Seeking Clarification

[Guest guest]

My responses after **

 

2009/3/13 Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p:

<<That's the reason I was alluding to Advaita-hAni dOSha if one were

to posit presence of mithyatva from pAramArthika perspective.>>

 

** No one posits mithyA IN paramArtha. That's an erronous

understanding in the first place. The discussion on the jnAnIhood was

within the perimeter of vyavahAra only.

 

<< That's the reason Acharya Shankara says " na cha agneriva AtmA

Atmani viShayaH " The Self is not an object of knowledge for the Self.

This is his denial of any knowership in pAramArtha. " >>

 

** Agreed, the knowership is only in vyavahAra. avidyA is essentially

the superimposition of knowerhood on the Atman, and hence the

beginning (in terms of logical priority) of vyavahAra.

 

<<I appreciate if you and others can note the difference here, which

is difference between calling something as " mithya " and the concept of

mithyatvam itself.>>

 

** If you appreciate that avidyA is the superimposition of knowerhood

on the Atman, then all such confusions evaporate.

 

Ramesh

--

santoShaH paramo lAbhaH satsa~NgaH paramA gatiH I

vicAraH paramaM j~nAnaM shamo hi paramaM sukham II

- yoga vAsiShTha

[Guest guest]

We have to understand the limitations of this example and avoid asking untenable questions over it. It is just mundane like any other example and is solely employed here to articulate the difference between what School 1 and 2 are saying.

 

Thus, the jnAni of School 2 has no duality to confront because he has *realized* the *advaitic secret* (Truth) of Himself which seemed before to be a split spectrum of himself as a limited being and an objectified world of multiplicity. The vibgyor of the rainbow has returned to permanent rest in its very source - the monochromatic brilliance of the Sun of Knowledge.

 

praNAms Sri MN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

That is simply fabulous prabhuji!! Kindly accept my praNAms...You have very well articulated the *main* difference between socalled jnAni's of School-1 and absolute jnAni of School-2...I think school-1 has taken it for granted that mere intellectual understanding of the non-duality is more than enough to declare one as a jnAni :-)) they often forgot to note that there is an upanishadic reality which has to be intuitively realized by a mumukshu & this realization could give the jnAni no more 'taste' of duality through the individuality in the form of localized sense organs & reflected consciousness etc. :-))

There is a beautiful maNtra in bruhadAraNyaka upanishad in which it is quite clearly declared that all our practical life involving functions of the organs of senses, as well as activities involving the functions of the organs of activity, is possible ONLY in the filed of duality which is again due to avidyA (ignorance). It is really worth mentioning that translation onceagain :

" where there is duality *as it were* there one sees another, there one smells another, there one tastes another, there one speaks to another, there one listens to another ( contextually this can equally be applied to guru-shishya dialogues, where guru teaches & shishya listens !!), there one thinks on another, there one touches another, there one understands another..(this can be applicable here to shAstra vAkya shravaNa & manana etc.)...Where however, everything has become Atman alone, there who can possibly see another and with what?? There who can smell whom and with what?? There who can taste another with what?? There who can speak to whom and with what?? There who can listen to whom with what?? There who can think on whom and with what?? There who can touch whom and with what?? There who can understand whom with what?? Him with whose consciousness one understands all this, with what can one understand Him ?? " (bruhadAraNyaka upanishad maNtra 4-5-15) '

Those who are really interested to know the real status of the jnAni after realization should study this maNtra bhAga with commentary of shankara. Here this upanishad maNtra & bhAshya clearly suggest that where there is Atman alone there is no room for practical life involving the relation of subject and object and this is the state where there is no knower, no means of knowledge nor any knowable object!! (I know School-1 comfortably declares that above quote depicting the paramArthika state, but jnAni's vyavahArik reality is something different from this state etc...But here shruti clearly talking about pre and post realization periods of the jnAni..ofcourse if at all I can give time frame to the jnAni's jnAna status to say pre & post realization periods :-)) Same shruti elsewhere compares this absolute non-dual state to deep sleep state where one has no desires, and sees no dream. Socalled jnAni's vyavahAra with the seeming duality (without satyatva buddhi in duality) as School-1 positing definitely leads to experience of the effects of avidyA...So, it is better to conclude that jnAni 'acts' (or does vyavahAra) ONLY in the eyes of the ajnAni...Shruti chAndOgya confirms this by saying : they do kill him 'as it were', chase him 'as it were', becomes experiencer of something unpleasant 'as it were' and even weeps 'as it were' etc. etc. I know above has been said multiple times here in this list in one way or the other in various threads, but still we are struggling to come to shruti siddhAnta that Atman/jnani by himself is free from all duality and absolutely free from all the ills of mundane vyavahArika life!! This is due to our School-1's over emphasization on individuality of the jnAni, his localized indirya-s and his bordered chaitanya :-))

Thanks onceagain Sri Nair prabhuji for excellently explaining the understanding of the jnAni according to School-1 and School-2 with an appropriate metaphor!!

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Granted. But from the perspective of other rings, there is still such

a thing as a self-realized ring - an empirical reality. The other

rings enjoy the realized ring's presence, hear its teachings and so

forth. The point that school-1 is trying to make is simply that

**empirically speaking**, the self-realized ring continues to appear

as a ring.

praNAms

Hare Krishna

I dont thik this is exactly the position of School-1...You are absoluely right in your observation that it_is_from_the perspective of 'other' rings (in dAshtrAnitika 'ajnAni-s') there is still a 'self-realized ring'...And 'a' self realized ring is the 'need' of those 'other' rings & bangles which are still identifying the 'gold' in name & form!! ...Hence other rings can enjoy the existence of realized ring's presence, eager to listen to its upadesha etc. etc. But as far as 'realized ring' is concerned, it is always gold only and it cannot 'see' other than gold..the socalled other rings, other bangles etc. etc. is not at all the botheration of that 'gold'..coz. it sees ONLY gold nothing but gold...This is what school-2 emphasizing prabhuji...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

2009/3/13 Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair:

>

> [MN: Sorry. This is not samanwaya. We are back to square one. The words

> " giving up dehAtmabuddhi or more generally not identifying with the BMI " do

> not sound like actual transcendence of individuality. They sound like the

> actions of a tight-rope walker, i.e. sort of deliberate. The transendence of

> jnAni is so spontaneous and natural that there is no scope for even an iota

> of BMI/individuality from his view-point, which actually is a vyAvaharika

> view point (advaitic conclusion) of what paramArtha is like. There is no

> mixing up here as you seem to imply. From the empirical, what is witnessed

> as *a* jnAni is, therefore, only an 'as though refraction of Truth'. If

> School 1 accepts this, let us hear it from the horses' mouths.]

>

 

If " giving up dehAtmabuddhi or more generally not identifying with the

BMI " sounds deliberate to you, then you are free to rephrase it

accordingly. It does not affect my argument in any way. mukti implies

the realization of " na aham kartA, na aham bhoktA " so there is no

question of any deliberate action here. The dehAtmabuddhi just " drops

off " so to speak, much as a ripened fruit falls from a tree. Call it

" spontaneous and natural " , if that suits you better.

 

The point that Shyam-ji, Dennis-ji and others were trying to make is

simply that empirical transactions can continue even after mukti, even

though the mukta per se has transcended individuality.

 

Just as my statement above did not " sound like " transcendence to you,

your earlier posts would have " sounded like " a denial of the

continuance of empirical transactions after mukti (in effect a denial

of jIvanmukti itself) to the proponents of school-1. Its all a matter

of interpretation and semantics.

 

As long as you accept jIvanmukti, there is really no conflict between

schools-1 and 2.

 

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

2009/3/13 Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr:

> Hare Krishna

>

> I dont thik this is exactly the position of School-1...You are absoluely

> right in your observation that it_is_from_the perspective of 'other' rings

> (in dAshtrAnitika 'ajnAni-s') there is still a 'self-realized ring'...And

> 'a' self realized ring is the 'need' of those 'other' rings & bangles which

> are still identifying the 'gold' in name & form!! ...Hence other rings can

> enjoy the existence of realized ring's presence, eager to listen to its

> upadesha etc. etc. But as far as 'realized ring' is concerned, it is always

> gold only and it cannot 'see' other than gold..the socalled other rings,

> other bangles etc. etc. is not at all the botheration of that 'gold'..coz.

> it sees ONLY gold nothing but gold...This is what school-2 emphasizing

> prabhuji...

>

 

It all depends on what you mean by 'see'. The physical process of

light getting reflected from an external object and forming an image

on the retina is not going to change after mukti. Similarly, the

ability of the feet to walk, or the ear to hear, is not going to

change either.

 

The jnAnI " sees " both food and garbage as brahman, but is still able

to distinguish between food and garbage. Of course all this is in an

empirical sense, but that is what jIvanmukti is all about.

 

What is meant by " perspective of other rings " ? It simply means the

vyavahAra perspective.

 

As long as you accept jIvanmukti, this whole school-1 & 2 debate is

just a matter of semantics.

 

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy wrote:

 

> If " giving up dehAtmabuddhi or more generally not identifying with the

> BMI " sounds deliberate to you, then you are free to rephrase it

> accordingly. It does not affect my argument in any way. mukti implies

> the realization of " na aham kartA, na aham bhoktA " so there is no

> question of any deliberate action here. The dehAtmabuddhi just " drops

> off " so to speak, much as a ripened fruit falls from a tree. Call it

> " spontaneous and natural " , if that suits you better.

>

> The point that Shyam-ji, Dennis-ji and others were trying to make is

> simply that empirical transactions can continue even after mukti, even

> though the mukta per se has transcended individuality.

>

> Just as my statement above did not " sound like " transcendence to you,

> your earlier posts would have " sounded like " a denial of the

> continuance of empirical transactions after mukti (in effect a denial

> of jIvanmukti itself) to the proponents of school-1. Its all a matter

> of interpretation and semantics.

>

> As long as you accept jIvanmukti, there is really no conflict between

> schools-1 and 2.

____________________

 

[MN: Please don't drag me into naming personalities. I just gave my

understanding of the situation. You are free to accept or reject it. If the

situation looks different to your eyes and if you see no conflict between

schools 1 and 2, well and good for you. I see a difference as long as I can

apprehend School 1 maintaining that self-realization is just an understanding

and that there is actually no transcendence of BMI/individuality involved in it.

I haven't seen any statement to the contrary from them.

 

In mukti, there is no scope even for knowledge of bhoktrutwam or kartutwam to

say " I am not an enjoyer, I am not a doer " . That is the type of transcendence I

am trying to describe. If School 2 misunderstood me initially, I have clarified

my position several times afterwards for them to correct their misunderstanding

if any.]

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Nairji and Bhaskarji,

 

Forgive the questions at this late stage and apologies if you have already

answered these as I have not been able to keep a track of *all* the many

emails and various threads in this topic.

 

From your point of view - when Sri Shankaracharya explains the meaning of

the upandishads in his commentaries or when Sri Ramana writes the Forty

Verses, what do you regard to be the source of the understanding expressed

through their teachings, and what do you regard to be the agency through

which such understanding is expressed?

 

There's no catch to my question, I'm just wanting to properly understand

your point of view.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

PraNams to all

 

Discussions of Shree Ramesh and Nairji remind me the sloka I studied in the

Jnaana saara by Swami Tejomayandandaji, the current head of the Chinmaya

Mission.

 

The sloka says:

 

dehaatma bhaavo vishayeShu raagaH

kartRitva bhaavaascha tathaiva karmasu|

satyatvabhuddhiH jagatiihayascha

sa eva baddhaH puruShascha saakshii||

 

Who is the one who is bound? - asks the seeker - Here is the response.

 

1. dehe aatmabuddhiH - In the body - 'I am' the notion - that is I am the body -

it is a notion since it is not true but one who feels it is true is bound by

that feeling, since all his actions are colored by that notion that I am the

body - body is fat, I am fat, body is sick, I am sick, body is hungry, I am

hungry, etc.

 

Here the body includes not only the gross but subtle body - mind and intellect

as well - as part of kshetram - idam shariiram kshetram iti - Krishna says

kshetram samasena or in short that undergoes - vikaaraH or modifications - that

includes all the BMI.

 

2. vishayeShu raagaH - because of the above identification with the finite as I

am, the raaga and dvesha or likes and dislikes manifest towards objects

(viShayeShu) to gain and to get rid of those that make me infinite.

 

3. These raaga and dveSha-s propel me to action and I am the doer-notion

(kartRitva bhaava) also arises when I propel myself to do the action to gain or

to get rid of those objects of likes and dislikes. Hence the second line follows

- the notion of doer-ship arises in the resulting actions - the binds me

further since it leaves with me with some more vaasanaas which propel me into

further actions, etc - thus becomming a vicious circle.

 

4. These transactions are possible when I have the notion that what I see is

real - satyatva buddhi for this jagat - That is vyaavahaarika satyam is taken as

real due to lack of the knowledge of the paaramaarthika satyam or lack of

knowledge of myself.

 

5. The one who has all the above notions is baddhaH - is bound himself to his

notions.

 

In principle he is actually purushaH and saakshii swaruupaH - The witnessing

consciousness, that is beyond any bondage or liberation. One can also understand

as saH puruShaH or sakshii appears to be bound since bondage is notional and not

real due to false identification with the false; but which is taken as real.

When the false- hood of the false is understood when I realize that I am - not

the BMI but pure unadulterated sat-chit-anananda swaruupam. Then false remain as

false only, but notions that that false is real is gone for good.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji:

 

One of the fundamental theorem that can be established from the axioms through

the Mahavakyas is - " THE BRAHMAN ONLY KNOWS THE BRAHMAN. "

 

In all your statements, you seem to give the impression that " you only know the

Brahman; and all your statements categorically rule you out to be the Brahman. "

Take few moments and think what you state and its implications.

 

Those with an iota of humility will be able to recognize what we know is so

little in comparison to what we need to know. The only medicine that we can

cure our ego is a little spoon of " HUMILITY. " Without this medicine, we will

likely argue for ever and lose the path to attain mukthi. Can you or any really

describe the " BRAHAMN " to the fullest satisfaction of others. The first step for

us take is take enough to study to understand what we want to say before we

attempt to clear the misunderstanding of others.

 

With my warm regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

 

 

- In advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair

wrote:

>

> In mukti, there is no scope even for knowledge of bhoktrutwam or kartutwam to

say " I am not an enjoyer, I am not a doer " . That is the type of transcendence I

am trying to describe. If School 2 misunderstood me initially, I have clarified

my position several times afterwards for them to correct their misunderstanding

if any.]

>

> Madathil Nair

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Peterji.

 

The source of all understanding is Consciousness. Not only understanding but

everything derives from it.

 

However, the understanding as well as the deriving is only seeming. When the

source is recognized by the seeker as himself, then there is no more any

understanding or derivation or Shankara. He alone remains. That is why School

2 creates all this hallabaloo about understanding. Sure, for the understanding

part the intellect is used. But, ultimately, it gets burnt off when the

understanding is transcended.

 

To put it as crisply as possible, I only remain always! This is an impromptu

reply as I have no doubt about what I say.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote:

>

> Dear Nairji and Bhaskarji,

>

> Forgive the questions at this late stage and apologies if you have already

> answered these as I have not been able to keep a track of *all* the many

> emails and various threads in this topic.

>

> From your point of view - when Sri Shankaracharya explains the meaning of

> the upandishads in his commentaries or when Sri Ramana writes the Forty

> Verses, what do you regard to be the source of the understanding expressed

> through their teachings, and what do you regard to be the agency through

> which such understanding is expressed?

>

> There's no catch to my question, I'm just wanting to properly understand

> your point of view.

>

> Thanks in advance,

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Peter

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

I have not tried to clear the misunderstanding of anyone on my own volition. I

was asked questions repeatedly and I tried to answer them as best as possible.

I haven't been shouting from the roof-top all on my own.

 

Peterji has now asked some questions. I have answered them to my best.

Otherwise, I would be considered impolite.

 

There is no question of my knowing Brahman. However, I have been taught

Advaita. I have read Advaita. I have learnt Advaita. I don't find any harm

talking what I have been told, read and learnt.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote:

>

> Namaste Nairji:

>

> One of the fundamental theorem that can be established from the axioms through

the Mahavakyas is - " THE BRAHMAN ONLY KNOWS THE BRAHMAN. "

>

> In all your statements, you seem to give the impression that " you only know

the Brahman; and all your statements categorically rule you out to be the

Brahman. " Take few moments and think what you state and its implications.

>

> Those with an iota of humility will be able to recognize what we know is so

little in comparison to what we need to know. The only medicine that we can

cure our ego is a little spoon of " HUMILITY. " Without this medicine, we will

likely argue for ever and lose the path to attain mukthi. Can you or any really

describe the " BRAHAMN " to the fullest satisfaction of others. The first step for

us take is take enough to study to understand what we want to say before we

attempt to clear the misunderstanding of others.

>

> With my warm regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramesh-ji,

 

advaitin , Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy wrote:

>

> My responses after **

>

> 2009/3/13 Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p:

> <<That's the reason I was alluding to Advaita-hAni dOSha if one were

> to posit presence of mithyatva from pAramArthika perspective.>>

>

> ** No one posits mithyA IN paramArtha. That's an erronous

> understanding in the first place.

 

 

See message# 4361 advaitin/message/43461

 

/**Quote

 

Jnaani knows world is mithyaa. That means he sees but does not take what he sees

as satyam since he knows the seer He is the real satyan.

 

Jnaanis knows the world is mityaa. That means he experiences but does not take

it as real.

 

/**End Qquote

 

In above quote, proponent says jnAni " know " this world is mithya. What exactly

that means? Since jnAni's view point is synonymous to pAramArthic view point

(even positing any view point for jnAni is a flaw in strict advaitic nirviShEsha

Brahman context), the above quote is positing presence of mithyatva in

paramartha. That exactly is the school-1's main point I have been refuting in

all my mails.

 

 

>The discussion on the jnAnIhood was

> within the perimeter of vyavahAra only.

>

 

But who's vyavahara was that? ajnAni's right?

 

It seems you are thinking vyavahAra-paramartha are objective view points without

any reference to any subjectivity. But that is wrong. vyavahara is ajnAni's and

paramartha is jnAni'

 

That exactly I was arguing that all so called " teachings " of jnAni are from our

(ajnAni's) vyavahara point of view only. That being the case, since ajnAni's

vyavahAra view point is due to avidya on the part of ajnAni, how do you posit

any validity for such teachings? That's the main contension here.

 

 

> << That's the reason Acharya Shankara says " na cha agneriva AtmA

> Atmani viShayaH " The Self is not an object of knowledge for the Self.

> This is his denial of any knowership in pAramArtha. " >>

>

> ** Agreed, the knowership is only in vyavahAra. avidyA is essentially

> the superimposition of knowerhood on the Atman, and hence the

> beginning (in terms of logical priority) of vyavahAra.

>

 

So, Sadaji's position of posting " knowership " to jnAni (about jagat mithyatva)

is, after all from vyavahArika perspective only? Ramesh-ji, while arguing for

school-1 you are unknowingly establishing opponent school-2's point. This

exactly is what we call " siddhAsAdana " dOsha in shAstra!

 

 

> <<I appreciate if you and others can note the difference here, which

> is difference between calling something as " mithya " and the concept of

> mithyatvam itself.>>

>

> ** If you appreciate that avidyA is the superimposition of knowerhood

> on the Atman, then all such confusions evaporate.

>

 

So are you saying school-1's position is avidyAtmaka after all?

 

Welcome to school-2!

 

Regards,

Srinivas Kotekal

[Guest guest]

Dear Srinivas-ji,

 

I have already mentioned that IMO this school-1/2 business is

irrelevant as long as one accepts jIvanmukti. Madathil-ji has already

indicated that he accepts jIvanmukti, so I see the rest of it as a

matter of semantics.

 

As far as paramArtha is concerned, the last word on it was said by

gauDapAda in the mANDukya:

 

" na nirodhaH na cha utpattiH na baddhaH na cha sAdhakaH

na mumukShuH na vai muktaH iti eSha paramArthatA "

 

Strictly speaking, paramArtha is not a POV or a perspective. It

transcends all perspectives, as you very rightly recognized when you

wrote the following:

 

<<even positing any view point for jnAni is a flaw in strict advaitic

nirviShEsha Brahman context>>

 

Now with reference to your quote from Sada-ji regarding the jnAnI

" knowing " that the world is mithyA:

 

The problem is that it is not possible to clearly express the state of

a mukta in linguistic terms. It is a paradox of sorts, as the mukta

" knows " that he is not a knower. Even the distinction of saMsAra and

mokSha is transcended. As avidyA is the superimposition of knowerhood

on the Atman, the transcendence of avidyA implies a transcendence of

knowerhood as well. It is to express this transcendence that we use

the term paramArtha, and as gauDpAda puts across elegantly " na

mumukShU na vai muktaH " .

 

So yes, I fully agree that it can be misleading to say that the mukta

" knows " jagat-mithyAtva, but the problem here is one of linguistic

expression. I am sure Sada-ji did not mean to take the notion of

knowerhood into paramArtha

 

The point that the author of 43461, and all the proponents of the

so-called school-1, were trying to make is entirely different. All

they were trying to say is that in vyAvahAric terms, the mukta

continues to engage in empirical transactions. As I pointed out in my

message to Bhaskar, the phenomenon of light reflected from an object

forming an image on the retina is not going to change for a mukta.

Likewise, " actions " like eating, breathing, talking et al can continue

- the mukta does all this empirically even though he is " knows " that

he is not a doer. This is why we even have the term jIvanmukti.

 

So kindly don't fall into the trap of semantics and ascribe things to

the so-called school-1 that its proponents were not even claiming in

the first place.

 

Ramesh