who teaches and who listens?

February 12, 2009

--- On Thu, 2/12/09, jaishankar_n <jai1971 wrote:

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

are possessors of jnAna, deha etc without identifying oneself as

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

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

explicitly talks about this in Geeta Bhasya and Brahmasutra Bhasya but

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

--------------

I think the essence of the differnces and outlooks and quotes from Bhaskara and

all others about What shankaa says etc. lies in this as Jaishankarji points out

- who does the action?

No one really does - not only jnaani but ajnaani too. neiher jnaani teaches not

ajnaani listens. That is the absolute fact.

The only problem is jnaani by being jnaani knows this and ajnaani being ajnaani

does not know this and he think he is kartaa or doer or a student listening to a

teacher.

Here is the understanding.

Neither jnaani does the action nor ajnaani does the action - that is the

absolute fact as Krishna says clearly in two places - Once in 3rd Ch. and once

again in 13th. PrakRiti does all the actions.

Jnaani being a jnaani knows this and hence when Bhagavan Ramana or Nisargadatta

Maharaj says I do not act or jnaani does not act - it should be understood that

jnaani knows that he does not act - yaH pastyati tad aatmaanam akartaaham sa

pasyati - who knows that prakRiti does all the actions and knows that he is a

non-doer - he alone sees the truth or knows the truth. Not that jnaani suddenly

becomes a non-doer afer jnaanam - He knows he was never a doer. That is the

jnaanam all though all doing is being done by prakRiti - Part of kshetram - and

kshetarajna is Krishna says I am the kshetrajna in all fields(including

ajnaaniis too).

The difference between jnaani and ajnaani is only one knows and the other does

not know - as I must have said this many times and of course until the notion of

ajnaanam drops out.

BMI is part of prakRiti and prakRiti does all actions including seeing the

duality. Hence seeing goes on - teaching can go on and learning can go on - by

the suitable and qualified BMI's. That is the nature of the prakriti.

The problem comes when notions step in - It is the ownership that causes

bondage -

If one claims that jnaani does not teach - on that reference one should also

claim that one does not learn too. Both are equal reference. One cannot switch

the references. Jnaani does not teach becuase he is Brahman - ajnaani does not

learn because he is Brahman - But teacahing and learning can go on at

vyaavahaarika level. The two references are to be clear.

If one says the ajnaani is learning but jnaani is teaching we are crossing the

references. This is where vyavahaara and paaramaarthika differ in terms of

references. Shankara Bhaashya does not violate Shruti statements - it clarifies

the shruti's statements as it is Bhaashya not an independent siddhanta. Hence

what Shankara says also has to be clear too in accordence with pramaaNa. There

is no problem in apparent actions by either jnaani or ajnaani if they are known

as apparnt and not real. Problem comes only when the apparent is taken as real.

Hence When Bhagavaan Ramana or Nisargadatta Maharaj says that I do not act -

that is true but that is true for everybody and that also they know. ajaani

thinks jnaani is teaching him and he is learning from him is also true from his

perspective or reference.

Correct way of saying without crossing references is

jnaani is teaching and ajnaani is learning - from vyavahaara point

No one is teaching and no one is learning from the absolute point.

That is adviata - no confusion in terms of references. Confuson comes if uses

one reference for jnaani and other references for ajnaani.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

February 17, 2009

Dear Sadanada-gAru,

praNAma-s

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> --- On Thu, 2/12/09, jaishankar_n <jai1971 wrote:

>

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

etc

> are possessors of jnAna, deha etc without identifying oneself as

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

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

Shankara

> explicitly talks about this in Geeta Bhasya and Brahmasutra Bhasya

but

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

>

> --------------

>

> I think the essence of the differnces and outlooks and quotes from

Bhaskara and all others about What shankaa says etc. lies in this as

Jaishankarji points out - who does the action?

>

> No one really does - not only jnaani but ajnaani too. neiher

jnaani teaches not ajnaani listens. That is the absolute fact.

>

> The only problem is jnaani by being jnaani knows this and ajnaani

being ajnaani does not know this and he think he is kartaa or doer

or a student listening to a teacher.

>

> Here is the understanding.

>

> Neither jnaani does the action nor ajnaani does the action - that

is the absolute fact as Krishna says clearly in two places - Once

in 3rd Ch. and once again in 13th. PrakRiti does all the actions.

>

What is this Prakriti? Is it a chEtana or jaDa?

It can't be a jada, for jada can not do anything.

If chEtana, is it that jnAni himself ? Or different and other than

that jnAni?

It can't be that jnAni himself, for you are denying any action

(kartitva) for him in above reply.

Then, logically it must be all together a different chEtana! Thus

advaita hAni.

PrakRiti does all the actions as said in BG, but BG has no problem

with duality. Because SriKrishna qualifies it as " Under My

Controll " as in " mayA.adhyaxeNa prakR^itiH sUyate sacharAcharam.h " .

Krishna never said PrakRiti does its on own.

> Jnaani being a jnaani knows this and hence when Bhagavan Ramana or

Nisargadatta Maharaj says I do not act or jnaani does not act - it

should be understood that jnaani knows that he does not act - yaH

pastyati tad aatmaanam akartaaham sa pasyati - who knows that

prakRiti does all the actions and knows that he is a non-doer - he

alone sees the truth or knows the truth. Not that jnaani suddenly

becomes a non-doer afer jnaanam - He knows he was never a doer. That

is the jnaanam all though all doing is being done by prakRiti - Part

of kshetram - and kshetarajna is Krishna says I am the kshetrajna in

all fields(including ajnaaniis too).

>

> The difference between jnaani and ajnaani is only one knows and

the other does not know - as I must have said this many times and of

course until the notion of ajnaanam drops out.

>

> BMI is part of prakRiti and prakRiti does all actions including

seeing the duality. Hence seeing goes on - teaching can go on and

learning can go on - by the suitable and qualified BMI's. That is

the nature of the prakriti.

>

> The problem comes when notions step in - It is the ownership that

causes bondage -

>

What you say is true if we (jIvas) think such ownership on us. But

its is Brahman SriKrishna is saying " mayA.adhyaxeNa " . Both the

problems solved – we disown the notion of ownership and at the same

time there is " someone else " (SriKrishna) under His ownership

prakriti is said to be acting. But this solution requires dualities

of jIva-Brahma, which I will not go here as it is out of scope here.

> If one claims that jnaani does not teach - on that reference one

should also claim that one does not learn too. Both are equal

reference. One cannot switch the references. Jnaani does not teach

becuase he is Brahman - ajnaani does not learn because he is

Brahman - But teacahing and learning can go on at vyaavahaarika

level. The two references are to be clear.

>

> If one says the ajnaani is learning but jnaani is teaching we are

crossing the references. This is where vyavahaara and paaramaarthika

differ in terms of references. Shankara Bhaashya does not violate

Shruti statements - it clarifies the shruti's statements as it is

Bhaashya not an independent siddhanta. Hence what Shankara says also

has to be clear too in accordence with pramaaNa. There is no problem

in apparent actions by either jnaani or ajnaani if they are known as

apparnt and not real. Problem comes only when the apparent is taken

as real.

>

Ok, if both jnAni and ajnAni are apparent in vyavahAra, then why are

we holding such apparent jnAni in high esteem? Where is the pramANya

in saying such " jnAni " knows the truth?

> Hence When Bhagavaan Ramana or Nisargadatta Maharaj says that I do

not act - that is true but that is true for everybody and that also

they know. ajaani thinks jnaani is teaching him and he is learning

from him is also true from his perspective or reference.

>

> Correct way of saying without crossing references is

> jnaani is teaching and ajnaani is learning - from vyavahaara point

> No one is teaching and no one is learning from the absolute point.

Then it is also need to be said that nobody is crossing from

vyavahAra to absolute. Vyavahara remains as vyavahara and absolute

remains as absolute. Thus causing duality of two realities and hence

advaita-hAni.

The problem is not with the cross referencing, but with the

question, how do one transcend from vyavahAra and moves to absolute?

Your above proposition does not seems to address that issue at all.

Regards,

Srinivas.

February 17, 2009

Srinivas: PraNAms

For some reason I could not copy and past and no way of checking spelling - so

bear with me.

In the other mail I have answered the difference between vyaavahaarika and

praatibhaasika - Nairji in another mail is unnecessarily giving boost to your

misinterpretation. It is unfortunate.

The confusion of anynyonya aasraya is the one of the fundamental criticisms in

mahaapuurvapaksha in ShreeBhaashya of Bhagavan Ramanuja -as one of his seven

untenables against advaita. As you realize this confusion about misunderstanding

of advaita is also not new.

In essence I have mentioned that anything inside the creation cannot create the

whole creation. That is illogical. Hence jiiva cannot be creator and jnaani as

jiivan mukta has realized that I am Brahman. From Brahman point there is no

creation also to talk about any creation. Hence the statement that jnaani

created this world like snanke/rope case is wrong. Hence waking world is Iswara

sRishTi that requires sarvajnatvam. Jnaani is not sarvajna but he knows the

essence of the world (aitadaatmya idam sarvam). Dream world, yes it is jiiva's

creation and he is sarvajna of the dream world only - but there too, from the

point of tiny jiiva as a subject then it is not the creation of that tiny

subject in the dream - it is the creation of waking mind not the mind of the

tiny subject in the dream - like if I am a firemman in the dream it is not the

fireman's mind that created the whole dream. In that sense the dream and waking

are parallel. Iswara of the dream is

the waker's mind. Iswara of the waking mind is the total mind - all part of

mithyaa only since the creation itself is mithyaa - that is only apparent but

not real. But the apparent is taken as real by the dream subject and apparent is

taken as real in the jiiva in the vyavahaara.

Hence waking world is real but real in the sense of vyaavahaarika not

praatibhaasika. It will disapper only when the jnaani becomes ashariiraH - that

is when his BMI drops out. For ajnaani it continues since his suukshma shariira

continues.

In passing I may also state that Iswara is neither inside nor outside the

creation - and only answer is He is the creation. Hence Krishna's statement ..

mayaatatamidam sarvam jagat avyakta muurthinaa| mastaani sarva bhuutaani na

caaham teshu avasthitaH|| I pervade this entire universe in UNMANIFESTED FORM,

all being are in me, but I am not in their 'avasthaas' or untouched by their

states (say, waking, dream and deepsleep.

Now let me address questions you have raised here.

--- On Mon, 2/16/09, Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p wrote:

Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p

What is this Prakriti? Is it a chEtana or jaDa?

It can't be a jada, for jada can not do anything.

If chEtana, is it that jnAni himself ? Or different and other than

that jnAni?

It can't be that jnAni himself, for you are denying any action

(kartitva) for him in above reply.

Then, logically it must be all together a different chEtana! Thus

advaita hAni.

-------------

KS:

Srinivas - you are asking very fundamental questions. I think I have answered

some in terms of what is realization.

Let us go over your so called logic.

Attma is all pervading eternal ever existent self-luminous sat chit ananda

swaruupam. From aatman point there is no kartaa,karma, kriya. I have already

mentioned from Brahman point there is no creation. Hence no questions can be

asked - infinite cannot undergo any transformation.

You are right prakriti being jadam cannot create. But what is prakRiti you asked

- Sruti says - prakRiti is nothing maaya. maaya is yaa maa saa maayaa - that

which is apprears to be there but really not there - where reality is only

Brahman, by definition.

Hence from Brahman point there is no creation - your logic stops before you can

ask.

From maaya point the creation is appearence only - hence it is mityaa. Apperence

is taken as real, that is delusion. But in any apperence there has to be

something real as substative and only real thing that can be is Brahman which is

infinite.

Hence creation is to be understood similar to dream world of creation - that is

the beauty of Mandukya Up. How this so called appearence and taking appearence

as real - correct understanding of the appearence all can be beutifully

accounted by paralleism between waking world and dream world.

When I say intellect knows - intellect being jadam cannot know - but it gets 'as

though' activated in the presence of caitanya - Hence it is defined as reflected

consciousness - or chidaabhaasa. These terms are well defined are explained in

clear terms in Tatva bhoda of Shankara - the first text in advaita vedanta.

Heart pumps, digestive system works, all these are actions but the inert body

cannot act - The very presence of life principle makes bunch of carbohydreates

and mineral so dynamic - Hence incredible is the power of maaya, the power of

Iswara - Bhagavaan Ramana calls it apaara shaktiH - That limitless power of

Iswara. We do not know what life is - but that very presence makes the inert

body to function. The consciousness very presence get reflected in the uppadhiis

and that is the expression of life in the inert. The apparent production of

bhuuta and bhoutica are exhaustively treated in say Ch.Up. 6th ch. But to make

sure we understand those correctly it starts with vaachaarambhanam - the mear

appearence of names and forms. That is how transactional world is created and

operating.

If you can explain to me what is life and how life makes the body funtion - then

I will expain to you how in the very presence of chaitanya the inert matter

becomes dynamic. But Brahman being one without a second, even the so called

inert matter is not separate from Brahman since existence of inert matter is

supported by the existence principle that pervades all existent things - and

knowledge of their existence can only be established when existene and

consciousnes as though become one as in the perceptual knowledge as discussed in

the knowledge series as perceptuality condition.

If these basic aspects of adviata are clearly understood you can yourself answer

your remainging questions.

-------------------

Srinivas:

PrakRiti does all the actions as said in BG, but BG has no problem

with duality. Because SriKrishna qualifies it as " Under My

Controll " as in " mayA.adhyaxeNa prakR^itiH sUyate sacharAcharam. h " .

Krishna never said PrakRiti does its on own.he

KS: Neither advaita says also. In the presence of life, heart functions.Heart

being inert cannot function by itself.

In the presence of chaitanya, the prakRiti appears to function. I used the word

appear delebarately since this appearence is taken as real in vyavahaara. Since

creation is only at vyavahaara level and is clearly accounted by reflected

consciousness - I have discussed this in one of early post in terms of what is

self-realization.

-----------------

>

Srinivas:

What you say is true if we (jIvas) think such ownership on us. But

its is Brahman SriKrishna is saying " mayA.adhyaxeNa " . Both the

problems solved â€“ we disown the notion of ownership and at the same

time there is " someone else " (SriKrishna) under His ownership

prakriti is said to be acting. But this solution requires dualities

of jIva-Brahma, which I will not go here as it is out of scope here.

KS; Yes there is APPARENT duality, by definition in vyavahaara. But if that

appearence is taken is real then it is called delusion. If apperence is

understood as apperence then it is taken as either vibhuuti of the Lord. Until

all the apperences ceases. The appearence will cease when there are no

instruments to see that apperences - temporarily in deep sleep state and

permanently when jiivan mukta drops the BMI.

I have already explained the jiiva-Brahma as per advaita. Advaita accepts Iswara

for creation as long as one sees the creation and that Iswara is sarvajna. We

have no problem is all that.

But from pure sat-chit ananda - Brahman there is no creation - no

sajaati-vihaari-swagata bhedaas since Brahman is infinite sat-chit-ananda

swaruupa.

Hence waking world is as though dismissed when I go to dream and both worlds are

dismissed when I go to deep sleep state - but in no state I am dismissed. That

is the absolute part of the three states which is defined in as the turriiyam.

We have no problme in accounting any of these.

--------

KS previous post: