Enlightened Empirical Engagements!!! - School-1

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar-ji,

Though I wouldn’t agree with your

conclusions which amount to strong illusionism I respect your right to ask

that rebuttal be accompanied by argument drawn from the commentaries of

Shankara explicated in a clear fashion at the very least. I say the

commentaries because it is evident that the sutras themselves are poetical

mystical effusions that work on us through sympathy rather than strict

logic. What is the nature of the consciousness that produced such

elevated expression has been the core of the conversation over the past

month? By the blessing of a teacher I have received a homeopathic

tincture of what this might be. ( I better not say who as T. O’C. who is

dormant at the moment might be awoken to his mission.) He put his hands

over mine and my mind stopped. It was as though when merrily cycling

along the pawl on the freewheel failed and my little legs spun

harmlessly. You are still moving forward but the ‘drive’ is gone. A

momentary experience imparted by one saturated in impersonality. Call it

a free sample if you like.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Nair ji,

 

Namaskarams.

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> 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.

Jai: I agree with this statement. In fact no advaitin can contest with

this statement

 

oSo, I don't

> understand what you are trying to prove quoting so profusely from

BG.

>

Jai: I am trying to prove that if jnAni doesn't have any perception of

duality then all these verses are meaningless. So your contention is

wrong.

 

 

> As for 3.28 Shankara interprets the term tattvavit in two different

> senses in the two verses. And that makes a world of difference.

 

Jai: There is no difference. Both tatvavits are jnAnis. From verse

3.17 onwards Bhagavan Krishna is talking about the difference between

a jnAni and an ajnAni. Again in 5.8 & 9 also he is talking about a

jnAni.

 

>

> 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?

>

 

Jai: Nairji tell me if the mirage is not at all seen does it make any

sense to even negate its existence? Is it not silly to claim that

vandhyAputra (barren woman's son) doesn't exist. The negation itself

is meaningful only because of the perception of duality. Otherwise

Krishna could've easily told Arjuna that jnAni does not perceive any

duality and so you do 'some sAdhana' till you don't see any duality.

 

But Bhagavan says even while seeing, touching etc.. the jnANi doesn't

do anything. If the jnAni doesn't 'see' or 'touch' why even negate it?

 

 

> 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.

>

 

Jai: I agree with this, with the rider that jnAni also is seeing this

mirage while understanding that it is mirage but ajnAnis are seeing

this mirage and are thinking that it is water.

 

> 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.

 

Jai: I don't understand what you mean by this.

 

> He only has men of knowledge, teachers, sages et al all of whom

> belong to the realm of avidyA.

 

Jai: They may belong to the realm of avidya as all vyavahAra is in

avidyA only. But are they jnAnis or not?

 

>

> 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'.

 

Jai: I agree with this statement as you have said he continues in the

body. But you have put it in quotes and I don't know what you imply. I

have tried to present the traditional advaita vedanta as coherently as

possible but you may not agree. You believe in the grace of the

lord/mother and I believe that it will eventually show you the way.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji:

 

Your statements such as " jnAni doesn't die " and " " He is never

born " do not prove your claims and on the contrary, it introduces

more confusion. The jnAni who doesn't die and who was never born will

not write, discuss and debate! The terminology of a " jnAni "

or " jivanmuktha " arises with respect to the entity, " jiva " who is

a " living being " . Gita and the Upanishads only talk about the " Atman "

the immortal essence of jiva the living being. If we say that " Atman

doesn't die " and " Atman is never born " we will not have anything to

argue. Jiva the living being with BMI is our point of reference.

Everything that you, Bhaskar and few others talk only about nature

of " Atman " where as Sadaji, Sastriji and others discuss about

the " living being with the BMI. " Any continued dialogue by repeated

quotations will never make the apple and orange to be the same.

 

As advaitins, we do recognize that we can't grasp the nature of

Jivanmuktha with unqualified acceptance by our intellect. That is the

reason that we need the help of the scriptures and the correct

assimilated knowledge that derived from the scriptures. Our unending

continuation of this thread only confirms our limitations and hence

we need a truncation point. The purpose of Vedanta is not just to

establish an " abstract theory " without any implications to how we

should lead our life. On the contrary, the goal of Vedanta is to

guide us to lead our life with positive mental attitudes so that we

can avoid the pitfalls of samsara. I do believe that Swami

Paramarthananda's statement on " Jivanmuktha " will help us to develop

the virtues of the Jivanmuktha. Our first goal of life is to

accumulate the virtues of a Jivanmuktha and hopefully we can

transcend the baggage of BMI. The popular saying in English, " Don't

talk the talk if you can't walk the walk " is quite relevant for us to

visualize the jivanmuktha.

 

Here is my reply to Sri Mounaji for his posting # 43518 which is

quite relevant in the present context:

 

Namaste Mounaji: First let me thank you for your kind remarks along

with an enquiry regarding me taking a position. The reason for me

taking the position is quite simple - As one of the moderators of

this list, I have to respect the advaitic tradition as established by

Paramaguru Adi Sankaracharya. In this tradition, when a student wants

to clear a doubt, he (she) seeks the help of a learned teacher who is

respectable and knowledgeable. Currently Swami Paramarthananda is one

of those who is highly respected as a true proponent of the advaita

philosophy of Sankaracharya. He has been teaching Vedanta and

conducting discourses with dedication and has been a great follower

of the tradition of Adi Sankaracharya.

 

As one of the moderators of this list, I am obligated to take the

position that (according to my understanding of Sankara's philosophy)

represents Sankara's position with respect to the nature of

Jivanmuktha. It is true that only the Jivanmuktha knows the nature a

Jivanmuktha. We have no other means of knowing the nature of

Jivanmuktha and consequently we seek the help of the scriptures and

those who have the assimilated knowledge of the scriptures.

 

If someone like you do not agree with my position (as indicated by

you), I fully respect your observation. A majority of the members

(especially the silent members) have joined this list to learn and

get the correct understanding of advaita concepts. The list is

obligated to provide them with guidance. What I have stated is my

honest position based on my understanding.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> 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!

 

advaitin , " Mouna " <carlos wrote:

> 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!),

[Guest guest]

" Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote:

 

> Here is my reply to Sri Mounaji for his posting # 43518 which is

> quite relevant in the present context:

>

> Namaste Mounaji: First let me thank you for your kind remarks along

> with an enquiry regarding me taking a position. The reason for me

> taking the position is quite simple - As one of the moderators of

> this list, I have to respect the advaitic tradition as established by

> Paramaguru Adi Sankaracharya.

> If someone like you do not agree with my position (as indicated by

> you), I fully respect your observation. A majority of the members

> (especially the silent members) have joined this list to learn and

> get the correct understanding of advaita concepts. The list is

> obligated to provide them with guidance. What I have stated is my

> honest position based on my understanding.

 

Dear RamJi,

And this was my response to you offlist, adding some words..

 

Dear RamJi, Namaste also,

 

Thank you for your kind reply.

And no, I don't have a position, estimated RamJi, I'm not learned enough

to do so, how could I stand to people like Sadaji or BhaskarJi or your

very good self?.

For me was a great teaching these postings.

But if I have to be honest with you I'll say that both so-called

" schools " of this thread, and with the little knowledge I have, made

sense to me! and both seems to be based (according to what they say) on

Adi Shankara's teachings!!

I am also a fervent listener of Swami PramarthanandaJi's talks.

But I can't help feeling that Bhaskarji and Nairji's logic has some

sense in it, even with my complete ignorance in the subject (Advaita

Vedanta) their " point of view " make sense to me, as well as Sadaji's!

Specially because when I read and hear the words of modern Jnanis like

Nisargadatta and Bhagavan Ramana, sometimes they hold one position,

sometimes completely the opposite! And THAT is the greatness of Advaita

to my eyes, the Whole as Whole, not the parts.

(One thing I noticed is that both " schools " have limited information

about what these two modern Jnanis taught and said. And usually is used

to solidify one's point of view.)

 

Last but not least, the List is providing guidance, not through the

individuals but mainly through Grace that plays all these " different "

roles and interactions for the benefit of all.

 

Thanks again,

and All the best.

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

& #2342; & #2381; & #2357; & #2366; & #2360; & #2369; & #2346; & #2352; & #2381; & #2339; & #2366;

& #2360; & #2351; & #2369; & #2332; & #2366; & #2360; & #2326; & #2366; & #2351; & #2366;

& #2360; & #2350; & #2366; & #2344; & #2306; & #2357; & #2371; & #2325; & #2381; & #2359; & #2306;

& #2346; & #2352; & #2367; & #2359; & #2360; & #2381; & #2357; & #2332; & #2366; & #2340; & #2375;

& #2340; & #2351; & #2379; & #2352; & #2344; & #2381; & #2351; & #2307;

& #2346; & #2367; & #2346; & #2381; & #2346; & #2354; & #2306;

& #2360; & #2381; & #2357; & #2366; & #2342; & #2381; & #2357; & #2340; & #2381; & #2340; & #2381; & #2\

351; & #2344; & #2358; & #2381; & #2344; & #2344; & #2381; & #2344; & #2344; & #2381; & #2351; & #2379\

; & #2309; & #2349; & #2367; & #2330; & #2366; & #2325; & #2358; & #2368; & #2340; & #2367;

 

& #2360; & #2350; & #2366; & #2344; & #2375; & #2357; & #2371; & #2325; & #2381; & #2359; & #2375;

& #2346; & #2369; & #2352; & #2369; & #2359; & #2379;

& #2344; & #2367; & #2350; & #2327; & #2381; & #2344; & #2379; & #2365; & #2344; & #2367; & #2358; & #2\

351; & #2366; & #2358; & #2379; & #2330; & #2340; & #2367;

& #2350; & #2369; & #2361; & #2381; & #2351; & #2350; & #2366; & #2344; & #2307;

& #2332; & #2369; & #2359; & #2381; & #2335; & #2306; & #2351; & #2342; & #2366;

& #2346; & #2358; & #2381; & #2351; & #2340; & #2381; & #2351; & #2344; & #2381; & #2351; & #2350; & #2\

368; & #2358; & #2350; & #2360; & #2381; & #2351;

& #2350; & #2361; & #2367; & #2350; & #2366; & #2344; & #2350; & #2367; & #2340; & #2367;

& #2357; & #2368; & #2340; & #2358; & #2379; & #2325; & #2307; Mundaka Upanishad 1-1,2

 

 

The image of the two birds analogy mentioned in Mundaka Upanishad is

repeatedly coming to my mind while I am reading this beautiful

discussion.

 

In the analogy there are two birds sitting on the tree, one is on the

top branch and the other is on the low branch. The bird seated on the

low branch eats both sweet and bitter fruits. Sweet fruits give the

bird the feeling that life is pleasure; bitter fruits give the bird

the feeling that life is misery. The other bird, seated on the top of

the tree, eats neither the sweet fruit nor the bitter fruit. It just

sits calmly and serenely. Its life is flooded with peace, light and

delight. The bird that eats the sweet and bitter fruit on the tree of

life is disappointed. It finds the life's experiences impermanent,

ephemeral, fleeting and destructive. Therefore this bird flies up and

loses itself in the freedom-light and perfection-delight of the bird

at the top of the life-tree.

 

There are many interpretations to this analogy. I tend to see the

bird on the top of the branch as Jivanmukta, as the compassionate

guru, as the mahatma, as the avadhuta... as the silent witness...!!!

 

We must inquire why the bird on the low branch is trying to go

close to the bird on the high branch. What is this bird seeing up

there?

 

The bird on the top of the branch is visible it is appearing and it

posses a unique quality that can be felt! That inexplicable, yet

resplendant serene quality of detatchment. I beliece this is the

quailty that the Jivanmukta posses.

 

Also I take risk in inviting the other members to share what they

feel when they identify themselves with the bird that is sitting on

the low branch of the tree.... I am sure feeling what the bird is

feeling would put us right in front of the Jivanmukta...

 

Love & Light,

Madhava

 

 

 

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran

wrote:

>

> Namaste Nairji:

>

> Your statements such as " jnAni doesn't die " and " " He is never

> born " do not prove your claims and on the contrary, it introduces

> more confusion. The jnAni who doesn't die and who was never born

will

> not write, discuss and debate! The terminology of a " jnAni "

> or " jivanmuktha " arises with respect to the entity, " jiva " who is

> a " living being " . Gita and the Upanishads only talk about

the " Atman "

> the immortal essence of jiva the living being. If we say

that " Atman

> doesn't die " and " Atman is never born " we will not have anything to

> argue. Jiva the living being with BMI is our point of reference.

> Everything that you, Bhaskar and few others talk only about nature

> of " Atman " where as Sadaji, Sastriji and others discuss about

> the " living being with the BMI. " Any continued dialogue by

repeated

> quotations will never make the apple and orange to be the same.

>

> As advaitins, we do recognize that we can't grasp the nature of

> Jivanmuktha with unqualified acceptance by our intellect. That is

the

> reason that we need the help of the scriptures and the correct

> assimilated knowledge that derived from the scriptures. Our

unending

> continuation of this thread only confirms our limitations and hence

> we need a truncation point. The purpose of Vedanta is not just to

> establish an " abstract theory " without any implications to how we

> should lead our life. On the contrary, the goal of Vedanta is to

> guide us to lead our life with positive mental attitudes so that we

> can avoid the pitfalls of samsara. I do believe that Swami

> Paramarthananda's statement on " Jivanmuktha " will help us to

develop

> the virtues of the Jivanmuktha. Our first goal of life is to

> accumulate the virtues of a Jivanmuktha and hopefully we can

> transcend the baggage of BMI. The popular saying in

English, " Don't

> talk the talk if you can't walk the walk " is quite relevant for us

to

> visualize the jivanmuktha.

>

> Here is my reply to Sri Mounaji for his posting # 43518 which is

> quite relevant in the present context:

>

> Namaste Mounaji: First let me thank you for your kind remarks along

> with an enquiry regarding me taking a position. The reason for me

> taking the position is quite simple - As one of the moderators of

> this list, I have to respect the advaitic tradition as established

by

> Paramaguru Adi Sankaracharya. In this tradition, when a student

wants

> to clear a doubt, he (she) seeks the help of a learned teacher who

is

> respectable and knowledgeable. Currently Swami Paramarthananda is

one

> of those who is highly respected as a true proponent of the advaita

> philosophy of Sankaracharya. He has been teaching Vedanta and

> conducting discourses with dedication and has been a great follower

> of the tradition of Adi Sankaracharya.

>

> As one of the moderators of this list, I am obligated to take the

> position that (according to my understanding of Sankara's

philosophy)

> represents Sankara's position with respect to the nature of

> Jivanmuktha. It is true that only the Jivanmuktha knows the nature

a

> Jivanmuktha. We have no other means of knowing the nature of

> Jivanmuktha and consequently we seek the help of the scriptures and

> those who have the assimilated knowledge of the scriptures.

>

> If someone like you do not agree with my position (as indicated by

> you), I fully respect your observation. A majority of the members

> (especially the silent members) have joined this list to learn and

> get the correct understanding of advaita concepts. The list is

> obligated to provide them with guidance. What I have stated is my

> honest position based on my understanding.

>

> With my warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

>

>

>

> advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

> <madathilnair@> wrote:

> >

> > 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!

>

> advaitin , " Mouna " <carlos@> wrote:

> > 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!),

>

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna ,namaskarams.

It was very illuminating to read the mails of

sri.ramachandran, sri.jaishankar, smt.durga sri.sadananda, sri.ramakrishna and

sri srinivasamurthy. I am blessed to read the summary of “what are the benefits

of being a jeevanmuktha†from my guru swami paramarthanada on the subject and

my prostrations to him.

 

[From : H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy : 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.]

 

Baskaran : absolutely true.

 

[smt.durga 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.]

 

 

Baskaran : a beautiful analogy.

 

[Jai: '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.

 

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.

 

Jai: 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.]

 

Baskaran: elated after reading the above I went for my

evening walk with my mind set on these lines. While walking I came across

little kids of one to two years calling me thatha thatha (grand daddy) and waving their hands with beautiful smiles with such purity of hearts lifting my

spirits further. I even came across little babies probably just an year old

happily sitting on their father and smiling at me and looking at me even after I

passed them with a smile and the faces absolutely reflecting the chaitanyam fully,

so radiant and unadulterated. I was only reminded of what I read that a gnani

is like a child . I am still swimming in those blissful moments.

 

I write again that only a gnani can know a gnani and such a

gnani will have no words to write for us. Can we say in words what is

happiness/ananda we get in little moments of bliss in our life and what to say

of a gnani who is ever in bliss.

 

May lord Krishna bless us

all to discover ourselves with his grace.

 

Baskaran.

 

 

Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now.

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramji,

Namaste

 

may I please comment on the nature of your posting, when as a moderator you

adressed

the group, quoting Swami Paramarthananda at length as an authority of vedantic

teaching.

 

I love Swamiji very much and if deciding to which " party " of Vedanta I belong, I

can clearly

say that I am with Arsha vidya gurukulaM, Sadaji, Durgaji e.a. .and not in

agreement with

Baskarji or Nairji.

 

Still I would agree with Baskar in his reply to you. Assuming that his teacher

Sri

SatchidAnandendra Saraswati mahAswaminaH (who I do not know) is as much a

vedantic

teacher as Swami Paramarthanandaji, I think it is not reasonable or fair from

you to put

Swami Paramarthanandas view that much in the foreground.

 

You spoke as a moderator and as that I would expect a neutral position. But

your post

was only neutral in the beginning, as Mauna pointed out. Of course I would not

expect any

neutrality if you participated in the debate just like any other member.

 

I do not have a solution for this situation of the group and believe me, I am

quite

frustrated that any debate seems to end up with this same split sooner or later.

But the

way you did it, does not seem to be the solution either.

 

As a relatively new member of this list I would prefer if both " parties " could

agree to

disagree and with any upcoming topic would expand on their position without

endlessly

trying to convince the other " party " . Why both views cannot stand there side by

side? It just

needs to be obvious to everyone where someone " is coming from " .

 

 

This arrangement would require that anyone who has an alliance to a school,

teacher or

the like would make that clear. (It took me a long time to find out that my

understanding

seems to be the one of Arsha vidya gurukulaM.) I have to say that since quite a

while I

wonder why so few people in this list who mention their guru or teacher or

school would

call them by name, so that everybody can understand where they are coming from

and/or

where the resp. teaching is coming from.

For the long term members this is clear, but only for them.

 

Om Shanti

Sitara

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sitaraji:

 

I am not surprised that my perception of the role of the moderator

differed from your (and also Mounaji's) perception. As you have

rightly pointed out we all seem to enjoy conducting non-ending

debates without reaching any meaningful and useful ending. One of

the unpleasant obligatory duties of a moderator (as I understood) is

to intervene to truncate a non-ending debate. Unfortunately any

intervention and any statement by a moderator will likely be viewed

by some members as subjective one-sided judgment. I can fully

understand your concerns and I want to assure you that greatly

respect the scholarship and the debating abilities of both Bhaskarji

and Nairji. We should recognize the fact that the purpose any

Vedantic discussion is not to determine a winner or loser. The

purpose of our discussions is to help us to get better insights on

the subject matter. We are very fortunate we had a wonderful

discussion and we were able to clarify our understanding on several

key difficult concepts. I don't believe that I have questioned (nor I

have any intention to question) the validity of the stand taken by

Bhaskarji or Nairji.

 

I greatly respect Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati and the list

contains a number of postings about this great philosopher saint.

For those who are interested, please refer to message # 21177. I

would also recommend the book, " The Method of the Vedanta: A Critical

Account of the Advaita Tradition by Swami Satchidanandendra,

Satchidanandendra ... - 1997 - Philosophy - 1009 pages. We also had a

month-long discussion on " AdhyArOpa apavAda " led by Bhaskarji and

they are available at the link: http://www.advaitin.net/Discussion%

20Topics/adhyaropa-apavadaBhaskara.pdf

I recommend members to visit the link where the list discussions are

provided in pdf format: http://www.advaitin.net/Advaitin%

20Discussions.htm. Nairji's month-long discussions on " Purnamadhah "

is an excellent one.

 

When we had the month-long discussions on a specific subject matter,

we really had lively discussions highly focused with the time limit

of one month. If members are willing, we can reintroduce them. Any

member who wants to lead a discussion topic, please send an email to

advaitins.

 

I hope this clarification helps,

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , " Sitara " <smitali17 wrote:

>

> Dear Ramji,

> Namaste

>

> may I please comment on the nature of your posting, when as a

moderator you addressed

> the group, quoting Swami Paramarthananda at length as an authority

of Vedantic teaching.

............

>

> You spoke as a moderator and as that I would expect a neutral

position. But your post

> was only neutral in the beginning, as Mauna pointed out. Of course

I would not expect any

> neutrality if you participated in the debate just like any other

member.

>

>

[Guest guest]

" Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote:

 

> One of

> the unpleasant obligatory duties of a moderator (as I understood) is

> to intervene to truncate a non-ending debate.

 

> Unfortunately any

> intervention and any statement by a moderator will likely be viewed

> by some members as subjective one-sided judgment.

 

Dear RamJi, Namaskar

 

The first statement couldn't be more right.

But the second statement is not necessarily true if the moderator just

fullfil the role stated in the first statement, without any final

declarations as to what the right direction of the topic should have

been or is, and this may present itself in a very subtle way.

If it was in my hands and I wanted a discussion to end, I would

certainly wrote something like your first three paragraphs (so good as

to why we should end the discussion), and then ended the whole thing by

saying: " No more postings on the suject " . Period.

That's neutral to me.

But I am " new " here and most of all, not running the show, so I can only

be a " bystanding " observer.

We are all learning, isn't it? And most of all, ONLY characters within a

Play.

 

My humble pranams to your good self.

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

It is my humble belief, after having lived on the Net for over 15

years, that a moderator's role is one that has to be defined. Thus, if

the definition of the moderator's role requires that s/he intercede

into any long-running discussions (somewhere we should have a

definition of long-running), then and only then should it happen.

 

I have been on lists where people were forced to stop writing after 40

lines. Any submissions that were longer had to be broken up into 2 -

thus having a maximum of 80 lines - and posted on 2 consecutive days.

It is remarkable how concise and precise discussions can be when you

have such restrictions! Now I am not suggesting that here - just

giving an example.

 

Other lists have complete moderation wherein the moderator decides

what is published and what is not. This sometimes leads to inadvertent

censorship.

 

Having said all this, I am of the firm belief that in the subject of

Vedanta, there is no end to the questions and there shouldn't be

either. It is the duty of the enlightened one to 'remove all doubts'

from the ajnani. Thus discussion threads need to continue until

removal of all doubts.

 

Humbly yours,

an ajnani,

Sai

[Guest guest]

Dear Ram-ji ,

 

<As you have rightly pointed out we all seem to enjoy conducting non-

ending debates without reaching any meaningful and useful ending.

One of the unpleasant obligatory duties of a moderator (as I

understood) is to intervene to truncate a non-ending debate.>

 

Roleplay has been a difficult subject for me all along .Its my

personal viewpoint that accepting roleplay is like taking on an

additional layer of limitation and authority : seems a bit odd ,

considering we are working so hard to shed the layers that jiva-

hood ! ( Bhaskarji -> I hope that explains my resistance to being

referred as Mata-ji ! )

 

I would also like to offer my viewpoint on the current discussion :

I have been watching , listening , learning and reflecting , which

pretty much means following the steps that you outlined ( with due

credit to Shri Paramarthananda ji ) of shravana , manana ,and

nidhidhyasana . I clarified my questions and at the end of that , I

had to admit that both stands , while appearing to be

contradictory , were actually saying pretty much like the same

thing . They differ semantically and they differ on the ontology of

perspective but were reflecting the same underlying truth .

 

As I reflected ,the entire flow of discussion seemed like a

delightful play of the very duality with the underlying unity ,

within this very group ! And while we all appreciate the quotes of

the scriptures , we seem to not trust ourself to see the play

happening to us , in front of us , involving us ? If I used the

words " perceiver , perception and perceived " , then would we trust

ourselves a little more and say " aha! its what's playing out in

front of my very eyes and here I was reaching out for pramana ,

without trusting myself ? "

 

And so , I hope you can understand why I don't think this unending

debate was not reaching a meaningful and useful ending . To me ,this

whole episode epitomises microcosmically , what we are struggling

with intellectually . And to use the metaphor of the 2 birds on the

self-same tree , this " unending " debate has been for me a delightful

play and has allowed me to experience the serenity of the observer

bird ( thank you Bhaskar-ji , for bringing in that perspective. In

my view of the play , this was a sweet little nuance which gave me

much pleasure )

 

Needless to say , my objective is express my appreciation for the

process and the discussion without intending to take or refute any

particular stand . Truncation , in this context , seems to me to be

a heavy-duty stand being taken to cut short a discussion which has

been so revealing in more ways than one : at one level , the various

scriptural references and stands and and at another , by its very

flow , demonstrating the underlying unity depite the multiplicity .

While I appreciate your perception of your role and associated

decisions that you are empowered to take , may I suggest a different

approach of creating an online poll to collect the viewpoint of all

members on whether the discussion should continue or not ? That

way , we all move together and are not " led " and own the collective

responsibility without burdening you with the karma of taking

decisions ?

 

Regards

 

-raji

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran

wrote:

>

> Namaste Sitaraji:

>

> I am not surprised that my perception of the role of the moderator

> differed from your (and also Mounaji's) perception. As you have

> rightly pointed out we all seem to enjoy conducting non-ending

> debates without reaching any meaningful and useful ending. One of

> the unpleasant obligatory duties of a moderator (as I understood)

is

> to intervene to truncate a non-ending debate. Unfortunately any

> intervention and any statement by a moderator will likely be

viewed

> by some members as subjective one-sided judgment. I can fully

> understand your concerns and I want to assure you that greatly

> respect the scholarship and the debating abilities of both

Bhaskarji

> and Nairji. We should recognize the fact that the purpose any

> Vedantic discussion is not to determine a winner or loser. The

> purpose of our discussions is to help us to get better insights on

> the subject matter. We are very fortunate we had a wonderful

> discussion and we were able to clarify our understanding on

several

> key difficult concepts. I don't believe that I have questioned

(nor I

> have any intention to question) the validity of the stand taken by

> Bhaskarji or Nairji.

>

> I greatly respect Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati and the list

> contains a number of postings about this great philosopher saint.

> For those who are interested, please refer to message # 21177. I

> would also recommend the book, " The Method of the Vedanta: A

Critical

> Account of the Advaita Tradition by Swami Satchidanandendra,

> Satchidanandendra ... - 1997 - Philosophy - 1009 pages. We also

had a

> month-long discussion on " AdhyArOpa apavAda " led by Bhaskarji and

> they are available at the link: http://www.advaitin.net/Discussion%

> 20Topics/adhyaropa-apavadaBhaskara.pdf

> I recommend members to visit the link where the list discussions

are

> provided in pdf format: http://www.advaitin.net/Advaitin%

> 20Discussions.htm. Nairji's month-long discussions

on " Purnamadhah "

> is an excellent one.

>

> When we had the month-long discussions on a specific subject

matter,

> we really had lively discussions highly focused with the time

limit

> of one month. If members are willing, we can reintroduce them.

Any

> member who wants to lead a discussion topic, please send an email

to

> advaitins

>

> I hope this clarification helps,

>

> With my warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

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

> >

> > Dear Ramji,

> > Namaste

> >

> > may I please comment on the nature of your posting, when as a

> moderator you addressed

> > the group, quoting Swami Paramarthananda at length as an

authority

> of Vedantic teaching.

> ...........

> >

> > You spoke as a moderator and as that I would expect a neutral

> position. But your post

> > was only neutral in the beginning, as Mauna pointed out. Of

course

> I would not expect any

> > neutrality if you participated in the debate just like any other

> member.

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Raji-ji:

 

Thanks for your inputs with a valuable suggestion. We do have the

facility to conduct a poll to get members' feedback. The list has

conducted several polls in the previous years and the participation

from the silent members were almost none.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , " rajalakshmi13 " <rajalakshmi.iyer

wrote:

>

> , may I suggest a different

> approach of creating an online poll to collect the viewpoint of all

> members on whether the discussion should continue or not ? That

> way , we all move together and are not " led " and own the collective

> responsibility without burdening you with the karma of taking

> decisions ?

>

> Regards

>

> -raji

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Ram-ji ,

 

Why use a pre-judgement of the outcome to take a unilateral

decision? Why not start the poll , and trust the outcome instead ?

If people choose not to vote either because they are not available

or because they have no opinion , that's an opinion too , isn't it ?

 

Also , I have repeatedly seen judgement in this list regarding

silent members ( bystanders , as it were ! ) . When joining this

list , my assumption was that I could say something or ask a

question by CHOICE . Was that misplaced ? Why is silence perceived

as a negative ? When propagated either as the bird which was silent

or Ramana who advocated silence , why does it acquire virtue ?

 

My recommendation : please conduct a poll to take feedback . Share

the feedback and back your decision as a moderator with data and not

just a personal standpoint .

 

Regards

 

/ raji /

 

 

 

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran

wrote:

>

> Namaste Raji-ji:

>

> Thanks for your inputs with a valuable suggestion. We do have the

> facility to conduct a poll to get members' feedback. The list has

> conducted several polls in the previous years and the

participation

> from the silent members were almost none.

>

> With my warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

> advaitin , " rajalakshmi13 "

<rajalakshmi.iyer@>

> wrote:

> >

> > , may I suggest a different

> > approach of creating an online poll to collect the viewpoint of

all

> > members on whether the discussion should continue or not ? That

> > way , we all move together and are not " led " and own the

collective

> > responsibility without burdening you with the karma of taking

> > decisions ?

> >

> > Regards

> >

> > -raji

> >

>

[Guest guest]

(One thing I noticed is that both " schools " have limited information

about what these two modern Jnanis taught and said. And usually is used

to solidify one's point of view.)

praNAms Sri Mouna prabhuji

Hare Krishna

I completely agree with you & I must confess here that I have not read complete works of Sri RamaNa Maharshi (except mahA yOga by LakshmaNa sharma and a Kannada book about RamaNa maharshi & his dialogues with visitors ) nor that of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj ( infact I came to know about Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj only after joining this discussion group..He is not so popular figure here in South India)..

Since you have quoted bhagavan's words that jnAni's vyavahAra is only in the view of 'onlookers' I've taken it as 'a' reference (not the ONLY reference) coz. I thought what he is saying is goes with what shankara says about jnAni's shareera in sUtra bhAshya...But from your above observations, it seems that they were telling entirely different things about jnAni's localized shareera, its vyavahAra, RC-s, OC etc. on some other occasions..Would it be possible for you to give us those references also prabhuji...Since you are well versed in these works..I am requesting you to do the needful.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Rajkumar Nair prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes prabhuji you hit the nail on the head of theory of buddhi upAdhi saMbandha after the realization...You are absolutely right, one can renounce anything & everything but does not want to give up his jnAna ahaM.This is one of the most vicious form of entanglement in saMsAra..To throw this buddhi upAdhi saMbandha he has to gain that jnAna that which removes his association with this buddhi upAdhi...Shankara says this beautifully in sUtra bhAshya 2-3-30 :

 

yAvadayamAtmA saMsAree bhavati, yAvadasya samyagdarshanena saMsAritvaM na nivartate, tAvadasya buddhyAsaMyOgO na shAmyati..yAvadeva cha buddhyAdisambandhastAvajjivasya jeevatvaM saMsAritvaM cha...paramArthastu na jeevO nAma buddhi upAdhi sambandha parikalpita svarUpavyaterekena asti.......shankara continues and says : api cha mithyAjnAna puraHsarOyamAtmanaH buddhyupAdi sambandhaH..na cha mithyAjnAnasya samyag jnAnAdanyatra nivruttirasteetyataH yAvad brahmAtmatAnavabOdhastAvadayaM buddhyupAdi sambaNdhaH na shyAmati..

 

Here above, the bhAshya categorically says the association with the Buddhi (intellect as limited adjunct) survives so long as the jeeva's state of saMsAra is not brought to an end by means of shAstrOkta paramArtha jnAna (absolute knowledge). As long as the jeeva's connection with the buddhi, its limiting adjunct lasts & continues to dominate in jeeva's saMsAritva, so long the individual soul remains individual soul, involved in transmigratory existence. There is no Jiva or individual soul without identification with intellect. However, the connection of the jeeva with the intellect will cease only by right knowledge..Because jeeva is no more jeeva once he gets rid of upAdhi saMbandha. Is there any proof required to say post realization period is akhandaM & advitiyaM & devoid of any connections to limited adjuncts?? Anyway, these have been said N' number of times here in this list ofcourse, at the risk of repetition :-))

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Nair ji,

 

Namaskarams. I thought I will not prolong this further but again you

are misinterpreting BG so let me clarify at least for the sake of

others.

 

> [MN: The negation is meaningful because of the perception of

duality

>by Arjuna (not by jnAni).

 

Jai: The verses quoted clearly say the even while 'seeing' etc. the

jnAni doesn't consider himself/herself to be a doer. It is definitely

meaningful to Arjuna because he also sees duality. But the point here

is the jnAni also is seeing duality and because of that only the he

can even negate it. If the jnAni doesn't see anything how can a

jnAni/Krishna negate anything?

 

Kindly read Neelakantanji's anecdote today

> and my answer to it.

 

Jai: I read that and you seem to imply as though we are all saying

that jnAni is a karta/bhokta. I have told many times that no advaitin

can ever claim that jnani is a karta/bhokta. The main discussion is

about perception/negation of duality and not about the reality of it,

as we all agree that duality is mithyA.

 

 

> Again, I am sorry you take this 'not perceiving

> duality' as a sort of going blind. There is a tone of derision in

> your insistence to understand it wrongly.

 

Jai: I don't know about the tone but against all evidence if you keep

on insisting that jnAni doesn't see anything but still is 'not blind'

I don't know what to say. Even for the Sringeri Acharya to say that

his body/Mind is anAtma and is the doer, he has to see it. So your

acceptance of his statement is nothing special, as all of us anyway

accept that jnAni is akarta and only BMI is karta. The question is did

the Acharya see the BMI or not?

 

You do so because you are

> so very much bound to your intellect that you think that its

dictates

> are the last word. Yesterday, Rajkumar-ji wrote about this

handicap.]

 

Jai: I am better off being with a discerning intellect than being

without one. Even to transcend the intellect one needs an intellect

seasoned by SAstra and sAdhana. I see nothing wrong in depending on

the intellect as sruti herself says 'manasa eva anudrstavyam'. I think

we are not going to go any where with this 'Intellect bashing'.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> praNAms

>

>

> Hare Krishna

> bhaskar :

> when shankara expressly says jnAni looks like dEhi(shareeri) but he

is ashareeri always..and shruti also saying same thing 'It looks like

he is meditating, as it were; he seems to move, as it were' etc...

>

>

> again I reiterate that jnAni & dvaita vyavahAra from jnAni is self

contradictory propositions..jnAni is not dehi to do avidyAtmaka

vyavahAra..

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

>

> bhaskar

>

Hari Om Shri Bhaskarji, Pranaams!

 

I am sure you mean by words dehI-a dehAbhimAnI, sharIrI-

sharIrAbhimAni. i.e. aham dehaH iti yaH abhimanyate saH. The one

who thinks he is the body.

 

please confirm.

 

If you use words just dehI, sharIrI it means Self/Atman. BG 2.13,

2.18, 2.30... dehaH asya asti iti - one who possesses a body

dehavAn iti arthaH Possesser of the body - the Self/Atman.

 

If you can give a thought to this, no need to mention a jnAni as

asharIrI, adehI and all. Then I hope differences will not be there.

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

Dear Pranipata Chaitanya ji

 

I think you have understood the crux of the matter. jnAni, dehi etc

are possessors of jnAna, deha etc without identifying oneself as

jnAni/dehi etc. If we deny jnAni's possession of deha due to

prarabdha, then there cannot be any Guru, teaching or Moksha. Shankara

explicitly talks about this in Geeta Bhasya and Brahmasutra Bhasya but

those who are blinded by their own thinking cannot see it.

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar

>

> advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr@> wrote:

> >

> > praNAms

> >

> >

> > Hare Krishna

> > bhaskar :

> > when shankara expressly says jnAni looks like dEhi(shareeri) but

he

> is ashareeri always..and shruti also saying same thing 'It looks

like

> he is meditating, as it were; he seems to move, as it were' etc...

> >

> >

> > again I reiterate that jnAni & dvaita vyavahAra from jnAni is self

> contradictory propositions..jnAni is not dehi to do avidyAtmaka

> vyavahAra..

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

> >

> > bhaskar

> >

> Hari Om Shri Bhaskarji, Pranaams!

>

> I am sure you mean by words dehI-a dehAbhimAnI, sharIrI-

> sharIrAbhimAni. i.e. aham dehaH iti yaH abhimanyate saH. The one

> who thinks he is the body.

>

> please confirm.

>

> If you use words just dehI, sharIrI it means Self/Atman. BG 2.13,

> 2.18, 2.30... dehaH asya asti iti - one who possesses a body

> dehavAn iti arthaH Possesser of the body - the Self/Atman.

>

> If you can give a thought to this, no need to mention a jnAni as

> asharIrI, adehI and all. Then I hope differences will not be there.

>

> In Shri Guru Smriti,

> Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

>

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Shri Bhaskarji, Pranaams!

 

I am sure you mean by words dehI-a dehAbhimAnI, sharIrI-

sharIrAbhimAni. i.e. aham dehaH iti yaH abhimanyate saH. The one

who thinks he is the body.

 

please confirm.

praNAms Sri pranipat chaitanya prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Yes, shareeri/dehi here means he who thinks that he has the shareera and who thinks that buddhyOpadhi pertains to him...Whereas jnAni, after samyak jnAna realizes that he is not ONLY in shareera (na tu shareere eva bhavati) to claim its ownership... he is everywhere, all pervading he is bigger than the earth, he is bigger than the ether..he is like ether all pervading one (AkAshavat sarvagatascha nityaH), there cannot be localized, restricted, limited adjuncts for him to say it is mine, he cannot have the delusions such as he is mere reflected consciousness...Yes, as you have rightly mentioned if we take jnAni = Atman there is no need to emphasize the fact that he is ashareeri...But here in this discussion you might have seen something contradictory to this stand...Hence all these gymnastics :-))

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> praNAms

>

>

> Hare Krishna

> bhaskar :

> when shankara expressly says jnAni looks like dEhi(shareeri) but he

is ashareeri always..and shruti also saying same thing 'It looks like

he is meditating, as it were; he seems to move, as it were' etc...

>

>

> again I reiterate that jnAni & dvaita vyavahAra from jnAni is self

contradictory propositions..jnAni is not dehi to do avidyAtmaka

vyavahAra..

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

>

> bhaskar

>

Hari Om Shri Bhaskarji, Pranaams!

 

I am sure you mean by words dehI-a dehAbhimAnI, sharIrI-

sharIrAbhimAni. i.e. aham dehaH iti yaH abhimanyate saH. The one

who thinks he is the body.

 

please confirm.

 

If you use words just dehI, sharIrI it means Self/Atman. BG 2.13,

2.18, 2.30... dehaH asya asti iti - one who possesses a body

dehavAn iti arthaH Possesser of the body - the Self/Atman.

 

If you can give a thought to this, no need to mention a jnAni as

asharIrI, adehI and all. Then I hope differences will not be there.

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " jaishankar_n " <jai1971 wrote:

>

> Dear Pranipata Chaitanya ji

>

> jnAni, dehi etc are possessors of jnAna, deha etc without

identifying oneself as jnAni/dehi etc.

> Jaishankar

 

praNAms Sri pranipat chaitanya prabhuji

 

Hare Krishna

 

Yes, shareeri/dehi here means he who thinks that he has the shareera

and who thinks that buddhyOpadhi pertains to him...

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

bhaskar

 

 

Hari Om Shri Bhaskarji, Jaishankarji and all, Pranaams!

 

ekam eva advidIyam brahma yat tat aham asmi shivaH aham shivah aham.

 

That I am which is indivisible one Brahman the Auspicious.

 

Pranaams!

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya