a few thoughts

[Guest guest]

Hare KrishNA, namaskArams.

 

Just a few thoughts from my side on Jeevamuktha

lakshanam/viveka

 

Basically for whom the jeevanmuktha lakshanam/viveka is

required?, Only for a nonjevanmukthA. A jeevanmukthA has discovered himself and

has nothing to transact from his level but as a preceptor/AchAryA or else,

until his prArabdA requires him to be embodied with the bmi, he has to deal

with the world at vyavahAric level and does not become a nonjeevamukthA by

that.

 

A non jeevanmukthA can never no the real status of a gnAni

(jeevanmukthA) who is beyond comprehension as Brahman but knows only through a

jeevanmukthA (preceptor/guru) who can only show/tell the truth through an

arundhati nyaya type of teaching. Hence it is for the nonjeevanmukthA to

discover the truth himself as Brahman since scriptures can only help to a

certain level

..

As for as the jeevanmukthA is concerned he does not see the

student/world he is teaching/living and the student/the world can only see the

still living bmi of his teacher, a jeevanmukthA. It is a question of reference

level from which it has to be seen and scriptures interpreted in that light.

 

Every one has the right to hold their views and cannot

expect others to accept/see their way. it is enough to express one’s point of

view on subjects of such intense deliberations and leave it for others to take

it in whatever way it appeals to them. In fact is it possible to comprehend and

write about a gnani/Brahman in words? All the seekers are at vyavahAric level and

all the teachings at the same level.

 

May lord Krishna bless us

all in discovering him in us

 

baskaran

 

 

Connect with friends all over the world. Get India Messenger.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Baskaran <baskaran42 wrote:

>

> Just a few thoughts from my side on Jeevanmukta

> lakshanam/viveka

>

> A non-jeevanmukta can never know the real status of a gnAni

>(jeevanmukta) who is beyond comprehension as Brahman, but knows only

> through a jeevanmukthA (preceptor/guru) who can only show/tell the

> truth through an arundhati nyaya type of teaching. Hence it is for

> the nonjeevanmukta to discover the truth himself as Brahman since

> scriptures can only help to a certain level.

 

 

Namaste,

 

Sri Krishna has expressed the indicators of a jivanmukta in

the following 2 verses - (Shankara bhashya translation by Sw.

Gambhirananda) -

 

18:54. One who has become Brahman and has attained the blissful Self

does not grieve or desire. Becoming the same towards all beings, he

attains supreme devotion to Me.

 

Brahma-bhutah, one who has become Brahman, attained Brahman through

the above process; and prasanna-atma, [Prasada means the

manifestation of the supreme Bliss of the Self as a result of the

total cessation of all evils. Prasanna-atma is one who has attained

this in the present life itself.] has attained the blissful Self, the

indwelling Self; na, does not; socati, grieve-does not lament for the

loss of something or the lack of some quality in oneself; nor

kanksati, desire. By saying 'he does not grieve nor desire', this

nature of one who has attained Brahman is being restated. For it does

not stand to reason that in the case of a knower of Brahman there can

be any hankering for something unattained. Or, (in place of kanksati)

the reading may be na hrsyati, does not become elated.

 

Becoming samah, the same; sarvesu bhutesu, towards all beings-i.e.,

he verily judges what is happiness and sorrow in all beings by the

same standard as he would apply to himself (cf. 6.32); but the

meaning is not 'seeing the Self alike in all beings', for this will

be spoken of in (the next verse), 'Through devotion he knows Me'-;

he, the one who is of this kind and steadfast in Knowledge, labhate,

attains; param, supreme; madbhaktim, devotion to Me, to the supreme

Lord; (he attains) devotion which is described as Knowledge, as

the 'fourth' in, '.....four classes of people....adore Me' (7.16).

 

Then,

 

18:55. Through devotion he knows Me in reality, as to what and who I

am. Then, having known Me in truth, he enters (into Me) immediately

after that (Knowledge).

 

Bhaktya, through devotion, through that devotion described as

Knowledge; abhijanati, he knows; mam, Me; tattvatah, in reality; as

to yavan, what I am, with the extensive differences created by

limiting adjuncts; and yah asmi, who I am when all distinctions

create by the limiting adjuncts are destroyed-Me who am the supreme

Person comparable to space [in points of all-pervasiveness and non-

attachment.] and one-without-a-second, absolute, homogeneous

Consciousness, birthless, ageless, immortal, fearless and

deathless.

 

Tatah, then; jnatva, having known; mam, Me, thus; tattvatah, in

truth; visate, he enters into Me, Myself; tadanantaram, immediately

after that (Knowledge). Here, by saing, 'having known, he enters

without delay', it is not meant that the acts of 'knowing'

and 'entering immediately after' are different. What then? What is

meant is the absolute Knowledge itself that has to no other result,

[in place of phalantarabhava-jnana-matram eva, Ast.

reads 'phalantarbhavat jnanamatram eva, absolute Knowledge itself,

since there is no other result'.-Tr.] for it has been

said, 'And....understand Me to be the " Knower of the field " , (13.2).

 

Opponent: Has it not been contradictory to say, he knows Me through

that which is the supreme steadliness (nistha) in Knowledge?

 

Vedantin: If it be asked, How it is contradictory?

 

Opponent: The answer is: Whenever any Knowledge of something arises

in a knower, at that very moment the knower knows that object. Hence,

he does not depend on steadfastness in Knowledge which consists in

the repetition of the act of knowing. And therefore, it is

contradictory to say one knows not through knowledge, but through

steadfastness in knowledge which is a repetition of the act of

knowing.

 

Vedantin: There is no such fault, since the culmination of Knowledge-

which (Knowledge) is associated with the causes of its unfoldment and

maturity, and which has nothing to contradict it- in the conviction

that one's own Self has been realized is what is referred to by the

word nistha (consummation): When knowledge-which concerns the

identity of the 'Knower of the field' and the supreme Self, and which

remains associated with the renunciation of all actions that arise

from the perception of the distinction among their accessories such

as agent etc., and which unfolds from the instruction of the

scriptures and teachers, depending on purity of the intellect etc.

and humility etc. which are the auxiliary cuases of the origin and

maturity of Knowledge-continues in the form of the conviction that

one's own Self has been realized, then that continuance is called the

supreme steadfastness (nistha) in Knowledge.

 

This steadfastness in Knowledge that is such has been spoken of as

the highest, the fourth kind of devotion in relation to the three

other devotions viz of the afflicted, etc. (cf. 7.16). Through that

highest devotion one realizes the Lord in truth. Immediately after

that the idea of difference between the Lord and the Knower of the

field vanishes totally. There-fore the statement, 'one knows Me

through devotion in the form of steadfastness in Knowledge', is not

contradictory. And, in this sense, all the scriptures-consisting of

Vedanta (Upanisads etc.), History, Mythology and Smrtis-, as for

instance, 'Knowing (this very Self the Brahmanas) renounce....and

lead a mendicant's life' (Br. 3.5.1), 'Therefore they speak of

monasticism as excellent among these austerities' (Ma. Na.

24.1), 'Monasticism verily became supreme' (ibid. 21.2), which enjoin

renunciation become meaningful. Thus, monasticism means renunciation

of rites and duties. There are also the texts, 'Having renounced the

Vedas as well as this world and the next' (Ap. Dh. Su. 2.9.13),

and 'Give up religion and irreligion' (Mbh. Sa. 329.40; 331.44), etc.

And here (in the Gita) also various relevant) passages have been

pointed out. In is not porper that those texts should be meaningless.

Nor are they merely eulogistic, since they occur in their own

contexts. Besides, Liberation consists in being established in the

changeless real nature of the indwelling Self. Indeed, it is not

possible that one who wants to go to the eastern sea and the other

who wants to go in the opposite direction to the western sea can have

the same course!

 

And steadfastness in Knowledge consists in being totally absorbed in

maintaining a current of thought with regard to the indwelling Self.

And that is opposed to coexistence with duties, like going to the

western sea. It has been the conclusion of those versed in the valid

means of knowledge that the difference between them is as wide as

that between a mountain and a mustard seed! Therefore it is

established that one should have recourse to steadfastness in

Knowledge only, by relinquishing all rites and duties.

 

The fruit of the attainment of success from the Yoga of Devotion

consisting in worshiping the Lord with one's own actions is the

ability to remain steadfast in Knowledge, from which, follows stead-

fastness in Knowledge, culminating in the result, Liberation. That

Yoga of Devotion to the Lord is now being praised in this concluding

section dealing with the purport of the Scripture, with a view to

generating a firm conviction with regard to it (the purport of the

Scripture):

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder