Guest guest Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 PraNams to all Just to keep the record straight. I do not belong to Arshyavidyaa gurukulam. I am a disciple of H.H. Swami Chinmayanandaji. I knew Swami Dayanandaji when he was associated with chinmaya Misson and I used to organize his talks in Washington. I know Swami Paramaarthanandaji also when he was a Brahmachari of Chinmaya mission. I attend his talks at Aastik samaj whenever I am in Chennai and try to have satsangh with him whenever it is possible and had several discussions with him related to vedanta ParibhaaSha and Naiskrmaya Siddhi. I teach here whenever I can on behalf of Chinmaya Mission. ----------- Regarding the Jiivan mukta lakshaNa - Bhasarji is going only along with Shankara's bhaashyaa - that too his understanding of it ignoring not necessarily the aarshyavidyaa schools - but may be all others aachaaryas following Shankara. Shree vidyaaranya has book on Jiivanmukta viveka - unfortunately I do not have one - but would welcome someone who has book to see how the aachaarya described. We also have Vedanta Saara of Sadananda yogindra, and other well known achaaryas of Shankara's tradition - if there is consistency in the teaching besides what Bhaskaraji call us all as Arshyavidyaa School. I would like to ask Bhaskarji - to provide any other acaarya of Shankara's tradition if they endore his views. If nobody else does that other his own garus and param guru - let us know that also. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > PraNams to all > > Just to keep the record straight. I do not belong to Arshyavidyaa gurukulam. > Shree vidyaaranya has book on Jiivanmukta viveka - unfortunately I do not have one - but would welcome someone who has book to see how the aachaarya described. We also have Vedanta Saara of Sadananda yogindra, and other well known achaaryas of Shankara's tradition - if there is consistency in the teaching besides what Bhaskaraji call us all as Arshyavidyaa School. > Hari Om! > Sadananda Dear Sada-ji, I have given a summary of chapters 1 and 2 of Jivanmuktiviveka of Swami Vidyaranya at the following sites:-- www.geocities.com/snsastri/jivanmuktiviveka1.html and www.geocities.com/snsastri/jivanmuktiviveka2.htm The following is the portion describing the Jivanmukta in the summary of chapter !:-- The Jivanmukta is one for whom this phenomenal world, in which he moves and acts, has ceased to exist. In the case of an ordinary person, his mind reacts to the various forms in the world and gives him knowledge of their variety and their differences from one another. But the mind of the Jivanmukta does not get so transformed and so he does not see differences, but sees all forms only as Brahman. In deep sleep the mind does not undergo any transformation, but the seed for transformation remains. So sleep cannot be equated with the state of Jivanmukti. The Jivanmukta remains unaffected by both pleasure and pain. He is not elated by something good happening, nor is he depressed when a calamity occurs. He does not crave for anything, but subsists on whatever comes of its own accord. Though his senses function and can experience everything, his mind is absolutely calm and does not react to anything. Though his eyes see everything before him, his mind does not judge them as good or bad, favourable or unfavourable and so he is free from agitation and attachment or aversion. The senses themselves do not cause any harm. It is the mind which judges what is experienced by the senses and develops likes and dislikes in the case of an ordinary person. Since the mind of the Jivanmukta does not make any such judgment, he is free from all attachment and aversion. Because of the absence of transformation of the mind, the Jivanmukta is free from Vasanas. His mind always remains pure. He never looks upon himself as a doer of actions since he does not identify himself with the body-mind complex which alone performs all actions. Consequently he is neither elated nor depressed by the good or bad results of the actions. Others do not have any reason to fear him, because he never insults or harms others in any way. He is also not afraid of any one. He remains unaffected even if some wicked man insults or harasses him. He does not distinguish people as friend or foe. Though full of learning, he never exhibits it. His mind is absolutely free from worldly thoughts and is always fixed on contemplation of the Self. He remains cool even in matters concerning himself, just as a man attending a marriage or other ceremony in another's house remains unaffected by the gain or loss of that other person. This coolness is due not only to his freedom from worry, but also to his awareness of the fullness of his own Self. These are the characteristics of the Jivanmukta. Regards, S.N.Sastri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > > advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda > <kuntimaddisada@> wrote: > > > > Shree vidyaaranya has book on Jiivanmukta viveka - unfortunately I > do not have one - but would welcome someone who has book to see how > the aachaarya described. We also have Vedanta Saara of Sadananda > yogindra, and other well known achaaryas of Shankara's tradition - > Namaste, Jivanmuktiviveka is in the Files section of this List: http://tinyurl.com/bqa9m6 Vedantasara is at: http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_z_misc_major_works/vedantasara.itx Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Sastriji - PraNAms Also to all others who have provided the references to this work. It is clear from the quote that Shree vidyaranya does not subscsribe to the theory of Bhaskarji and Nairji. It is not paramaarthanandaji or Arshyavidyaa school - it is the teaching from a tradition. The description matches closely Krishna's description of jiivanmukta. Would like to hear from others achaaryas of the tradition - if available as a fresh look at the issue. Hari Om! Sadananda --- On Thu, 2/12/09, snsastri <sn.sastri wrote: The following is the portion describing the Jivanmukta in the summary of chapter !:-- .......... He does not crave for anything, but subsists on whatever comes of its own accord. Though his senses function and can experience everything, his mind is absolutely calm and does not react to anything. Though his eyes see everything before him, his mind does not judge them as good or bad, favourable or unfavourable and so he is free from agitation and attachment or aversion. The senses themselves do not cause any harm. It is the mind which judges what is experienced by the senses and develops likes and dislikes in the case of an ordinary person. Since the mind of the Jivanmukta does not make any such judgment, he is free from all attachment and aversion. Because of the absence of transformation of the mind, the Jivanmukta is free from Vasanas. His mind always remains pure. He never looks upon himself as a doer of actions since he does not identify himself with the body-mind complex which alone performs all actions. Consequently he is neither elated nor depressed by the good or bad results of the actions. Others do not have any reason to fear him, because he never insults or harms others in any way. He is also not afraid of any one. He remains unaffected even if some wicked man insults or harasses him. He does not distinguish people as friend or foe. Though full of learning, he never exhibits it. His mind is absolutely free from worldly thoughts and is always fixed on contemplation of the Self. He remains cool even in matters concerning himself, just as a man attending a marriage or other ceremony in another's house remains unaffected by the gain or loss of that other person. This coolness is due not only to his freedom from worry, but also to his awareness of the fullness of his own Self. These are the characteristics of the Jivanmukta. Regards, S.N.Sastri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > It is clear from the quote that Shree vidyaranya does not subscsribe to the theory of Bhaskarji and Nairji. The description matches closely Krishna's description of jiivanmukta. > > Would like to hear from others achaaryas of the tradition - if available as a fresh look at the issue. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > Hari Om Shri Sadanandaji, Pranaams! First and foremost, I do not think Shri Bhaskarji and Shri Nairji to some different theory which is alien to advaita or Shankara. The jivan-mukti-viveka as a text clearly differentiates the Knower as vidvat-sanyas-adhikAri like Sage Yagnavalkyaji and the rest as sadhaka eligible for vividisha-sanyas-adhikAri. Regarding Knower (vidvat-sanyasi) it quotes only two things. 1. From upadeshasAhasrI 4.5 - yasya jnAnam dehAtmajnAna-bAdhakam, Atmani eva bhavet, saH na ichhan api mucyate. ( The one who's knowledge that 'I am the body' is sublated with the knowledge 'I am the Self', even if he does not want it, he is liberated only. This clearly echoes Lord's words, saH avashaH api shabdabrahma ativartate(6.44) In spite of himself willing, he transcends eligibility for rites and duties. 2. yasya na ahamkrtah bhAvaH ... BG 18.17 (Who does not think of himself as the agent of acctions, whose conscience is clear, even if he kills the whole world. he never kills, nor is bound. With this he closes vidvas sanyAsa - iti vidvatsaMnyAsaH . Rest is all about vividishA-sanyAsa - about seeker. Hence if you can quote the original text, we can decide whether it pertains to Knower(JnAni) or not to fix relevance to topic. In Shri Guru Smriti, Br. Pranipata Chaitanya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 Namaste. That is a real hasty conclusion. The original text of JMV (jIvanmuktiviveka) has long since been available in our files section together with a voluminous thesis in simple English at the link given by Sunderji yesterday. It is a pity that our stalwarts have not even bothered to glance through it. Well, the purpose of this message is to tell you all that you will find both Bhaskarji and Nairji highly tolerable if you read the complete file of JMV. You just need only to glance through the list of contents to realize what Vidyaranya is talking about. He has Patanjali in abundance with chittavrittinirodha, manonAsha and what not, which both schools would find difficult to accommodate (Please count me out. I like Patanjli. Bhaskarji might not if I know him well.). The other thing that might shock School 1, who now happily believe that Vidyaranya is with them, is the ultimate renunciation of the 'knower of knowledge'. That requires one to throw the intellect into the dustbin lock, stock and barrel. Please therefore don't pass comments without reading the entire work. Best regards to all and happy reading JMV. Madathil Nair ________________ advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > Sastriji - PraNAms > > Also to all others who have provided the references to this work. > > It is clear from the quote that Shree vidyaranya does not subscsribe to the theory of Bhaskarji and Nairji. It is not paramaarthanandaji or Arshyavidyaa school - it is the teaching from a tradition. > > The description matches closely Krishna's description of jiivanmukta. > > Would like to hear from others achaaryas of the tradition - if available as a fresh look at the issue. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 It is clear from the quote that Shree vidyaranya does not subscsribe to the theory of Bhaskarji and Nairji. It is not paramaarthanandaji or Arshyavidyaa school - it is the teaching from a tradition. Would like to hear from others achaaryas of the tradition - if available as a fresh look at the issue. praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji Hare Krishna IMO, this is absolutely ridiculous way of looking at the current scenario!! I am really sorry to say this is not the fair & fool proof way to ascertain the validity of these discussions...Prabhuji, I've request you to give your 'correct' interpretation of bhAshya vAkya-s of mine which you have safely swept away with one comfortable remark 'misinterpretation'...Kindly do that first and let the members know your correct way of interpretation & contextual relevance to Sri Srinivas Kotekal prabhuji-s objection...Instead of that you are again adopted a new means & trying to drag out me and Sri Nair prabhuji as hecklers!! This is quite unacceptable & not fair practice in this open forum prabhuji. You may kindly be noted that I am here to learn shankara's advaita, if at all anything new you found that goes contrary to my understanding in shankara bhAshya, kindly bring it on we will discuss it together & I'll learn the correct way of interpretation of bhAshya vAkya-s from your goodself...There is no need for your goodself to drag me & Nair prabhuji out of this saMpradAya circle & find some consolations to your stand from other texts & prakaraNa grantha-s written by later vedAntins ...From this effort of yours, I am afraid, one may get the impression that ' Sri Sadananda prabhuji's stand on RC-s, OC, localized set of indriya-s of jnAni etc. donot have the support in shankara bhAshya, hence he is looking for the support from other prakaraNa grantha-s'!!!...As a matter of fact, sofar, I've have hardly any quotes from your goodself in support of your theories like RC in a jnAni, his localized set of private organs etc. etc. anyway, I am awaiting for that :-)) By the way, I know, you are not part with the theories such as : 'the experience of *nirvikalpa samAdhi* is a must for the advaitik non-dual realization' & the traces of avidyA (avidyA lesha) remains in the jnAni even after realization which makes him to do vyavahAra etc. ...But the authors of viveka chudAmaNi and bhAmati prasthAna, propagate this theory & expresses their opinion that without NS experience there is no possibility of advaita darshana..The paNchapAdika & vivaraNa school authors categoricallly says jnAni has avidyA lesha. can we throw out all these authors out of window since they go against our understanding of advaita ?? And again, aparOkshAnubhuti, a prakaraNa text, which is in the name of shankara bhagavadpAda himself, talks sarcastically about jnAni's prArabhdha karma & refute this theory as baseless and gives new dimensions to praNAYAMa (rechaka, pUraka & kumbhaka) etc. can we label the author of this as asampradAya vAdi since he is not part with our prabhuji-s pet theory *jnAni's prArabdha karma* ?? :-)) Kindly pardon me, my intention is not to question the understanding of advaita vedanta of esteemed prabhuji-s of this group... Since you are time & again singling out me & Sri Nair prabhuji in this open list, I am forced to write this and eager to know how far these esteemed prabhujis' understanding goes with shankara's works..that's it prabhuji. Because, as you know, I firmly believe, shankara's available, undisputed works are self sufficient to teach us the pholosophy of advaita vedanta & I know, I dont have to go helter-skelter in search of support apart from shanakra bhAshya to claim my understanding :-))...To say least, if we try to bring-in the support of later advaitins & their works to stay alive in the discussion, it is the sign of our own weakness in ours own conviction & shows how poor we are in the knowledge of works of our mUlAchArya... Kindly pardon me if it hurts anybody's feelings..This is not intended to any prabhuji in particular in this group...this is only my general observation after seeing the latest developments!! there is nothing personal about it ... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 The jivan-mukti-viveka as a text clearly differentiates the Knower as vidvat-sanyas-adhikAri like Sage Yagnavalkyaji and the rest as sadhaka eligible for vividisha-sanyas-adhikAri. praNAms Hare Krishna The texts like JMV would also make different gradations in jnAni-s & their respective jnAna & according to it, sage yagnAvalkya is not an absolute brahma jnAni..I have a long winding discussion about this text in advaita-L list couple of years back...Anyway, let us not bring all those issues once again here..We will see how far these prakaraNa texts would going to help our Sri Sadananda prabhuji's stand and also let us see how it can bother the detractors :-)) Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 The other thing that might shock School 1, who now happily believe that Vidyaranya is with them, is the ultimate renunciation of the 'knower of knowledge'. That requires one to throw the intellect into the dustbin lock, stock and barrel. praNAms Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji Hare Krishna That is really a good point to ponder by the theorists who hold the *individuality* (like *knower* of brahman) of the jnAni...If they strictly go by this they have to accept the verdicts of shankara bhagavadpAda in sUtra bhAshya 2-3-30, which I've quoted yesterday...buddhi upAdhi is the final obstacle in the path of final realization, if one disassociates this upAdhi then he will attain amrutattva says shankara here...I read somewhere that 'jnAna ahaM' is the hardest nut to crack...But, alas, still we are thinking jnAni is the beholder of the jnAna in a compartment of flesh & bone with the aid of reflected chaitanya etc. & he thinks that he is jnAni & he sees ajnAna in the rest of the world & giving Atma bOdha to these ajnAni-s :-))...That is the beauty of avidyA which is endlessly projecting these diversities :-)) Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 PraNams - this response covers many posts: --- On Fri, 2/13/09, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: IMO, this is absolutely ridiculous way of looking at the current scenario!! I am really sorry to say this is not the fair & fool proof way to ascertain the validity of these discussions. ..Prabhuji, I've request you to give your 'correct' interpretation of bhAshya vAkya-s of mine which you have safely swept away with one comfortable remark 'misinterpretation' ... Bhaskarji - PraNAms First: Not sure about the absolutely ridiculous part of the post. It echoes the Krishna's teaching. Why is not the correct way? Bhaskarji –Also please read my post again for the essence of the quote - and tiger example you gave. I did provide the explanation of the dream example you gave. I did provide the explanation of the Mirage water example you gave. I feel you are reading my posts but responding quickly to make your points again. PraNipatachaitanyaji - as the statement provided about jiivanmukta state - it seems to refer to the state of realization not gradations of the realized. Not sure I agree with your stand or disagree with yours – I am happy with the summary content provided by Sastriji. Looks like You seem to understand Bhaskar and Nairji's position more – Not sure if your understanding of their position matches their position. I am not sure where Nairji comes from - But I have a feeling where Bhaskarji comes from - and why he insists in only Shankara Bhaashyas and not the rest of the aachaaryas in line - That comes from his guru paramapara. I am not an authority on that but I do Shankara and the others aachaaryas on line in the advaita tradition. There is fundamental difference in the position and that comes from muula avidya aspect - Bhaava vs abhaava ruupa avidya and difference of avidya and maaya. Pranipaatachaitanyaji - I do not have original text and I am happy with Sastriji summary statement that echoes Krishna's sthitaprajna lakshana. Nariji - The rest of the contents of the jiivanmukta vivika do not negate the description of the summary on the jiivanmukta provided unless you can prove that is not what it says - Your content outline of the text does not negate that what was said is worng. He might have several other aspects does not mean the jiivanmukta part has no relevance. You may not accept it - that is different - but the description matches B.G. jiivanmukta lakshaNa - I do not think you can deny that. ------ Bhaskar: Kindly do that first and let the members know your correct way of interpretation & contextual relevance to Sri Srinivas Kotekal prabhuji-s objection... KS - Read my post in response to Sri Srinivas how correct explanation of the objection - This objection came from post Shankara and response also came from post Shankara acaaryas. I tried to explain to my satisfaction. Without getting into dvaitic arguments. --------- Bhaskar: Instead of that you are again adopted a new means & trying to drag out me and Sri Nair prabhuji as hecklers!! This is quite unacceptable & not fair practice in this open forum prabhuji. KS: I have not adopted anything. You are saying I am interpreting differently from advaitic tradition. I am dismissing those arguments. That is incorrect – I have to prove the position that we are taking is true advaitic doctrin. Only way to do is to show to all that is what the tradition of adatitc master follow. Your interpretation of Bhaashyas are yours and you are not ready accept ours. Why bother? Other aachaaryas of the tradition have studied the baashyas just as you did and I am providing their view of jiivanmukta as they understand based on their works. You may disagree with them – that is your prerogative. BUT DO NOT CLAIM THAT YOURS IS AUTHENTIC ADVAITA AND OURS IS NOT – IF THAT IS WHAT YOUR POSITION IS. That I may not understand Bhaashyas the way your do, but I want to make sure the explanation that I or Sastriji or Jai Shankaraji have provided is not ours but from the advaita tradition involving guru parampara. I DO NOT SEE ANY REDICULOUS PART IN IT. And as regard to heckling part - Please read my post again and your statement again side by side and tell me what is acceptable and what is not. I never used Heckler word to any one nor the words like 'I am sick and tired of this' etc. and decided again what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. Now to general seekers: ----------------- PraNams to all: Now for the benefit of the readers I am providing another aachaarya of the tradition - taken from Vedanta saara of Sadananda yogindra. One of the famous books in the advaita tradition. Nairji - you can discuss the contents of this text, but the statement comes from the text directly. This notes come from Advaita Ashrama text by Swami Nikhilanandaji. After discussing adhyaasa aspects and steps for self realization- the 6th ch. talks about Jiivan mukta. - The characteristics of the jiivanmukta. Starts with 216. atha jiivanmuktalakshaNamuchyate - Now being described the characteristics of a man who is liberated in this very life. I will give only the English translation of Nikhilanandaji since my typing of Sanskrit is even worse. 217. A man liberated-in-life is one by the knowledge of the absolute Brahman, his own self, has dispelled the ignorance regarding it and has realized it, and who owing to the destruction of ignorance and its effects such as accumulated past actions, doubts, errors etc is free from all bondage and is established in Brahman. 218 - Here the shruti statement from Mudaka is quoted. 'Bhidyate hRidaya grandhiH ..' etc Witness such shruti passages as 'the knot of his heart is broken asunder, all his doubts are solved. and his past action are neutralized when he who is high and low (cause and effect) has been realized' Mund Up. 2-2-8) 219: Such a liberated man, while he is not in Samaadhi, sees actions not opposed to knowledge taking place under momentum of past impressions (praarabda)- actions that have already begun to bear fruit, which he experiences through the physical body composed of flesh, blood, and other things; through the sense-organs affected by blindness, weakness, incapacity, etc and through his mind subject to hunger, thirst, grief, delusion, etc - yet he does not consider them as REAL, for he has already known their nothingness. As a man who is conscious that a magical performance is given, even though he sees, it does not consider it as real. (Is it not what we are presenting- my comment) 220 - A shruti statement is quoted in support of the above. Witness such shruti passages as: though he has eyes he is as one without eyes: though he possessed of ears, he is he one without ears " , etc. 221 And next - Here he quotes Sankara's Upadesha - sahasri - 5 It has further been said " He who does not see anything in the waking state as in sound sleep who though seeing duality does not really see it as he sees only the absolute; who though engaged in work is really inactive, he, and none other is really inactive (akartaa while karma is going on) and none other is knower of the self. This is the truth. " end of quote from Upadesha sahasrii -5) 222. In the case of such liberated soul, only good desires persists, as do his habits of eating, moving, etc which existed before the dawn of knowledge. Or he may become indifferent to all good or evil. (reminded of yogaratova bhogaratova .. sloka of Shankara) 223 - some more quotes follow- this time from Sureshwara. Thus it has been said " If a man who has known the truth of oneness acts according to his whims, then where is the difference between a knower of the truth and a dog as regards eating impure stuff. (thus justifying what he does is always loka kalyaanam_ Naishkrmya siddhi 4-62) Further " one who has given up the conceit that he has realized Brahman, is alone the knower of the self and none else (Upadesa-Sahasri 115) Statement of Nikhilananda follows: Men of realization are not whimsical but spontaneously do only what is good. As Sri Ramakrishna said " An expert dancer never makes a false step " . Back to Vedanta saara: 224. After realization, humility and other attributes which are steps to attainment of knowledge, as also such virtues as non-injury etc persists like so many ornaments. (These precious qualities attend men of realization as a matter of course - -Nikhilananda) 225 - Another quote to justify Vedanta saara's stand: Thus it has been said " Such qualities as non-violence etc come spontaneously to a man who has got self-knowledge. They have not to be sought after - Naishkarmya siddhi 4-69 End of this chapter. ------------ KS The point I am making -:In tune with the chanting: '..Shankarm shankaraachaaryam madhyam, asmad achaarya paryantam vade guruparamaparam " - From Lord Shankara to in between Shankaraachaarya and all the way to my own teacher - to the chain of teachers - I prostrate. Bhaskarji - If you feel that this is interpretation from Arshya vidyaa school or Chinmaya school or other schools not listed - I want to establish in clear terms: THIS IS THE ADIVATIC POSTION AS HANDED DOWN BY SHANKARA AND HIS SUBSEQUENT ACCRYAAS - YOU CANNOT DENY OR DISMISS THAT. Of course you can say they did not shankara bhaashyaas – but that is your prerogative. But do not claim yours is authentic and not the other view. NEXT PLEASE NOTE Consciously I do not call any body with any names - if you feel that way my sincere apologies to you and to Nariji –I tried to keep my Emphasis is always on the issues - if I have deviated from it my apologies and that is never my intension. I am only interested in the correct advaitic position. That is the purpose of this discussion. I have reverence to all achaaryas and all achaaryas echo the understanding that has been presented by Shree Sastriji, Shree jaishankarji and whatever I presented from based on my understanding. Hence My respects to them. You are referring to B.Su. bhaashya - even if I provide you will again give your interpretation - As just now you are responding to Michaelji. You will insists on yours with some more bhaashya statements in support which we have again correctly interpret. But you know I have studied Bhaashya under Paramaarthaji – hence it obviously deviates yours interpretation as you have already rejected that view as Arshyavidyaa school’s view. Hence I am providing other aachaaryas position not ours. Bhaskar –Let us face it - the fundamental problem lies in the muula avidya and maayaa and adyhaasa aspect - is it not where your parama guru differs from other post Shankara tradition? Let us pose a question - does ignorance create the world or maaya creates the world and are maaya and avidyaa are exactly identical - Does world can be seen as vibuuti without ignorance - or if ignorance goes away – what exactly goes away – world or ignorance of the world - All the interpretations differ because of the stand one takes - is it Not. This is the Fundamental issue that differs who your interpretation differs from rest of the Shankarachaaryas of advaitic tradition - is this not so? I am trying to zero-in the problem. I am not sure if Pranipaatachiatanyaji appreciates the fundamental differences that causes the difference in our understanding. Bhaskar: You may kindly be noted that I am here to learn shankara's advaita, KS - But the way you want to lear, as I see, is the way your pramaguru has explained. I have no problem But the problem comes if one says that is the correct way and other aacharays of the tradition are not correct. We are interested not just shankara Bhaashyas alone - interested in Gita and which clearly states the sthitaprajna lakshaNa directly in tune with Shankara and post shankaras descriptions as we have provided. Hari Om! Sadananda ---------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 Namaste Bhaskarji: Honestly speaking, there is no way for us to validate our own understanding and interpretation of the works of Sankara, Vidyaranya, Guruji Swami Sachchidananda or the scriptures. Hence we have different understanding of what is being stated in the scriptures. Given this fact, there is no easy way of coming to any meaningful resolutions with intellectual discussions by repeatedly quoting with our own interpretations. I want your honest opinion regarding your background, scholarship and training in comparison to the scholarship of Swami Paramarthanandaji's background, scholarship and training. Please do not rush to send your reply, take some to contemplate, check with other scholarly friends of yours. I know that you have been posting messages in advaita-L list and you greatly respect the scholarship of Sri Vidyasankar Sunderason. You also know that he maintains the homepage on advaita philosophy which has got awards from Encylopedia Brittanica. The homepage contains a FAQ on Advaita Vedanta Philsophy. Here is the link for members who want to access it: http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html Fortunately for the FAQ contains the following answer to the question: Question: What is the significance of jIvanmukti? Answer: advaita holds that realization of brahman is possible on this earth itself. The highly evolved seeker, who approaches vedAntic study with a pure mind, and a strong tendency of mumukshutva, is fit to really experience brahman. One who has actually realized brahman, is a jIvanmukta - he is liberated while still living. He continues to live in a material body, because of the momentum of the prArabha karma that has already started taking fruit. But he accumulates no further karma, because all Agamin karma and sancita karma are " burnt " in the knowledge of brahmajnAna. The body eventually dies, and the jIvanmukta is said to have attained videhamukti. In accordance with the Sruti, " na sa punarAvartate, " he does not enter into the cycle of rebirths any more. From your postings, I get the impression that you are 100% certain that your understanding is the correct one. Honestly speaking, I have no means to either accept it or reject it nor you have any means to prove that you are correct. If you agree, that I will be more than happy to request Sri Vidyasankar Sunderasan to provide his feedback. Please let me know what you decide. With my warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > > Hare Krishna > > > IMO, this is absolutely ridiculous way of looking at the current scenario!! > I am really sorry to say this is not the fair & fool proof way to ascertain > the validity of these discussions...Prabhuji, I've request you to give your > 'correct' interpretation of bhAshya vAkya-s of mine which you have safely > swept away with one comfortable remark 'misinterpretation'...Kindly do that > first and let the members know your correct way of interpretation & > contextual relevance to Sri Srinivas Kotekal prabhuji-s objection...Instead > of that you are again adopted a new means & trying to drag out me and Sri > Nair prabhuji as hecklers!! This is quite unacceptable & not fair > practice in this open forum prabhuji. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote, quoting from another source: > > One who has actually realized brahman, > is a jIvanmukta - he is liberated while still living. He continues to > live in a material body, because of the momentum of the prArabha > karma that has already started taking fruit. But he accumulates no > further karma, because all Agamin karma and sancita karma are " burnt " > in the knowledge of brahmajnAna. The body eventually dies, and the > jIvanmukta is said to have attained videhamukti. In accordance with > the Sruti, " na sa punarAvartate, " he does not enter into the cycle of > rebirths any more. Dear RamJi, I have a question. According to your understanding, could you explain in simple terms, within this paragraph, what the words " one (who has) " and " he " stand for? A concept?, a conscious principle? a person? a psychology? a body? All of the above? None of the above? Thanks in advance, Yours in Bhagavan, Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > IMO, this is absolutely ridiculous way of looking at the current > scenario!! I am really sorry to say this is not the fair & fool > proof way to ascertain the validity of these discussions... [snip] > Kindly pardon me if it hurts anybody's feelings..This is not > intended to any prabhuji in particular in this group...this is > only my general observation after seeing the latest > developments!! there is nothing personal about it ... Hari OM! Please let us pause for a moment! It isn't who/what is right, but who likes to read (let alone write) this in front of our chosen altar facing Lord/Guru we adore? Why should we write some thing and even " send " it, that pricks our own conscience to beg for pardon merely few paragraphs later? No discussion seems worth it, if it makes us even doubt it might hurt any, including us. For that we need restraint. Lot of it looks like. ---------------------------- Hari OM! -Srinivas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 Namaste Mounaji: Generally speaking, eveything that we perceive is a notion or a concept which includes the body, mind, intellect, personality, person, psychology and eveything that arises in our thoughts! According to Vedanta, when all the notions get ruled out using neti-neti, what is left is the pure Brahman - the ultimate truth or the absolute realities. Removing the notions is not easy and Vedanta (also Gita) suggests Yoga as the means to reach the end. When Arjuna asked a simple question and Bhagwan Sri Krishna tries with a simple answer and ended up with the entire 18 chapters of Gita to clear his doubts. Actually, Arjuna's doubts didn't get cleared by Gita and Bhagwan Sri Krishna has to give him another dose of UttraGita. The reason that I am stating this is to make the point that are no simple answer to any questions and there can be no simple resolutions. This is the reason for establishing a tradition (Sankara and the sages and saints of the Upanishads of the authors for creating those traditions) and live by that tradition. With my warmest regards, Ram Chandran Note: My quota for postings is over for today and if there are errors in my observations, please forgive me. The entire Vedanta is a notion which hopefully will help us to remove all notions including the notion of Vedanta! advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote: > > According to your understanding, could you explain in simple terms, > within this paragraph, what the words " one (who has) " and " he " stand > for? > A concept?, a conscious principle? a person? a psychology? a body? > All of the above? None of the above? > > Thanks in advance, > > Yours in Bhagavan, > Mouna > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote: > When Arjuna asked a simple question and Bhagwan Sri Krishna tries with a simple answer and ended up with the entire 18 chapters of Gita to clear his doubts. and > The entire Vedanta is a notion which hopefully will help us to remove all notions including the notion of Vedanta! Dear RamJi, Thank you for this simple answer that actually answers fully my question. My Pranamas, Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 Regarding the o-n-g-o-i-n-g discussion, I am personally happy to let it go on. As I pointed out recently to Shri Sadananda, it must eventually die down when those discussing it run out of new points and tire of repeating themselves or refuting the opposition. Or simply tire of reading the vast amounts that are being written. Although interested in the topic, I am increasingly finding myself in this latter category. However, Bhaskar-ji makes the valid point that he is quoting lots of references from Shankara whilst the opposition seem not to be. Accordingly, in the hope that the balance might be redressed slightly, here are a few: Br. U. I iv 10 – You said, the first consciousness does not remove ignorance, because we see that a consciousness of an opposite nature to knowledge together with its effects persists. This is wrong, for the residue of prArabdha work is the cause of the *persistence of the body after knowledge.* In other words, that resultant of past work which led to the formation of the present body (prArabdha),…; hence *until the body falls*…for the past work that made this body has already begun to bear fruit and must run its course like an arrow that has been shot. *Therefore knowledge cannot stop that, for they are nor contradictory.* Br. U. III v 1 – Therefore the knower of the Self should embrace that vow of the highest order of monks which is characterized by the renunciation of desires and the abandonment of all work together with its means… the knower of brahman, having known all about scholarship or this knowledge of the Self from the teacher and shrutis – having fully mastered it – should renounce desires… after renouncing desires, should try to live upon that strength which comes of knowledge… When he does this, *his organs have no more power to drag him down to the objects of desire.* pa~nchikaraNa vArttikam 56 – 59 – A wise one attains the acme of life having nothing more to be achieved, and thus becomes eternally free *although still living*… Sometimes *even when he perceives duality in the ordinary course of life*, he does not really perceive it as different from the ever-conscious Atman… Moreover, a man of perfection *perceives the world of duality*, even as one may see two moons as unreal… *The illusion of his body lingers up to the liquidation of his prArabdha*…. The Upanishad says (Ch. U. VI xiv 2): “As long as the prArabdha lasts” etc. *The persistence of the prArabdha in the case of the liberated one sustains only the appearance of the body etc., with no deluding potency.* sarva vedAnta siddhAnta sArasaMgraha 967 - 978 – Although the jIvanmukta is apparently engaged in the various activities of life as usual he is not affected by them… That *person in whose mind*… That *person* whose nature is as all-pervading as brahman, and *even though he is engaged in the various activities of life* remains free of all attachment as though they were the affairs of other people, is indeed liberated in life. Please note that I do not wish to engage in discussions on these quotes. I am simply providing them so that those who wish to continue the discussion are aware that there are quotations promoting the views that I have previously expressed. Best wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: > > > > Regarding the o-n-g-o-i-n-g discussion, I am personally happy to let it go > on. As I pointed out recently to Shri Sadananda, it must eventually die down > when those discussing it run out of new points and tire of repeating > themselves or refuting the opposition. Or simply tire of reading the vast > amounts that are being written. Although interested in the topic, I am > increasingly finding myself in this latter category. > > However, Bhaskar-ji makes the valid point that he is quoting lots of > references from Shankara whilst the opposition seem not to be. Accordingly, > in the hope that the balance might be redressed slightly, here are a few: > > Namaste! I thought there had been plenty of quotations from both sides :-) Prof. Krishnamurthy-ji had kindly provided a link to an article on his web pages which I found very instructive. I have been reading the many Gita verses referred to in this article along with shri Sankaracharya's commentary. In particular, I would mention verses 18-24 of Ch. 4 and 8-9, 13 of Ch. 5. I will quote just one portion from the bhashya for 5.13(the translation of the commentary by Sw. Gambhirananda is available on this page: http://www.sankaracharya.org/gita_bhashya.php). I felt this was particularly relevant in the context. " The embodied one, however, who is unenlightened, who perceives merely the aggregate of the body and organs as the Self, he, in his totality, thinks, 'I am in a house, on the ground, or on the seat.' For one who experiences the body alone as the Self, there can certainly be no such conviction as, 'I am in the body, like one's being in a house.' But, for one who realizes the Self as distinct from the aggregate of body etc. it becomes reasonable to have the conviction, 'I am in the body'. It is reasonable that as a result of knowledge in the form of discriminating wisdom, there can be a mental renunciation of the actions of others, which have been ignorantly superimposed on the supreme Self. Even in the case of one in whom has arisen discriminating wisdom and who has renounced all actions, there can be, like staying in a house, the continuance in the body itself-the town with nine gates-as a consequence of the persistence of the remnants of the results of past actions which have started bearing fruit, because the awareness of being distinct (from the body) arises while one is in the body itself. Form the point of view 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. " Harih Om! Neelakantan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > Hari Om Shri Sadanandaji, Pranaams! > PraNipatachaitanyaji - as the statement provided about jiivanmukta state - it seems to refer to the state of realization > Pranipaatachaitanyaji - I do not have original text and I am happy with Sastriji summary statement that echoes Krishna's sthitaprajna lakshana. Text: nanu atra munitvena phalena pralobhya vividiShA-samnyAsaM vidhAya vAkyasheShe saH eva prapancitaH, ataH na samnAsa-antaram kalpanIyam. Objection: The sagehood as the end is putforth as an inducement to the renunciation of the seeker, which after prescribing, has been enlarged in the remaining text, so, no other kind of samnyAsa should be imagined. mA evam. vedanasya eva vividiShA-samnAsaphalatvAt. na ca vedana- munitvahyoH ekatvam shaknIyam, viditvA munirbhavati iti pUrvottarakAlInahyoH tayoH sAdhya-sAdhana-bhAva-pratIteH. Reply: No, this cannot be since knowledge alone is the end of vividisA samnyasa. Nor can knowledge and sagehood be supposed to be identical, since in knowing it one becomes a sage (Br. 4.4.22), knowing precedes sagehood and they have, as it appears, the relation of cause and effect. -------- Swami Vidyaranjaji has stated as it appears a cause and effect exist between sagehood and knowledge. (As an explanation for starting the treatise it is perfect but Lord's definition of sage-muni as per BG 2.56 - duHkheshu anudvigna-manAH .. sthitadhIH muniH ucyate. That man is called a man of steady wisdom when his mind is unperturbed in sorrow... Text: nanu evam sati vividiShA-samnAsa-phalena tattvajnAnena eva AgAmijanmanaH vAritatvAd, vartamAnajanmasheShasya bhogamantarena vinAshayitum ashakyatvAt kim anena vidvat samnAsa-prayAsena iti cet. Objection: Well, if such is the state of affairs, there is no point in taking so much trouble for the renunciation of the knower - vidvatsamnyAsa. Since the seeker's renunciation - vividisha samnyasa itself leads to realization of the ultimate reality which, in its turn prevents future birth, and the remaining portion of the existing life has to be lived through because there is no other way to get rid of it, mA evam. vidvat-samnAsasya jIvanmukti hetutvAt. tasmAd vedanAya yathA vividiShA-samnAsaH evam jIvanmuktaye vidvat-samnyAsaH sampAdanIyaH. Reply: No. That cannot be; since the end of vidvat samnyasa is liberation in this life; for the attainment of knowledge vividisa samnyasa is necessary.Similarly for the attainment of liberation in life vidvat samnyasa is necessary. ----- This implies the jnAni(Knower) becomes adhikAri for vidvat-samnyAsa -- i.e. vidvat samnyAsa becomes a kartavya for jnAni. (This is against Lord's statement tasya karyam na vidyate, and numerous other scriptural statement) Now Shri Sadanandaji, what I meant is not the text is authoritative or useful or not. But one should see Sw. Sureshvara who advocated naishkarmyabhAva did all works as per orders of Guru, Sw. Vidyaranya who states in JMV that a sanyasi should not accept a mutt or even disciples to teach, took the achAryaship of Shringeri and taught thro so many treatises. So my point is, when so many jnAnis have been in this world, why rely on a text to know whether a jnAni will act or not. As in chandra- shAkha-nyAya, use shAka(branch of tree)(here shAstra) till you locate chandra(moon)(here a jnAni). Thereafter as connecting the tree branch and moon becomes meaningless, connecting shAstra and jnAni too. This is my humble opinion. > I am not sure if Pranipaatachiatanyaji appreciates the fundamental differences that causes the difference in our understanding. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > ---------- > Shri Sadanandaji, It is not that I do not appreciate. aparihArye arthe na tvam shocitum(nivartitum) arhati. (You ought not to griev(to redress) over an inevitable fact. Otherwise how avibhaktam vibhakteShu... In Shri Guru Smriti, Br. Pranipata Chaitanya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 --- On Fri, 2/13/09, pranipatachaitanya <pranipatachaitanya wrote: Pranipatachaitanyaji - SaashTanga PraNAms. thanks for providing a detailed explanation. Thanks to this list serve for providing this kind of service. PraNAms again. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Namaste all. Here are some quotes and quotes of quotes from a critical edition and translation of Vidyaranya's Jeevanmuktiviveka (JMV) by Robert Alan Godding. The work, which runs to more than five hundred pages, is a dissertation submitted by him to the University of Texas – Austin and available in our files section in PDF. I have removed the English transliteration of the Sanskrit text of these quotes as they don't copy-paste well from PDF. Thank you for your patience. Best regards. Madathil Nair __________________________ QUOTES: The text (of JMV) consists of five chapters. The Chapter One gives the authoritative scriptural basis for liberation-in-life, a summary of the basic definitions and ideas on how to achieve it... The Chapters Two and Three are the heart of the book where Vidyaranya discusses the means for achieving liberation. These chapters discuss the means for liberation-in-life. These means are the principal duties that the renouncer who is a knower must undertake once he has attained the knowledge of truth (tattvajnana). Vidyaranya explains that the knowledge of truth, once attained, becomes stabilized — and ultimate liberation achieved — only through the practice of the eradication of latent tendencies and the elimination of the mind, which are the subjects of Chapters Two and Three respectively. In Chapter Four, Vidyaranya discusses the purposes served by achieving liberation, i.e., what good it does the renouncer and those around him. Chapter Five is a commentary on the Paramahamsa Upanishad. This chapter amounts to an excursus on the renouncer who is a knower (vidvatsanyasin), the person qualified to achieve liberation-in-life. ____ In men focused only on knowledge, and who investigate the knowledge of the self, there arises the state of liberation-in-life which is like (iva) the state of bodiless-liberation. [LYV 3.1.88] Some manuscripts, and the Adyar and ‚nSS editions of JMV, read iva here rather than eva. However, there is compelling manuscript evidence that Vidyaranya meant that the two types of liberation are equal, not merely similar. (jivanmuktatodeti videhamuktataiva) [LYV, YV] _________ The bodiless-liberated neither rises nor sets, nor does he rest. He is neither existent nor non-existent; neither is he distant and not (near); neither I nor the other. Liberation-in-life and bodiless- liberation are equal for Vidyaranya to the extent that the person liberated-in-life has an increasing abundance of " no-distinctions " [JMV 1.5.7] ___________ When the practice of the eradication of latent tendencies reaches its most advanced level, it appears to be virtually equivalent to the other ongoing prescribed practice of the elimination of the mind. Vidyaranya, however, treats the elimination of the mind in a separate analysis. Liberation-in-life has been defined as the removal of bondage [JMV 1.3.2], and this removal is effected through the eradication of latent tendencies. This eradication becomes secure, however, through the elimination of the mind. These two means together become the means for liberation-in-life. __________ One who remains awake while experiencing deep sleep, and who is never awake, whose understanding (bodha) is free of latent tendencies — he is liberated-in-life. [LYV 3.1.92] __________ With a mind whose activities have been extinguished as if in deep sleep, who always remains awake, who is always served by wise men like the full moon by the gods — him the Smritis call liberated. [LYV 5.2.36] ___________ Thus that awakened Janaka, after reflecting, unattached, arose to perform the appropriate duties, just as the sun rises to make the day. [LYV 5.1.63] ___________ He does not think about the future, nor think about the past, but happily follows the present moment. [LYV 5.1.64] ______________ The mind, I believe, is just imagination. When imagination is stilled, the mind disappears. As I make that dry up, so the tree of samsaric existence dries up. [LYV 5.1.54] _____________ He who, after leaving behind knowing and not knowing, remains only in his own form, O Brahmana, he is not a knower of Brahman but is himself Brahman. [PD 4.68; MukU 2.64] _____________ He views his own body as a corpse, because that body is rejected. [PhU 2 p. 48] _______________ (Abbreviations: JMV = jeevanmuktiviveka, LYV = laghu yoga vaasishtam, YV = yoga vaasishtam, PD = pancadasi, MukU = muktikopanishad, PhU = paramahamsa Upanishad) QUOTES END. _________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 PranAms Dennis-ji and others The sheer volume and pace of posts has been quite overwhelming - I share the same sentiment. With regards to quotes from the Shankarabhasyas I would like to once again reiterate a simple point. If one says a jnAni has no mind no intellect no organs of action in short no upAdhi then we also have to admit that the jnAni cannot have any method of communication to those who still harbor a delusion of duality. The crux is this - either we accept that Bhagwan Adi Shankara, the paramajnAni, writes these bhashyas, fully established in the knowledge aham Brahmasmi, in which case one is forced to admit that the knowledge I am Nondual Brahman is not inconsistent with the continued empirical transactions with a empirical world for a jivanmukta. Or one says that these so-called commentaries being attributed to a jnAni Bhagwan Shankara are in fact projections of our ignorance or avidyA, and that in reality Adi Shankara who has transcended duality can not have anything to do with the world of duality in which realm alone do these voluminous bhashyas have any relevance. So if I take the position that these bhashyas are products of my avidyA, then their credibility is only as good as my own ignorance! Those who have transcended duality will never be around to say anything - and those who say anything, with upAdhis, will be yet to transcend. It is indeed a wonder that Shri Bhaskar-ji and others, through their labyrynthine amount of posts, have successfully managed to evade answering this central question. Adequately pondering over this point and attempting to formulate an answer without again engaging in elaborate and distracting discussions [esp highlighting positions over which there is no disagreement and which have nothing to do with this point] may help clarify their position more objectively. Hari OM Humble pranAms Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: > However, Bhaskar-ji makes the valid point that he is quoting lots of > references from Shankara whilst the opposition seem not to be. Accordingly, > in the hope that the balance might be redressed slightly, here are a few: > Best wishes, > > Dennis > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Namaste to all. The following extracts from the bhAshya show that, according to Shri Shankara, prArabdha karma continues even after realization till it is exhausted by being experienced. MuNDaka up. 2.2.8 says: " When the Self is realized the knot of the heart gets untied, all doubts become solved, and all one's actions become dissipated " . In the bhAshya on this mantra Shri Shankara points out that the karma that produced the present body (prArabdha karma) is not destroyed on the rise of knowledge. Br.up.1.4.7. Bhashya—shariiraarambhakasya karmaNaH niyataphalatvaat-- ------- anyaarthaasambhavaat. Since the resultant of past actions that led to the formation of the present body must produce definite results, speech, mind and the body are bound to work even after the highest realization (samyag- jnAna-prAaptau), for actions that have begun to bear fruit are stronger than knowledge; as for instance an arrow that has been let fly continues its course for some time – Swami Madhavananda's translation. (Here the word translated as `the highest realization' is `samyag- jnAna-prApti' which is one of the terms used by Shri Shankara to denote Self-realization). Br.up.1.4.10. Bhashya—yena karmaNaa shariiram aarabdham---- itarat. The residue of praarabdha karma is the cause of the body continuing even after the attainment of knowledge. In other words, that resultant of past karma which led to the formation of the present body (prArabdha karma) being the outcome of false notions and the evils (of attachment, etc.,) is able to bear fruit only as such, i.e., as coupled with those notions and evils; hence until the body falls, it cannot but produce, as part of one's experience of the results of past karma, just so much of false notions and the evils of attachment, etc.; for the past karma that made this body has already begun to bear fruit and must run its course like an arrow that has been shot. Therefore knowledge cannot stop that, for they are not contradictory. What does it do then? It stops the effects of ignorance which are contradictory to it and are about to spring up from (the ignorance lying in) the self, which is the substratum of that knowledge, for they have not yet appeared. (The import of this passage is that, though prArabdha karma may produce its effects as long as the body continues, the realized person is not at all affected by them). Ch.up.6.14.2. Bhashya--- yaani pravRittaphalaani--- Those actions which have started yielding results and by which the body of the man of knowledge was brought into existence get exhausted only by their results being actually experienced, just as an arrow that has gathered momentum after having been discharged stops only when the momentum is exhausted, and not because it has no purpose to serve at the time it pierces the target. Br.up.4.4.22. Bhashya--- shariiraarambhakayostu upabhogenaiva kshayaH Actions that caused the present body are exhausted only by the results being experienced. B.G.4.37. Bhashya--- Since the karma because of which the present body came into existence has already taken effect, it gets exhausted only by being experienced. Self-knowledge destroys only those actions performed in past lives and in the present life prior to the dawn of knowledge which have not yet taken effect. Actions performed after the dawn of knowledge do not produce any effect in the form of merit or demerit. BrahmasUtra, 4.1.15—bhAshya—After the acquisition of knowledge, those virtues and vices that have not begun to yield their fruits and that were accumulated in earlier lives or even in this life before the dawn of knowledge are alone destroyed, but not so are those destroyed whose results have already been partially enjoyed and by which has begun this present life in which the knowledge of brahman arises. Thus the prArabdha karma continues to produce its results, but as far as the jivanmukta is concerned, it is as good as the prArabdha karma being non-existent, because he does not feel its effects. S.N.Sastri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Pranams Nair-ji You have said - "This is the point which even Dr. Shaymji seems to have missed in his latest mail where he has attributed to School 2 statements which they have never advocated." Could you please elaborate what exactly IS the "so-called" School's 2 stance on this, as neither you nor anyone else has really done this previously, even though much has been written about everything else. Are Shankara's bhashyas written by Shankara or not? If it is, then are they written with the jnAni Adi Shankara operating through upAdhis or not? i.e. mind, intellect, body. Similarly Bhagwan Krishna when giving out the GitaUpadehsa - are those words His words (again mind/intellect/organs of action) or are they projections of Arjuna'a avidyA? Please do not take recourse to Grace - that this is Grace which is as though talking or Grace as though acting, because for an ajnAni also it is Grace alone which is as though doing everything. Only thing is ajnAni misappropriates ownership of that process and has a kartrtva-bava or ahankAra, which a jnAni, due to Wisdom, lacks and on this point (i.e. the jnAni having abhimAna or ownership over his mind-body) there has never been any dispute. If we accept that the Shankara bhashyas are written by Adi Shankara, as One who is both a Knower of Truth and is established in Brahman, - then and only then can we posit validity to them, and in that case the entire basis for what "school 2" is attemtping to posit comes apart. If we say that these Bhashyas are projections of our individual (or collective) avidyA, then on what basis are we saying that these statements or teachings are alone the Truth, or have validity, and those of latter day AcahryAs, again being projections of the verisame avidyA, are less valid? I am sorry to say but I have yet to hear one succinct post by anyone from "School 2" providing a to-the-point answer to this. Humble pranams, Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam --- On Mon, 2/16/09, shyam_md <shyam_md wrote: shyam_md <shyam_md Re: Some clarificationadvaitin Date: Monday, February 16, 2009, 6:41 PM PranAms Dennis-ji and othersThe sheer volume and pace of posts has been quite overwhelming - I share the same sentiment. With regards to quotes from the Shankarabhasyas I would like to once again reiterate a simple point.If one says a jnAni has no mind no intellect no organs of action in short no upAdhi then we also have to admit that the jnAni cannot have any method of communication to those who still harbor a delusion of duality.The crux is this - either we accept that Bhagwan Adi Shankara, the paramajnAni, writes these bhashyas, fully established in the knowledge aham Brahmasmi, in which case one is forced to admit that the knowledge I am Nondual Brahman is not inconsistent with the continued empirical transactions with a empirical world for a jivanmukta. Or one says that these so-called commentaries being attributed to a jnAni Bhagwan Shankara are in fact projections of our ignorance or avidyA, and that in reality Adi Shankara who has transcended duality can not have anything to do with the world of duality in which realm alone do these voluminous bhashyas have any relevance.So if I take the position that these bhashyas are products of my avidyA, then their credibility is only as good as my own ignorance! Those who have transcended duality will never be around to say anything - and those who say anything, with upAdhis, will be yet to transcend.It is indeed a wonder that Shri Bhaskar-ji and others, through their labyrynthine amount of posts, have successfully managed to evade answering this central question.Adequately pondering over this point and attempting to formulate an answer without again engaging in elaborate and distracting discussions [esp highlighting positions over which there is no disagreement and which have nothing to do with this point] may help clarify their position more objectively. Hari OMHumble pranAmsShri Gurubhyoh namahShyamadvaitin@ s.com, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite wrote:> However, Bhaskar-ji makes the valid point that he is quoting lots of> references from Shankara whilst the opposition seem not to be. Accordingly,> in the hope that the balance might be redressed slightly, here are a few:> Best wishes,> > Dennis> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Namaste Dr. Shyam-ji. Like Dennisji, you also seem to respond when you like to do so. I can immediately recall at least one message, which has not been answered yet, where I requested you to kindly provide your clarification on your quote of a jnAni lakShana wherein it is stated in future tense " he will reach viShnorparamaM padaM. " . Your contention that School 2 is yet to state their position succinctly is also not correct. In fact, Bhaskarji and I are the only persons who have done that so far in a very systematic manner. Kindly read my 42963. The position has further been reiterated with short definitions in my 43631. Shri Bhaskarji's invincible armoury of scriptural quotes is at 43016. Sorry to say, I haven't seen such disciplined position statements from School 1. Before I answer your post quoted in full below, I want you to answer one thing. Do you accept the Mundaka statement " A knower of brahman becomes verily brahman " in letter and spirit. If your answer is in the negative, there is no use debtating the issue any further between us. If you accept, then a jnAni is brahman. There then cannot be any plurality of jnAnis. If one, therefore, *sees* more than one jnAni, then there sure is something wrong with one's understanding. The purpose of advaita is to correct that wrong understanding. I am bron into a world of duality inhabited by Advaita teachers and literature. (I know that there are others born in other environments and I don't by any reason consider them less fortunate.). I am told of a paramArtha to be realized. I am also told that when I realize that paramartha I become verily that paramArtha. All these are a GIVEN (if you don't like the word Grace.) Shankara, Ramana et al are a part of that GIVEN. If you insist to call them jnAnis, please do so. But, from the point of view of Advaita, I have to warn you that the jnAni of Advaita is Brahman - the paramArtha, and never ever available in the vyAvahAra either in single or plural for your objectification. The teachings of Shankara, Ramana et al deal with Truth. They are not " Truth " per se. No disrespect, irreverence or blasphemy meant - please. When Truth is realized, these teachings including the teachers are sublated. What is sublated in realization is adhyAsa and the vyAvahAra erected by it. The teachers and teachings are within that vyavahAra. This is something Shankara himself has taught us. He hadn't excluded himself from that sublation, had he? Best regards. Madathil Nair _________________ advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote: > > Pranams Nair-ji > You have said - > > " This is the point which even Dr. Shaymji seems to have missed in his latest mail where he has attributed to School 2 statements which they have never advocated. " > > Could you please elaborate what exactly IS the " so-called " School's 2 stance on this, as neither you nor anyone else has really done this previously, even though much has been written about everything else. > > Are Shankara's bhashyas written by Shankara or not? If it is, then are they written with the jnAni Adi Shankara operating through upAdhis or not? i.e. mind, intellect, body. Similarly Bhagwan Krishna when giving out the GitaUpadehsa - are those words His words (again mind/intellect/organs of action) or are they projections of Arjuna'a avidyA? > Please do not take recourse to Grace - that this is Grace which is as though talking or Grace as though acting, because for an ajnAni also it is Grace alone which is as though doing everything. Only thing is ajnAni misappropriates ownership of that process and has a kartrtva-bava or ahankAra, which a jnAni, due to Wisdom, lacks and on this point (i.e. the jnAni having abhimAna or ownership over his mind- body) there has never been any dispute. > > If we accept that the Shankara bhashyas are written by Adi Shankara, as One who is both a Knower of Truth and is established in Brahman, - then and only then can we posit validity to them, and in that case the entire basis for what " school 2 " is attemtping to posit comes apart. > > If we say that these Bhashyas are projections of our individual (or collective) avidyA, then on what basis are we saying that these statements or teachings are alone the Truth, or have validity, and those of latter day AcahryAs, again being projections of the verisame avidyA, are less valid? > > I am sorry to say but I have yet to hear one succinct post by anyone from " School 2 " providing a to-the-point answer to this. > > Humble pranams, > Hari OM > Shri Gurubhyoh namah > Shyam > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Pranams Nair-ji My apologies if there was a question from you that I left unanswered - could you please reiterate the exact question/clarification, and I shall do my best to reply. There is no question of me not linking the term Grace - it is a wonderful term and I have written on it or about it at length. I have never, in this context, heard the term Given (with a capital G) before but perhaps you mean it in the same sense as Grace. The problem is not with usage of the term but with using that term to get away from the illogical inconsistency in your position of how a jnAni is able to teach or write bhashyas. You write - "this is something that Shankara himself teaches" - my point is - is this teaching, which is of course in vyavahara alone, a product of our collective adhyAsa or is this teaching stemming from Him, as a living entity, established in the knowledge aham Brahmasmi, and established as a Knower of Truth, and yet fully able to make use of an individualized set of upAdhis to teach? Please clarify. I have re-read your post and do not find any clear answer to this. Hari OM Shri Gurubhyoh namah Shyam --- On Wed, 2/18/09, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote: Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair Re: Some clarificationadvaitin Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2009, 12:45 AM Namaste Dr. Shyam-ji.Like Dennisji, you also seem to respond when you like to do so.I can immediately recall at least one message, which has not been answered yet, where I requested you to kindly provide your clarification on your quote of a jnAni lakShana wherein it is stated in future tense "he will reach viShnorparamaM padaM.".Your contention that School 2 is yet to state their position succinctly is also not correct. In fact, Bhaskarji and I are the only persons who have done that so far in a very systematic manner. Kindly read my 42963. The position has further been reiterated with short definitions in my 43631. Shri Bhaskarji's invincible armoury of scriptural quotes is at 43016.Sorry to say, I haven't seen such disciplined position statements from School 1.Before I answer your post quoted in full below, I want you to answer one thing. Do you accept the Mundaka statement "A knower of brahman becomes verily brahman" in letter and spirit. If your answer is in the negative, there is no use debtating the issue any further between us.If you accept, then a jnAni is brahman. There then cannot be any plurality of jnAnis. If one, therefore, *sees* more than one jnAni, then there sure is something wrong with one's understanding. The purpose of advaita is to correct that wrong understanding.I am bron into a world of duality inhabited by Advaita teachers and literature. (I know that there are others born in other environments and I don't by any reason consider them less fortunate.). I am told of a paramArtha to be realized. I am also told that when I realize that paramartha I become verily that paramArtha. All these are a GIVEN (if you don't like the word Grace.) Shankara, Ramana et al are a part of that GIVEN. If you insist to call them jnAnis, please do so. But, from the point of view of Advaita, I have to warn you that the jnAni of Advaita is Brahman - the paramArtha, and never ever available in the vyAvahAra either in single or plural for your objectification.The teachings of Shankara, Ramana et al deal with Truth. They are not "Truth" per se. No disrespect, irreverence or blasphemy meant - please. When Truth is realized, these teachings including the teachers are sublated. What is sublated in realization is adhyAsa and the vyAvahAra erected by it. The teachers and teachings are within that vyavahAra. This is something Shankara himself has taught us. He hadn't excluded himself from that sublation, had he?Best regards.Madathil Nair Recent Activity 13 New Members 1 New PollsVisit Your Group Finance It's Now Personal Guides, news, advice & more. Group Charity Be the Change A citizen movement to change the world Everyday Wellness Zone Check out featured healthy living groups. .. 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.