Guest guest Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote: > > It is my humble opinion that Swamiji definitely possess the > assimilated knowledge of the scriptures and the following are his > statements on the nature of Jivanmuktha. Jivanmuktha continues to > face the challenges in life and at the same time, he (she) is free > from unhealthy responses to those challenges. All unhealthy > responses are emotional problems called Samsara. What are the > benefits of being a Jivanmuktha? > > Namaste Ram-ji! Thank you very much for this post. You have highlighted the importance of the acArya lineage. We can discuss among peers endlessly, but if the doubts are not resolved we need to refer back to our gurus. Sometimes, we may have to proceed with shraddha in the guru's words when we do not fully understand a point. I would like to share the following incident from Shri Chandrashekhara Bharati Swamiji of Sringeri. (From http://www.jagadgurus.org/home.asp?acharyalcode=CB) " The Lord has declared in the Gita that even the Knower of Brahman must engage punctiliously in action in order to guide other devotees. His Holiness was such an epitome of this that persons who had the good fortune of seeing Him thought that he was an uncompromising ritualist. Once a gentleman from Bengal who had heard of His greatness came to Sringeri. He had expected that His Holiness would be engaged in Samadhi for most of the time, completely oblivious of the world. Consequently, he was astonished and disappointed when he saw His Holiness performing His morning Anushtana and worshipping the Divine Mother later on. However, he did not doubt the greatness of His Holiness but found it hard to accept that a Knower would engage Himself in ritualistic worship of images. He desired reconciliation and at an appropriate occasion mentioned this to His Holiness Himself in an indirect manner, " If a person has Atmic realisation as propounded in the Advaita Vedanta, can he properly engage himself in rituals or in image worship? " His Holiness asked in answer, " What else do you except him to do? " Had the gentleman answered this question with any other alternative then that would have been equally inconsistent with the state of the realized soul. He therefore replied by saying, " I do not mean to say that he should do anything else. My difficulty arises this way. Doing anything, be it rituals or image worship or even study of scriptures implies the sense of doership. Are not these two attitudes inconsistent with each other and, if so, how can they exist at the same time in the same individual? " His Holiness said, " Quite true. Two things which are mutually contradictory cannot exist at the same time in the same entity. Can you tell me, who the non-doer is? " " Of course, the Self. " " Quite right. You have studied our system well. Will you now tell me, who the doer is? " " Certainly, it is the body, the senses, the mind and the intellect. " " Quite right again. The Self is the non-doer; and the doer is the non-Self. Is it not so? " " Yes. " " Where is the inconsistency now? Doership and non-doership do not inhere in the same entity. " This line of simple reasoning made the gentleman realize the absurdity of the question in the first place and when he parted from His Holiness he was more devoted to Him than ever before. " Harih Om! Neelakantan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Namaste Neelakantanji. I have no problem with this understanding. His Holiness has rightly attributed the `doing' to the non-self! Not to the Self for which jnAni is synonym. His Holiness did not assert " I am a jnAni and I have to necessarily engage in these actions " . The non-self asked a non-self question to non-self Grace in the non- self transactional and got a non-self answer. That is how I would sum up the scenario of the dialogue quoted by you. In fact, that is the gist of BG 5.13. I don't ask our Swamis if they are jnAnis because I know it is stupid to ask so. There is no way I, an ajnAni, can accept if they answer in the affirmative. I don't ask why Swamis, generally considered by others as `jnAnis', engage in actions because it is ajnAna to ask such questions. Neelakantanji, I don't understand why you guys treat voice of epistemological dissent as heresy and rebellion against lineage. I am a Devi devotee. I also follow certain daily anuShtAnA. I would like to live a peaceful life as described in BG verses beginning with " adveShtA sarvabhUtAnAM maitrakaruNa eva ca… " (BG 12.13 – 20). I am convinced deliberate living of advaitic understanding will definitely help me in the long run to attain the benefits Ramji listed by quoting Sw. Paramarthananadaji. I adore Sw. Dayanandaji. Nevertheless, I have the right to call a spade a spade. Kindly therefore don't add extra dimensions to pure epistemological enquiry. Best regards. Madathil Nair ___________________ advaitin , " Neelakantan " <pneelaka wrote: > I would like to share the following incident from Shri Chandrashekhara > Bharati Swamiji of Sringeri. > > (From http://www.jagadgurus.org/home.asp?acharyalcode=CB) > > " The Lord has declared in the Gita that even the Knower of Brahman > must engage punctiliously in action in order to guide other devotees. > His Holiness was such an epitome of this that persons who had the good > fortune of seeing Him thought that he was an uncompromising ritualist. > Once a gentleman from Bengal who had heard of His greatness came to > Sringeri. He had expected that His Holiness would be engaged in > Samadhi for most of the time, completely oblivious of the world. > Consequently, he was astonished and disappointed when he saw His > Holiness performing His morning Anushtana and worshipping the Divine > Mother later on. However, he did not doubt the greatness of His > Holiness but found it hard to accept that a Knower would engage > Himself in ritualistic worship of images. He desired reconciliation > and at an appropriate occasion mentioned this to His Holiness Himself > in an indirect manner, " If a person has Atmic realisation as > propounded in the Advaita Vedanta, can he properly engage himself in > rituals or in image worship? " > > His Holiness asked in answer, " What else do you except him to do? " Had > the gentleman answered this question with any other alternative then > that would have been equally inconsistent with the state of the > realized soul. He therefore replied by saying, " I do not mean to say > that he should do anything else. My difficulty arises this way. Doing > anything, be it rituals or image worship or even study of scriptures > implies the sense of doership. Are not these two attitudes > inconsistent with each other and, if so, how can they exist at the > same time in the same individual? " > > His Holiness said, " Quite true. Two things which are mutually > contradictory cannot exist at the same time in the same entity. Can > you tell me, who the non-doer is? " " Of course, the Self. " " Quite > right. You have studied our system well. Will you now tell me, who the > doer is? " " Certainly, it is the body, the senses, the mind and the > intellect. " " Quite right again. The Self is the non-doer; and the doer > is the non-Self. Is it not so? " " Yes. " " Where is the inconsistency > now? Doership and non-doership do not inhere in the same entity. " This > line of simple reasoning made the gentleman realize the absurdity of > the question in the first place and when he parted from His Holiness > he was more devoted to Him than ever before. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Namaste Jaishankarji. Yours 43531. My comments in . ______________ > 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. [MN: One who 'perceives' his own Self in everything doesn't perceive anything in the oridinary sense (knower-known basis) was my contention. The quoted verses do not seem to refute that.] _______________ > 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? [MN: The negation is meaningful because of the perception of duality by Arjuna (not by jnAni). Kindly read Neelakantanji's anecdote today and my answer to it. 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. 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.] __________________________ > > > MN: He only has men of knowledge, teachers, sages et al all of > > whombelong 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? [MN: They are distorted perception of Truth. Therefore, incomplete and dual simply because they are perceived as objects by ajnAnis. They are mithyA. To me jnAni is satyaM - Brahman. I raised this point just yesterday with Durgaji.] ____________________ > Jai: I have tried to present the traditional advaita vedanta as > coherently as possible but you may not agree. You believe in the > of the grace lord/mother and I believe that it will eventually > show you the way. [MN: Wish you the same. I am already feeling guilty of ignoring Her these last few days due to the distraction of this thread and my travel.] [i haven't bothered to re-clarify my earlier statements which you said you didn't undertstand. I don't find any use dwelling upon them any more because your understanding and my understanding of jnAni can never meet.] Best regards. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 praNAms Hare KrishnaAfter reading somany different opinions on this thread, I think I can continue this discussion since some of the prabhuji-s are still finding it interesting :-)) So, till the poll results ( which rAjalkshmi mAtAji suggested) I shall continue this discussion...Since Sri Jaishanakara prabhuji providing me shankara bhAshya vAkya-s to contemplate, first I'd like to address his observations. Sri Jai shanakara prabhuji here are my few thoughts :Sri J prabhuji :Namaskarams. Pardon my delayed reply as I am very busy with my job right now. But some quick points.bhaskar :No problem prabhuji I can wait for years to have your replies coz. unlike others, you are the one atleast making an attempt to continue this discussion with the support of shankara bhAshya...I hope discussions like this would help us to get more familiar with traditional teaching of shankara saMpradAya...Sri J prabhuji :Jai: The above statement that jnAni's seeing, walking etc.. is loukika dristi of ajnAni clearly goes against verses like the following:bhaskar :no prabhuji, think over it again, seeing, walking etc. are in the kshetra of avidyA...If these kriya-s are real from the jnAni's point of view also, then he is bound to have dEhAtma buddhi & liable to accrue karma phala also..That goes against the non-dual status of advaita..Sri J prabhuji :Whereas, Oh! Arjuna, the knower of the truth, knowing the distinction between body-mind-sense-complex and action, knowing that the senses, mind, and organs of action engage themselves with reference to their respective objects alone, is not bound.bhaskar :I dont know, your sanskrit quotes from BG showing some strange computer characters in my mail box ...Are you pasting these verses from any web page prabhuji??With regard to your translations on 3.28...I reckon it rather proves my point, jnAni never ever does anything and guNA guNEshu vartante proves that ..He has absolutely no identity with it (iti matvA na sajjate)...how can you prove your stand that jnAni has a localized indriya-s & paricchinna chaitanya from the above verse prabhuji ?? I am not able to understand. naiva kurvanna, na kArayan..krishna says somewhere else in geeta bhAshya itself.Sri J prabhuji :The one who is together, who knows the truth, thinks, ‘I do not do anything at all,’ even while seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, walking, sleeping, breathing, talking, releasing, grasping, opening and closing the eyes, (the person) knowing (full well that) the organs are engaged in their objects.bhaskar :As you can see, even the translations also has some strange characters...Anyway, thanks for quoting this prabhuji..indriyANIodriyArthEshu (same as guNA guNeshu vartante) vartanta iti dhArayan..is the punch declaration by bhagavan here..after reading this, dont you think we are falsely attributing these kriya-s to jnAni?? If jnAni himself does all these things why krishna has taken all the trouble to explain indriyANIodriyArthEshu vartante?? Are you getting the point here prabhuji ?? jnAni who is devoid of any upAdhi saMbandha does not do anything...There is nothing for him to accomplish nothing for him to execute..he is Atma rata, Atma krIda..Sri J prabhuji :In these verses it is jnAni who is seeing and inspite of that knows that it is mithyA and doesn't consider himself to be a seer. BhagavAn Krishna or Sankara do not say that ajnAni's imagine that 'jnAni is seeing etc'. So your stand is totally wrong. I can quote many more verses like this but the point being made will be clear to those who are discerning.bhaskar :You can quote multiple verses like this & commentary on it prabhuji I am happy to receive it with both hands prabhuji..But it is still not clear to me how these quotes would establish your pet theory of localized set of indriya-s of the jnAni 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...Sri J prabhuji :Jai: We are not doing any inference here. You have already decided on something and you are trying to filter sruti and Sankara as much as possible to fit into your fantasy. bhaskar :This is a tall claim prabhuji..Anyway, if shankara anything says in favour of jnAni-s localized set of indriya-s & his tailored chaitanya which you think I am filtered, kindly bring it on prabhuji...We will discuss it together..But you can keep in your mind for muktAtma there is no saMsAra & samsAritva..no one can dispute this truth prabhuji..muktAtmanAM hi saMsAra - saMsAritva vyavahArAbhAvaH sarvairevAtmavAdibhirushyate...prayOjanaM chAsya brahma vidyAyA avidyAnivruttiH tatashyAntikaH saMsArAbhAvaH says shankara...If at all I have decided anything about jnAni, it is based on shruti, shankara prabhuji..it is not my pet thoeris like RC-s, OC-s, localized BMI-s etc. etc.Sri J prabhuji :What you are missing is 'brahman is ashareeri' but jnAni is a shareeri who knows that in reality he is an ashareeri and hence can teach it to other shareeris who think they are shareeris but are ashareeris in reality.bhaskar :I am afraid, jnAni is brahman but brahman is not a jnAni is an alien theory newly invented by you prabhuji-s just to fabricate the body to the jnAni to make his as *dehi* as we :-)) Kindly let me know if your gurukula AchArya-s ( Arshavidya gurukulam) has said anything specifically on this equation?? Anyway, I have written my thoughts on it in a separate thread...if you are interested you can go through it..> bhaskar :> Please understand we are not saying after realization jnAni becomes a blind> person and he wont see anything :-))Jai: At least you are agreeing to this.!!!bhaskar :My dear prabhuji this we have been saying right from the beginning..It is a news for you since you have joined the discussion in the middle :-))But at the same time, linking him> with limited set of adjuncts of his own & upahita chaitanya of his own are> definitely a advaita hAni & to say least, a dangerous development in the> absolute non-dual philosophy of shankara. Jai: The dangerous development is only in your imagination. As I quoted above and in other posts Sankara clearly talks about jnANi's prarabdha and vyavahAra. You have no answer for that. bhaskar :again I reiterate that jnAni & dvaita vyavahAra from jnAni is self contradictory propositions..jnAni is not dehi to do avidyAtmaka vyavahAra..If jnAni does this avidyAtmaka vyavahAra like us...What exactly is the difference between jnAni & mortals like me who has the intellectual understanding of this truth!!...I too know I am not the doer, I am brahman, I am satchidAnanda & secondless..but that is not preventing me to perceive the duality in my vyavahAra, that is not preventing me to fight for my CTC with my employer in the name of vyavahAra, that is not preventing me to attach my self to the samsAma though knowing am ever asaMsAri...Do you think jnAni-s jnAna also like this & continue to do vyavahAra with this mere intellectual understanding of non-duality and weep when he is sad, laughs when he is pleased?? Dont you think it is mere jnAni's hypocrisy to talk about brahma jnAna when he is really moved by the tribulations of this saMsAra?? Please understand the spurious definitions you are providing with regard to jnAni's vyavahAra...without pramAtrutva bhAva he cannot entertain the pramAna-prameya vyavahAra..without katrutva bhOktrutva bhAva he will no more a jnAni in a body...jnAni-s understanding of the truth is not like our understanding of the truth...after understanding of the truth he will become truth himself..That is the exact difference between jnAni-s intuitive realization of the truth & mortals intellectual understanding of the same...Understand this basic tenet of advaita and interpret jnAni's socalled vyavahAra accordingly..bhaskar :Scriptures repeatedly say, he can> 'see' without eyes, he can hear without ears, he can think without> mind...though we can see he is walking, it is only appearance, though we> can see he is meditating, it only *looks like* that...Sri J prabhuji :Jai: for whom it looks like? If you say it *looks like* for jnAni it makes sense as he knows the truth. But for ajnAni it cannot *look like* as ajnAni thinks it is satyam. bhaskar :My dear prabhuji, please note this sentence is meant to show us (ajnAni-s) who are seeing the supposed *movements of jnAni* jnAni cannot look anything with suspecion, his knowledge is akhanda, advitiya, aparichinna..He does not need any teaching as above and he does not have any doubts to think it looks like I am moving but I am not moving...it looks like I am talking but I am not talking etc. :-)) Yes, it is ajnAni-s, who think jnAni-s vyavahAra is *satyaM*, for them this teaching is meant. Those who know the tradition, telling us, my dear mortals (ajnAni-s) dont go by the reality of jnAni-s movements..though you are looking at him he is moving, he moves not, though you are looking at him as meditating..he meditates not..and you must know he sees without eyes, he hears without ears, he walks without legs, he has indriya-s everywhere (not mere made to order set of indriya-s:-)) and at the same time he is devoid of sarvendriya..So, prabhuji, kindly try to understand these fundamentals of advaita. So, that we can avoid any convoluted explanations as above. Sri J prabhuji :But irrationally you hold on to the stand that once jnAni *becomes* brahman he ceases to perceive any duality because bramhan is not a knower. bhaskar :becoming is nothing but knowing he was/is/will be always brahman ( I think I have repeated this 1001 times:-))Since this brahman cannot carry the tag of knowership, it has been said vyavahAra is atyantika abhAva in jnAni...yastu avidyA pratupasthApitaH kArya kAraNa sambandhi AtmanaH khilyabhAvaH, tasmin vidyayA nAshite (quoted earlier also)...Kindly note this is not my irrational hold, shankara himself saying this ...vidyA brings nAshaM to avidyA kArya kAraNa saMbandha..do you think we are saying kArya-kAraNa saMbandha is 'real' before realization and jnAna would come with all its force to eliminate this really existing saMbandha?? No prabhuji, understand nAsha here means revealing the truth that there was/is/never there any dvaita like kArya and kAraNa...bAdhite cha SAreerAtmatve tadAshrayaH samasthaH svAbhAvikO vyavahArO bAdhitO bhavati...this is the realization of the jnAni prabhuji...We are holding this AchArya vAkya & telling that jnAni would have the realization that he is avyavahAri forever..'becomes' above means this not what you are happily loading on us :-)) > bhaskar :> > > Atlast you are getting my point..I am happy to note that...Yes, all> vyavahAra (vidyA-avidyA, kAraNa-kArya, sAmAnya-vishesha,> ghatAkAsha-mahAkAsha, bimba-pratibimba etc. etc.) are within the sphere of> mithyA vyavahAra only..And this mithya vyavahAra is due to the absence of> knowledge that we are secondless Atman...once this truth is intuitively> realized this mithyatva of vyavahAra (duality) will not be there and blown> away without any trace (atyantika abhAva of saMsAra insists shankara..and> this atyatika abhAva is like nadee samudravat pravilApitAni clarifies> shankara in bruhadAraNyaka 2-4-12)J prabhuji :Jai: atyantika abhAva of saMsAra does not mean the appearance of duality vanishes. This last statement is interpreted wrongly by you because you wrongly equate avidya as only 'adhyAsa'. But avidyA is 'adhyAsa bIja' too(cause of adhyAsa) and even though with the destruction of the avidya bIja the samsAra ends for the jnAni, the appearance of duality continues due to bAdhitAnuvrtti. bhaskar :quite irrelevant & clear digression from the subject matter of this discussion...no beeja avidya , no tree adhyAsa for a jnAni to say for him adhyAsa tree goes but avidyA beeja remains :-))..Moreover, this is not the discussion about avidyA - avidyA bIja nor this is a discussion about whether avidyA is adhyAsa or otherwise, nor this discussion is about whether there is avidyA beeja in sushupti or not...atyantika abhAva of saMsAra here has been said while describing the realization of jnAni..Since jnAni cannot have avidyA in any form (beeja or tree) your above interpretation on *bAdhitAnuvrutti* in favour of avidyA beeja is not at all goes with the jnAni's vyavahAra...Sri J prabhuji :See the Bhasya belowavidyAtmikA hi bIjasaktir avyaktasabdanirdeSyA parameSvarAsrayAmAyamayi mahAsuptih. . . tad etad avyaktam kvacid AkaSaSabdanirdistam… kvacid aksharasabdoditam. . . kvacinmAyeti sUcitam. BSBh 1.4.3Sankara is clearly showing here that avidyA is the seed for this mAyA jagat.bhaskar :A very potential quote which vivaraNa school holds close to its chest to prove there is avidyAtimikA beeja shakti in the form of mUlAvidyA in sushupti:-))...Good that you brought it..Kindly hold it back, we can discuss this later when we take up avasthAtraya prakriya & the existence of mUlAvidyA/avidyAshakti/kAraNAvidyA for discussion...Sri J prabhuji :Jai: Negation only negates the truth of the appearance of duality. Negation itself is meaningful only because it appears. And negation need not end the appearance because the negation is purely in one's understanding only.bhaskar :nEti nEti ityasya kOrthaH?? na hi etasmAd brahmaNO vyatiriktamasti ityarthaH...taccha darshayati anyat paramapratishiddhaM brahmAsteeti..Go to sUtra bhAshya 3-2-22..check this bhAshya vAkyananu kathamAbhyAM 'neti neti' iti shabdAbhyAM satyasya satyaM nirdidikshitamiti...uchayate..*sarva upAdhi visheshApOhena*..Go to bruhadAraNyaka bhAshya 2-3-6 and see what shankara says on neti neti...Dont give your ( I hope you know the meaning of 'you' here prabhuji..Kindly dont take it personally) own explanations on each and everything...If nothing is there as *brahma vyatirikta* to whom you are attributing BMI, to whom you are trying to pour-in the paricchinna chaitanya?? You prabhuji-s have been very conveniently giving your own innovative explanations & whever someone tries to bring in shankara bhAshya to support the claims otherwise you prabhuji-s conveniently call it as *misinterpretation* is it the right way of doing jignAsa?? Negation is not one's mere intellectual understanding, it is the ONLY understanding that brahman without second...Sri J prabhuji :Jai: jnAni is one who understands that he/she is ashareeri while functioning in a shareerabhaskar :it is not mere understanding of the jnAni that he is ashareeri it is his *svabhAvika dharma* that he is always ashareeri ..If it is mere understanding of the jnAni, that type of jnAna everybody has in this forum that is including me :-))Sri J prabhuji :Jai: What a great statement. Post realisation status is not related to Bandha Moksha vyavahAra. bhaskar :Yes, do you have any doubt in that?? there is no bandha & there is no mOksha either..bandha is for the ajnAni who thinks he is in bondage & strives for the mOksha...jnAni who transcended these dualities will not say he was in baNdha & NOW he got the emancipation..Sri J prabhuji :Your insistence on jnAni not perceiving duality only implies anirmokshaprasanga. You can keep on waiting for the perception of duality to end. All the best.bhaskar : thanks...by the way jnAni does not wait anything to happen..non-dual nature is his svabhAvika dharma..He does not have to wait till his death..as you prabhuji's presuming..he is jnAni/Atman/Brahman here RIGHT NOW..waiting for something & longing for something is the cry of ajnAni-s not jnAni-s..Since you prabhuji-s irrationally attributing localized indriya for the jnAni, since you are compartmentalizing the avichhinna chaitanya, since you are bifurcating secondless consciousness as RC & OC etc. anirmokshaprasanga till the *death* of the physical body of the jnAni is quite striking & highlighted in your theories..Sri J prabhuji :Jai: I agree to this. jnAni cannot see any satyatva because jnAni sees the mithyAtva of vyavahAra. This is perfectly valid.bhaskar :mithyatva of vyavahAra will not be there for the jnAni when he is satyaM himself...The perfectly valid combination of yours i.e. satyatva & mithyatva would result in a dual character of the jnAni..Shastra would not permit it..because paramArtha is eka rUpa always under any circumstances..jnAni is that paramArtha jnAna. bhaskar :...For a > jnAni who has realized his ultimate reality of non-dual nature cannot carry > this duality of avidyA anymore..If at all we see the jnAni in a compartment > of flesh & bones, that is ONLY the drushti dOsha of us who are still> getting the thrashing from mAya is it not?? Sri J prabhuji :Jai: This I cannot agree as it does not necessarily follow from the first statement.bhaskar :whether it follows the first statement or not immaterial prabhuji.. it only follows the real status of jnAni as enshrined in shAstra & as clarified by Achaya-s of yore..Keeping this in mind we can link the above with first statement :-)) Sri J prabhuji :Jai: Then who is functioning in jnAni's body? On the one hand you say that jnAni is not handicapped but on the other hand you say he cannot see any duality. Please be more clear.bhaskar : who is asking this question?? the person who is more particular about protecting the body of the jnAni is it not?? As we have been telling jnAni's body is our perception...jnAni does not have a body of his own to claim that ownership..for us jnAni comes, jnAni goes, jnAni gives birth to his/her kid, jnAni takes birth & meets death etc..But as far as jnAni is concerned he is ajaM, nityaM, nirvikAraM, nirvikalpam, niravayavaM...See shankara himself answers your question in sUtra bhAshya 1-1-4 which I have already quoted while sharing my thoughts on your sUtra bhAshya quotes 4-1-15 to 4-1-18...If you see my lead post of the> subject heading, you can see I've covered jnAni's vyavahAra (??) right from> jnAni's vegetable chopping to jnAni's geetOpadesha :-)) I onceagain> reiterate here jnAni's socalled vyavahAra is not a stone in my curd rice> :-)) (thorn in flesh for non-veggies :-)) Problem is jnAni's identity> which we are imposing on jnAni by attributing him the localized indriya-s & > limited chaitanya...Since you are telling now that it is only mithyA> vyavahAra...I think we can close this issue now..Jai: You seem to finally agree to my point that jnAni can function in this dvaita-jagat without identifying him/herself with the BMI. bhaskar :again prabhuji, your statement 'jnAni can function' rings the danger bell in my ears:-)) Dont you agree with me jnAni is akatru, abhoktru?? Sri J prabhuji :So we can close this discussion. But by agreeing to this your whole siddhanta will collapse. So again you will go back to your untenable conclusions.bhaskar :Dont jump to the conclusion so fast prabhuji..Still we have lot of things to digest :-)) jnAni's kriya, jnAni's kriyA-kAraka phala etc. etc. is our phantom theory on jnAni-s otherwise we have to conclude that jnAni like rAmachandra has really wept for his opposite sex...jnAni like Krishna has really succumbed to rAga-dvesha on the battle field of kurukshetra, jnAni like shankara was really eager to show his pAnditya to maNdana mishra, jnAni like vyAsa suffered humiliation from stree samUha..list can go one and on :-))...Dont you think we cannot adjudge these mysterious behaviour of jnAni simply based on our assumption that they are attached to their bodies?? why krishna can still afford to say he is celibate despite having some thousands of wives & some tons of kids :-)) Without labelling it as spurious argument kindly think it over objectively..Sri J prabhuji :Jai: The satyatvabuddhi that I am a pramAtru is gone. That doesn't mean the triputi vanishes.bhaskar :So satyatva buddhi is gone (he understands he is not pramAtru) but still he continues to behave like pramAtru (knowing its mithyatva) and makes use of pramANa & pramEya..That is what you are trying to say...But this stand of your would defeat the very purpose of *Atma ekatva vidya*..I've quoted in one of my mails how this triputi vanishes after the dawn of jnAna...See if you can interpret that in your own way to maintain your above claim.bhaskar :Kindly see geeta bhAshya> (2-69)..shankara says : na hi AtmasvarUpAdhigame sati punaH pramANa pramEya> vyavahAraH saMbhavati...If there is no imposition of pramAtrutva on Atman> there is no possibility of known & knowledge transactions...If the pramANa> & pramEya are Ishwara srushti and it is eternal & has the idependent> existence apart from pramAtru shruti would not have said Atra veda aveda> etc..by the way where is the Ishwara srushti in sushupti??Jai: I have quoted this myself. Your interpretation of this is wrong. Isvara srsti is not eternal because it's reality ends with the jnAna that isvara's svarUpa is brahman and the very isvaratvam is mithyA along with the srsti. That doesn't mean that it has to disappear for a jnANi. bhaskar :It is good that you have agreed that Ishwara srushti is not eternal & after jnAna these diversities would meet their end..Yes, you are right this does not mean that these things would disappear for the jnAni...for that matter there must be something to disappear is it not??..but jnAni realizes there is nothing apart from IT to disappear...When you realize the real nature of the rope, do you think before knowing the rope, there was a snake and now *after* knowing the rope the snake is disappeared :-)) dont you say there was/is/never will be snake there it was/is/will always be rope only?? That is the realization of the jnAni..there is nothing apart from IT to disappear..Sri J prabhuji :As for the world in sushupti it is in the form of avidyAbijA / kAranaSarira for an ajnAni. bhaskar :Since the avidyA beeja and kAraNa shareera are the botheration of ajnAni, we can discuss this ajnAni's sushupti later :-)) Now, shall we go back to jnAni's body prabhuji :-))bhaskar :Jai: Your position of subjective idealism is not supported by Sankara. bhaskar :That is only your extra reading of my stand...I cannot help it prabhuji.Sri J prabhuji :We can discuss this seperately. Sankara clealry talks about the difference between vyAvahArika and prAtibhAsika.bhaskar :Yes, beauty of this prAtibhAsika satya is you will come to know that it is only prAtibhAsika when you are vyavahAra..But when you are lost yourself in prAtibhAsika it is as real as your vyavahArika...Anyway, we will discuss this in detail when we take up avasthAtraya prakriya for discussion.> > bhaskar :> ..As I have explained above, we are not> here to debate above jnAni's kriya..we are talking about jnAni's> individuality & upAdhi ( this is already an age old issue & has been said> more than thousand times :-)) Since quotations do not speak specifically> about the jnAni-s deha etc. & it is mainly a councelling by bhagavan to> encourage arjuna to do battle, based on this we cannot determine anything> in favour of embodiedness of jnAni..(first of all shankara himself does not> categorically say janaka is a jnAni and hence interpret this verse in two> ways)..Jai: Sruti and BG are talking about jnAni seeing this world but recognising it as not true. Further I have given enough quotations to prove that BG and Sankara accept jnAni's vyavahAra. You say the debate is not about jnANi's kriya. But kriya is possible only if there is upAdhi. bhaskar :That is only our limited understanding is it not?? As Sri Rajkumar nair prabhuji rightly pointed out, we cannot think beyond our deha, buddhi, Indriya, mana, ahaMkAra..But why we carry these delusions and impose on jnAni also?? It seems you are not aware of the problems in holding the theory of *adhyastha Atma* (embodied Atman)..there is an elaborated discussion on this in sUtra bhAshya..We will take it up in a separate thread for a detailed discussion...Sri J prabhuji :And jnAni's kriya definitely implies jnAni functioning in the upAdhi. So your argument is fallacious. You can't say that you accept jnAni's kriya but not jnAni's upAdhi. bhaskar :It is really pity to note that even after a month long discussion you are trying to read somany new things between the lines :-))> > But I agree with you that sUtra bhAshya quotes (4-1-15 to 4-1-18)> exclusively talks about it...we will have a look into it subsequent> mails..Jai: Let us see.bhaskar :I did it already in the subsequent mail & I showed you how these sUtra-s to be read in the light of 1-1-4...See if you can spare some time on it...with love and prayers,JaishankarHari Hari Hari Bol!!!bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 Namaste Advaitins, Reading the commentary on Brh.Up. IV.iv.6 which may have been mentioned by Bhaskar-ji I find in it a different view than the one that he is proposing. Or so it seems to me. Consider this: "If liberation is the nature of the self, like the heat of fire, it cannot be said to be a consequence of human activity." That suggests that the activity of the jnani qua activity is not any different from the activity of others qua their activity. Nothing within human activity as such brought about the state of enlightenment. The inference there is that it is the same. Perception is human activity. No change in perception brought about jnana or jnanihood. Further down you have the objection from the opponent: "Objection: If liberation makes no difference from the present state, it is unreasonable to make a particular effort for it, and the scriptures too become useless." It is clear here that the objector is proposing a view which is rejected by the Advaitin i.e. Shankara. Enlightenment is a matter of knowledge and not the progress from one sort of activity to another or one form of perception to another. The jnani understands action and inaction and actionless action. Best Wishes, Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2009 Report Share Posted February 12, 2009 advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > Namaste Neelakantanji. > > Neelakantanji, I don't understand why you guys treat voice of > epistemological dissent as heresy and rebellion against lineage. I > am a Devi devotee. I also follow certain daily anuShtAnA. I would > like to live a peaceful life as described in BG verses beginning > with " adveShtA sarvabhUtAnAM maitrakaruNa eva ca… " (BG 12.13 – 20). > I am convinced deliberate living of advaitic understanding will > definitely help me in the long run to attain the benefits Ramji > listed by quoting Sw. Paramarthananadaji. I adore Sw. Dayanandaji. > Nevertheless, I have the right to call a spade a spade. > > Kindly therefore don't add extra dimensions to pure epistemological > enquiry. > > Best regards. > > Madathil Nair > ___________________ Namaste Nair-ji! I merely wanted to say that ultimately we all need to go back to our gurus' teachings and their lives to try to find resolution when we have doubts. I have not called anyone a heretic or a rebel. Please don't read anything more into my post. I mentioned lineage because we do not have Shankaracarya in our midst today. There are many teachers today who come from His sishya lineage and we can turn to them if we need help. Harih Om. Neelakantan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 praNAms Sri Michael prabhuji Hare Krishna Sri M prabhuji : " If liberation is the nature of the self, like the heat of fire, it cannot be said to be a consequence of human activity. " That suggests that the activity of the jnani qua activity is not any different from the activity of others qua their activity. Nothing within human activity as such brought about the state of enlightenment. The inference there is that it is the same. Perception is human activity. No change in perception brought about jnana or jnanihood. bhaskar : Yes prabhuji as you have rightly pointed out liberation is the very nature of the Atman and at the same time ashareeratvaM (unembodiedness) of Atman is also *svabhAvika dharma* of Atman (which you are calling as *ghost theory:-)) ...If this liberation is not very nature of Atman like heat of fire, if this liberation is an achieved status of an ajnAni *afresh* than it is not permanent..Shankara discusses some logical fallacies in accepting the reality of bandha-mOksha in geeta bhAshya 13-2...Yes, no human activity (purusha tantra) can bring us the enlightenment...Only vastu tantra jnAna ( knowing the thing *as it is) would reveal the real nature of Atman which is adviteeya in its very nature. This adviteeya jnAna (secondless knowledge) would bring any change in perception?? This question ofcourse does not arise for a jnAni who transcends the triputi..Rest of the explanation with regard to 'no change in perception of jnAni or ajnAni' is a history..as you know, we have been discussing this same issue all through this month :-)) Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar 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. I am really surprised to read the following translation of certain verses of Acharya's Aparokshaanubhuuti. Have we discussed this before? Is the translation entirely wrong? Bhaskarji, any comments? Best regards. Madathil Nair ___________ Adi Sankaracharya's APAROKSHANUBHUTI [sELF-REALISATION] Translated by Swami Vimuktananda Published by Advaita Ashram, Kolkatta http://www.celextel.org/adisankara/aparoksanubhuti.html 90. The theory one hears of from the scripture, that Prarabdha does not lose its hold upon one even after the origination of the knowledge of Atman, is now being refuted. 91. After the origination of the knowledge of Reality, Prarabdha verily ceases to exist, inasmuch as the body and the like become non- existent; just as a dream does not exist on waking. 92. That Karma which is done in a previous life is known as Prarabdha (which produces the present life). But such Karma cannot take the place of Prarabdha (for a man of knowledge), as he has no other birth (being free from ego). 93. Just as the body in a dream is superimposed (and therefore illusory), so is also this body. How could there be any birth of the superimposed (body), and in the absence of birth (of the body) where is the room for that (i.e., Prarabdha) at all ? 94. The Vedanta texts declare ignorance to be verily the material (cause) of the phenomenal world just as earth is of a jar. That (ignorance) being destroyed, where can the universe subsist ? 95. Just as a person out of confusion perceives only the snake leaving aside the rope, so does an ignorant person see only the phenomenal world without knowing the reality. 96. The real nature of the rope being known, the appearance of the snake no longer persists; so the substratum being known, the phenomenal world disappears completely. 97. The body also being within the phenomenal world (and therefore unreal), how could Prarabdha exist ? It is, therefore, for the understanding of the ignorant alone that the Shruti speaks of Prarabdha. 98. " And all the actions of a man perish when he realizes that (Atman) which is both the higher and the lower " . Here the clear use of the plural by the Shruti is to negate Prarabdha as well. 99. If the ignorant still arbitrarily maintain this, they will not only involve themselves into two absurdities but will also run the risk of forgoing the Vedantic conclusion. So one should accept those Shrutis alone from which proceeds true knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Dear Sadananda-gAru praNAm, advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > Srinivas - praNAms > > I agree with your comments of so-called school 1, although there is no such thing as school 1 - that is only to differentiate from the correct advaita position Jaishankarji used it. No further validity to it as He himself expounded in his mails. > > Your criticism of the so-called second position is the criticism of advaitic stand and I am not really keen to take up on it - but may point the defect in your arguments without going into detail. No, sir, my criticism of school-2 is not the criticism of advaita per se, but purely showing how it will be advaita-hAni if you were to take school-2's position. >> On the other hand School-2 (for which Sri.Sadanadaji and other >> ) is not out of problem either. > >> To avoid above teaching issue, School-2 s to a view that >> jIvan mukta jnAni while still perceives dvaita-prapancha, >> but " knows " that it is mithya. While perceiving this mithya >> prapancha and mithya students, a jIvan-mukta can mithya-cally >> (pardon my new word here) teach " his " mithya students. > ----- > Just some clarification -Other than Brahman - the creation comes under vyaavahaarika which is mithyaa at global level and prAtibhAsika which is mithyaa at individual level. > Hence it is not while perceiving mithyaa - No one perceives mithyaa – Please read my sentence again, I am not saying " while perceiving mithya " , but said " While perceiving this mithya prapancha " . I know, no one can perceive mithya as such, but can perceive mithyAbhUta something. >what is perceived is understood as mithyaa that only means it has no absolute reality. This " understood as mithyaa " part is the exactly I was criticizing. Jnani's this " understanding " is nothing but his " knowledge " (about mittyatva of jagat). Posting this knowership to a jnAni is against Shankara's stand on absence of pramatritva of Atman. You see, I am not criticizing from Dvaita stand, but from Shankara's stand only! >Ring, bangle and bracelet are mithyaa in the sense that they do not have any substantivity of their own other than their material cause, gold. >This knowledge comes once I know the substantive of the ornaments is nothing but gold alone. Gold has not become ornaments but only >appears as ring etc - says the scriptures and confirmed by logic and day to day experiences. Your application of ring/bangle/bracelets and gold example on jnAni and his perception of mithya world is not correct. I agree, ring/bangle/bracelet forms will continue for my perception even after I know (or I realize) that their substance is gold only. So also, my perception of sunset/sunrise will continue even after I know the truth. So also, my perception of mithya mirage water will continue even after I know the truth. But why do they continue to my perception even after I realize the " truth " ? This is because, the forms/sunset/sunrise/mirage water are not all my creation to begin with in order for their annihilation after dawn of knowledge. Ring/bangle/bracelet forms and sunset/sunrise events are all created by a third party entity in above cases. Let's not worry about who is that here, as that is not important in this context. But it is suffice to note that it is not me. However, in Advaita vEdAnta it is said this world is arOpita on substance Brahman. The world in its entire nAma/rUpa is the not creation by third-party but by jnAni himself in his pre-knowledge condition due to avidya. JnAni himself is the author/creator of mithya nAma/rUpas. This illusion is akin to snake-on-rope case, where it is me is the creator of mithya snake form there. This aspect of creatorship of nAma/rUpa in world-brahman superimposition sets a huge difference from bangle-gold analogy. If you hold the view that jnAni will continue to see world nAma-rUpa post- realization, you are essentially denying the creatorship of such world nAma-rUpa on ajnAni's part and posting on a third-party. The implication of this is that, such third-party creator (who is the author of nAma-rUpas) is necessarily to exist post-knowledge period of a jnAni. This dual existence of jnAni and that creator will cause advaita-hAni. That is the crux of the matter. Therefore, your basic comparison of jnAni to gold-bangle is inappropriate. > > The world of plurality is mithyaa in the sense it does not have substantiality of its own - what is there is the material cause, Brahman. This >comes from the scriptures. Jnaani understands †" the jagat is mithyaa, Brahma alone is satyam and he is non-other than Brahman †" that is >jnaanam that he has realized. Hence he understood that he is brahman and world is mithyaa. The part " Hence he understood " is the very negation of Shankara's stand on knowership of Atman. You will not contradict Shankara only if you think jnAni is different from Atman. Do you ? >This is advaitic teaching †" mithyaa means only transactional reality but not absolute reality. Teaching is a transaction between a teacher and >the taught - That at relative level is relatively true but it is not satyasya satyam †" not at absolutely real. This is true whether teacher is jnaani >and the student is ajnaani or when both are ajnaanis. That is true only when both teacher and student are ajnAnis. If teacher is jnAni, since by definition his jnyAna is yathArtha, his knowledge of this difference between " absolute reality " and " transactional reality " will be yathArtha and will never sublate and always exist. For such difference to exist both realities must always exist, otherwise jnAni's knowledge will render ayathArtha. Thus, advaita-hAni here too. > > Hence world is mithyaa whether one knows are not. The difference between a teacher and the taught is the teacher knows this while the student does not. As said above, jnAni teacher's yathArtha knowledge makes the difference between satya and mithya permanent. > ----------------- > Srinivas: > This way School-2 seems to solve the " teaching " issue. > KS: > No- from advaitic position the world is mithyaa irrespective what school you take. It is not school-2 is solving something. Since teaching is transactional reality and no school will agree that it is real at absolute level which remains the same in all periods of time. Only difference in understanding is the teacher from his point is no more since he has realized he is Brahman while the correct advaitic position is mithyaa is mithyaa only whether one knows or not- just as ring is ring different from bangle and bracelet even if I know that they are just one gold. Let us say the ring is a teacher and bangle is the student; the difference remain at transactional level while ring knows that at absolute level they are all gold. while bangle has no knowledge of gold at all to see that oneness in spite of apparent dvaita. > > -------------------- > Srinivas: > > But School-2 > > will draw fresh difficulties. It needs to posit " knowership " on such > > jnAni (he has to " know " the difference between him as sattya and his > > students as mithya). This " knowership " will compromise on knower- > > known duality and hence in direct opposition to non-duality of > > Brahman. > > KS: Srinivas - the difficulty arise for a dvaitin not for advaitin - Goldsmith sees oneness in ring, bangle and necklace but at the same time treats >them differently for transactional purposes. He wares bangle differently and necklace differently †" No confusion in transactions. Hence vision of >oneness as the substantive does not eliminate the superficial differences at apparent level. I have given example many times - As a science >student we know that all are just made of fundamental particles - thus substantive of all is the same - yet the difference between garbage and >food exists at transactional level - Jnaani knows oneness between brahmin or dog -yet dog is a dog and brahmin is brahmin - There is no >confusion in transactions since all transactions are done at superficial level only or vyaavahaarika level only. Hence the sloka I quoted: >prakrityaivaca karmaani .. Sadananda-ji, are we talking about oneness of vision? Or oneness of existence? Shankara is talking about oneness in existence as per shruti nEha nAnAsti kimchana. You are talking about the attitude of jnAni which is vision of oneness. I agree with you on dual ness of existence as a Dvaitin, but I am not at all arguing from Dvaitin stand point here (as you often accuses me), but rather arguing from Shankara's classical advaita standpoint. You see who is advaitin and who is not here?! > ============= > The rest of your mail has no more basis since it based on incorrect understanding of advaita – Not so. As I have shown above, your position is in fact a case of incorrect understanding of Advaita. Regards, Srinivas. > Hari Om! > Sadananda > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Srinivas - PraNAms First, I have no more interest in continuing this thread. However I would address the issues you have rised here and in the next mail pertinent to adviata to the best I can - only for the benefit of general readers. --- On Mon, 2/16/09, Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p wrote: Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p No, sir, my criticism of school-2 is not the criticism of advaita per se, but purely showing how it will be advaita-hAni if you were to take school-2's position.t KS - There is no adviata haani in my statements- when the world is considered as vyaavhaaraika it means mithyaa - transactional reality and not absolute reality- mithyaa is not sat to count as dviata. One gold plus many ornaments is just one gold in varities of transactional forms - or vvaavahaarika forms. A-dviata means although one sees the duality - realizing the duality as mithyaavam is the essence of vedanta. Non-duality inspite of apparent duality. There is absolutely no advaita haani here >> On the other hand School-2 (for which Sri.Sadanadaji and other >> ) is not out of problem either. > >> To avoid above teaching issue, School-2 s to a view that >> jIvan mukta jnAni while still perceives dvaita-prapancha, >> but " knows " that it is mithya. While perceiving this mithya >> prapancha and mithya students, a jIvan-mukta can mithya-cally >> (pardon my new word here) teach " his " mithya students. > ----- > Just some clarification -Other than Brahman - the creation comes under vyaavahaarika which is mithyaa at global level and prAtibhAsika which is mithyaa at individual level. > Hence it is not while perceiving mithyaa - No one perceives mithyaa – Srinivas: Please read my sentence again, I am not saying " while perceiving mithya " , but said " While perceiving this mithya prapancha " . I know, no one can perceive mithya as such, but can perceive mithyAbhUta something. KS: Srinivas - Please read my explanation again. what I notice is not appreciating what mithyaa means- whatever that is seen is mithyaa only - hence percetion and pramaaNas and the world including the subject-object distinctions all come under mithyaa only - Brahman alone is satyam - where there are no distinctions of any kind. Looking from gold point there are no ornaments eventhough you may call one as ring, the other bangle, one teacher the other student. Hence any distinctions of any kind if one sees - sajaati, vijaati, swagata bhedaas - since those distinctions are seen - they are all mithyaa only. dRisyatvaat mithyaa, says Shankara. It can be vyaavahaarika or praatibhaasika depending on whether it is created by Iswara or by jiiva. That is all the difference. Hence any mithyaa not being sat cannot do any haani to advaita. I pointed, that is the reason why the phylosophy is rightly called advaita in tunne with the turiiyam description as advaitam, chaturtham manyante sa aatmaa sa vijneyaH - By saying sa vijneyaH - to be known, it is an instruction to a Vedic student - and hence the description as advaitam since the student's perception is in the real of vyaavahaarika dvaita. Hope it is clear. Otherwise one has to study the Mandukya using Shankara Bhaashya. ------------------ >what is perceived is understood as mithyaa that only means it has no absolute reality. Srinivas: This " understood as mithyaa " part is the exactly I was criticizing. Jnani's this " understanding " is nothing but his " knowledge " (about mittyatva of jagat). Posting this knowership to a jnAni is against Shankara's stand on absence of pramatritva of Atman. You see, I am not criticizing from Dvaita stand, but from Shankara's stand only! KS: Please forgive me as I do not understand your question. Any understanding is involves knowledge only. If I understand that there is no sunrise and sunset it is pure knowledge only. This applies to vyaavahaarika satyam - where jnaani- ajnaani samvaada takes place as a teacher and taught. Your second sentence is not correct - there is never pramaatRitva for aatma - Your statement implies a lack of correct understanding of the advaita position. I have mentioned before - both ignorance and knowledge are within vyavahaara only - That aspect Shastriji pointed in the beginning itself - there is no jnaatRitvam in aatma - if there is then we are diving pramaata-pramaana and prameya in aatma, which is indivisible.Aatma is of the nature of pure jnaanam that is caitanya swaruupam - even that description only as upaapa for teaching since pure knowledge cannot be defined. Hence jnaani and ajnaani both are only in vyavahaara only. Jnaani is the one who understands that world is mithyaa while ajnaani still thinks that world is real. That understanding comes only when he realizes that the substantive of jiiva-jagat-Iswara is pure sat-chit-ananda that 'I am'. Just as gold smith understand the substantive of all ornaments is nothing but gold but can transact with the various names and forms - that is the jnaani who knows I am Brahman and everthing is just a superimpostion of names and forms. There is no problem with names and forms and problem comes only if I forget that substantive and take the names and forms absolutely real. Shankaras stand is simple and clear: Brahma satyam, jagat mithyaa, jiiva braham eva. Jnaani understands that aham brahmaasmi that involves combining one and three, and the world is nothing but mithyaa. I see no basis for your criticism of Shankara's position or of above explanation. --------------------- Srinivas: >Ring, bangle and bracelet are mithyaa in the sense that they do not have any substantivity of their own other than their material cause, gold. >This knowledge comes once I know the substantive of the ornaments is nothing but gold alone. Gold has not become ornaments but only >appears as ring etc - says the scriptures and confirmed by logic and day to day experiences. Your application of ring/bangle/ bracelets and gold example on jnAni and his perception of mithya world is not correct. KS: Srinivas - on what basis that is not correct. Mithyaa is sat asat vilakshanam. I request you to study advaitic interpretation of vaacaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam to see the correctness of the above description. Srinivas: I agree, ring/bangle/ bracelet forms will continue for my perception even after I know (or I realize) that their substance is gold only. So also, my perception of sunset/sunrise will continue even after I know the truth. So also, my perception of mithya mirage water will continue even after I know the truth. But why do they continue to my perception even after I realize the " truth " ? This is because, the forms/sunset/ sunrise/mirage water are not all my creation to begin with in order for their annihilation after dawn of knowledge. KS- Beautiful upto this point - So is the world - the world is not the creation of jnaani or ajnaani - It is Iswara's creation. Dream is the creation of the waking mind not the creation of the subject in side the dream who is also a product of creation. Creator has to be outside the creation to create, he cannot be part of the creation - then we have anyonya aasraya., that Ramanuja criticises. Jnaani is not Iswara. He has understood that the essence of all this world, Iswara and jiiva is just one all pervading indivisible aatma that I am. It is understanding the world not dismissal of the world since he as a jiiva is product of the creation - in the sense Brahman as though identifying with local BMI. Srinivas: Ring/bangle/ bracelet forms and sunset/sunrise events are all created by a third party entity in above cases. Let's not worry about who is that here, as that is not important in this context. But it is suffice to note that it is not me. KS - So is the world - it is not creation by jnaani or ajnaani. Srinivas: However, in Advaita vEdAnta it is said this world is arOpita on substance Brahman. The world in its entire nAma/rUpa is the not creation by third-party but by jnAni himself in his pre-knowledge condition due to avidya. KS: Srinivas - You are providing your interpretation here -there is a fundamental problme in appreciating advaita vedanta. What jnaani can create only his dream world. Jnaani has understood that the substantive of himself-the world and the Iswara is one sat-chit-ananda - there there are no division of the world-jiiva or Iswara. That does not mean he has created the world. I can learn that ring, bangle and bracelet are gold without me creating them. From Brahman point there is no creation. Jnaani understood that from the substantive Brahman that he is - there is no creation also. But creation being not asat, it appears to be there but that appearence is now taken as mithyaa only. Just as gold-jnaani understood that substantive of the ring, bangle and bracelet is nothing but gold only - The analogy is perfect and that is why scripture uses this to answer how eka vijnaanena sarva vijnaanam bhavati - knowing onething one can know everything else. Knowing Brahman one can know everything which are apparent names and forms of Brahman - and that teaching terminates with tat tva asi - that Brahman is you are. That is the knowledge involving understanding knowledge of Brahman that you are you know essence of everything - aitadaatmya idagam sarvam - the essence of everything - the sarvam idam is not created by jnaani - what it says the substantive of idagam sarvam is I am -sarvam then only vaacaarambhanam - as yathaa soumya ekena lohamaninaa .. Just as the gold becoming many in terms of names and forms. Jnaani will know that sarvam brahma mayam -that jnaatRitvam is understanding of jnaani. Please study Shankara Bhaashya on Mandukya. -------------------- Srinivas: JnAni himself is the author/creator of mithya nAma/rUpas. KS: That is wrong. Jiiva is not Iswara to create the world. Jiiva's creation is praatibhaasika and Iswara's creation is vyaavahaarika. For correct understanding of advaita - the distinction of the two should be clear. Snake is praatibhaasika while mirage water, sunrise and sunset etc are vyaavahaarika. BMI of jiiva in waking world is vyaavahaarika while BMI of jiiva in the dream world is praatibhaasika. When he wakes up from dream the BMI of dream along with the dream world disappears. Similarly when he drops the BMI of waking world, then he is pure Brahman without any distinciton of jnaani or ajnaani etc - One without a second. The analogies of dream and waking worlds and praatibhaasika and vyaavahaarika have to be understood clearly. ---- Srinivas: This illusion is akin to snake-on-rope case, where it is me is the creator of mithya snake form there. This aspect of creatorship of nAma/rUpa in world-brahman superimposition sets a huge difference from bangle-gold analogy. If you hold the view that jnAni will continue to see world nAma-rUpa post- realization, you are essentially denying the creatorship of such world nAma-rUpa on ajnAni's part and posting on a third-party. The implication of this is that, such third-party creator (who is the author of nAma-rUpas) is necessarily to exist post-knowledge period of a jnAni. This dual existence of jnAni and that creator will cause advaita-hAni. That is the crux of the matter. Therefore, your basic comparison of jnAni to gold-bangle is inappropriate KS: It is getting late for. In essence the problem is lack of correct understanding between praatibhasika and vyaavahaarika. World is not like snake and rope - the later is praatibhasika while the former is vyaavaharika. In short - Waking world is the creation of Iswara - ananta kalyaana gunas can be imposed on Iswara. It is vyaavahaarika. Dream world as well as subjective projections like snake on rope etc are praatibhaasika errors. Creation of Jiiva. Those creation will disappea when I have knowledge of the substantive. nct Brahman is pure consciosness - avyavahaaryam. No creation also to talk about. No jnaani- no ajnaani divisions in paaramaarthika. If you read the rest of your comments with that understanding the you will no advaita haani. I will stop here Hari Om! Sadananda > The world of plurality is mithyaa in the sense it does not have substantiality of its own - what is there is the material cause, Brahman. This >comes from the scriptures. Jnaani understands †" the jagat is mithyaa, Brahma alone is satyam and he is non-other than Brahman †" that is >jnaanam that he has realized. Hence he understood that he is brahman and world is mithyaa. The part " Hence he understood " is the very negation of Shankara's stand on knowership of Atman. You will not contradict Shankara only if you think jnAni is different from Atman. Do you ? >This is advaitic teaching †" mithyaa means only transactional reality but not absolute reality. Teaching is a transaction between a teacher and >the taught - That at relative level is relatively true but it is not satyasya satyam †" not at absolutely real. This is true whether teacher is jnaani >and the student is ajnaani or when both are ajnaanis. That is true only when both teacher and student are ajnAnis. If teacher is jnAni, since by definition his jnyAna is yathArtha, his knowledge of this difference between " absolute reality " and " transactional reality " will be yathArtha and will never sublate and always exist. For such difference to exist both realities must always exist, otherwise jnAni's knowledge will render ayathArtha. Thus, advaita-hAni here too. > > Hence world is mithyaa whether one knows are not. The difference between a teacher and the taught is the teacher knows this while the student does not. As said above, jnAni teacher's yathArtha knowledge makes the difference between satya and mithya permanent. > ------------ ----- > Srinivas: > This way School-2 seems to solve the " teaching " issue. > KS: > No- from advaitic position the world is mithyaa irrespective what school you take. It is not school-2 is solving something. Since teaching is transactional reality and no school will agree that it is real at absolute level which remains the same in all periods of time. Only difference in understanding is the teacher from his point is no more since he has realized he is Brahman while the correct advaitic position is mithyaa is mithyaa only whether one knows or not- just as ring is ring different from bangle and bracelet even if I know that they are just one gold. Let us say the ring is a teacher and bangle is the student; the difference remain at transactional level while ring knows that at absolute level they are all gold. while bangle has no knowledge of gold at all to see that oneness in spite of apparent dvaita. > > ------------ -------- > Srinivas: > > But School-2 > > will draw fresh difficulties. It needs to posit " knowership " on such > > jnAni (he has to " know " the difference between him as sattya and his > > students as mithya). This " knowership " will compromise on knower- > > known duality and hence in direct opposition to non-duality of > > Brahman. > > KS: Srinivas - the difficulty arise for a dvaitin not for advaitin - Goldsmith sees oneness in ring, bangle and necklace but at the same time treats >them differently for transactional purposes. He wares bangle differently and necklace differently †" No confusion in transactions. Hence vision of >oneness as the substantive does not eliminate the superficial differences at apparent level. I have given example many times - As a science >student we know that all are just made of fundamental particles - thus substantive of all is the same - yet the difference between garbage and >food exists at transactional level - Jnaani knows oneness between brahmin or dog -yet dog is a dog and brahmin is brahmin - There is no >confusion in transactions since all transactions are done at superficial level only or vyaavahaarika level only. Hence the sloka I quoted: >prakrityaivaca karmaani .. Sadananda-ji, are we talking about oneness of vision? Or oneness of existence? Shankara is talking about oneness in existence as per shruti nEha nAnAsti kimchana. You are talking about the attitude of jnAni which is vision of oneness. I agree with you on dual ness of existence as a Dvaitin, but I am not at all arguing from Dvaitin stand point here (as you often accuses me), but rather arguing from Shankara's classical advaita standpoint. You see who is advaitin and who is not here?! > ============ = > The rest of your mail has no more basis since it based on incorrect understanding of advaita – Not so. As I have shown above, your position is in fact a case of incorrect understanding of Advaita. Regards, Srinivas. > Hari Om! > Sadananda > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Namaste Sreenivas-ji. You are a true advaitin! Really appreciate this. You have really addressed the crux of the issue which got clouded in the proliferous exchange of mails. 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. Best regards. Madathil Nair ________________ advaitin , " Srinivas Kotekal " <kots_p wrote: > > This " understood as mithyaa " part is the exactly I was criticizing. > Jnani's this " understanding " is nothing but his " knowledge " (about > mittyatva of jagat). Posting this knowership to a jnAni is against > Shankara's stand on absence of pramatritva of Atman. You see, I am > not criticizing from Dvaita stand, but from Shankara's stand only! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Namaste all. I am really surprised to read the following translation of certain verses of Acharya's Aparokshaanubhuuti. Have we discussed this before? Is the translation entirely wrong? Bhaskarji, any comments? praNAms Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji Hare Krishna It is good that you have brought the relevant verses to the notice of this forum...Infact I've referred this prakaraNa grantha in one of my mails earlier (to Sri Jaishankara prabhuji) This is in the name of shankara & he clearly refutes the theory of jnAni's prarabhdha karma here...The author also gives new explanations to rechaka (exhalation), inhalation (pUraka) and kumbhaka in prANAyAma...He also discusses some aspects of haTha yOga also...There is no surprise here, your quotes have not attracted the minds of those who are so particular about imposing prArabhdha karma to jnAni...Unfortunately here they cannot cook their any new interpretation as these verses are straightforward & crystal clear in refutation...Since I donot want to take this an authority, you can discount my comments..But what happened to our other prabhuji-s who are profusely quoting vedanta saara, panchadashi, JMV etc. etc. to claim their seat here :-)) Have they ignored this prakaraNa grantha which is known as one of shankara's prakaraNa grantha-s?? Sri Sadananda prabhuji or Sri Jaishankar prabhuji would you please mind to give us the correct interpretation of these verses?? Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar 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.