Enlightened Empirical Engagements!!! - School-1

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

 

>

> My own additional input, for what it is worth, is to quote again the

> statement from Gaudapada's kArikA 3.23 (which I seem to quote on a

regular

> basis): " That which is supported by shruti and corroborated by

reason, is

> alone true and not the other. " Accordingly, where both sides are quoting

> references to support their stance, I am bound to say that I only accept

> those which appear reasonable. It simply makes no sense to claim that a

> j~nAnI has no body or mind.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

>

>

 

Namaste!

 

I have been trying to follow the discussions on this topic with some

difficulty. I am sure I am being simplistic in posting the following,

but I was struck by the last sentence in Dennis-ji's posting above and

decided to venture an opinion.

 

We, ajnanis clearly see the jnani's body walk and talk, eat and enjoy,

and so on. The body is insentient and cannot do all that unless

associated with a sentient being. So how does a jnani's body continue

to live, if not blessed by the presence of caitanya?

 

I think the very term 'jIvanmukta' implies one who is embodied yet

liberated (I hope I am correct in this understanding). If so, the

jnani clearly has a body, mind, etc.. Is this from the jnani's point

of view? I would not know the answer to that, but the fact is

prArabdha karma has to be endured even by the jnani, hence the body

continues to exist as before.

 

When Arjuna asks Krishna in Ch. 2 of the Gita about sthitah.prajna,

Krishna does not say that the latter has no body or mind. Instead He

provides a detailed description of such a person, how he behaves, how

he moves about, etc.

 

Again, in Ch. 5 (verses 8 & 9), Krishna describes a knower of truth

(tattvavit) as doing all mundane activities with the firm

understanding that he does nothing at all (naiva kincit karomIti yukto

manyeta tattvavit...).

 

There is a short work by sHankarAcArya called jIvanmukta Anandalahari

which describes how a jIvanmukta lives in this world of duality. Each

verse describes all sorts of worldly activities and ends with this:

 

'munir na vyAmoham bhavati guru dIkshakshatatamAH - The jnAni, having

destroyed his ignorance through Guru's teachings, (even while engaged

in activities) is not deluded'

 

From the above, it seems to me that a jnani may continue to transact

in the world while anchored firmly in the understanding that he is

neither karta (actor) nor bhokta (enjoyer). I, for one, am glad that

they continue to walk and talk standing as living embodiment of the

truth which I am striving to even understand.

 

Harih Om.

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

"Neelakantan" <pneelaka wrote:> From the above, it seems to me that a jnani may continue to transact> in the world while anchored firmly in the understanding that he is> neither karta (actor) nor bhokta (enjoyer).Dear Neelakantan,Although I fully agree with all you said, at the end of the day of a heated discussion, we read something from someone regarded as a Jnani, Nisargadatta Maharaj, that throws overboard many of the "reasonings" that we have been discussing.In Nisargadatta's words:I do not even think that I am a jnani, or that I am particularly wise, for I have no concepts or ideas of anyone whatsoever. I don't need tomorrow as I am beyond time and space. Even if many people come to see me I am not the gainer. I have nothing to gain. I have no connection with, and am completely dissociated from, my mind and body. This is Samadhi (Super conscious state), and is my natural state 24 hours a day.(Underlining mine)Certainly, statements like this one is food for thought, specially if it connects with our own "experience" in the moment, then it becomes a tool for sadhana, instead of a dry reasoning excercise.The solution may lie in "becoming" a Jnani and see for "ourselves" (if there is such a thing after Realization) what is all about.Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna

[Guest guest]

Dear Neelakantan-ji,

Precisely! All that you say is eminently reasonable and, from my

own viewpoint quite correct.

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Neelakantan

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 6:22 PM

advaitin

Re: Enlightened Empirical Engagements!!! - School-1

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have been trying to follow the discussions on

this topic with some

difficulty. I am sure I am being simplistic in posting the following,

but I was struck by the last sentence in Dennis-ji's posting above and

decided to venture an opinion.

 

We, ajnanis clearly see the jnani's body walk and talk, eat and enjoy,

and so on. The body is insentient and cannot do all that unless

associated with a sentient being. So how does a jnani's body continue

to live, if not blessed by the presence of caitanya?

 

….

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote:

>

 

>

> Dear Neelakantan,

> Although I fully agree with all you said, at the end of the day of a

> heated discussion, we read something from someone regarded as a Jnani,

> Nisargadatta Maharaj, that throws overboard many of the " reasonings "

> that we have been discussing.

>

> In Nisargadatta's words:

> I do not even think that I am a jnani, or that I am particularly wise,

> for I have no concepts or ideas of anyone whatsoever. I don't need

> tomorrow as I am beyond time and space. Even if many people come to see

> me I am not the gainer. I have nothing to gain. I have no connection

> with, and am completely dissociated from, my mind and body. This is

> Samadhi (Super conscious state), and is my natural state 24 hours a day.

> (Underlining mine)

>

> Certainly, statements like this one is food for thought, specially if it

> connects with our own " experience " in the moment, then it becomes a tool

> for sadhana, instead of a dry reasoning excercise.

> The solution may lie in " becoming " a Jnani and see for " ourselves " (if

> there is such a thing after Realization) what is all about.

>

> Yours in Bhagavan,

> Mouna

>

 

Dear Mouna-ji,

 

Thank you for this response. You have quoted the words spoken by a

jnani. This is exactly my point. We cannot at once claim that the

jnani has no body/mind and still have him speaking words or performing

actions unless we agree that he is speaking or acting while firmly

anchored in the knowledge that he is neither the speaker nor the

actor. In fact, that is what I get from the very words you have quoted.

 

Harih Om.

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

Dear Mounaji,

With all due respect to Nisargadatta (and at the risk of

incurring wrath!) (and his ‘I am That’ is unquestionably

brilliant), what he says is not always in accord with traditional teaching and,

indeed, later in his life, some of his (transcribed) talks sound more like

neo-advaita. Accordingly, I don’t feel that you can use his statements in

support of anything on this list. I think that the problem was that he

increasingly spoke as if from a pAramArthika viewpoint, despite the fact that

he was talking to disciples in an indisputably vyAvahArika context. (Some may,

perhaps, argue that this precisely ‘proves’ the no-MBI point of

view but I have no interest in pursuing that!)

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Mouna

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 7:00 PM

advaitin

Re: Enlightened Empirical Engagements!!! - School-1

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Nisargadatta's words:

I do not even think that I am a jnani, or that I am particularly

wise, for I have no concepts or ideas of anyone whatsoever. I don't need tomorrow

as I am beyond time and space. Even if many people come to see me I am not the

gainer. I have nothing to gain. I have no connection with, and am completely

dissociated from, my mind and body. This is Samadhi (Super conscious

state), and is my natural state 24 hours a day.

(Underlining mine)

 

Certainly, statements like this one is food for thought, specially if it

connects with our own " experience " in the moment, then it becomes a

tool for sadhana, instead of a dry reasoning excercise.

The solution may lie in " becoming " a Jnani and see for

" ourselves " (if there is such a thing after Realization) what is all

about.

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

"Neelakantan" <pneelaka wrote:> > Thank you for this response. You have quoted the words spoken by a> jnani. This is exactly my point. We cannot at once claim that the> jnani has no body/mind and still have him speaking words or performing> actions unless we agree that he is speaking or acting while firmly> anchored in the knowledge that he is neither the speaker nor the> actor. In fact, that is what I get from the very words you have quoted. "Dennis Waite" <dwaite wrote:>Accordingly, I> don't feel that you can use his statements in support of anything on this> list. I think that the problem was that he increasingly spoke as if from a> pAramArthika viewpoint, despite the fact that he was talking to disciples in> an indisputably vyAvahArika context. (Some may, perhaps, argue that this> precisely 'proves' the no-MBI point of view but I have no interest in> pursuing that!)Dear Neelakantan and DennisJi,

 

Believe me, I fully agree with both your views...

But the words we hear or read are always from "our" point of view,

meaning "me" (Mouna or Dennis or Neela characters of the dream), in the waking state, reasoning about something that is

beyond reason... or put it in a poetic language, the statements of Jnanis like Nisargadatta. or Ramana, or others in the past are like echoes from our own Self inviting us to take the leap, in the moment, towards our Ultimate Identity. That's why maybe it's called a direct path. Nisargadatta sounds to me like the embodiment of someone like Gaudapada... only without the philosophical aspect.I do understand the dangers of not being prepared to hear his teachings also.I, for myself, is part of my sadhana and manana to ask all these questions and to reflect about it, but eventually I know that the mind won't take me "there", and won't be able to explain the "here" either.Thanks for your comments, both of you.Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna

[Guest guest]

Dear Mounaji,

One more point triggered by your last comment (“But the words we

hear or read are always from " our " point of view, meaning

" me " (Mouna or Dennis or Neela characters of the dream), in the

waking state, reasoning about something that is beyond reason.”).

It was precisely the fact that advaita is always amenable to

reason that attracted me to it in the first place. All religions seem at some

point to demand ‘leaps of faith’ or accepting pronouncements that are out of

kilter with everything we have experienced or learned from science or logic.

Advaita never does this.

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

" Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> It was precisely the fact that advaita is always amenable to reason

that attracted me to it in the first place. All religions seem at some

point to demand 'leaps of faith' or accepting pronouncements that are

out of kilter with everything we have experienced or learned from

science or logic. Advaita never does this.

>

 

Dear DennisJi,

 

Nisargadatta and other Jnanis' statements don't require any " faith " ,

at least for me.

There are moments when the veil is lifted (or the clouded mind gets

" clear " ) and the words of Jnanis (plus Srutis) are more a

" description " than a pointer or direction. At that moment (or... this

moment if you wish) the teaching dissolves into just...

WHen we " come back " because of " pending vasanas " , we read the texts

differently...

 

That we are speaking within vyavahara is indeniable, isn't it?

You are working with Mandukya Up., do you see it only as a

philosophical text? or also as a road map? Isn't it a description of

what we are " experiencing " right now? It gives the actual situation

plus the means to resolve it, do you agree?

Well, to my knowledge, Nisargadatta is giving the same medicine (maybe

under a different form), but the mind has to be prepared to take it.

 

Very open to your commentaries.

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

PranAms Mouna-ji and others.

This again goes back to the issue of how does a jnAni teach.

 

This is how I am seeing this dialogue unfold so far (based on the convoluted series of perhaps over 50 posts).

 

A: I know a jnAni does not have a mind or a body, B: How do you know this?

A: Because Adi Shankara wrote this/Ramana said this/Nisargadatta said this!

B: Are they jnAnis/knowers of Truth?

A: Of course

B: And they wrote this or said this?

A: Yes

B: I presume they used their body - tongue, hands, intellect, mind to say this in response to a question or to formualte their point of view?

A: I see where you are going with this..no..no..they absolutely do not have a body or mind. That is my projection.

B: Which of these is your projection? - the tongue sitting inside Nisargadatta's mouth or the bidi sitting outside it?

A. Both. They, me, you, this world are all different, because I still harbor a disorder of visual perception called duality, because of avidyA - ignorance. And ignorance being absence of knowledge, as soon as I get knowledge, there should be no duality - no bidi no tongue.

B. So if the tongue is a projection of your ignorance, as is the bidi, as is the mind of the person controlling the tongue, then what credence to those words have?

A. No credence, from an absolute standpoint even those words are projections of my ignorance alone

B. How is your own ignorance going to project words that will enable that very ignorance to cease?

A. Only when it(my ignorance) ceases will both you and me find out.

B. So that means you are going to stop listening any further to any more creations of the projection of your own ignorance?

A. No..no... as long as i am ignorant, these words of my ignorance's projection are very much valid, and I must have faith in their ability to end my ignorance.

 

And so it goes on....!

 

A teacher in Vedanta is a Brahmanishta - One established in Brahman - he is not a product of a individual jivA's avidyA. Only then do his words have credence.

 

From a absolute standpoint there is no one ignorant, and there is no one who is a Knower.

Brahman is Knowing as in the Knowing principle, not a Knower (even if it be of Itself)

 

Humble pranAms

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

--- On Wed, 1/28/09, Neelakantan <pneelaka wrote:

Neelakantan <pneelaka Re: Enlightened Empirical Engagements!!! - School-1advaitin Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 3:46 PM

 

 

advaitin@ s.com, "Mouna" <maunna wrote:>> > Dear Neelakantan,> Although I fully agree with all you said, at the end of the day of a> heated discussion, we read something from someone regarded as a Jnani,> Nisargadatta Maharaj, that throws overboard many of the "reasonings"> that we have been discussing.> > In Nisargadatta' s words:> I do not even think that I am a jnani, or that I am particularly wise,> for I have no concepts or ideas of anyone whatsoever. I don't need> tomorrow as I am beyond time and space. Even if many people come to see> me I am not the gainer. I have nothing to gain. I have no connection> with, and am completely dissociated from, my mind and

body. This is> Samadhi (Super conscious state), and is my natural state 24 hours a day.> (Underlining mine)> > Certainly, statements like this one is food for thought, specially if it> connects with our own "experience" in the moment, then it becomes a tool> for sadhana, instead of a dry reasoning excercise.> The solution may lie in "becoming" a Jnani and see for "ourselves" (if> there is such a thing after Realization) what is all about.> > Yours in Bhagavan,> Mouna>Dear Mouna-ji,Thank you for this response. You have quoted the words spoken by ajnani. This is exactly my point. We cannot at once claim that thejnani has no body/mind and still have him speaking words or performingactions unless we agree that he is speaking or acting while firmlyanchored in the knowledge that he is neither the speaker nor theactor. In fact, that is what I

get from the very words you have quoted.Harih Om.Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

Thanks, dear Mounaji.

 

A very balanced understanding and position for which I cast my whole-

hearted vote and support.

 

Maharaj said it all in his very pithy statement! We should be able

to accept it while appreciating the descriptions of wise men that we

find in BG and the works of Shankara. We need our teachers afterall.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote:

 

>> In Nisargadatta's words:

> I do not even think that I am a jnani, or that I am particularly

wise,

> for I have no concepts or ideas of anyone whatsoever. I don't need

> tomorrow as I am beyond time and space. Even if many people come to

see

> me I am not the gainer. I have nothing to gain. I have no connection

> with, and am completely dissociated from, my mind and body. This is

> Samadhi (Super conscious state), and is my natural state 24 hours a

day.

> (Underlining mine)

>

> Certainly, statements like this one is food for thought, specially

if it

> connects with our own " experience " in the moment, then it becomes a

tool

> for sadhana, instead of a dry reasoning excercise.

> The solution may lie in " becoming " a Jnani and see for " ourselves "

(if

> there is such a thing after Realization) what is all about.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr. Shyamji,

 

The situation you tried to describe in the form of a 'humorous'

dialogue between A and B is the same one Shri Srinivas Kotekalji

presented here in a very succint manner in the form of questions in

his recent posts.

 

Why don't you please answer him? In response to his questions, I

have already admitted unabashedly that anything done from the falsity

of mithyA has the danger being afflicted by it (mithyA) and that we

have to work with faith, intuition and the logic of shruti. Hope you

won't disagree. Then, where is the need for satire? Don't you think

that the opposite side should be respected? Afterall, you are

answering because you think that the objections are worth answering

or atleast they provide a platform for you to stand on and present

your understanding.

 

Kindly note that none of those who have disagreed with you here have

advocated throwing away the teachings of Advaita masters. We need

Ramana and Maharaj too.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

> This is how I am seeing this dialogue unfold so far (based on

the convoluted series of perhaps over 50 posts).

>  

> A: I know a jnAni does not have a mind or a body,  

> B: How do you know this?

> A: Because Adi Shankara wrote this/Ramana said this/Nisargadatta

said this!

> B: Are they jnAnis/knowers of Truth?

> A: Of course

> B: And they wrote this or said this?

> A: Yes

> B: I presume they used their body - tongue, hands, intellect, mind

to say this in response to a question or to formualte their point of

view?

> A: I see where you are going with this..no..no..they absolutely do

not have a body or mind. That is my projection.

> B: Which of these is your projection? - the tongue sitting

inside Nisargadatta's mouth or the bidi sitting outside it?

> A. Both. They, me, you, this world are all different, because I

still harbor a disorder of visual perception called duality, because

of avidyA - ignorance. And ignorance being absence of knowledge, as

soon as I get knowledge, there should be no duality - no bidi no

tongue.

> B. So if the tongue is a projection of your ignorance, as is the

bidi, as is the mind of the person controlling the tongue, then what

credence to those words have?

> A. No credence, from an absolute standpoint even those words are

projections of my ignorance alone

> B. How is your own ignorance going to project words that will

enable that very ignorance to cease?

> A. Only when it(my ignorance) ceases will both you and me find out.

> B. So that means you are going to stop listening any further to any

more creations of the projection of your own ignorance?

> A. No..no... as long as i am ignorant, these words of my

ignorance's projection are very much valid, and I must have faith in

their ability to end my ignorance.

>  

> And so it goes on....!

>  

> A teacher in Vedanta is a Brahmanishta - One established in

Brahman - he is not a product of a individual jivA's avidyA. Only

then do his words have credence.

>  

> From a absolute standpoint there is no one ignorant, and there is

no one who is a Knower.

> Brahman is Knowing as in the Knowing principle, not a Knower (even

if it be of Itself)

[Guest guest]

Shyam <shyam_md wrote:> This is how I am seeing this dialogue unfold so far Pranams Sri ShyamJi,I know you won't mind if I play a little with words and edit some of this dialogue in a... playful manner, don't you? Thanks,> A: I know a jnAni does not have a mind or a body, > B: How do you know this?> A: Because Adi Shankara wrote this/Ramana said this/Nisargadatta said this!Please show me the references where these "people" say they don't have a body. If you read carefully Maharaj's quote on my recent posting, he says: "my" mind and body...> B: Are they jnAnis/knowers of Truth?> A: Of course> B: And they wrote this or said this?> A: YesReferences please for this one also... I never read Nisargadatta saying I'm a Jnani!! quite the contrary. The same with Bhagavan Ramana, and by the way, the same with every Jnani.> B: I presume they used their body - tongue, hands, intellect, mind to say this > in response to a question or to formualte their point of view?> A: I see where you are going with this..no..no..they absolutely do not have a > body or mind. That is my projection. Is person "A" a blind person?> B: Which of these is your projection? - the tongue sitting inside > Nisargadatta's mouth or the bidi sitting outside it?> A. Both. They, me, you, this world are all different, because I still harbor a > disorder of visual perception called duality, because of avidyA - ignorance. The disorder of person "A" may well be Cataracts> And ignorance being absence of knowledge, as soon as I get knowledge, there > should be no duality - no bidi no tongue.This guy (or Lady) "A" seems like a caricature, don't you agree?> B. So if the tongue is a projection of your ignorance, as is the bidi, as is > the mind of the person controlling the tongue, then what credence to those > words have?> A. No credence, from an absolute standpoint even those words are projections > of my ignorance aloneFrom an Absolute point of view there are no more projections.> B. How is your own ignorance going to project words that will enable that very > ignorance to cease?Pretty good question, don't you think? The answer is called Shastras...> A. Only when it(my ignorance) ceases will both you and me find out."A" donn't get it either, he still thinks and feels that B is separate from him. Nobody will "find out" anything because there's no-body to get anything anyway (Sorry for the Neo-Advaita terminology, it fits well here)> B. So that means you are going to stop listening any further to any more > creations of the projection of your own ignorance?> A. No..no... as long as i am ignorant, these words of my ignorance's > projection are very much valid, and I must have faith in their ability to end > my ignorance.YES! Finallly "A" got it. In other words the mind is the enemy but also the only possibility A has to transcend it. Strange paradox hein? > And so it goes on....!Until the end of times, or until "A" wakes up and said: "Mmmm I had such a strange dream tonight! I dreamt I was discussing something called Advaita on a planet called Earth, through something called a computer with a certain... "person" called B!********Epilogue (from I Am That by Nisargadatta)Q: When I ask a question and you answer, what exactly happens?M: The question and the answer -- both appear on the screen. The lips move, the body speaks -- and again the screen is clear and empty.Q: When you say: clear and empty, what do you mean?M: I mean free of all contents. To myself I am neither perceivable nor conceivable; there is nothing I can point out and say: 'this I am'.********Dear ShyamJi, I hope you didn't mind the playful manner of this response.Bear with me that I'm still learning and need to extract all the juice I can from more knowledgeable people like you and all the other dearest members of this list.Squizz'em up and drink the juice, but always with the utmost respect!I'll get it right one of these days!Humble Pranams,Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna

[Guest guest]

Dear Mouna-ji

HUmble pranams.

 

Please note in my imaginary conversation neither A nor B refers to Nisargadatta-ji's views or worse to him - in fact i was using his name to indicate a jnAni - in every sense of that term! Here are my responses to you - I didnt use the format you did lest it become unreadable so my apologies if the context is not clear. I am also deliberately keeping intact your entire message so that the context is clear.

 

1.Please show me the references where these "people" say they don't have a body. If you read carefully Maharaj's quote on my recent posting, he says: "my" mind and body...

The views of A are those not that of Maharaj but of those group members who have tried to defend a position which talks about a jnAni like Maharaj not having any mind, body, memory, brain, other "limiting adjuncts" etc.

2.References please for this one also... I never read Nisargadatta saying I'm a Jnani!! quite the contrary. The same with Bhagavan Ramana, and by the way, the same with every Jnani.

Once again person A is not Maharaj or Ramana or Shankara. By the way, Bhagwan Krishna Himself says he has handed this knowledge down the ages when Arjuna asks him.

3.

Is person "A" a blind person?

Person A is not blind - please note the last sentence - "that is my projection". Because A is perceiving duality, immediately takes it to be a "real" proof of an absence of self-knowledge - he has already intellectually assigned a litmus test to self-knowledge as being an absence of perception of duality.

4.

This guy (or Lady) "A" seems like a caricature, don't you agree?How I wish Mouna-ji! This is what proponents on this very thread have been proposing. See - there is a modern school of advaita which claims that theirs is the only correct interpretation of Shankara's Advaita, of which Bhaskar-ji is a follower. According to them ignorance is absence - absence of knowledge. Ignorance( or Absence) --> Maya --> Duality. So after binding themselves tightly into this rigid (but incorrect) paradigm, any duality becomes a problem - because knowledge should knock away this "absence" and so perception of duality should cease in that very instant of the wake of self-knowledge. So when asked to explain how a Guru this whole paradigm comes crashing down like the proverbial pack of cards. In my humble opinion any deviation from the traditional Vedantic position, of Maya or Avidya, being neither real nor unreal

will only send us in a downward spiral of increasingly illogical internal inconsistencies - in any case this is a separate topic that has been discussed threadbare previously. 5.

Pretty good question, don't you think? The answer is called Shastras...Please note Respected Mouna-ji that the Shruti is apaurusheya - it is not a product of anything least of which being projections of an avidya-ridden mind! The Upanishads call it the very breath of Brahman. Only thenceforth is there shraddha in the words of the Shruti, but more importantly, an established validity in the form of being an independent pramana, nay, the ONLY pramana for self-knowledge. This is very very crucial.

 

Thank you for your tongue-in-cheek humoros post Mouna-ji :-) - and a chance to allow me to clarify.

 

Humble pranams and love

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

--- On Thu, 1/29/09, Mouna <maunna wrote:

Mouna <maunna Re: Enlightened Empirical Engagements!!! - School-1advaitin Date: Thursday, January 29, 2009, 1:26 AM

 

 

Shyam <shyam_md wrote:> This is how I am seeing this dialogue unfold so far Pranams Sri ShyamJi,I know you won't mind if I play a little with words and edit some of this dialogue in a... playful manner, don't you? Thanks,> A: I know a jnAni does not have a mind or a body, > B: How do you know this?> A: Because Adi Shankara wrote this/Ramana said this/Nisargadatta said this!Please show me the references where these "people" say they don't have a body. If you read carefully Maharaj's quote on my recent posting, he says: "my" mind and body...> B: Are they jnAnis/knowers of Truth?> A: Of course> B: And they wrote this or said this?> A: YesReferences please for this one also... I never read Nisargadatta saying I'm a Jnani!! quite the contrary. The same with Bhagavan

Ramana, and by the way, the same with every Jnani.> B: I presume they used their body - tongue, hands, intellect, mind to say this > in response to a question or to formualte their point of view?> A: I see where you are going with this..no..no. .they absolutely do not have a > body or mind. That is my projection. Is person "A" a blind person?> B: Which of these is your projection? - the tongue sitting inside > Nisargadatta' s mouth or the bidi sitting outside it?> A. Both. They, me, you, this world are all different, because I still harbor a > disorder of visual perception called duality, because of avidyA - ignorance. The disorder of person "A" may well be Cataracts> And ignorance being absence of knowledge, as soon as I get knowledge, there > should be no duality -

no bidi no tongue.This guy (or Lady) "A" seems like a caricature, don't you agree?> B. So if the tongue is a projection of your ignorance, as is the bidi, as is > the mind of the person controlling the tongue, then what credence to those > words have?> A. No credence, from an absolute standpoint even those words are projections > of my ignorance aloneFrom an Absolute point of view there are no more projections.> B. How is your own ignorance going to project words that will enable that very > ignorance to cease?Pretty good question, don't you think? The answer is called Shastras...> A. Only when it(my ignorance) ceases will both you and me find out."A" donn't get it either, he still thinks and feels that B is separate from him. Nobody

will "find out" anything because there's no-body to get anything anyway (Sorry for the Neo-Advaita terminology, it fits well here)> B. So that means you are going to stop listening any further to any more > creations of the projection of your own ignorance?> A. No..no... as long as i am ignorant, these words of my ignorance's > projection are very much valid, and I must have faith in their ability to end > my ignorance.YES! Finallly "A" got it. In other words the mind is the enemy but also the only possibility A has to transcend it. Strange paradox hein? > And so it goes on....!Until the end of times, or until "A" wakes up and said: "Mmmm I had such a strange dream tonight! I dreamt I was discussing something called Advaita on a planet called Earth, through something called a computer with a certain... "person"

called B!********Epilogue (from I Am That by Nisargadatta)Q: When I ask a question and you answer, what exactly happens?M: The question and the answer -- both appear on the screen. The lips move, the body speaks -- and again the screen is clear and empty.Q: When you say: clear and empty, what do you mean?M: I mean free of all contents. To myself I am neither perceivable nor conceivable; there is nothing I can point out and say: 'this I am'.********Dear ShyamJi, I hope you didn't mind the playful manner of this response.Bear with me that I'm still learning and need to extract all the juice I can from more knowledgeable people like you and all the other dearest members of this list.Squizz'em up and drink the juice, but always with the utmost respect!I'll get it right one of these days!Humble Pranams,Yours in

Bhagavan,Mouna

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

 

> How I wish Mouna-ji! This is what proponents on this very thread

have been proposing. See - there is a modern school of advaita which

claims that theirs is the only correct interpretation of Shankara's

Advaita, of which Bhaskar-ji is a follower. According to them

ignorance is absence - absence of knowledge. Ignorance( or

Absence) --> Maya --> Duality. So after binding themselves tightly

into this rigid (but incorrect) paradigm, any duality becomes a

problem - because knowledge should knock away this " absence " and so

perception of duality should cease in that very instant of the wake of

self-knowledge. So when asked to explain how a Guru this whole

paradigm comes crashing down like the proverbial pack of cards. In my

humble opinion any deviation from the traditional Vedantic position,

of Maya or Avidya, being neither real nor unreal will only send us in

a downward spiral of increasingly illogical internal inconsistencies -

in any case this is a

> separate topic that has been discussed threadbare previously.

 

To be fair to Bhaskarji, Sankara's own Upadesa Sahasri seems to

endorse precisely the same view that Bhaskarji has made.

 

From Chapter 2

120. Teacher: " It is exactly so. It is Ignorance due to which the

transmigratory existence consisting of waking and dream is

experienced. It is Knowledge that brings this Ignorance to an end. You

have thus attained Fearlessness. You will never again feel pain in

waking or in dream. You are liberated from the misery of this

transmigratory existence " .

 

 

It seems reasonable that, from a Jnani's point of view, transmigratory

existence and any sense of agency is non-existent. Then on what basis

will he have identification with a particular BMI ?

 

Lot of bad blood has been spilled over this topic, and I didn't really

want to add to it. But couldn't resist myself.

 

Regards,

Raj.

[Guest guest]

Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Thank you for your tongue-in-cheek humoros post Mouna-ji :-) - and a

chance to allow me to clarify.

 

Dear Sri ShyamJi,

Thank you for your response.

I still have doubts about certain statements made but I'll leave it

there for the time being.

One thing I'd like to point out is that I believe that the more

impersonal the discussion is (meaning without giving any names in

relation to points of view), the more chances we have of addressing the

ideas/concepts and not the person behind (I know it was your original

idea when you sent that dialogue in the first place).

We all suffer a little when we become personal.

 

Thanks for your attention,

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri. Raj,

 

 

>

> It seems reasonable that, from a Jnani's point of view, transmigratory

> existence and any sense of agency is non-existent. Then on what basis

> will he have identification with a particular BMI ?

 

Jai: The point under discussion is not whether a jnAni identifies

himself/herself with a particular body. Everyone agrees that the jnAni

cannot entertain any notion about himself/herself as a limited jiva

with a Body-Mind-Sense complex. But the Body etc.. continues due to

prarabdha karma and jnAni can function in this world as a Guru,

father, sannyasi etc. only through the existing Body-mind-sense

complex. Now the discussion is about whether the jnANi perceives his

own BMI and the world or not. Note that perceiving something and

functioning through something, is different from identifying with

something. I hope this clarifies the point under discussion. Now what

is your take on this?

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar

[Guest guest]

PranAms Shri Raj-ji

Thank you for your response.

Let us consider this now.

"Shankara's own Upadesha Sahasri endorses"

 

If as a jnAni Shankara does not have a mind or a intellect or any karmendriyas how can He endorse anything?? Is this "Shankara's own Upadesha Sahasri" a work that stems from His undoubted stature as a Knower of Truth - tattvavit, as someone established in Brahman - Brahmavit, or from a projection of your (and mine) own ignorance or avidyA.>? If it is the latter I am afraid it has as much credence as the avidyA that projects it - perhaps even less so! If it is the former, then we have no scope for any disagreement.

Humble pranAms

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

--- On Thu, 1/29/09, rajkumarknair <rajkumarknair wrote:

rajkumarknair <rajkumarknair Re: Enlightened Empirical Engagements!!! - School-1advaitin Date: Thursday, January 29, 2009, 9:53 AM

 

 

advaitin@ s.com, Shyam <shyam_md@.. .> wrote:To be fair to Bhaskarji, Sankara's own Upadesa Sahasri seems toendorse precisely the same view that Bhaskarji has made.From Chapter 2 120. Teacher: "It is exactly so. It is Ignorance due to which thetransmigratory existence consisting of waking and dream isexperienced. It is Knowledge that brings this Ignorance to an end. Youhave thus attained Fearlessness. You will never again feel pain inwaking or in dream. You are liberated from the misery of thistransmigratory existence".It seems reasonable that, from a Jnani's point of view, transmigratoryexistence and any sense of agency is non-existent. Then on what basiswill he have identification with a particular BMI

?Lot of bad blood has been spilled over this topic, and I didn't reallywant to add to it. But couldn't resist myself.Regards,Raj.

[Guest guest]

PranAms.

I fully agree Mouna-ji - which is why I used A and B in the impersonal to begin with.

However in the process somehow I miscommunicated an impression that A referred to a jnAni like Maharaj - hence had to reclarify this time - inadvertently dragging in personalities.

 

I fully appreciate your thoughts.

Hari OM

Shyam--- On Thu, 1/29/09, Mouna <maunna wrote:

Mouna <maunna Re: Enlightened Empirical Engagements!!! - School-1advaitin Date: Thursday, January 29, 2009, 10:34 AM

 

 

Shyam <shyam_md@.. .> wrote:>> Thank you for your tongue-in-cheek humoros post Mouna-ji :-) - and achance to allow me to clarify.Dear Sri ShyamJi,Thank you for your response.I still have doubts about certain statements made but I'll leave itthere for the time being.One thing I'd like to point out is that I believe that the moreimpersonal the discussion is (meaning without giving any names inrelation to points of view), the more chances we have of addressing theideas/concepts and not the person behind (I know it was your originalidea when you sent that dialogue in the first place).We all suffer a little when we become personal.Thanks for your attention,Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna

[Guest guest]

Dear Nair-ji

PranAms.While I admit the tenor of my message seems satirical, is there anything substantive in its content or position that seems to be an exaggeration or is inconsistent with the position of those who hold views contrarian to what Sada-ji and Jaishankar-ji have been advocating?. If so, then please explain which exact point in my dialogue is inconsistent, because I dont think I am alone in having gotten the sincere impression that this is precisely what is the position being taken by the so -called school 1.

 

With regards to arguments put forth by VishishtaAdvaitins, I can only humbly submit that the entire dogma V.Advaita stems from a lack of understanding of the term mithyA which leads inadvertently to a mixing up of levels - there is no scope of arguing with a vishista-advaitin who is convinced at this point in time about the truth of his own philosophy's teachings, and of the (what to them are) seeming inconsistencies in the philosophy of Advaita. This is not the forum for that, at least the way I see it. Incidentally this also goes back to your contention about a simple understanding of advaita - the v. advaitins, the kshanika vijnana among the buddhists, etc --> all so close..and yet so far! - no Nair-ji a simple understanding of Advaita i am afraid is not that simple after all! Perhaps we can agree to that - :-).

 

Hari Om

Humble pranams

Shyam

 

--- On Thu, 1/29/09, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair Re: Enlightened Empirical Engagements!!! - School-1advaitin Date: Thursday, January 29, 2009, 12:37 AM

 

 

Dear Dr. Shyamji,The situation you tried to describe in the form of a 'humorous' dialogue between A and B is the same one Shri Srinivas Kotekalji presented here in a very succint manner in the form of questions in his recent posts.Why don't you please answer him? In response to his questions, I have already admitted unabashedly that anything done from the falsity of mithyA has the danger being afflicted by it (mithyA) and that we have to work with faith, intuition and the logic of shruti. Hope you won't disagree. Then, where is the need for satire? Don't you think that the opposite side should be respected? Afterall, you are answering because you think that the objections are worth answering or atleast they provide a platform for you to stand on and present your understanding. Kindly note that none of those who have disagreed with you here have advocated throwing away the

teachings of Advaita masters. We need Ramana and Maharaj too.Best regards.Madathil Nair

Change settings via the Web ( ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Terms of Use | Un

 

 

 

Recent Activity

 

 

5

New Members

 

2

New FilesVisit Your Group

 

 

Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

 

Y! Messenger

Group get-together

Host a free online

conference on IM.

 

 

Dog Group

Connect and share with

dog owners like you

..

[Guest guest]

Raj-ji writes:

To be fair to Bhaskarji, Sankara's own Upadesa Sahasri seems to

endorse precisely the same view that Bhaskarji has made.

 

From Chapter 2

120. Teacher: " It is exactly so. It is Ignorance due to which the

transmigratory existence consisting of waking and dream is

experienced. It is Knowledge that brings this Ignorance to an end. You

have thus attained Fearlessness. You will never again feel pain in

waking or in dream. You are liberated from the misery of this

transmigratory existence " .

 

 

It seems reasonable that, from a Jnani's point of view, transmigratory

existence and any sense of agency is non-existent. Then on what basis

will he have identification with a particular BMI ?

 

Lot of bad blood has been spilled over this topic, and I didn't really

want to add to it. But couldn't resist myself.

 

Regards,

Raj.

 

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

Namaste Raj-ji,

Careless reading - tut tut. The paragraph no. is #120 and a note after

‘feel’ in ‘you will never again feel pain in waking or in dream.’ (cf

above) refers us to an earlier #48 in which a similar statement had an

editorial note - (you will never again feel pain in the states of waking

and dream) As real and pertaining to the Self.

 

The conception of a jnani as a sort of ghost is the result of over

literal and partial reading.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

The conception of a jnani as a sort of ghost is the result of over literal and partial reading.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

The way the Atman pictured in scriptures would give us the impression that Self is some mysterious supernatural thing is it not?? Scriptures say it is attributeless, it does not have any limbs, it does not have prAna, it does not have mind, it does not have inside nor outside, it is not subtle nor gross...mind & speech cannot reach there...The best definition is neti neti..

 

A big mystery but it is self effulgent & aparOksha...what a contradictory presentation from scriptures to neophytes.. is it not :-))

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Jai-ji,

 

For the sake of this discussion or for your sake, let me admit that

the jnAni perceives his BMI. Now having my gone this far, will you

kindly tell me if you can describe what that peception is like? That

is the real point here under discussion.

 

When I am in everything as a jnani, I am everything. My perception

therefore is not perception in the ordinary sense. It is self-

awareness where there is nothing aside from me.

 

The ajnAnis around me will see me acting like them. But to me, I am

I am and there is no externality there to know that.

 

Best regards. Sorry if I have intruded. I am travelling and sending

this from my daughter's PC because I couldn't resist.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

 

advaitin , " jaishankar_n " <jai1971 wrote:

>> The point under discussion is not whether a jnAni identifies

> himself/herself with a particular body. Everyone agrees that the

jnAni

> cannot entertain any notion about himself/herself as a limited jiva

> with a Body-Mind-Sense complex. But the Body etc.. continues due to

> prarabdha karma and jnAni can function in this world as a Guru,

> father, sannyasi etc. only through the existing Body-mind-sense

> complex. Now the discussion is about whether the jnANi perceives his

> own BMI and the world or not. Note that perceiving something and

> functioning through something, is different from identifying with

> something. I hope this clarifies the point under discussion. Now

what

> is your take on this?

[Guest guest]

VERY VERY WELL SAID, BHASKARJI.

 

Alas! They don't know what they are talking about, what it is like

being everything and being in love with everything because everything

is you. They don't know what it is like being in love and love

itself without an object for you to express yourself with a limited

mind. So accustomed to this world of knower-known, they dare not

think of anything beyond.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

________________

 

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> The conception of a jnani as a sort of ghost is the result of over

literal

> and partial reading.

>

> praNAms

> Hare Krishna

>

> The way the Atman pictured in scriptures would give us the

impression that

> Self is some mysterious supernatural thing is it not?? Scriptures

say it is

> attributeless, it does not have any limbs, it does not have prAna,

it does

> not have mind, it does not have inside nor outside, it is not

subtle nor

> gross...mind & speech cannot reach there...The best definition is

neti

> neti..

>

> A big mystery but it is self effulgent & aparOksha...what a

contradictory

> presentation from scriptures to neophytes.. is it not :-))

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> VERY VERY WELL SAID, BHASKARJI.

>

> Alas! They don't know what they are talking about, what it is like

> being everything and being in love with everything because everything

> is you. They don't know what it is like being in love and love

> itself without an object for you to express yourself with a limited

> mind. So accustomed to this world of knower-known, they dare not

> think of anything beyond.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

 

 

Dear Madathil Nair,

 

is it not little about the love to/of yourself you are talking about?...

 

 

you statement:

 

" they don't know what they are talking about, what it is like being

everything and being in love with everyone because everything is you "

 

why worry about this " you " ?.....why being busy reading/writing then

nice messages.......to whom exactly?.....

 

yes, would agree on this " everything is you " ....

 

 

 

 

Kind Regards,

 

 

Marc

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Jaishankara prabhuji

Hare Krishna

I know, I owe you a reply (whether you like it or not :-)) to your previous post to me & my explanations for overlooking your shankara quotes in that..That I shall do in due course..Now to your latest observation below :

Sri J prabhuji :

The point under discussion is not whether a jnAni identifies

himself/herself with a particular body.

bhaskar :

If jnAni is not identifying himself with a particular body...then who is saying jnAnis has the localized BMI & upahita chaitanya (bordered consciousness)?? is it the assertion of jnAni or ajnAni?? kindly clarify.

Sri J prabhuji :

Everyone agrees that the jnAni cannot entertain any notion about himself/herself as a limited jiva with a Body-Mind-Sense complex. But the Body etc.. continues due to prarabdha karma and

bhaskar :

If it is true, then the theory of prArabhdha karma does not suit the vigor of jnAni..If jnAni does not entertain any notion about himself / herself there is no point in saying *he has* the prArabhdha karma & hence associates himself with the BMI complex..

FYI, there are some interesting observations about jnAni's prArabhdha karma in an advaita prakaraNa granTha called *aparOkshAnubhuti* Ofcourse, it is in the name of Sri shankara BhagavadpAda...Kindly have a look at it...The Author also makes some unnatural observations about praNAyAma (breathing exercises) also. I am not saying this is an authorititive source to refute the theory of prArabhdha karma..but as a side note you can refer it..

Sri J prabhuji :

jnAni can function in this world as a Guru, father, sannyasi etc. only through the existing Body-mind-sense complex. Now the discussion is about whether the jnANi perceives his own BMI and the world or not. Note that perceiving something and functioning through something, is different from identifying with

something.

bhaskar :

this guru-shishya saMbandha (teacher-pupil relationship), pramAtru-prameya vyavahAra ( knower-known transactions), scriptural teachings etc. etc. for us not for the jnAni..No jnAni would say you are shishya, you are ajnAni & I am jnAni, take teaching from me..In Sutra bhAshya (1-1-4) shankara says All injunctions and all other means of knowledge can function as such upto the moment of realization that I am brahman..for after the realization of the non-dual Atman neither to be shunned nor to be acquired, there can be no means of knowledge whatever, since there would be no object or cognizer for them..( dont jump on me again by saying it is paramArthA :-)) by saying 'upto', 'after' cognition etc. shankara definitely talking about the post realization period of jnAni..

Now to your particular observation that ' jnAni can function like guru, father, sannyAsi etc.' pUrva paxi in (2-1-14) raises an objection that : if absolute non-dualism to be taken literally there would be no room for diversity and perception and other empirical means of knowledge would be nullified since they would have then no object in the same way as the idean of a man etc. relating to a stump etc. And even the Sastra teaching release and the taught etc. on which alone its validity depends ...For this shankara gives an apt reply (CAPS or mine) : To this we reply, no such blame can be attached to our position..For all forms of usage can very well be real PREVIOUS TO THE REALIZATION of one's identity with brahman, like the PROCEDURE DURING DREAM BEFORE WAKING. So long as the real oneness of Atman is not realized, no one would think that the modification, means of knowledge, objects of knowledge and the resultant knowledge are false appearances.

What we would understand from the above bhAshya?? Does it not say that Atman is no agent of action and he is no more cognizer?? Being secondless by his very nature, agency and other properties (like guru, father sannyAsi etc.) seem to be real for the time being LIKE THE ILLUSORY APPEARANCE in a dream for the simple reason that WE THE IGNORANT ONES DONOT KNOW OUR SECONDLESS REAL NATURE??

So, it is onceagain clear from shankara bhAshya that jnAni-s vyavahAra, his localized set of senses, his limited chaitanya etc. etc. are the wrong cognition of ajnAni who is yet to realize his real nature...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar