belong to same school (atleast in

this

> discussion :-))...I hope you wont mind my bit on your below

observation.

> Anyway, you can wait for a detailed reply from Sri Nair prabhuji

also.

>

>

> RL mAtAji :

>

>

> a. " Similarly, a jnAni, the embodiment of Truth, who is

> verily Brahman, is also available to us for ineraction as Grace

> amidst us in the form of gurus, avatArAs, avadhUtAs etc. "

> - What does available as grace mean : is there a spirit or a form ?

>

>

> bhaskar :

>

>

> I think Sri Nair prabhuji has made his point clear above..guru-s

are

> available for us in the name and form..Dont we have definite idea

of name

> and form of our advaita AchArya-s?? If we are talking about

bhagavan

> ramANa, we dont think about shankara's name & form, if we are

talking about

> shankara we are not thinking about names & forms of nisargadatta

maharaj,

> if we are talking about H.H. Sri Sri chandrashekhara bhArati we

are not

> thinking about names and forms of Ramakrishna paramahaMsa...Though

in

> spirit they are one and the same, the name & forms we impose on

them is due

> to our ajnAna...

>

>

> RL mAtAji :

>

>

> - Given the guru / avadhuta etc had a BMI that we can see and they

> use , for instance , a tongue to deliver a lecture etc , why the

> negation of the existence of BMI ?

>

>

> bhaskar :

>

>

> I dont think we the ajnAni's are negating the existence of

BMI...Their

> bodies are as real as our bodies...Their embodiment is as real as

our

> embodiment...This is called vyAvahArika ajnAna drushti..or dehAtma

buddhi

> drushti...But shAstra says that jnAni's realization reveals him

that he is

> always unembodied one only, even if we see he is talking, walking,

seeing,

> meditating, teaching etc. it only looks like that for us...but

he is

> neither doer, nor enjoyer, nor meditator...For jnAni, there cannot

be

> separate existence that can be called as jnAni's BMI & ajnAni's

BMI...For

> him sarvaM brahma mayaM..

>

>

> RL mAtAji :

>

> b. " His continuation and perambulations in his pre-jnAni ajnAnihood

> BMI is the want of the other ajnAnis. "

>

> - Is there a suggestion that the BMI of the guru / avadhutha is a

> projection from the minds of the ajnanis ?

>

>

> bhaskar :

>

>

> Yes, thinking that Atman has the limitations of the body or Atman

has the

> boundaries of the BMI is only in the view of ignorants who cannot

elevate

> themselves from dehAtma buddhi to dehAteeta paramArtha svarUpa.

>

>

> RL mAtAji :

>

>

> - If that's the case , isn't that true all the time anyway : that

> the BMI is the object in which the universal consciousness is

> reflected ?

>

>

> bhaskar :

>

>

> Scriptures repeatedly says there is no Atma-anAtma vastu bedha in

the

> jnAni..the reality of reflecting consciousness is the later

invention which

> has been termed as avidyAkruta by shankara himself..Reflection

requires

> tripod i.e. bimba, pratibimba & medium...These tripod will be

sublated in

> the jnAni & he sees nothing apart for IT.

>

>

>

> RL mAtAji :

>

>

> - BMI is mithyaa , regardless of state of jnana . It's only a

> question of whether the subject gets past the object and focusses

on

> what's making the object visible / conscious !

> - pre and post jnana existence of BMI is irrelevant from the

> perspective of the brahman ( by brahman , i refer to the subject

who

> has shed his ignorance and sees no subject object distinction ) .

> its relevant only for the ajnani . given we are still debating

> this , we are not jnani's yet and therefore ,as ajnanis this will

be

> an infinite regress discussion , since each one can only speak from

> a limited perspective and ontology that is specific to a limited

> subject.

>

>

> bhaskar :

>

>

> you are true mAtAji..BMI has the relevance ONLY to ajnAni-s..This

never

> ending discussion is due to our special affiliations with our

body, mind &

> intellect & we are always eager to advocate our own brand of

> theories..some does with the aid of shAstra & AchAryOpadesha &

admits

> openly that they are still dvaitin-s talking advaita...some others

wont

> ready to accept this naked truth :-))

>

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

>

> bhaskar

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Raji-ji,

 

Am happy you asked very sensible questions and very pleased to answer.

 

My comments are in under excerpts from your post. I am still

travelling with not much time at my disposal. Kindly, therefore,

bear with me if I am incoherent.

______________

 

> I'm a little baffled now : all along this discussion , I thought

> your stand was that a Jnaani cannot have BMI intact.

 

[MN: My stand is still that a jnAni, who is verily Brahman, cannot

*have* anything at all, not to speak of his so-called erstwhile BMI.]

_____________

 

> This post however , seems to contradict that . Clearly , this

could possibly be an error on my part to understand ( we all seem to

be playing very defined parts in the whole drama within this group

itself ! )

 

[MN: Yes. You misunderstood me. It may be due to my lack of

clarity, a point which my ego hates to concede, or your hasty reading

of my posts, or your presupposition that I cannot be right because I

am up against Goliaths. Let us not worry about it since you have now

given me another opportunity to clarify.]

______________________

 

> and so here are some questions

>

> a. " Similarly, a jnAni, the embodiment of Truth, who is

> verily Brahman, is also available to us for ineraction as Grace

> amidst us in the form of gurus, avatArAs, avadhUtAs etc. "

> - What does available as grace mean : is there a spirit or a form ?

 

[MN: All shruti, smriti, purANa, our benevolent mythological

personages, bygone gurus like Shankara, Bh. Ramana et al, our current

teachers like Sw. Dayanandaji et al, this forum where we are

apparently battling, the intellect including ego with which we do so -

which are all a given - these constitute Grace. Anything whatsoever

that impel us in this phenomenal to OurSelf is Grace.]

 

[MN: Raji-ji, if you have time in hand, kindly read my post 42963.

It is my vision statement on Advaita. I am sure you wouldn't have

asked me the questions you asked if you had read it.]

_______________________________

 

> - Given the guru / avadhuta etc had a BMI that we can see and they

> use , for instance , a tongue to deliver a lecture etc , why the

> negation of the existence of BMI ?

 

[MN: Because jnAni who is Brahman cannot *have* anything. That is

the absolute basic of Advaita. We can't afford to dilute it. You

have a BMI because you have it, it is available for your

objectification and you do objectify it all the time. If my

understanding of what jnAni is like, i.e. Brahman, is correct, he

*doesn't do* that. It is not in his *nature* to do that.]

_________________________________

>

> b. " His continuation and perambulations in his pre-jnAni ajnAnihood

> BMI is the want of the other ajnAnis. "

 

> - Is there a suggestion that the BMI of the guru / avadhutha is a

> projection from the minds of the ajnanis ?

 

[MN: I would like to be very very cautious here because you seem to

be pushing me into accepting some misleading English terminology. I

would only go as far as saying that the BMI we erroneously attribute

to jnAni and the possibility of a plurality of jnAnis are the results

of pure adhyAsa and stop enquiring into the mechanics of that adhyAsa

in line with Shankara's advice but instead concentrate on Brahman

which is all that matters to a true advaitin. We are a bunch of

advaitins here with no compuctions when it comes to accepting that

the whole world is adhyAsa. Why do we then have problem with an

individual BMI? That is also part of adhyAsa.]

________________________

 

> - If that's the case , isn't that true all the time anyway : that

> the BMI is the object in which the universal consciousness is

> reflected ?

 

[MN: Again, 'reflected' is an English word I wouldn't prefer in this

context. When one can understand the statement " All this is Brahman " ,

where is the need to labour with this 'reflected' business. Thus,

each and every atom of this body is Brahman, the thoughts that flash

are brahman, so on and so forth. There is nothing other than

Brahman. jnAni *sees* only that Brahman, which is an understanding

to us ordinary advaitins. For *him*, there is no BMI as an

objectification. All BMIs are Brahman and therefore him. He is

there in all and that all is him - not apart from him.]

 

[MN: True, the flower is Brahman, the mountain too is Brahman. But,

we don't expect them to self-realize. We expect only ajnAnis to

*become* jnAnis. We have every right then to speculate what

*happens* in that *becoming* and to ascertain if our conclusions are

in line with shruti (Advaita)]

_____________________

>

> c. It seems to me that there really is no dispute on this long

> thread and the following facts are relevant and open for

> interpretation , depending on the ontology of the subject-object

> that one takes

 

[MN: Raji-ji, there indeed is a dispute and that is that one side

keeps maintaining that self-realization is an understanding in the

mind and the self-realized is one operating in the transactional with

BMI, knowing fully well that all that is happening around him is the

lIlA of the Lord. To the other side, where I stand, there is

absolutely no BMI business post-realization simply because there is

no scope for a second in jnAna. To me, that is true advaita.]

__________________________

>

> - BMI is mithyaa , regardless of state of jnana . It's only a

> question of whether the subject gets past the object and focusses

on

> what's making the object visible / conscious !

> - pre and post jnana existence of BMI is irrelevant from the

> perspective of the brahman ( by brahman , i refer to the subject

who

> has shed his ignorance and sees no subject object distinction ) .

> its relevant only for the ajnani . given we are still debating

> this , we are not jnani's yet and therefore ,as ajnanis this will

be

> an infinite regress discussion , since each one can only speak

from

> a limited perspective and ontology that is specific to a limited

> subject.

 

[MN: I have already admitted in response to one of Shri Kotekalji's

posts that any conclusion we derive in mithyA from mithyA cannot

escape mithyAthwaM. Thus, we need to have faith in shruti and our

intuitive self-evidence " I am I am " . That is why we admit the very

validity of Brahman without asking questions like unruly

rationalists. Once we have accepted Brahman, then we don't have to

travel far to conclude that jnAni, the knower of that Brahman, is

Brahman. So, even as ajnAnis languishing in the pre-jnAna

transactional, we have every right to speculate the exact 'nature' of

a jnAni. To allow a BMI in that speculated conclusion is against

Advaita is my point. It is like finding salt in one-hundred percent

desalinated sea water! Once one has arrived at this conclusion, then

explaining the phenomenon of gurus, teachers etc. available aplenty

arund us in striking plurality as jnAnis (plural!) is an exercise in

futility. It is avidya. I don't mean any disrespect to our gurus.

I adore them and need them much. But, as an advaitin, I have to call

a spade a spade - not some other name.]

_______________________

>

> d. Apologies for any errors that I may have made in understanding

> your stand . My excuse is that I am ajnani and therefore limited

and

> can only see through my filters Happy to receive feedback !

 

[MN: I too am an ajnAni. However, I would love to reiterate my

statements till I am convincingly proved wrong using Advaitic logic.]

________________________

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskarji,

 

I think I can now accept you fully in all matters advaita. If the

pUrNamadah discussions of April 2004 take place now, there wouldn't

be any disagreements between us. What happened then was due to

misunderstanding and a tendency on our sides to hold our respective

forts.

 

I am sure this will make some ex-Member peeper to LOL.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

Since Sri Nair prabhuji and me belong to same school (atleast in this

> discussion :-))...I hope you wont mind my bit on your below

observation.

[Guest guest]

if we are agreed that this conversation / schools / stands are relelvant only from the ajnaani's perspective , then what's the

dispute about the BMI of the jnani ?

praNAms

Hare Krishna

Absolutely no disputes..infact this is what we have been tirelessly & repeatedly telling in this forum since time immemorial :-)) But you might hear some different view points on this position from the esteemed & knowledgeable prabhuji-s of this group..

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar