Guest guest Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji Hare Krishna Firstly, kindly accept my sincere humble praNAms for your serene persistence on your view points & patience you have shown with me....Unlike me, you are a full time advaitin/jnAni in mind as well as in heart..In my case, though practical advaitin is conspicuous by his absence, my theoretical advaitin still going strong & posing more & more questions & doubts about the thoughts presented here:-)) Here again some more ajnAni's thoughts on jnAni's observation prabhuji : Sri S prabhuji : From Brahman - there is no point of view. There is a misinterpreting my statement. When we say from Paaramaarthika point - even that statement is also looking from vyavahaarika only - Hence satyam, jnaanam anantam - Brahman, one without a second are all description of paaramaathika from vyavahaarika only. To repeat again: - yatho vaacho nivartante apraapya manasaa saha. No words or mind can reach there. bhaskar : If everything termed as vyavahAra then there is no point in bickering over two different view points prabhuji...Where is the question of two different view points in these discussions when both vyavahAra & paramArtha viewpoints are on the same platform of vyavahAra?? Atleast, henceforth, let us stop pointing out differences citing *mixing of view points* excuse... IMO, there is certainly some misunderstanding of shAstra drushti & vyavahAra drushti in advaita as used by shankara here. Shankara never ever say from paramArtha drushti no words & expression possible..OTOH, he talks about the pAramArthik significance of this vyavahArik drushti...For example in vyavahAra Atman is just an individual soul but from pAramArthik significance it is the witnessing priciple, which is nothing but brahman...we say Ishwara is the ruler of this world in vyavahArik sence but concept of Ishwara has been explained by Atman's existence independent of the world from pAramArthik view..So, there are clear distinction between shAstra drushti & vyavahArik drushti & both have the explanatory notes in shankara bhAshya..Shankara never says there is nothing to talk about from shAstra drushti.. Sri S prabhuji : Jnaani is one who knows I am Brahman - THE SUBSTANTIVE OF JIIVA-JAGAT-ISWARA. He also knows therefore whatever is seen is mithyaa only. bhaskar : I dont know how many times I have to tell that jnAtrutva is mere adhyArOpita on Atman & it cannot be carried over to post realization period... Sri S prabhuji : He can communicate this knowledge within the mithyaa only since at Brahman level no communication can occur or needed any communication is within dvaita. bhaskar : And dont you think this dvaita is due to avidyA?? this mAya which is mithya is kevala avidyA kruta (fictiously imagined by avidyA) the jnAni who realizes this jnAna how can see the reality of this mithya when it's mother avidyA itself erazed completely?? That is the reason why kArika (quoted by Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji) says there is no mithya (dvaita prapaNcha) at the first place to negate after realization...It never existed at any point of time.. Sri S prabhuji : Hence the communication with students also is in mithyaa level - mithyaa again - is not asat not sat - not unreal and not real - this jnaani knows. Hence he is communicating yet knows that it is at vyaavahaarika level only. He sees the differences between jiiva-jagat and Iswara but since he see (dRistavaat) he knows it is mithyaa - that is part of jnaanam he has. bhaskar : There is a serious siddhAta hAni in the above statements..You are implying that jnAni would have both jnAna (that he is brahman) and mithyatva of this jagat (mithyatva is due to ajnAna drushti) at the same time and sees the difference and still works on it!! this is simply goes against the advaita...when we see the rope in its entireity where is the question of mithyatva of snake perception?? when we realize the mirage water is nothing but shining sand...where is the question of our walking towards it for want of water?? When we wakes up from dream, do we hold the characters in dream as real and continue to do vyavahAra?? there cannot be tamaH-prakAsha (darkness - light) at the same place!! Both jnAna & ajnAna cannot occupy the same space of jnAni's mind!! That is the reason why we've been objecting to the statements like 'jnani is communicating with mithya prapancha yet knows he is non-dual brahman, jnAni moves in duality yet knows non-duality..there is duality inspite of non-duality etc. etc. These are simply shows that jnAni not yet transcended the apparent duality... Sri S prabhuji : Jnaani is Braham vit - is jiivan mukta - who NOW knows that he is not jiiva but substantive of jiiva-jagat-Iswara which is Brahman. Hence jnaani knows that He is in absolute sense Brahman since scripture says Brahma vit brahma eve bhavati - and He realizes that He is therefore the SUBSTANTIVE of all three - jiiva-jagat-Iswara. bhaskar : We are missing the continuation of this maNtra brahma vit brahmaiva bhavati..it not only teaches that jIva merely knows he is adhishtAna (substantive) but he is brahman himself (brahmaiva bhavati)..For him there is not mere substantive knowledge of jIva jagat Ishwara but he is IN & OUT of everything.. Sri S prabhuji : He knows He is the paaramathika satyam underlying the vyaavahaarika sathyam. All the duality in the vyaavhaarika sathyam is NOW realized as vyaavhaarika only - that is it is mithyaa and not absolutely real. bhaskar : As said above, two different objects cannot occupy the same place at the same time..my mediocre science knowledge says so :-)) A jnAni cannot have dual nature (split personality) to say I am brahman and at the same time I see the difference in mithyA prapancha & differentiate between jnAni & ajnAni..That is the reason why shankara says when one realizes he is brahman there is no ajnAna whatsoever to anyone !! Sri S prabhuji : Jnaani from the point of vyavahaara knows that jiiva, jagat and Iswara are NOT satyam but mithyaa only. bhaskar : I think there is some problem in the above statement..can you pls. clarify further!! does jnani in vyavahAra says jIva-jagat-Ishwara is NOT satyaM but mithyA only?? Sri S prabhuji : Realization involves this - Brahma satyam, JAGAT MITHYAA and jiiva Brahma eva na aparaH that is the substantive of jiiva is nothing but Brahmna only. bhaskar : there is no jeevatva as such apart from absolute chaitanya..jeeva is no more jeeva he is always brahman only is the knowledge...For the goldsmith there is no question of seeing the substantive of rings & bangles...invariably he see ONLY gold without even bothering a bit about the existence of nAma & rUpa.. That Bhaskarji is the essence of advaita from Shankara. That is the knowledge of jnaani. This description is from vyavahaara only since from paramaarthika no words can be said. Jnaani knows that he sees is mithyaa - that is the definition - whatever seen is mithyaa - dRisyatvaat. This is not the understanding of ajnaani- for him what is seen in satyam. The difference between obviously is not in seeing but taking what is seen - mithyaa vs stayam. That is all. ---------------------------- Bhaskar: But you prabhuji-s have an unorthodox notion here that jnAni is brahman but brahman is NOT jnAni. KS: Bhaskarji - please look at your statement again from the above explanation - where the problem is as you are calling authentic understanding of advaita as unorthodox and your as orthodox, making dvaita in views. bhaskar : In my careful reading of your above explanation I dont feel anything feasible to think brahman is NOT jnAni but jnAni is brahman..Anyway, I am planning to write a detailed mail on this equation in due course. Sri S prabhuji : From my understanding advaita is clear: it involves a-dvaita. If there is no apparent duality there is no need to call philosophy advaita, and the truth as advaita; ...advaitam carturtham manyante, sa aatmaa savijneyaH. bhaskar : If we are giving the reality status to the apparent duality & making jnAni/brahman to do business with it ..then I am sorry prabhuji, I am not a part of it..The truth is advaita yes..but truth is secondless truth..we cannot even imagine an iota of duality in it to force jnAni to act in a dual character.. (dvipAtrAbhinayaM).. Sri S prabhuji : It is Non-duality, since I am seeing the duality. Non is negation by understanding the substantive of all duality is Brahman. I do not find any unorthodox or orthodox views here. There is only a-dvaita understanding. bhaskar : But my understanding of advaita is based on that : when this jIva awakes from his beginningless illusory dream, he then realizes the unborn, sleepless, dreamless and secondless self..(kArika-1-16).. Humble praNAms onceagain Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Dear Bhaskar ji Namaskarams. Pardon my delayed reply as I am very busy with my job right now. But some quick points. > > bhaskar : > > That is what we are also insisting eversince this thread > started prabhuji...jnAni's walking, jnAni's talking, jnAni's sneezing etc. > etc. are mere loukika drushti wherein dEhAtma buddhi holds sway...Hope our > stand is clear now... Jai: The above statement that jnAni's seeing, walking etc.. is loukika dristi of ajnAni clearly goes against verses like the following: tattvavittu mahAbAho guNakarmavibhAgayoh guNA guNeÀu vartanta iti matvA na sajjate | BG Ch 3. 28 Whereas, Oh! Arjuna, the knower of the truth, knowing the distinction between body-mind-sense-complex and action, knowing that the senses, mind, and organs of action engage themselves with reference to their respective objects alone, is not bound. naiva kincitkaromIti yukto manyeta tattvavit paSyanSrNvan sprSanjighrannaSnan gacchan svapanSvasan ..|BG Ch5. 8 & 9 The one who is together, who knows the truth, thinks, ‘I do not do anything at all,’ even while seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, walking, sleeping, breathing, talking, releasing, grasping, opening and closing the eyes, (the person) knowing (full well that) the organs are engaged in their objects. In these verses it is jnAni who is seeing and inspite of that knows that it is mithyA and doesn't consider himself to be a seer. BhagavAn Krishna or Sankara do not say that ajnAni's imagine that 'jnAni is seeing etc'. So your stand is totally wrong. I can quote many more verses like this but the point being made will be clear to those who are discerning. > > bhaskar : > > > you are not getting the point here..As you rightly said above, we can say > 101 things about jnAni, we can say he is like a pot space despite absolute > ether, he is like a reflection of sun despite he himself is sun, he is a > part & parcel of Ishwara like sparks of fire despite he is absolute > fire..etc. etc. We dont have any problem, as long as these are all only > our 'tittle-tattle'..But dont you think we ought to know what our > scriptures say about the 'reality of the jnAni's body' ?? Problem starts > there where we start our own assumptions about the *ashareeri jnAni*...Dont > you think this inference without any hetu is advaita virOdha?? > > Jai: We are not doing any inference here. You have already decided on something and you are trying to filter sruti and Sankara as much as possible to fit into your fantasy. What you are missing is 'brahman is ashareeri' but jnAni is a shareeri who knows that in reality he is an ashareeri and hence can teach it to other shareeris who think they are shareeris but are ashareeris in reality. > bhaskar : > > > Please understand we are not saying after realization jnAni becomes a blind > person and he wont see anything :-)) Jai: At least you are agreeing to this.!!! But at the same time, linking him > with limited set of adjuncts of his own & upahita chaitanya of his own are > definitely a advaita hAni & to say least, a dangerous development in the > absolute non-dual philosophy of shankara. Jai: The dangerous development is only in your imagination. As I quoted above and in other posts Sankara clearly talks about jnANi's prarabdha and vyavahAra. You have no answer for that. Scriptures repeatedly say, he can > 'see' without eyes, he can hear without ears, he can think without > mind...though we can see he is walking, it is only appearance, though we > can see he is meditating, it only *looks like* that... Jai: for whom it looks like? If you say it *looks like* for jnAni it makes sense as he knows the truth. But for ajnAni it cannot *look like* as ajnAni thinks it is satyam. But irrationally you hold on to the stand that once jnAni *becomes* brahman he ceases to perceive any duality because bramhan is not a knower. > bhaskar : > > > Atlast you are getting my point..I am happy to note that...Yes, all > vyavahAra (vidyA-avidyA, kAraNa-kArya, sAmAnya-vishesha, > ghatAkAsha-mahAkAsha, bimba-pratibimba etc. etc.) are within the sphere of > mithyA vyavahAra only..And this mithya vyavahAra is due to the absence of > knowledge that we are secondless Atman...once this truth is intuitively > realized this mithyatva of vyavahAra (duality) will not be there and blown > away without any trace (atyantika abhAva of saMsAra insists shankara..and > this atyatika abhAva is like nadee samudravat pravilApitAni clarifies > shankara in bruhadAraNyaka 2-4-12) Jai: atyantika abhAva of saMsAra does not mean the appearance of duality vanishes. This last statement is interpreted wrongly by you because you wrongly equate avidya as only 'adhyAsa'. But avidyA is 'adhyAsa bIja' too(cause of adhyAsa) and even though with the destruction of the avidya bIja the samsAra ends for the jnAni, the appearance of duality continues due to bAdhitAnuvrtti. See the Bhasya below avidyAtmikA hi bIjasaktir avyaktasabdanirdeSyA parameSvarAsrayA mAyamayi mahAsuptih. . . tad etad avyaktam kvacid AkaSaSabdanirdistam… kvacid aksharasabdoditam. . . kvacinmAyeti sUcitam. BSBh 1.4.3 Sankara is clearly showing here that avidyA is the seed for this mAyA jagat. > bhaskar : > > > Those who know > > the brahman would become brahman itself is the express statement of > > shruti...For that matter you cannot point your finger on anything > and say > > 'this is not brahman' or brahman is not this...if you want to negate > > anything, you have to negate everything that includes all anAtma > > vastu...again this includes socalled jnAni's upAdhi-s & bordered > chaitanya > > of his also... so, brahman is not ONLY a jnAni, he is > everything...that is > > the realization of the jnAni and that realization says him that he > is all > > pervading brahman forever... Jai: Negation only negates the truth of the appearance of duality. Negation itself is meaningful only because it appears. And negation need not end the appearance because the negation is purely in one's understanding only. > bhaskar : > > > Yes I have got this point much earlier prabhuji...but you are still missing > the point by saying jnAni is 'shareeri'... Jai: jnAni is one who understands that he/she is ashareeri while functioning in a shareera > > > But here we are not discussiong whether bandha-mOksha vyavahAra...what we > are discussing is jnAni & his (supposed) post realization status of > embodiedness...Hope for you the context is clear now.. > Jai: What a great statement. Post realisation status is not related to Bandha Moksha vyavahAra. Your insistence on jnAni not perceiving duality only implies anirmokshaprasanga. You can keep on waiting for the perception of duality to end. All the best. > > > > bhaskar : > > > > > > yes, what you have to understand here is that jnAni's indriya-s > also are > > within the realm of vyavahAra which is avidyAkruta > > Jai: I agree > > > bhaskar : > > > so, problem is resolved no?? jnAni cannot see any satyatva in avidyAkruta > mithya..his localized indriya-s, his bordered chaitanya within this > localized indriya-s is kevala avidyAkruta vyavahAra is it not?? Jai: I agree to this. jnAni cannot see any satyatva because jnAni sees the mithyAtva of vyavahAra. This is perfectly valid. ....For a > jnAni who has realized his ultimate reality of non-dual nature cannot carry > this duality of avidyA anymore..If at all we see the jnAni in a compartment > of flesh & bones, that is ONLY the drushti dOsha of us who are still > getting the thrashing from mAya is it not?? Jai: This I cannot agree as it does not necessarily follow from the first statement. > > Jai: There is an issue here as you keep saying only ajnAnis perceive > jnAni but jnAni doesn't perceive anything. If you agree that jnAni has > perception of jagat but doesn't take it as satyam then there is no > issue. what is your stand? > > > bhaskar : > > > As said above, we ( who are talking about umembodiedness of the jnAni) are > not saying jnAna brings any physical deformity to jnAni nor we are saying > jnAna makes jnAni a permanent handicap:-)) Jai: Then who is functioning in jnAni's body? On the one hand you say that jnAni is not handicapped but on the other hand you say he cannot see any duality. Please be more clear. If you see my lead post of the > subject heading, you can see I've covered jnAni's vyavahAra (??) right from > jnAni's vegetable chopping to jnAni's geetOpadesha :-)) I onceagain > reiterate here jnAni's socalled vyavahAra is not a stone in my curd rice > :-)) (thorn in flesh for non-veggies :-)) Problem is jnAni's identity > which we are imposing on jnAni by attributing him the localized indriya-s & > limited chaitanya...Since you are telling now that it is only mithyA > vyavahAra...I think we can close this issue now.. Jai: You seem to finally agree to my point that jnAni can function in this dvaita-jagat without identifying him/herself with the BMI. So we can close this discussion. But by agreeing to this your whole siddhanta will collapse. So again you will go back to your untenable conclusions. > > Jai: Again you are missing an important point here. Realization only > sublates the pramAtrutva (status of being a knower) of the jnAni not > the pramAnas and the prameya vastus which are part of Isvarasrsti. > That is why we have to accept bAdhita-anuvrtti (negated but continues) > of the jnAni's upAdhis and the vyAvahArika-jagat > > > bhaskar : > > > When there is no jnAtru is there any existence to jnEya & jnAna?? dont you > think jnEya vastu & jnAna which is used to know jnEya are entirely > dependent on jnAtru?? If there is no pramAtru there cannot be possibility > of any pramANa, prameya vayvahAra.. Jai: The satyatvabuddhi that I am a pramAtru is gone. That doesn't mean the triputi vanishes. Kindly see geeta bhAshya > (2-69)..shankara says : na hi AtmasvarUpAdhigame sati punaH pramANa pramEya > vyavahAraH saMbhavati...If there is no imposition of pramAtrutva on Atman > there is no possibility of known & knowledge transactions...If the pramANa > & pramEya are Ishwara srushti and it is eternal & has the idependent > existence apart from pramAtru shruti would not have said Atra veda aveda > etc..by the way where is the Ishwara srushti in sushupti?? Jai: I have quoted this myself. Your interpretation of this is wrong. Isvara srsti is not eternal because it's reality ends with the jnAna that isvara's svarUpa is brahman and the very isvaratvam is mithyA along with the srsti. That doesn't mean that it has to disappear for a jnANi. As for the world in sushupti it is in the form of avidyAbijA / kAranaSarira for an ajnAni. we all know > there is no knower (as such) in deep sleep state..Hence no mind..but > Ishwara srushti should be there in sushupti no?? but this Ishwara srushti > & its existence is not their in our anubhava and since shankara does not > talk anything that goes against sArvatrika anubhava...your distinction > between Ishwara srushti & jeeva srushti does not hold water here in the > analysis of pramAtru-pramEya-pramANa vyavahAra. > > Jai: Your position of subjective idealism is not supported by Sankara. We can discuss this seperately. Sankara clealry talks about the difference between vyAvahArika and prAtibhAsika. > > bhaskar : > ...As I have explained above, we are not > here to debate above jnAni's kriya..we are talking about jnAni's > individuality & upAdhi ( this is already an age old issue & has been said > more than thousand times :-)) Since quotations do not speak specifically > about the jnAni-s deha etc. & it is mainly a councelling by bhagavan to > encourage arjuna to do battle, based on this we cannot determine anything > in favour of embodiedness of jnAni..(first of all shankara himself does not > categorically say janaka is a jnAni and hence interpret this verse in two > ways).. Jai: Sruti and BG are talking about jnAni seeing this world but recognising it as not true. Further I have given enough quotations to prove that BG and Sankara accept jnAni's vyavahAra. You say the debate is not about jnANi's kriya. But kriya is possible only if there is upAdhi. And jnAni's kriya definitely implies jnAni functioning in the upAdhi. So your argument is fallacious. You can't say that you accept jnAni's kriya but not jnAni's upAdhi. > > But I agree with you that sUtra bhAshya quotes (4-1-15 to 4-1-18) > exclusively talks about it...we will have a look into it subsequent > mails.. Jai: Let us see. with love and prayers, Jaishankar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 --- On Tue, 2/10/09, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: bhaskar : If everything termed as vyavahaara then there is no point in bickering over two different view points prabhuji...Where is the question of two different view points in these discussions when both vyavahAra & paramArtha viewpoints are on the same platform of vyavahAra?? Atleast, henceforth, let us stop pointing out differences citing *mixing of view points* excuse... KS: BhaskarJi - PraNAms. I am only addressing the issue here and also trying my best to insure that the misunderstanding on the part couple of people does not get carried away as the correct advaitic position. You have mentioned that we have not given any quotes to support our arguments. I have already pointed out that none of the quotes you gave prove your point. From the quotes you are drawing wrong conclusions. Hence quotes make no sense - understanding is the essence. We have provided abundant quotes directly from the scriptures too. Sri Jaishankarji has provided abundant quotes for one to study if one is open minded. Bhaskar: IMO, there is certainly some misunderstanding of shAstra drushti & vyavahAra drushti in advaita as used by shankara here. KS: I do not think so- This is again your interpretation. Bhaskar: Shankara never ever say from paramArtha drushti no words & expression possible..OTOH, he talks about the pAramArthik significance of this vyavahArik drushti...For example in vyavahAra Atman is just an individual soul but from pAramArthik significance it is the witnessing priciple, which is nothing but brahman.. KS: Shankara is not illogical. This is exactly what I meant by misinterpretation of Shankara - Now what is the point of quotes. Witnessing consciousness has relevance only with reference to something to be witnessed - Inherently, dvaita is implied here. Consciousness gets qualified by the statement 'witnessing consciousness'. Pure consciousness is unqualified - nirguNa. --- Bhaskar: we say Ishwara is the ruler of this world in vyavahArik sence but concept of Ishwara has been explained by Atman's existence independent of the world from pAramArthik view.. KS: No Iswara has no existence from paaramaarthika point. All concepts come with dvaita and with creation. Brahman defined as jamnaadyasa - is Iswara part comes as creator other Pure Brahman gets qualified as creator. You will get trapped by dvaitin if you along that route. Brahman is the cause only from the point of effects seen not otherwise. At paaramaarthika point there is no creation - SAT EVA - idam agra asiit - eva implication is pure existence-consciousness alone. sajaati-vijaati-swagata bhedaas are not there as Shankara beautifully discusses. Hence, no Iswara at that stage. Iswara is qualified Brahman just as jiiva is also qualified Brahman - one is macro and the other is micro - discussed extensively in the ManDukya. When it goes to the next step - bhahusyaam prajaayeya - Let me become many and became many - you are coming down to Iswara level to account all idams. Hence No Iswara at paaramaarthika level. Pure Brahman one without a second - Shankara bhaashyas have to be correctly understood. ----- Brahman: So, there are clear distinction between shAstra drushti & vyavahArik drushti & both have the explanatory notes in shankara bhAshya..Shankara never says there is nothing to talk about from shAstra drushti.. KS - shaastra drishTi is vyaavahaarika dRishTi only - shaastras belong to vyaavahaarika not paaramaarthika - In Brahman there are no shaastras- ekam eva advitiiyam. --------------- Sri S prabhuji : Jnaani is one who knows I am Brahman - THE SUBSTANTIVE OF JIIVA-JAGAT- ISWARA. He also knows therefore whatever is seen is mithyaa only. bhaskar : I do not know how many times I have to tell that jnAtrutva is mere adhyArOpita on Atman & it cannot be carried over to post realization period... ----------- Bhaskarji - Look at your statement and my statement closely. Does what I said differ from yours? I am a jnaani - involves understanding of the error of superimposition and to see clearly the mityaatva aspect of the world and satyatva or absolute reality aspect of the Brahman that I am. adhyaaropa on atman is recognized only by recognition of the world as mithyaa. Negation is the negation of the notion of reality given to the superimposition. Hence in the realization jiivanmukta knows that I am Brahman -the substantive of the jiiva-jagat and Iswara and the there are aropa or superimposition on Brahman hence mithyaa only. 'What does it mean it cannot be carried out to post realization' - there is nothing to carry it is understanding that aropa or what is superimposed is aropa only which is mithyaa - and what is substantive is substantive -that Brahman that I am which is satya, the absolute truth. There is nothing more to realize. I am Brahman and this world that is see is aropa on myself, the Brahman- that is what mithyaa aspect of jiiva-jagat-Iswara There is no difference in the understanding. -------------- Sri S prabhuji : He can communicate this knowledge within the mithyaa only since at Brahman level no communication can occur or needed any communication is within dvaita. bhaskar : And don’t you think this dvaita is due to avidya?? KS - Not correctly - reality given to dvaita is due to avidya not dvaita is by itself avidya - if so we will make Iswara having avidya. We call this as maayaa - the projecting power. Krishna calls this as vibhuuti. Goudapaada calls this so called creation as swaabhaavikam. Avidya is centered on individual jiiva not at Iswara level. Bhahusyaam- prajaayeya - let me become many and became many - involves Iswara with maayaa shakti. Hence I keep saying there is nothing wrong with plurality by itself - but taking the plurality is reality is avidya janaka moha or ignorance born delusion. Then only all Krishna's statement about jiivanmukta come to life - upadeshanti te jnaanam - the teach that student - all the quotes that Sri Jaishankar provided about the loka kalyaanam etc come to life - Jnaani with vidya only. How can say that we have not provided the quotes? ------------- Bhaskar: this mAya which is mithya is kevala avidyA kruta (fictiously imagined by avidyA) the jnAni who realizes this jnAna how can see the reality of this mithya when it's mother avidyA itself erazed completely?? KS: Sorry Bhaskar - that is misinterpretation. How can I see that sunrise and sunset when I know clearly sun never rises and sets? Understanding that the world is mityaa does not mean negation of the world but negation of the reality to the world. That is what play really means - Hence other philosophers including Bhagavaan Ramanuja get around mithyaa problem by saying this is play - or liila vibhuuti - as they do not want to accept the mithyaa as separate category. But if mithyaa is neither sat nor asat - how can you get rid of it by jnaanam. The creation example in Ch. is very clear in the description of eka vijnaanena sarva vijnaanam bhavati - by knowing one thing everything is 'as good' as known. That is the understanding of mithyaatva aspect of the world since one knows the substantive of EVERYTHING is nothing but Brahman that I am. ------------------ Bhaskar: That is the reason why kArika (quoted by Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji) says there is no mithya (dvaita prapaNcha) at the first place to negate after realization. ...It never existed at any point of time.. KS: No. I have already pointed to him and I am sure he is well aware that Goudapaada kaarika says the creation is swaabhaavikam or natural which he calls as ajaati vaada. Either you call it mityaa or swaabhaavikam or liila are all the same. No, Dennis quote does not help your argument. ----------------- Sri S prabhuji : Hence the communication with students also is in mithyaa level - mithyaa again - is not asat not sat - not unreal and not real - this jnaani knows. Hence he is communicating yet knows that it is at vyaavahaarika level only. He sees the differences between jiiva-jagat and Iswara but since he see (dRistavaat) he knows it is mithyaa - that is part of jnaanam he has. bhaskar : There is a serious siddhAta hAni in the above statements.. You are implying that jnAni would have both jnAna (that he is brahman) and mithyatva of this jagat (mithyatva is due to ajnAna drushti) at the same time and sees the difference and still works on it!! this is simply goes against the advaita.. KS: You are again providing wrong interpretation - mithyaa means it is neither sat nor asat - Transactional reality is not absolute reality not unreality either. Krishna's advise to jnaani to do loka kalayaanam becomes absurd if there is no loka to do kalyaanam. Yes there is serious hani to all the scripture if your interpretation stands. Shankara bhaashya also has to be understood correctly. Bhaashya is interpretation of the scriptures not negation of the scriptural statements. Absolutely there is no sidhhanta haani - in the advaita interpretation - brahma satyam - JAGAT MITHYAA -not jagat asathyam. In yours Yes. -------------- Bhaskar: ..when we see the rope in its entireity where is the question of mithyatva of snake perception?? when we realize the mirage water is nothing but shining sand...where is the question of our walking towards it for want of water?? KS - Did not skip something in between - You do not walk towards the mirage water since you know that mirage water is mithyaa and not satyam. Now Bhaskarji - you are pointing the two adhyaasas - and the difference between the two. In the snake example - I alone see a snake -my friend next to me sees the rope as rope and he does not have any problem. This is jiiva sRiShTi. Miraga water comes not in the same kind of adhyaasa - there is Iswara sRiShTi involved here. I see the mirage and my friend also sees - every body else also sees. This is objective illusion just as sun rise and sunset and different from snake vision, right? Here once I know that it is not real water but only reflection of dry sand, I would not go for the water. BUT I STILL SEE THE MIRAGE WATER and NOW know that it is mithyaa. Hence jnaani does not go after the world for getting any ananda from it since ananda is not there. NO samsaara for him. He sees the world and knows it has transactional reality - for ananda he revels in himself - aatma kriida or play - he can play with the world as he knows he is the substantive of the world too. Clearly the mirage example is not the same as snake - where one is vyaavahaarika error and the other is prAtibhAsika error. In fact this example defeats your own arguments that jiivanmukta does not see the world - He sees just as he sees the mirage water but he knows it is only appearance and not really real. Exactly the same understanding jnaani will have with the world too. He can play the game of life and He alone can PLAY the game of life - while ajnaani instead of playing get entangled in the play thinking it is real and not mithyaa. --------------------- Bhaskar: When we wakes up from dream, do we hold the characters in dream as real and continue to do vyavahaara?? KS - Bhasakarji -please think it over. Dream is not vyAvahArika it is prAtibhAsika - waking state is not prAtibhAsika but vyaavahaarika - let us not get confused in terms of extending the analogies. Dream analogy explains several things and each analogy has its limitation in accounting the truth - The dream example if you want to really apply here - here is the way - the dream BMI and dream world of all other BMIs and the created bhuuta and bhoutica are not there in the waking state. You have transcended to the next higher state. In the process you give up your dream upaadhiis - BMIs that you had in the dream. The same thing will happen when you drop the upaadhiis of your waking state -jnaani drops all this upaadhiis - body and subtle body as well since he has no more vaasanaas or causal body also. Just as in Dream that happens after the BMI drops out. ajnaani drops only gross body - subtle body takes him to different lokas - hence he is still in his so-called dream. So Yes the analogy works only if you apply correctly not half way. Jiivan mukta has BMI still and until that BMI drops he is what is called upahita chaitanya only - embodied but realized that I am not the body. That is exactly the difference - I hope you got it. ------------------ Bhaskar: there cannot be tamaH-prakAsha (darkness - light) at the same place!! KS - I am sorry to say that you are using typical dvaitin's arguments - taking a wrong foot. Light of consciousness is not opposite to darkness -This light is not opposite to anything at any time - that is what Brahman means. I know darkness and I know ignorance also in the light of consciousness only because it is not opposite to any thing in the world of transactions. ---- Bhaskar: Both jnaana & ajnAna cannot occupy the same space of jnAni's mind!! That is the reason why we've been objecting to the statements like 'jnani is communicating with mithya prapancha yet knows he is non-dual brahman, jnAni moves in duality yet knows non-duality. .there is duality inspite of non-duality etc. etc. These are simply shows that jnAni not yet transcended the apparent duality... KS - you are providing wrong interpretation of advaita doctrine - I am sorry to say that. First no body occupies anybody's mind - Mind has notions and those notions are taken as real by ajnaani - that include the realty of the world, his identification with his BMI, etc. Nothing wrong with the world or with BMI - but identity as I am this is the ego or ahankaara - wrong notions and consequent suffering. Jnaani knows that He is Brahman by dropping the notion of reality that he had assigned to the world and to his identity with BMI and recognizing it is mithyaa only. There is non-duality in spite of duality is the correct understanding of a-dvaita. Jnaani sees the duality and understands there is unity in the apparent diversity and that unity is the substantive of all and that is himself. That is the correct understanding of advaita. Transcendence is by knowledge not physical movement - then we are giving reality to the one we are transcending. It is understanding oneness in the apparent diversity. Understanding that sunrise and sunset is not real does not make them disappear - knowledge can never - repeat never remove anything other than ignorance and ignorance born notions in the mind. sunset and sunrise remain the same - mirage with its apparent water remain the same - BMI and the world remain the same - Teaching by a jnaani can go on as the scripture says and jnaani can do loka kalyaaNam by his very presence as Krishna says - Everything fits perfectly only scriptures and Shankara bhaashyas are understood revealing brahma satyam, jagat mithyaa and jiiva brahma eva. Sri S prabhuji : Jnaani is Braham vit - is jiivan mukta - who NOW knows that he is not jiiva but substantive of jiiva-jagat- Iswara which is Brahman. Hence jnaani knows that He is in absolute sense Brahman since scripture says Brahma vit brahma eve bhavati - and He realizes that He is therefore the SUBSTANTIVE of all three - jiiva-jagat- Iswara. bhaskar : We are missing the continuation of this maNtra brahma vit brahmaiva bhavati..it not only teaches that jIva merely knows he is adhishtAna (substantive) but he is brahman himself (brahmaiva bhavati)..For him there is not mere substantive knowledge of jIva jagat Ishwara but he is IN & OUT of everything.. KS - Yes I have explained to before the complete mantra. Brahma eva bhavati - involves clear understanding that I am that Brahman - aham brahma - otherwise finite I cannot become infinite Brahman and Brahman is not object to know - knowing Brahman is not knowing table or a chair but knowing oneself - hence read the statement again - Jiiva is also included. it is knows the SUBSTANTIVE OF JIIVA JAGAT AND ISWARA - that includes myself - then only bhavati has a meaning. Knowing is not eliminating - knowing the substantive is understanding the substantive is I myself - know I know that I am puurnam, sat chit swaruupam. The second aspect of advaita is mityaatva of the world too - knowing I am the substantive of the world therefore drops the reality assumed to the world - not dropping the world or dropping the BMI. The mantra has to be understood but that understanding is jnaanam. ------------------- Sri S prabhuji : He knows He is the paaramathika satyam underlying the vyaavahaarika sathyam. All the duality in the vyaavhaarika sathyam is NOW realized as vyaavhaarika only - that is it is mithyaa and not absolutely real. bhaskar : As said above, two different objects cannot occupy the same place at the same time..my mediocre science knowledge says so :-)) A jnAni cannot have dual nature (split personality) to say I am brahman and at the same time I see the difference in mithyA prapancha & differentiate between jnAni & ajnAni..That is the reason why shankara says when one realizes he is brahman there is no ajnAna whatsoever to anyone !! --------- KS - I am puzzled your consistent misinterpretation. Brahma is not object, Period to occupy the same space as vyAvahArika. Clay and pot occupy the same place at the same time! Clay cannot have split personality of being clay at the same time being pot! who said jnaani has ajnaana - Bhaskar do not misinterpret the statements with your wrong conclusions. He does not have ignorance that the world is real and his identity with BMI is real or mirage water is real or sunset and sunrise is real. seeing the sunrise again after knowing that sun does not rise or set only means he understood the reality behind the sunrise and sunset. Ontologically Brahma and vyavahaara are not in the same degree to have special or time wise exclusivity. It is understanding of the reality of the duality. With this I stop since I see same misinterpretation of not understanding clearly what is satyam and what is mityaa involves. I leave it to fill up the blanks needed on the same vain. Hari Om! Sadananda ----------------- Sri S prabhuji : Jnaani from the point of vyavahaara knows that jiiva, jagat and Iswara are NOT satyam but mithyaa only. bhaskar : I think there is some problem in the above statement..can you pls. clarify further!! does jnani in vyavahAra says jIva-jagat-Ishwara is NOT satyaM but mithyA only?? Sri S prabhuji : Realization involves this - Brahma satyam, JAGAT MITHYAA and jiiva Brahma eva na aparaH that is the substantive of jiiva is nothing but Brahmna only. bhaskar : there is no jeevatva as such apart from absolute chaitanya..jeeva is no more jeeva he is always brahman only is the knowledge... For the goldsmith there is no question of seeing the substantive of rings & bangles...invariabl y he see ONLY gold without even bothering a bit about the existence of nAma & rUpa.. That Bhaskarji is the essence of advaita from Shankara. That is the knowledge of jnaani. This description is from vyavahaara only since from paramaarthika no words can be said. Jnaani knows that he sees is mithyaa - that is the definition - whatever seen is mithyaa - dRisyatvaat. This is not the understanding of ajnaani- for him what is seen in satyam. The difference between obviously is not in seeing but taking what is seen - mithyaa vs stayam. That is all. ------------ --------- ------- Bhaskar: But you prabhuji-s have an unorthodox notion here that jnAni is brahman but brahman is NOT jnAni. KS: Bhaskarji - please look at your statement again from the above explanation - where the problem is as you are calling authentic understanding of advaita as unorthodox and your as orthodox, making dvaita in views. bhaskar : In my careful reading of your above explanation I dont feel anything feasible to think brahman is NOT jnAni but jnAni is brahman..Anyway, I am planning to write a detailed mail on this equation in due course. Sri S prabhuji : From my understanding advaita is clear: it involves a-dvaita. If there is no apparent duality there is no need to call philosophy advaita, and the truth as advaita; ...advaitam carturtham manyante, sa aatmaa savijneyaH. bhaskar : If we are giving the reality status to the apparent duality & making jnAni/brahman to do business with it ..then I am sorry prabhuji, I am not a part of it..The truth is advaita yes..but truth is secondless truth..we cannot even imagine an iota of duality in it to force jnAni to act in a dual character.. (dvipAtrAbhinayaM) .. Sri S prabhuji : It is Non-duality, since I am seeing the duality. Non is negation by understanding the substantive of all duality is Brahman. I do not find any unorthodox or orthodox views here. There is only a-dvaita understanding. bhaskar : But my understanding of advaita is based on that : when this jIva awakes from his beginningless illusory dream, he then realizes the unborn, sleepless, dreamless and secondless self..(kArika- 1-16).. Humble praNAms onceagain Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 advaitin , " Ramakrishna Upadrasta " <uramakrishna wrote: > It would also be great if you can kindly state your > disagreements with what Shri Sureshwara has stated > in His praNava vaartika, which I have recently posted. > As far as I can see, there is no difference between > that position and what Shri Sada-ji has been stating. > Please enlighten me if you think otherwise. > > praNAms to all Advaitins, > Ramakrishna > Hari Om Shri Ramakrishna Upadrashtaji, Pranaams! --------------------- Msg no: 43419 dt 3.2.09 PraNAms Here is my understanding: the total universe of projection is Iswara sRiShTi. This projection is called vyavahaara - the rope that I see is not my creation I, identified with local BMI is jiiva with its own projecting power of little maayaa Shakti that manifests in the projection of dream state as well as projection of jiiva's own samsaara. - This is prAtibhAsika. Jiiva has to deal with his projection as well as the Iswara's projection. - PrAtibhAsika and vyaavahaarika. Jiivan mukta is one who is with upaadhiis (jiivan) but now self- realized that is he has realized that he is the RC not the medium (BMI) that is reflecting. But RC is not different from OC Jiivan mukta still sees the Iswara sRiShti †" including BMI that he was using before. Hence RC will still be occurring but he now knows he is really RC These are fundamental concepts of Advaita Vedanta that I know. Hope this helps. Sadananda ------------------------ If in case you feel the above views of Shri Sadanandaji reflects Vartikakara's position, kindly provide relevant portions from the works. More specifically stating, 1. Ishvara Srshti and Jiva Srshti are different. (Then what are jiva srshti) 2. Realisation is to know I am RC (Reflected Consciousness) -- in the sense as cetana(BG 13.6) or jivabhuta(apara prakriti) (BG 7.5)? 3. Jivanmukta is one who is with upadhis(jivan). In Shri Guru Smriti Br. Pranipata Chaitanya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > > > praNAms Sri Chaitanya prabhuji > > Since you are the one who often quotes > shankara bhAshya for support...Kindly let me know where shankara says > avidyA is bhAva rUpa?? > Sri chaitanya prabhuji : > > The very paragraph you have quoted says ajnAna is jnAna virodhi and > karma is jnana avirodhi. This is Acharya's position. > > > bhaskar : > > > I dont think so.. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > > > bhaskar > Hari Om Shri Bhaskarji, Pranaams! 1. brahmAshrayA sattvarajastamoguNAtmikA mAyA asti. (Tattva Bodhah) 2. vakShyati ca - vandhyAputraH na tattvena mAyayA vA api jAyate - iti. yadi hi asatAmeva janma syAd brahmaNaH avyavahAryasya grahaNadvAra abhAvAd asattva prasangaH. drShTaM ca rajjusarpAdInAm avidyA krta mAyAbIja utpannAnAM rajjvAdi AtmanA sattvam. na hi nirAspadA rajjusarpa mrgatrShNikAdayaH kvacit upalabhyante kenacit. (Mandukya Karika 1.6 BhAshya) It will be said later on, a barren woman's son is born neither through MAyA nor in reality. For if birth really belongs to nonentities themselves, then Brahman which is beyond all empirical relations, will be left without any ground of cognition and may be equated to nonentity. But as a matter of fact, it is seen that the snake and such other things created by ignorance and sprouting from the seed of MAyA, and appearing as a rope etc., have their existence as the rope etc. which are their substrata. For nobody perceives anywhere a rope-snake or mirage if there is no substratum. Hence abhAva(nihilism) is entirely out of place in the present context. 3. drshyatvAt has two logical interpretations. a. yat drshyam tat jaDam, yat jaDam tat vikAri, yat vikAri tat nashvaram, yat nashvaram tat anrutam, yat anrutam tat na sat, yat na sat tat na. (That which is seen is inert, inert is subject to change, that which changes is subject to destruction, that which is subject to destruction is not truth and which is not truth is NOT. b. drshyatvAt mithyA. drShTasya mithyA-patArthasya draShThA eva upAdAnam(svapnavat), tat adhishThAnam eva kAranam(rajju-sarpavat). (What is seen is mithyA. For a mithyA the seer is the material cause and the substratum is the cause). Hence you should allow interpretation (b) also which is in tune with bAshya quoted under reference 2. 4. anabhivyaktiH ajnAnam, abhivyaktilakShaNena jnAnena virudhyate,.....yadi jnAna-abhAvaH...... ajnAnam jnAnena virudhyate and ajnAnam jnAnasya virodhi or jnAnam ajnAnasya virodhi are one and the same only. That is why I said the very para you quoted says jnAna is ajnAna virodhi. The same is told in Atma Bodha verse avirodhitayA karma... In Shri Guru Smriti Br. Pranipata Chaitanya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > There is non-duality in spite of duality is the correct understanding of a-dvaita. Jnaani sees the duality and understands there is unity in the apparent diversity and that unity is the substantive of all and that is himself. That is the correct understanding of advaita. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda Namaste Sri Sadanandaji, Thank you so much for all of your repeated posts. I am in awe of your abilities to explain again and again in a variety of ways with infinite patience (as is attributed to Mother shruti) the truth of the teachings of Advaita/Vedanta As it is said in the teachings that doing shravana again and again is important for the gain of understanding, I appreciate immensely your writings which give us a chance to do 'sharvana' again and again through reading your words. Below is something which I once wrote for the list but never posted. A jnani has gained the ability to distinguish the satyam in the mithya. That is the viveka of jnanam. While that which is mithya (that which is dual) still appears, and from the level of mithya, is experienced, a jnani recognizes that in reality the substrate nature of appearing mithya is brahman. Thus we have the example of the hamsa bird which can separate milk from water. Even though the milk and water seem to be inextricably mixed together, the hamsa bird has the ability to separate one from the other. In this same way a jnani, though perceiving and experiencing the mithya duality through the use of his or her mithya body/mind and sense organs, also recognizes, as in knows, without a shadow of a doubt, that the substrate of the mithya duality is brahman alone, is nondual. May all of us gain this ability through Ishwara's grace. Pranams, Durga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 --- On Tue, 2/10/09, Durga <durgaji108 wrote: Thus we have the example of the hamsa bird which can separate milk from water. Even though the milk and water seem to be inextricably mixed together, the hamsa bird has the ability to separate one from the other. In this same way a jnani, though perceiving and experiencing the mithya duality through the use of his or her mithya body/mind and sense organs, also recognizes, as in knows, without a shadow of a doubt, that the substrate of the mithya duality is brahman alone, is nondual. May all of us gain this ability through Ishwara's grace. ----------- Yes Durgaji - you have provided the classical bird example that discriminates that which is eternal - the substantive and that which is ephemeraal, the mithyaa. That discrimination is what Shankara calls as nitya anitya vastu viveka. For a seeker that is needed - for jnaani that becomes natural. Chinmaya Mission uses both lamp for the knowledge and the hamsa bird for discriminative faculty. By the by The embodiment of knowledge, Goddess Saraswati rides on hamasa the embodiment of the discriminative power. Knowledge goes with knowing the satya that is eternal truth and mithyaa that is ephemeral. What an imagination! My prostrations to the great seers who could picturize this such expressive forms. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 Namaste: We have been discussing and debating on the nature of Jivanmuktha for more than a month. Now we have reached a stage where we need to restrain our thoughts and take few moments for contemplation. Any discussions on the validity and relative merits of Vedantic thoughts should show restraint to avoid falling into intellectual pitfalls. Some of the well known religious scholars in India including Kanchi Kamakoti Peedam Paramacharya (Periyaval) have rightly expressed the view that intellectual debates on issues that are beyond human intelligence will not enrich spiritual life and should be avoided as for as possible. Such debates invariably force the participants to establish or nourish their Ego and superior intellectual capacity to debate. The focus should be more on understanding our own limitations and prepare our mind to listen, learn and calm. It is time for us to contemplate and remember the debate that took place long time back between Sankaracharya and Mandana Misra. The referee for their debate was Mandana Misra's wife Bharathi (considered reincarnation of Goddess Saraswati). The debate was not decided on the basis of the intellectual abilities of these two great masters. Instead, the debaters were garlanded with two identical flower garlands. These two great intellects had the humility to bow down to faith in the miracle of whether their respective garlands withered away or not. The debate continued for several weeks. Sankaracharya was declared the winner by the adjudicator, the wife of his opponent! The intellects who assembled to witness the debate have also accepted the judgment based on faith and intuition. Faith and Intuition are integral parts of Hindu tradition and Advaita is no exception. This entire episode is a symbolic reminder to all of us to recognize our limited intelligence the underlined advaitic truth. One of the themes of Advaita (also true with respect to most other traditions) is to prepare our mind to remove all ego propelled thoughts. Unfortunately unending intellectual debates without spiritual guidance has the tendency to kindle Ego! Only with spiritual guidance, we will be able to reach the threshold point where the intellect gets subdued to faith and intuition. It is intellectually arrogant for anyone to believe that through arguments, we can come to a conclusive position without an iota of disagreement whatsoever. Those who quote the scriptural texts more often have not yet demonstrated that they have understood what they have quoted. A small dose of humility will help all of us to understand our limitation and appreciate the beauty of advaita philosophy. Quotations from the scriptures will be only useful when we fully assimilate the truth derived from them. With the modern computer facility, we get into the habit of pasting scriptural texts as much as possible to demonstrate our scholarship. Swami Paramarathananda rightly provides the guidance for assimilating the knowledge from the scriptures - the means of getting the knowledge is practiced in three stages: - by Shravanam (listening and learning from the teacher) - by Mananam (reflection through enquiry to clear doubts at intellectual level) - by Nididhyâsanam (contemplation – trying to find answer independently alone) (this is the summay of Swamiji's talk # 14 by Swami Paramarthananda- ji: Link to Swamiji's talk http://www.vedantavidyarthisangha.org/) The knowledge that gained through such a systematic approach is called the assimilated knowledge and those who possess the assimilated knowledge will be able to recognize the implied truth from the scripture. Swamiji rightly points out that assimilated knowledge alone will be beneficial to the mind just like assimilated food alone will be beneficial to the body. It is my humble opinion that Swamiji definitely possess the assimilated knowledge of the scriptures and the following are his statements on the nature of Jivanmuktha. Jivanmuktha continues to face the challenges in life and at the same time, he (she) is free from unhealthy responses to those challenges. All unhealthy responses are emotional problems called Samsara. What are the benefits of being a Jivanmuktha? (1) Svatantiryam (Independence): The first and most important benefit is independence. He (she) is This is the benefit while we are still living. This is the virtue or Phalam enjoyed at the mental level in various forms. The problems faced at the mental level include insecurity, fear, sense of inadequacy, jealousy and anger – all these are psychological problems called Samsara. It is purely at the mental or psychological level and not at the physical level – because it is knowledge and therefore gives benefit at the mental level. (2) Fullness – Pûrnatvam: The second benefit is Pûrnatvam – sense of fulfilment in life. He (she) knows that he (she) is the Âtmâ which is not confined to this body but which is Sat Chit Ânanda Svarûpaha and therefore he (she) is free from limitation. Nothing is away and everything is within. There is no sense of isolation or rejection. But nobody can reject the Âtmâ because He is all pervading. Sense of isolation, sense of rejection and sense of limitation go away just as space cannot be rejected by anyone, I the Âtmâ cannot be rejected by anyone. (3) Samattvam (Balance of Mind): The third benefit is Samattvam. This means the emotional strength to face ups and downs of life. Jnânam becomes a great shock absorber. But by Jnânam even the worst troubles may affect me sometimes, but not permanently. It is to be noted that physically Jivanmuktha will surely have to depend on the world. He (she) requires food, clothing and shelter. He (she) will never get physical independence. But psychologically He (she) may be able to become independent. Swamiji clarifies the distinction between Jivanmuktha and Videha Muktha: To understand the distinction, we have to know what happens to an ignorant person (ajnani) after death. Then only we can understand to what happens to a Jnani after death. In the case of Ajnani, at the time of death, the physical body is dropped. There is separation from physical body. The very definition of death is separation from physical body. That is why the physical body decays and merges into Pancha Bhûtâni or five elements. But even thought the physical body perishes, the subtle body and causal body continue to exist. This subtle and causal body along with Âtmâ – all pervading everywhere – continue to survive even after the fall of the body. It acquires another body to continue the journey. And it may acquire the body here itself or it may acquire the body elsewhere. Therefore an Ajnani travels after death. In other words his Sûkshma Sharîram and Kârana Sharîram travel and acquire another physical body and this is called Punar Janma or rebirth. The Sûkshma Sharîram and Kârana Sharîram will again go through life and again die and again acquire another body. But death and birth is only at the level of the physical body. In the case of a Jnani, it is said in the scriptures that at the time of death, all the three bodies merge into the Samashti. The Sharîra Trayam will merge into Prapancha Trayam. Sthûla Sharîram merges into Sthûla Prapancha. Sûkshma Sharîram merges into Sûkshma Prapancha and Kârana Sharîram merges into Kârana Prapancha. That means Jnani does not survive as an individual but he survives as the Samashti the total. And he is no more called Jîva Âtmâ – because only when the body is there you can call it as Jîva Âtmâ – when the Sharîra Trayam is gone, he is one with Parama Âtmâ. Jîva Âtmâ has become Parama Âtmâ losing the individuality just as the river loses its individuality when it merges into the ocean. Also there is no question of Punar Janma . There is no Sûkshma Kârana Sharîram surviving to acquire another Sthûla Sharîram. Therefore Videha Muktha is free from Punar Janma. I have no doubt in my mind that Sadaji (Sastriji, Dennisji and several others) will not have any problems with the stand taken by Swami Parmarthanandaji on the nature of Jivanmuktha. I am very happy to note that Swami Paramarthanandaji's statements very closely agree with the stand taken by Sadaji. As a moderator of this list, I am compelled to believe that whenever we get into long unending debates, the list has to take and respect the stand from credible sources such as the talk by Swami Paramarthanandaji. This will be the last post from me on this thread. With my warmest regards, Ram Chandran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 --- On Tue, 2/10/09, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: Bhaskarji - PraNams First Shrinivas asked the question that was asked as puurvapaksha both by vishiShTaadvaitins and dvaitins. Second you are providing bhaashya quotes alright but misinterpreting them - reference to tiger waking up from the dream is not in the context of ajnaani is projecting some teaching and the teacher with his ajnaana, and in the processes getting jnaanam out ajnaani projected teacher and ajnaani projected teaching. It becomes blind leading the blind - in the process trying to wake up using lion in the dream as an example. I hope Shree Nairji does not to this misinterpretation of the bhaashya. Let us hear from him when he is free to give. I am hoping it will be different, although lately he is aligning himself more and more with your explanations. The tiger explanation cannot answer the question of how an ajnaani can project right means of knowledge to make him get the right knowledge. Ajnaani can only project ajnaanam and ajnaani teacher. I cannot learn anything them other than ajnaana only and praying that it will give me jnaanam like tiger coming to my rescue to wake me up to jnaanam state - will be prayer in vein. The tiger is example for how MITHYAA (not ajnaani's projection) Vedanta can give knowledge that wakes up the jiiva to satya. The ignorance and knowledge both are mithyaa only as Shree Sastriji pointed out many posts ago. Awakening involves realization that truth is unchanging substantive and world is mithyaa and that unchanging truth is oneself alone -These are facts that can be understood with Vedanta, yukti and anubhava (involving the analysis of day to day experiences) - not ajnaani's projected Vedanta and yukti. Mithyaa knowledge can eliminate mithyaa ignorance - just as dream water can quench the dream thirst. Ontologically they are in par. The realization occurs when the mind transcends both knowledge and ignorance in the sense of seeing the underlying consciousness that is substantive for jiiva-jagat-Iswara - upahita caitanya. Tiger example comes in to see how mind can transcend both to arrive at substantive of both - not for projecting an ignorant person a teacher and the teaching. Advaita Vedanta does not teach that. Your dream example also does not answer that either as I have already discussed before. Bhaskarji - Do you see implication of this misinterpretation of the bhaashya. The whole avataara concept will crumble down if what you say is right. Krishna is not some ajnaani's projection -Mithyaa does not mean some projection of ajnaani - advaita does not say avataara is ajnaana janaka - It is vibhuuti of the Lord as clearly explained in Ch. 10 along with his avataara rahasya. creation is maaya janakam does not mean ajnaana janakam -Maaya is power of the lord. Lord does not have ajnaanam. He is sarvajna as the scripture says - not projected sarvajna of an ajnaani. Name and form is mithyaa does not mean it is ajnaana janakam - It is vibhuuti of the Lord as giitaachaarya declares. Mithyaa means it is vyaavahaarika satyam - at vyavahaara level - God is as real as the bhakta and God is sarvajna not projection of ignorant person's avidya. Let us look at closely - ajnaanam of the substantive is the cause of misapprehension of myself with this is and is the root cause for karma. karma forms the seeds for projection of the plurality - but projection occurs by the power of the lord while karma forms the blue print for projection - tad aikshata - He visualized the whole creation -visualization involves planning for the whole creation and involves intelligence cause not ignorant cause. See the definition of Iswara that Shankara gives in his bhaashya for janmaadyasya suutra. Let us have correct understanding of advaita philosophy. Hari Om! Sadananda praNAms Sri Srinivas Kotekal prabhuji Hare Krishna Since I dont to the School-2 as an authentic representation of shankara's advaita, I dont think it has any validity in traditional shankara school...School- 2 which mainly depends on *personal understanding of advaita philosophy* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote: > >The focus should be more on understanding our own limitations > and prepare our mind to listen, learn and calm. Dear Sri RamJi, Thank you for those three first paragraphs of your posting. How neutral and intelligent, right from the Heart. Unfortunately, after reading those three paragraphs and continue with the posting, my heart (and mind) experienced a turn. The rest of the posting (besides the quoting from Sw. ParamarthanandaJi's lecture that is so great) was to, again, sustain one of the positions that created such a division. With all due respect, at the end of your posting, you fell into your own trap, giving names and taking positions. As a beginner student of Vedanta and lover of this list, what I learnt so far with this discussion is that our intellects may or may not reflect our hearts. Discussions do reflect our intellectual understanding for sure, but will never show what is behind (or above!), because in that area we alone, by enquiring, are the only judges. Anyhow I felt I should thank you for those first three paragraphs of your posting, inviting you also to learn from them. If you feel I misunderstood your statements. please forgive me. All the best and thanks, Yours in Bhagavan, Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 Ram - PraNams With the post of yours, I feel the final word is spoken. I just posted one in response to Bhaskar. The discussion gave for many bystanders several questions and answers to clarify their doubts. In that sense the discussion was worth from others' perspective. Since it is getting into diminishing utility, I will stop posting on this topic. Hari Om! Sadananda. --- On Tue, 2/10/09, Ram Chandran <ramvchandran wrote: We have been discussing and debating on the nature of Jivanmuktha for more than a month. Now we have reached a stage where we need to restrain our thoughts and take few moments for contemplation. Any discussions on the validity and relative merits of Vedantic thoughts should show restraint to avoid falling into intellectual pitfalls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 From : H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy Pranams to all. advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > --- On Tue, 2/10/09, Durga <durgaji108 wrote: Dear Members, Mantra 2-1-13 of Kathopanishad reads : nityO^nityAnAM cEtanaScEtanAnAM EkO bahUnAM yO vidadhAti kAmAn | tamAtmasthaM yE^nupaSyanti dhIrAH tEShAM SAntiH SASvatI nEtarEShAm || There is One who is the eternal Reality among non—eternal objects, the one truly conscious Entity among conscious objects and who, though non—dual, fulfils the desires of many. Eternal peace belongs to the wise, who perceive Him within themselves—not to others. The mantra in a very clear cut way helps a genuine mumukshu to realize one's true svarupa and this will put an end to all the on going discussions and this ending of the discussions by coming to the right conclusions is the immediate need. May we all pray for establishing ourselves in that WISDOM. With warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa Murthy > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 advaitin , " narayana145 " <narayana145 wrote: > > From : H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy > Pranams to all. > > advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda > <kuntimaddisada@> wrote: > > > --- On Tue, 2/10/09, Durga <durgaji108@> wrote: > > > Dear Members, > Mantra 2-1-13 of Kathopanishad reads : > > nityO^nityAnAM cEtanaScEtanAnAM > EkO bahUnAM yO vidadhAti kAmAn | > tamAtmasthaM yE^nupaSyanti dhIrAH > tEShAM SAntiH SASvatI nEtarEShAm || pranams may we humbly point out the mantra is from 2-2-13 sukanya s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 The tiger is example for how MITHYAA (not ajnaani's projection) Vedanta can give knowledge that wakes up the jiiva to satya. The ignorance and knowledge both are mithyaa only as Shree Sastriji pointed out many posts ago. Awakening involves realization that truth is unchanging substantive and world is mithyaa and that unchanging truth is oneself alone -These are facts that can be understood with Vedanta, yukti and anubhava (involving the analysis of day to day experiences) - not ajnaani's projected Vedanta and yukti. Mithyaa knowledge can eliminate mithyaa ignorance - just as dream water can quench the dream thirst. Ontologically they are in par. The realization occurs when the mind transcends both knowledge and ignorance in the sense of seeing the underlying consciousness that is substantive for jiiva-jagat-Iswara - upahita caitanya. Tiger example comes in to see how mind can transcend both to arrive at substantive of both - not for projecting an ignorant person a teacher and the teaching. Advaita Vedanta does not teach that. Your dream example also does not answer that either as I have already discussed before. Bhaskarji - Do you see implication of this misinterpretation of the bhaashya. praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji Hare Krishna As usual, without giving an iota of reference to shankara's own words..you have given your own explanation & you've simply pushed aside the bhAshya vAkya as *misinterpretation* ( now I have found that labelling something as *misinterpretation* without looking at the originals is the safest way of floating one's own theory of advaita)...Since you are not talking anything about shankara bhAshya nor talking about anything about shruti nor trying to pointout what has been misinterpreted from bhAshya & you are more particular about your own understanding of advaita & propagation of the same, I am sorry to say you are misinterpreting the shankara's position & misunderstood my explanation of the same.. Your above explanation is based on this misinterpretation and misunderstanding of my stand. Prabhuji, kindly note, if you keep on labelling everything as misinterpretation without giving proper justification from bhAshya, it only shows mere scholarship of one's *own* understanding of the subject ..With this mind set I donot think we can have a fruitful discussion...I onceagain request you before calling anything *misinterpretation* atleast make an effort to interpret the bhAshya vAkya-s in your own *correct* way...Atleast that would help the readers to know what would be the *correct* interpretation of the same. Or if you think quoted bhAshya is completely out of context atleast let the readers to know the correct context of that bhAshya vAkya and quote the relevant bhAshya vAkya to support your claims...You may kindly be noted I am not here to propagate my 'misinterpretation' of shankara bhAshya...I am here to learn correct interpretation of shankara bhAshya from the scholars like your goodself... but you may also note that I am the last man to learn one's own pet theory of advaita...Hope you would consider my request and do the needful. Now prabhuji, it is your turn to give us the correct interpretation of the below kArika & bhAshya vAkya-s...I am not providing my " misinterpreation " of the below originals to help you to provide 'correct' interpretation : 01. Mandukya kArika (1-18) : vikalpO vinavarteta kalpitO yadi kenachit upadEshAdayaM vAdO jnAte dvaitaM na vidyate 02. mAdukya kArikA bhAshya 1-1-8 : Question : nanu shAstA, shAstraM, shishyaH iti ayaM vikalpaH kaThaM nivruttaH iti?? shankara's answer : uchyate...vikalpO vinivarteta yadi kenachit kalpitaH syAt..yathAyaM prapanchaH mAyArajjusarpavat taThA ayaM shishyAdi bheda vikalpOpi prAkruti bodhAdeva upadesha nimittaH.. 03. Sutra bhAshya 2-1-14 ( which I've quoted yesterday ) Question : kaThaM tu asatyena vedAntavAkyena satyasya brahmAtmatvasya pratipattirupapadyeta??...... shankara answers : naisha dOshaH shankAvishAdinimitta maraNAdi kAryOpalabdhEH...svapna darshanAvasThasya cha sarpadaMshanOdaka snAnAdi kArya darshanAt...tatkAryamapi anrutameva iti chet bruyAt...tatra brUmaH, yadyapi svapnadarshanAvasthasya sarpadamshanOdakasnAnAdi kAryaM anrutam, taThApi tadavagatiH satyameva phalaM, pratibuddhasyApi abAdhyamAnatvAt. 04. Shankara's bruhadAraNyaka bhAshya 5-1-1 : (quoted y'day) athaivaM sati tadaudAseenya svarUpAvasthAne phale prApte shAstrasya prAmANyaM-pratyarthitvaM nivartate...'tadbhAvAt shAstrasyApi shAstratvaM taM prati nivartata eva, taThA pratipurushaM parisamAptaM shAstraM iti na shAstravirOdhagaNdhOpyasti, 'advaitajnAnAvasAnatvAt shAstra-shishya-shAsanAdi dvaita bhEdasya'.. 05. Shankara in adhyAsa bhAshya : tametamavidyAkhyAm AtmAnAtmanOritaretarAdhyAsaM puraskrutya sarvE pramANa pramEya vyavahArau loukikA vaidikAscha pravruttAH. sarvANi cha shAstrANI vidhipratishedha mOkshaparANI... Sri Sadananda prabhuji, my humble request to you is to give us your correct interpretation for the above bhAshya vAkya-s & clarify where these bhAshya vAkya-s are relevant & how it is not relevant to Sri Srinivasa prabhuji's question & my explanations for the same. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar PS : Dear non-Sanskrit readers (my special plead to Sri Peter prabhuji), kindly dont blame me for not providing the English translations for the above..As you might have noticed, whatever translated & interpreted by me has been labelled as *misinterpretation* Hence Sri Sadananda prabhuji would provide you the correct interpretation, translation and context of the above bhAshya vAkyas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 praNAms Sri Ramachandra prabhujiHare KrishnaSri Ram prabhuji :In the case of a Jnani, it is said in the scriptures that at the time of death, all the three bodies merge into the Samashti. The Sharîra Trayam will merge into Prapancha Trayam. Sthûla Sharîram merges into Sthûla Prapancha. Sûkshma Sharîram merges into Sûkshma Prapancha and Kârana Sharîram merges into Kârana Prapancha. That means Jnani does not survive as an individual but he survives as the Samashti the total. And he is no more called Jîva Âtmâ – because only when the body is there you can call it as Jîva Âtmâ – when the Sharîra Trayam is gone, he is one with Parama Âtmâ. Jîva Âtmâ has become Parama Âtmâ losing the individuality just as the river loses its individuality when it merges into the ocean. bhaskar :Very interesting observation..Kindly let us know which scripture (upanishad) talks about shareeratraya of jnAni & its merger with prapanchatraya etc. You are telling jnAni does not survive individuality after the death of his physical, subtle & causal bodies..Whereas shankara says in bruhadAraNyaka (4-4-6) that vidvAn sa ihaiva brahma yadyapi dehavAniva lakshyate, sa brahmaiva san brahmApyeti...tasmAdihaiva brahmaiva san brahmApyeti * na shareerapAtOttara kAlaM* jIva's jIvatva & its individuality is kEvala *bAlisha kalpita* says shankara elsewhere...After the dawn of jnAna, jnAni is no more the beholder of jnAna in an individualized set of BMI..He is brahman & sees, smells, tastes brahman..shareera brahman, indriya brahman..sarvaM brahma mayaM..Individuality doesnot pertains to shareera, individuality is parikalpitam one due to deha, buddhi upAdhi saMbandhaM...Sri Ram prabhuji :As a moderator of this list, I am compelled to believe that whenever we get into long unending debates, the list has to take and respect the stand from credible sources such as the talk by Swami Paramarthanandaji. bhaskar :With all due respects to moderator's decision...may I humbly ask a fundamental question here..is this list discusses the advaita vedanta as taught by shankara or as taught by Arsha vidya gurukulaM in general and Swamy paramarthanandaji's teaching in particular ?? My humble prostrations to all shreshTa-s & mAhAtma-s in advaita saMpradAya, my humble praNAms to guru-s of Arsha vidya kendra, but I am little bit puzzled to read the above sentence..I dont think Swami paramarthanandaji's comments & clarifications is the *common premise* for both the parties here to do siddhAnta nirNaya...I know here most of the members are the followers of Arsha vidya gurukulam & fast disciples of Sri Dayananda Saraswati & Sri Paramarthananda Saraswati..But that does not mean that debates should find their end with their conclusions...I am the follower of Sri SatchidAnandendra Saraswati mahAswaminaH, can I tell other prabhuji-s of this general forum to abide the teachings of my parama guruji?? We have the followers of ramaNa, nisargadatta maharaJ, chinmaya mission etc. can they also claim their teachers' conclusions should be followed by every one here?? IMHO, in this general forum of advaita, which is exclusively dedicated to discuss the doctrine of advaita *as taught* by shankara should rely on the conclusions of shankara bhagavatpAda and his undisputed works of prasthAna trayi bhAshya...Having said this, I would like to clarify that I do respect, admire all the credible sources of advaita including the works & talks of ArshavidyA gurukulaM..But at the same time I dont think theirs is the final pramANa in siddhAnta nirNaya...For that matter even if these schools favours my line of thinking I wont take it as an authority & present if before the forum as final pramANa...Anyway, that is my stand...prabhuji-s / moderators are at their liberty to voice their thoughts to disagree with me & impose fresh rules...Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 Dear Jaishankarji, Reference your post 43510 addressed to Bhaskarji in which you quoted BG verses 3.28, 5.8 & 9. First of all, let me re-re-re-clarify here that no one here visualized the body pre-realization to evaporate and disappear post realization. What was contented was that jnAni will not have any sense of ownership towards it and see it as ajnAnis do. So, I don't understand what you are trying to prove quoting so profusely from BG. I have seen that you quoted the above verses plus some additional ones in a previous message addressed to me, which I couldn't answer due to travel handicaps. I hope this hurried response will answer that post too. I am still traveling. The original verses and their translation as given by you are quoted below. Juxtaposed below them is Shankara's commentary. As for 3.28 Shankara interprets the term tattvavit in two different senses in the two verses. And that makes a world of difference. As for 5.8 and 5.9, kindly read the section I have placed between * *. It talks about the non-existence of actions for a knower of truth like the certain non-existence of water in a mirage. My puny intellect understands it thus. From jnAni's point of view, there is no action at all. What then to talk about the organs of action and the body where they are located? Thus, although jnAni seems to carry a body and engage in actions from the point of view of ajnAnis, in actuality, there is no such thing happening. What we see is really like the non-existing water in a mirage. Now, I may be asked, like Raji-ji did, if, by the above statement, am I admitting the existence of jnAni in the transactional of ajnAnis. The answer is no, the reason being an ajnAni can never know jnAni. He only has men of knowledge, teachers, sages et al all of whom belong to the realm of avidyA. Hope this answers Neelakantanji too who asked several questions which I couldn't answer in time. I have also quoted below the last part of Shankara's commentary on 5.13. All will recall that we discussed that verse before when Shastriji quoted it. The quote is clear-cut confirmation of the conclusion that there are no actions at all from the point of view of jnAni despite the fact that the verse says `he continues in the body itself'. Best regards. Madathil Nair ______________________________ tattvavittu mahAbAho guNakarmavibhAgayoh guNA guNeÀu vartanta iti matvA na sajjate | BG Ch 3. 28 Whereas, Oh! Arjuna, the knower of the truth, knowing the distinction between body-mind-sense-complex and action, knowing that the senses, mind, and organs of action engage themselves with reference to their respective objects alone, is not bound. [shankara's commentary: Tu, but, on the other hand; he who is a knower, tattva-vit, a knower of the facts;-knower of what kinds of facts?-guna-karma-vibhagayoh, about the varieties of the gunas and actions, i.e. a knower of the diversity of the gunas and the diversity of acitons; [Guna-vibhaga means the products of Prakrti which consists of the three gunas. They are the five subtle elements, mind, intellect, ego, five sensory organs, five motor organs and five objects (sound etc.) of the senses. Karma-vibhaga means the varieties of inter-actions among these.-Tr.] na sajjate, does not become attached; iti matva, thinking thus; 'Gunah, the gunas in the form of organs;-not the Self-vartante, rest (act); gunesu, on the gunas in the form of objects of the organs.'] _____________________ naiva kincitkaromIti yukto manyeta tattvavit paSyanSrNvan sprSanjighrannaSnan gacchan svapanSvasan ..|BG Ch5. 8 & 9 The one who is together, who knows the truth, thinks, ‘I do not do anything at all,’ even while seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, walking, sleeping, breathing, talking, releasing, grasping, opening and closing the eyes, (the person) knowing (full well that) the organs are engaged in their objects. [shankara's commentary: Yuktah, remaining absorbed in the Self; tattva-vit, the knower of Reality-knower of the real nature of Truth, of the Self, i.e., the seer of the supreme Reality; manyeta, should think; 'na karomi eva, I certainly do not do; kincit, anything.' Having realized the Truth, when or how should he think? This is being answered; Api, even; pasyan, while seeing; srnvan, hearing; sprsan, touching; jighran, smelling; asnan, eating; gacchan, moving; svapan, sleeping; svasan, breathing; pralapan, speaking; visrjan, releasing; grhnan, holding; unmisan, opening; nimisan, closing the eyes. All these are to be connected with the above manyeta (should think). *For the man who has known the Truth thus, who finds nothing but inaction in action-in all the movements of the body and organs-, and who has full realization, there is competence only for giving up all actions because of his realization of the nonexistence of actions. Indeed, one who proceeds to drink water in a mirage thinking that water is there, surely does not go there itself for drinking water even after knowing that no water exists there!*] [Last part of Shankara's commentary on 5.13: Form the point of veiw of the difference between the convictions of the enlightened and the unenlightened persons, the qualifying words, 'He continues in the body itself', do have a purpose to serve. Although it has been stated that one continues (in the body) by relinquishing actions of the body and organs ignorantly superimposed on the Self, still there may be the apprehesion that direct or indirect agentship inheres in the Self. Anticipating this, the Lord says: na eva kurvan, without himself doing anything at all; and na karayan, not causing (others) to do, (not) inducing the body and organs to activity. Objection: Is it that the direct or indirect agentship of the embodied one inheres in the Self and ceases to be after renunciation, as the movement of a traveller ceases with the stoppage of his movement? Or, is it that they do not exist owing to the very nature of the Self? As to this, the answer is: The Self by Its nature has neither direct nor indirect agentship. For it was stated, 'It is said that...This (Self) is unchangeable' (2.25). 'O son of Kunti, although existing in the body, It does not act, nor is It affected' (13.31). And it is also stated in the Upanisad, 'It seems to meditate, as it were; It seems to move, as it were' (Br. 4.3.7).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 advaitin , " narayana145 " <narayana145 wrote: > > From : H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy > Pranams to all. > > advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda > <kuntimaddisada@> wrote: > > > --- On Tue, 2/10/09, Durga <durgaji108@> wrote: > > > Dear Members, > Mantra 2-1-13 of Kathopanishad reads : > > nityO^nityAnAM cEtanaScEtanAnAM > EkO bahUnAM yO vidadhAti kAmAn | > tamAtmasthaM yE^nupaSyanti dhIrAH > tEShAM SAntiH SASvatI nEtarEShAm || > There is One who is the eternal Reality among non—eternal > objects, the one truly conscious Entity among conscious objects and > who, though non—dual, fulfils the desires of many. Eternal peace > belongs to the wise, who perceive Him within themselves—not to others. > > The mantra in a very clear cut way helps a genuine mumukshu to > realize one's true svarupa and this will put an end to all the > on going discussions and this ending of the discussions by coming to > the right conclusions is the immediate need. > > May we all pray for establishing ourselves in that WISDOM. > > With warm and respectful regards, > Sreenivasa Murthy Dear Members, In the above quoted posting of mine the mantra number should be read as 2-2-13 instead of 2-1-13. The error is regretted. With warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa Murthy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 Namaste Durgaji. You mentioned so many mithyAs here. At the end, there is Brahman which is 'recognized' as non-dual, by which term, I expect you to mean satyaM. Now what is the recognizer of the non-daulity of Brahman (jnAni) like? Is he/she mithyA or satyaM? If he is the latter, then do you have two satyaMs? If he is satyaM, then what is there for him to recognize? If this is advaita, I think I would rather not request Ishwara to grant me the ability of hamsa! Best regards. Madathil Nair ________________________ advaitin , " Durga " <durgaji108 wrote: > Thus we have the example of the hamsa bird which can separate > milk from water. Even though the milk and water seem to be > inextricably mixed together, the hamsa bird has the ability > to separate one from the other. In this same way a jnani, > though perceiving and experiencing the mithya duality through > the use of his or her mithya body/mind and sense organs, also > recognizes, as in knows, without a shadow of a doubt, that the > substrate of the mithya duality is brahman alone, is nondual. > > May all of us gain this ability through Ishwara's grace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 Namaste. jnAni doesn't die. He is never born! If the body's death was meant, then no advaitin worth his name would bother about it. Admitted that there are two terms used in vedanta - jIvanmukti and videhamukti. But, it is a grave mistake to look for gradations between them. Mukti is mukti. Full stop. Otherwise, one would have to concede that the jIvanmukta is less liberated than a videhamukta. That is inadvaitic. Individuality dissolves with realization itself. It doesn't have to linger till the death of an already forgotten body! Pranams. Madathil Nair _____________________ advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote: > Swamiji clarifies the distinction between Jivanmuktha and Videha > Muktha: To understand the distinction, we have to know what happens > to an ignorant person (ajnani) after death. Then only we can > understand to what happens to a Jnani after death. > > In the case of Ajnani, at the time of death, the physical body is > dropped. There is separation from physical body. The very definition > of death is separation from physical body. That is why the physical > body decays and merges into Pancha Bhûtâni or five elements. But even > thought the physical body perishes, the subtle body and causal body > continue to exist. This subtle and causal body along with Âtmâ – all > pervading everywhere – continue to survive even after the fall of the > body. It acquires another body to continue the journey. And it may > acquire the body here itself or it may acquire the body elsewhere. > Therefore an Ajnani travels after death. In other words his Sûkshma > Sharîram and Kârana Sharîram travel and acquire another physical body > and this is called Punar Janma or rebirth. The Sûkshma Sharîram and > Kârana Sharîram will again go through life and again die and again > acquire another body. But death and birth is only at the level of the > physical body. > > In the case of a Jnani, it is said in the scriptures that at the time > of death, all the three bodies merge into the Samashti. The Sharîra > Trayam will merge into Prapancha Trayam. Sthûla Sharîram merges into > Sthûla Prapancha. Sûkshma Sharîram merges into Sûkshma Prapancha and > Kârana Sharîram merges into Kârana Prapancha. That means Jnani does > not survive as an individual but he survives as the Samashti the > total. And he is no more called Jîva Âtmâ – because only when the > body is there you can call it as Jîva Âtmâ – when the Sharîra Trayam > is gone, he is one with Parama Âtmâ. Jîva Âtmâ has become Parama  tmâ > losing the individuality just as the river loses its individuality > when it merges into the ocean. Also there is no question of Punar > Janma . There is no Sûkshma Kârana Sharîram surviving to acquire > another Sthûla Sharîram. Therefore Videha Muktha is free from Punar > Janma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.