Arguing about someone else's experiences!

February 28, 2009

namastE everyone,

Isn't *our* advaita becoming more theoretical these days? We just take

few basic points from Adi Sankara's advaita and using those points, we

try to form our own philosophy and still name it advaita and attribute

all the credit to Adi Sankara with much humility!

When Sankara first wrote bhAshyas to prasthAna traya in advaitic

meaning, was it not out of his own experience?

Then, even on the issue of jnAni, when he clearly said,

" The knowledge of the Self being essentially non-active destroys all

works by sublating wrong knowledge; but wrong knowledge – comparable

to the appearance of a double moon – lasts for some time even after

it has been sublated, owing to the impression it has made. "

[uNQUOTE]

We must consider these words as coming from his own experience.

Because, the subject matter in these words is not something that could

be derived using logic. How much ever logic an ajnAni may use, he

cannot know what happens of jnAni after realization. So, when someone

is telling us about the fate of jnAni, it must be ONLY out of his own

experience. So, here, all logic fails and experience is the only voice

that can speak.

Hence, there is no other way than to accept that Sankara or SureSvara

being jnAnis, when they said that jnAni has a remnant of aviydA or

that he still continues with upAdhIs(though unattached) for some time,

they were absolutely describing their OWN experience.

Now, please tell me how much justified are the people here arguing

about someone else's experiences?!

Ever yours in the Lord,

Sampath ~

!! Aum namO brahmavidbhyaH !!

February 28, 2009

advaitin , " paramahamsavivekananda "

<paramahamsavivekananda wrote:

>

> namastE everyone,

>

> Isn't *our* advaita becoming more theoretical these days? We just take

> few basic points from Adi Sankara's advaita and using those points, we

> try to form our own philosophy and still name it advaita and attribute

> all the credit to Adi Sankara with much humility!

>

> When Sankara first wrote bhAshyas to prasthAna traya in advaitic

> meaning, was it not out of his own experience?

>

> Then, even on the issue of jnAni, when he clearly said,

>

> " The knowledge of the Self being essentially non-active destroys all

> works by sublating wrong knowledge; but wrong knowledge – comparable

> to the appearance of a double moon – lasts for some time even after

> it has been sublated, owing to the impression it has made. "

> [uNQUOTE]

>

> We must consider these words as coming from his own experience.

> Because, the subject matter in these words is not something that could

> be derived using logic. How much ever logic an ajnAni may use, he

> cannot know what happens of jnAni after realization. So, when someone

> is telling us about the fate of jnAni, it must be ONLY out of his own

> experience. So, here, all logic fails and experience is the only voice

> that can speak.

>

> Hence, there is no other way than to accept that Sankara or SureSvara

> being jnAnis, when they said that jnAni has a remnant of aviydA or

> that he still continues with upAdhIs(though unattached) for some time,

> they were absolutely describing their OWN experience.

>

> Now, please tell me how much justified are the people here arguing

> about someone else's experiences?!

>

>

> Ever yours in the Lord,

>

> Sampath ~

>

>

> !! Aum namO brahmavidbhyaH !!

Namaste Sri Sampathji,

Thank you for your post which brings to my mind

something that has been occurring to me during

the course of the ongoing discussions.

It seems to me that much of what is being

written on the subject of the 'experience'

of a jnani, presupposes that there are no

longer jnanis available to be directly

consulted on what the 'experience' actually is.

As far as I know, this is not true. There

certainly are those teachers available who

can tell us directly, and explain why it is

and how it is that the words of the scriptures

may appear to be contradictory, or counterintuitive

to us from within the perspective of ajnanam.

These ongoing discussions have reminded me

again and again of the importance of having

direct access to a teacher with whom one can

clear one's doubts.

If all one has is the lens of ajnanam to

see through and use in order to interpret the words of

the scriptures, Shankara, and the saints,

then it seems to me that the chances of

getting hold of an incorrect meaning

and then sticking with it are great.

Here is a quote from my own Vedanta teacher,

which I think illustrates the problem:

" In logical syllogisms, if what was is called,

the pratigna, the initial statement, is false,

and one does not know that, like a bouncing ball

of logical steps, one will logically come up with very

valid conclusions based upon the false initial statement.

If that initial statement is wrong, one's conclusion can

be correct in reference to the initial statement,

but it is totally incorrect in reference to what is. "

So IMO if we read some important words in the scriptures,

and misunderstand what those words mean, then we can very

easily go on and find other places in the scriptures where

we will misconstrue the meaning of similar words based on our

original incorrect understanding. What we come up with will

seem logical according to our misunderstanding, but

it will not be true according to the meaning the words

were intended to give.

Bottom line, I do not think there is any substitute for

having access to a teacher in whose words one has

shraddha in order to clear up the numerous confusions

which avidya by its very nature of 'covering' produces

in the mind.

Pranams,

Durga

February 28, 2009

--- On Sat, 2/28/09, Durga <durgaji108 wrote:

Bottom line, I do not think there is any substitute for

having access to a teacher in whose words one has

shraddha in order to clear up the numerous confusions

which avidya by its very nature of 'covering' produces

in the mind.

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

Durgaji - PraNAms

I concur with your statements. Shaddhaa shankara defines in VivekacuuDaamaNi as

Shaastrasya guruvaakyasya satyabuddhyaavadhaaraNa - saa shraddhaa- Scriptures

and the interpretation of the scriptures by the teacher are indeed true - that

understanding is shraddhaa.

Scriptures themselves are knowledge born out of experiences of sages and saints

- RishibhiH bahudaa gitam. They are veda drashTaas. The Rishiis have sung in

various forms .. and that which is further supported by logic and ones own

anubhava involving the avastaatraya - the waking, dream and deep sleep states.

Hence we have shaastra, yukti and anubhava all going in the order that to be

communicated by the teacher- hence it is not pure experience nor lack of logic

but what is self-consistent or samanvayam of the scriptural teaching as

interpreted by the teacher.

About your statement that there are some realized souls here - also a statement

of faith only - since there is no litmus test to evaluate others. If 'the

absence of not seeing the universe' is a test of realization, then a swami warns

that it may be more a proof of a cataract than self-realization.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

February 28, 2009

Namaste Sampatji.

Can you kindly clarify:

1. Was Shankara under the sway of 'wrong knowledge still lasting

after its sublation owing to the impression it has made'.

2. If yes, can his pronouncements be considered one hundred percent

valid? Can't they have a taint of the 'wrong knowledge still

persisting' for he was seeing two moons in place of one?

3. You are talking about 'experience'. The votaries of School 1 and

even most among School 2 here (not me, because I see 'experience' as

different in this context) are against any sort of 'experience' in

self-realization. Then how can you talk of Acharya's 'experience'?

Sorry for the bother. You joined the fray rather very late and we

seem to be going over the question all over again, a situation I very

much like to avoid.

Best regards.

Madathil Nair

___________________

advaitin , " paramahamsavivekananda "

<paramahamsavivekananda wrote:

>

> namastE everyone,

>

> Isn't *our* advaita becoming more theoretical these days? We just

take

> few basic points from Adi Sankara's advaita and using those points,

we

> try to form our own philosophy and still name it advaita and

attribute

> all the credit to Adi Sankara with much humility!

>

> When Sankara first wrote bhAshyas to prasthAna traya in advaitic

> meaning, was it not out of his own experience?

>

> Then, even on the issue of jnAni, when he clearly said,

>

> " The knowledge of the Self being essentially non-active destroys all

> works by sublating wrong knowledge; but wrong knowledge – comparable

> to the appearance of a double moon – lasts for some time even after

> it has been sublated, owing to the impression it has made. "

> [uNQUOTE]

>

> We must consider these words as coming from his own experience.

> Because, the subject matter in these words is not something that

could

> be derived using logic. How much ever logic an ajnAni may use, he

> cannot know what happens of jnAni after realization. So, when

someone

> is telling us about the fate of jnAni, it must be ONLY out of his

own

> experience. So, here, all logic fails and experience is the only

voice

> that can speak.

>

> Hence, there is no other way than to accept that Sankara or

SureSvara

> being jnAnis, when they said that jnAni has a remnant of aviydA or

> that he still continues with upAdhIs(though unattached) for some

time,

> they were absolutely describing their OWN experience.

>

> Now, please tell me how much justified are the people here arguing

> about someone else's experiences?!

>

>

> Ever yours in the Lord,

>

> Sampath ~

>

>

> !! Aum namO brahmavidbhyaH !!

>

March 1, 2009

SrI Nair ji,

Sorry, but rather than answering the questions you have posed, I want

to produce here, AchArya's bhAshya to the brahma sUtra 4.1.15. Kindly

read the whole thing with patience:

{{15. But only those former (works) whose effects have not yet begun

(are destroyed by knowledge); because (scripture states) that (i.e.

the death of the body) to be the term.

In the two preceding adhikaranas it has been proved that good as well

as evil works are annihilated through knowledge. We now have to

consider the question whether this annihilation extends, without

distinction, to those works whose effects have already begun to

operate as well as to those whose effects have not yet begun; or only

to works of the latter kind.

Here the pUrvapakshin maintains that on the ground of scriptural

passages such as 'He thereby overcomes both,' which refer to all works

without any distinction, all works whatever must be considered to

undergo destruction.

To this we reply, 'But only those whose effects have not begun.'

Former works, i.e. works, whether good or evil, which have been

accumulated in previous forms of existence as well as in the current

form of existence before the origination of knowledge, are destroyed

by the attainment of knowledge only if their fruit has not yet begun

to operate. Those works, on the other hand, whose effects have begun

and whose results have been half enjoyed--i.e. those very works to

which there is due the present state of existence in which the

knowledge of Brahman arises--are not destroyed by that knowledge. This

opinion is founded on the scriptural passage, 'For him there is delay

only as long as he is not delivered (from the body)' (chAndOgya. Up.

VI, 14, 2), which fixes the death of the body as the term of the

attainment of final release.

Were it otherwise, i.e. were all works whatever extinguished by

knowledge, there would be no reason for the continuance of the current

form of existence, and the rise of knowledge would therefore be

immediately followed by the state of final release; in which case

scripture would not teach that one has to wait for the death of the

body.--But, an objection is raised, the knowledge of the Self being

essentially non-active does by its intrinsic power destroy (all)

works; how then should it destroy some only and leave others

unaffected? We certainly have no right to assume that when fire and

seeds come into contact the germinative power of some seeds only is

destroyed while that of others remains unimpaired!--The origination of

knowledge, we reply, cannot take place without dependence on an

aggregate of works whose effects have already begun to operate, and

when this dependence has once been entered into, we must--as in the

case of the potter's wheel--wait until the motion of that which once

has begun to move comes to an end, there being nothing to obstruct it

in the interim. The knowledge of our Self being essentially non-active

destroys all works by means of refuting wrong knowledge; but wrong

knowledge--comparable to the appearance of a double moon--lasts for

some time(bAdhitanuvRitti) even after it has been refuted, owing to

the impression it has made.--Moreover it is not a matter for dispute

at all whether the body of him who knows Brahman continues to exist

for some time or not. For how can one man contest the fact of another

possessing the knowledge of Brahman--vouched for by his heart's

conviction--and at the same time continuing to enjoy bodily existence?

This same point is explained in scripture and Smriti, where they

describe him who stands firm in the highest knowledge.--The final

decision therefore is that knowledge effects the destruction of those

works only--whether good or evil--whose effects have not yet begun to

operate.}}

[/uNQUOTE]

SrI Nairji,

## In the above quoted bhAshya, AchArya states the pUrvapakshin's view

which is *exactly* the same as your claim. Even the logic behind it is

the same i.e., " the knowledge of the Self being essentially non-active

does by its intrinsic power destroy (all) works; how then should it

destroy some only and leave others unaffected? "

## So, there is a chance that what you understand by the word

realization might not be the same as what Adi Sankara meant. If the

definition of realization is understood clearly, you may come to the

same conclusion as Sankara.

I have seen many people in this list criticizing the state of

samAdhi(nirvikalpa, savikalpa) of saints. But the way they define

self-realization makes it more weird than samAdhi.

## My understanding of realization as explained by Sankara is,

" ceasing from the identification with the *actions* of guNas. "

And, adhyAsa should not be understood as a material cause for

Creation. Rather, adhyAsa is a mis-understanding or mutual

superimposition of *actions* between the Self and the Not-self. So,

one's realization doesn't put an end to the Creation of the world

including his own body. Creation continues to exist, but the " actions "

of not-self are not mistaken as Self's. So, it is not a disappearance

of guNas or seeing the guNas as Atman(through what? Senses or Mind?)

or anything else.

This, is the ONLY definition of realization. Everything else must be a

fancy or a run after the usage of flowery English. I really feel, if

we all had discussions in Sanskrit, there would not be so much

divergence of views. English has even become a hurdle in the advaitic

realization, a situation far worse than what Lord Macaulay had wished

for India!

Every yours in the Lord,

Sampath ~

!! Aum namO brahmavidbhyaH !!

March 1, 2009

Dear Sampatji,

Let me clarify. I didn't make any claims in my mail. I just

requested you to please explain certain statements made by you.

I don't think you have answered my doubts. Well, let us now begin

again from your understanding of self-realization quoted below:

QUOTE

My understanding of realization as explained by Sankara is,

" ceasing from the identification with the *actions* of guNas. "

And, adhyAsa should not be understood as a material cause for

Creation. Rather, adhyAsa is a mis-understanding or mutual

superimposition of *actions* between the Self and the Not-self. So,

one's realization doesn't put an end to the Creation of the world

including his own body. Creation continues to exist, but

the " actions " of not-self are not mistaken as Self's. So, it is not a

disappearance of guNas or seeing the guNas as Atman(through what?

Senses or Mind?)

UNQUOTE

A reading of ShrImad Bhagawad GItA is enough to understand that our

vyAvahArika is the gunAs at work and, in truth, we are beyond the

gunAs and have no agency in our actions and what is apparently taking

place around us. I know this academically and can lecture ad

infinitum explaining it. That does not make me a realized one. So,

as per your understanding, I should 'cease from the identification

with the *actions* of gunAs' in order to be self-realized.

Our vyavahAra is like a river in tumultous fury. If we are in it,

there is every chance of its currents drowning us or dragging us

further into the sea of samsAra. A wise one can stand aside on the

banks and watch and enjoy the reiver's fury. Your self-realized one

is such a wise one, I assume. No quarrels there. However, I would

stop short of calling him self-realized.

Instead, I would like to take him a little further. What use is that

vyavahAra river now understood as 'not-self' (your own words)? Why

should he go about teaching and emancipating the 'not-self' entities

drowning in that 'not-self' river by employing a 'not-self' BMI?

Besides,the river is not outside him. It is really inside him. What

is there to watch when it is really inside? He now knows that he is

the 'carrier' of the river and that his fullness has no beyonds.

A 'beyondlessness' has no 'insideness'. When such understanding

takes firm roots through constant reflection, the furious river that

was known inside should slowly go silent and resolve into his being.

It may be a matter of time. That is my understanding of self-

realization - a realization whereafter there is nothing more to

realize.

I have no problem with your understanding of adhyAsa. There is

neither any annihilation of creation envisaged in my above

understanding. Creation just *resolves* back into me as me - that is

all.

The following model which I suggested here before elucidates my point

of view:

(a) Perceiver + BMI + Objectified World (Duality/vyAvahAra - a

'concept of jnAni' is available here. Perceiver experiences here

with a mistaken agency and thereby suffers)

(b) Self or Brahman (Non-duality/jnAni/paramArtha/Knowledge - the

Self immersed in Self)

In the 'no movement' movement from (a) to (b) called self-

realization, what disappears is only ignorance. That ignorance is

the reason for the apparent split in (a). Creation is understood for

what it really is and is no more separate from the Self.

This is not flowery English.

I can also accept prArabdha if it is understood in the light of the

following BS Bhashya statement commentary on I.i.4:

QUOTE

Thus since embodiedness is the result of false perception, it is

established that the enlightened man has no embodiedness even while

living. Thus about the knower of Brahman occurs this Vedic

text, " Just as the lifeless slough of a snake is cast off and it lies

in the ant-hill, so does this body lie. Then the Self becomes

disembodied and immortal, becomes the PrAna (i.e. living), Brahman,

the (self-efflugent) Light " (Br. IV. Iv. 7), as also, " Though without

eyes, he appears as if possessed of eyes, though without ears, he

appears as if possessed of ears; thoiugh without speech, he appears

as if possessed of speech; though without mind, he appears as though

possessed of mind; though without vital force, he appears as though

possessed of vital force. " ……….

UNQUOTE

I am a lover of Sanskrit. Yet, I can't agree with your insistence on

Sanskrit. That would make self-realization the sole possession of a

select few.

Best regards.

Madathil Nair

___________________

advaitin , " paramahamsavivekananda "

<paramahamsavivekananda wrote:

>

> ## In the above quoted bhAshya, AchArya states the pUrvapakshin's

view

> which is *exactly* the same as your claim. Even the logic behind it

is

> the same i.e., " the knowledge of the Self being essentially non-

active

> does by its intrinsic power destroy (all) works; how then should it

> destroy some only and leave others unaffected? "

>

> ## So, there is a chance that what you understand by the word

> realization might not be the same as what Adi Sankara meant. If the

> definition of realization is understood clearly, you may come to

the

> same conclusion as Sankara.

>

>.....>

> ## My understanding of realization as explained by Sankara is,

> " ceasing from the identification with the *actions* of guNas. "

> And, adhyAsa should not be understood as a material cause for

> Creation. Rather, adhyAsa is a mis-understanding or mutual

> superimposition of *actions* between the Self and the Not-self. So,

> one's realization doesn't put an end to the Creation of the world

> including his own body. Creation continues to exist, but

the " actions "

> of not-self are not mistaken as Self's. So, it is not a

disappearance

> of guNas or seeing the guNas as Atman(through what? Senses or

Mind?)

> or anything else.

>

> This, is the ONLY definition of realization. Everything else must

be a

> fancy or a run after the usage of flowery English. I really feel,

if

> we all had discussions in Sanskrit, there would not be so much

> divergence of views. English has even become a hurdle in the

advaitic

> realization, a situation far worse than what Lord Macaulay had

wished

> for India!

March 1, 2009

SrI Nair ji,

sa prEm namastE,

You asked:

However, I would stop short of calling him self-realized. Instead, I

would like to take him a little further. What use is that vyavahAra

river now understood as 'not-self' (your own words)? Why should he go

about teaching and emancipating the 'not-self' entities drowning in

that 'not-self' river by employing a 'not-self' BMI?

[uNQUOTE]

## Because, he still sees many ignorants around him and out of

compassion, he teaches them the Truth. Although he has got right

knowledge, as Sankara says, *The origination of knowledge, we reply,

cannot take place without dependence on an aggregate of works whose

effects have already begun to operate*

So, the Knowledge gained by a jnAni only makes him clearly realize the

difference between his real Self and the triguNAtmaka world. He still

has that attachment to BMI till his death, but he doesn't derive

pleasure or pain from such an attachment as he does not mutually

superimpose!

You wrote:

March 1, 2009

Dear Sampat-ji,

Reference your message 43883.

Quotes and counter-quotes make reading cumbersome. I would therefore

identify our disagreements and comment on them. Of course, even in

that, I cannot completely avoid quoting.

You maintain that a realized one still sees many ignorants around him

and out of compassion, he teaches them the Truth. You base this on BS

IV-xii-15 where Sankara says, *The origination of knowledge, we

reply, cannot take place without dependence on an aggregate of works

whose effects have already begun to operate*. The reference

obviously is to prarabdha karmas - those works whose effects have

begun and whose results have been half enjoyed. The topic is rightly

titled anArabhdAdhikarana. Before applying it verbataim, one has to

reconcile it with the other parts of BS, particularly

samanwayAdhikarana where the passage I quoted before from I-i-4

exists. Such a reconciliation will result in the following

conclusions:

(a) Only begun works whose results are yet to be completely

enjoyed have to reach a conclusion (e.g. if the realized one is a

teacher, the teaching shall continue till its intended conclusion. A

non- teacher need not go hunting for ignorant beings for compulsory

emancipation!) That is why analogies like stopped potter's wheel

still moving on past momentum and arrow shot in the air have been

used.

(b) Even if he engages himself in action, the engagement is only

seeming. This is signified by the `as if's' in the statement in the

commentary on I.i.4: " Though without eyes, he appears as if

possessed of eyes, though without ears, he appears as if possessed of

ears; though without speech, he appears as if possessed of speech;

though without mind, he appears as though possessed of mind; though

without vital force, he appears as though possessed of vital force. "

Thus, we have to assume that the realized one, though without action,

appears as though acting. Two whom – to those around whom who are

not realized.

You continue to say: " So, the Knowledge gained by a jnAni only makes

him clearly realize the difference between his real Self and the

triguNAtmaka world. "

That is quite strange. Do you really mean to say self-realization

is just knowing the difference between the two? Where is

triguNatimika when Atman is known?

About my river analogy you said: " Sorry but this is what I call

flowery English. In an attempt to anglicize upanishadic poetry, we

are making meaningless statements. What do you mean by the world not

being outside him? How do you define " him " ? "

Whether you consider it flowery English or not, I have picked the

teaching from a famous, traditional Vedanta teacher. The world that

we perceive has no validity without a perceiving intelligence.

The " him " above refers to that perceiving intelligence, which is you,

I and everybody else. The world is in fact that perceiving

intelligence alone through and through. That is not a meaningless

statement. The world you see is you and in you whether you like it

or not.

That anecdote about Sw. Ramakrishna Paramahamsa's last suffering

makes a lot of sense to me. But, not in the way you see it. Who

witnessed that suffering and who narrated it? To them, who were not

realized like Sw. Ramakrishna, it was really suffering. But Sw.

Ramakrishna was beyond any suffering. So much for his BMI then.

You said: " IMO, Bondage is, " I am karta, I am bhOkta " , so

realization must be, " I am neither the karta nor the bhOkta " . That's

all, nothing more, nothing less! "

It is more. It is really being akarta and bhokta simply because

there is nothing other than him that can be done or enjoyed. He is

done!

Best regards.

Madathil Nair

March 1, 2009

SrI Nair-ji,

> You maintain that a realized one still sees many ignorants around

him and out of compassion, he teaches them the Truth.

[uNQUOTE]

Yes, just like the way he feeds his own body which, when suffers from

hunger and thirst.

March 1, 2009

Dear Sampat-ji,

You seem to be very well-read and in the company of very

knowledgeable sages. Yet, I also see that you are impetuous enough

to brand the other person's advaita as 'psychosis'.

My understanding of self-realization reflects the views of great

teachers like Sw. Krshnananda. I didn't know if they were

psychotic. You can go to Swamiji's website and see for yourself what

he has written about liberation.

I see that you have taken the discussion to very contentious topics

like freewill on which we have had unending debates here. I don't

have the energy and will to go into them again, what with this

discussion itself having taken a toll on my patience and wits.

Besides, I don't think I can give you any coherent replies if

comments are inserted here and there in a zig-zag manner

amidst quotes. The reason may be my old age. Mind you, this is my

third post today to you.

So,let us please close this exchange here in total disagreement with

each other. I don't want to exacerbate audience resentment - nay

Moderators reaction.

Best regards.

Madathil Nair

_____________

advaitin , " paramahamsavivekananda "

<paramahamsavivekananda wrote:

>

>> No, the reference I provided was to dismiss the claim that jnAni

> doesn't see anyone else separate from him. To me, that doesn't

sound

> like realization, but like some Psychosis. So, I showed that

reference

> to say that he actually have to experience the effects of the

karmas

> which have already begun to operate, leave alone seeing others as

> separate from him!

..............................

>>

> Sorry, but I feel, you have wrongly understood the bhAshya. AchArya

> was speaking about the *effects* of the karmas one had already done

in

> the past. One has to experience those effects before death and

death

> is the ultimate emancipation to anyone including jnAni!

>

.....................

> However, your theory of " a person doing an action till its intended

> conclusion " seems absolutely new to me. One has Free-will to do any

> karma for any period of time, I am told. The effects of past karmas

> can dictate only his condition of body and environment into which

he

> is put, but not directly the karma he could do. If past karmas

> *directly* dictate present karmas, it would create a vicious circle

> and jIva would never get liberated!

.................

> In a recent conversation with an accomplished monk of Ramakrishna

> Mission, I have learnt that free-will consists in the ability to

take

> up any karma of ones interest.

March 2, 2009

SrI Nair-ji,

> My understanding of self-realization reflects the views of great

> teachers like Sw. Krshnananda. I didn't know if they were

> psychotic. You can go to Swamiji's website and see for yourself

what he has written about liberation.

[uNQUOTE]

I am a big fan of Swami Krishnananda-ji of the Divine Life Society. I

can say I've been fortunate enough to have read most of the books he

has written. His words are like magic and I seem to get carried away

with them. I feel a current passing through my spine whenever I read

his mesmerizing explanations.

Let me conclude our discussion with an excerpt from Swami

Krishananda's commentary on the 10th Chapter of Moksha Gita written by

his Guru, Swami Sivananda:

//The individual consciousness of the Jivanmukta is powerful enough to

maintain the existence of his physical body, but it is not capable of

bringing to him another birth as an embodied being. His Sanchita-

Karmas get fried by the fire of Brahma-Jnana or Knowledge of the

Absolute Reality. He has no Agami Karmas to bring future births

because he has no feelings of Kartritva and Bhoktritva. His actions

are cosmic movements and not the instincts of the sense of egoism. The

Prarabdha Karma which has given rise to Brahma-Jnana lasts as long as

the momentum of past desires which constitute the present Prarabdha

lasts. An illustration will make this fact very clear.

A hunter sees an animal moving in the forest and thinking that it is a

tiger he shoots an arrow at it. After the arrow has left the bow-

string he realises that the animal is not a tiger but a cow. But this

subsequent knowledge will not save the cow from being affected by the

arrow. The arrow will hit the object which lies within the sphere of

it momentum.//

Source: http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/moksha/moksh_10.html

The above quoted link contains complete information on the state of

jIvan mukti. I don't think Swamiji has left out any issue there.

Thanks for the patience you have shown all through the discussion.

Ever yours in the Lord,

Sampath ~

!! Aum namO brahmavidbhyaH !!

March 2, 2009

Namaste dear Sampathji:

Thank you very much for the link and statement by Swami

Krishnandaji. I am again a great admirer of Swamiji who has a very

clear exposition of Vedanta in simple language. I have gone through

the entire Swami Krishnanandaji's Webpage and I have the same

conclusion as reported by you in this message.

The link and its content accurately reflect the views of Swamiji.

Swami Sivanandaji is the parama guru to Sri Krishnanandaji and he is

also the parama Guru to many other great Vedantins including Swami

Chinmayanandaji, Swami Dayanandaji and Swami Paramathmanandaji. As

many of you know that Swami Paramathmanandaji is a disciple of Swami

Dayananda who is the Disciple of Swami Chinmayanda whose Guru is

Swami Sivanandaji. In other words, Swami Sivanandaji has instituted

the most dynamic Parampara of Vedantins to teach and spread the

message of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta. Those who have followed the

works of all the above mentioned great souls would be able to

recognize that all of them have expressed the same view about

Jivanmukta. They all belong to the lineage of Sivanandaji

(Krishnanandaji also belongs to the same lineage).

If Nairji still has doubts, I will be more than happy to contact the

Sivananda Ashram in Rishikesh (Divine Life Society) to confirm what

is being stated here for its authenticity. I am quite sure that

Nairji will agree that the understanding of a current Swamiji from

Divine Life Society will be more authoritative than an understanding

based on or two paragraph of materials published in Web Pages. I

request Nairji to send me an email with all references to support his

claims. All of us including Nairji is obligated to help the members

with the correct information so that they are not misinformed.

With my warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin , " paramahamsavivekananda "

<paramahamsavivekananda wrote:

>

> Let me conclude our discussion with an excerpt from Swami

> Krishananda's commentary on the 10th Chapter of Moksha Gita written

by

> his Guru, Swami Sivananda:

>

> //The individual consciousness of the Jivanmukta is powerful enough

to

> maintain the existence of his physical body, but it is not capable

of

> bringing to him another birth as an embodied being. His Sanchita-

> Karmas get fried by the fire of Brahma-Jnana or Knowledge of the

> Absolute Reality. He has no Agami Karmas to bring future births

> because he has no feelings of Kartritva and Bhoktritva. His actions

> are cosmic movements and not the instincts of the sense of egoism.

The

> Prarabdha Karma which has given rise to Brahma-Jnana lasts as long

as

> the momentum of past desires which constitute the present Prarabdha

> lasts. An illustration will make this fact very clear.

>

> A hunter sees an animal moving in the forest and thinking that it

is a

> tiger he shoots an arrow at it. After the arrow has left the bow-

> string he realises that the animal is not a tiger but a cow. But

this

> subsequent knowledge will not save the cow from being affected by

the

> arrow. The arrow will hit the object which lies within the sphere

of

> it momentum.//

>

> Source: http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/moksha/moksh_10.html

>

March 2, 2009

SrI Ram Chandran-ji,

Thanks for your valuable views. I am really amazed to know that all

those great teachers were the students of SrI Swami Sivananda

Saraswati Maharaj.

Thanks again for the information.

Ever yours in the Lord,

Sampath ~

!! Aum namO brahmavidbhyaH !!

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

> Thank you very much for the link and statement by Swami

> Krishnandaji. I am again a great admirer of Swamiji who has a very

> clear exposition of Vedanta in simple language. I have gone through

> the entire Swami Krishnanandaji's Webpage and I have the same

> conclusion as reported by you in this message.

March 2, 2009

Dear Shri Sampatji,

I am happy you are an admirer of Sw. Krishnananda. However, I don't

understand why you quoted him selectively. What about these three

passages that precede the ones quoted by you:

QUOTE

1. A Jivanmukta is a sage who is liberated from bondage even while

living with a body. The perception of the material universe as such

vanishes and he beholds the One Brahman appearing as the universe.

(MN: This is what you called psychosis?!)

2.The Jnani realises that the whole universe is Brahman only. But the

desires which he had given rise to during the time when he thought

that the objective world is real will not cease from demanding

materialisation into effects as long as the momentum of their craving

lasts. Hence these desires keep up the physical body of the

Jivanmukta for some time even after his Self-realization. When the

Prarabdha-Karma is exhausted the body drops off by itself and the

sage becomes unified with the Infinite Brahman.

3. But, even while living with a body, the Jivanmukta identifies his

consciousness with Brahman and is not affected by the pairs of

opposites and the forces of nature. The whole universe is his body

for he is in tune with all the forces of Nature due to his

transcending all phenomenal relativities and resting in Brahman-

Consciousness at all times.

UNQUOTE

The para numbering is mine. You won't call 1 and 3 English poetry,

will you?

The reason why I got impatient with you was that you were relying

heavily on the potter's wheel and already-shot arrow analogies for

prArabdha and then dragging in free-will to prop up your arguments.

As I told you, I have no problem with prArabdha if it is understood

as a natural balance-sheet to be naturally expended in the

transactional without the input of any personal efforts in the form

of free-will. The jnAni is least concerned with how it is expended.

That is important.

Now, I have here another quote of Bh. Ramana which I received off-

List from a friend, providentially so to say:

QUOTE

Question: The realised man has no further Karma. He is not bound by

his Karma. Why should he still remain within his body?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Who asks this question? Is it the realised man

or the Ajnani (ignorant)? Why should you bother what the Jnani (Self-

realised) does or why he does anything? Look after yourself. You are

now under the impression you are the body and so you think that the

Jnani also has a body. Does the Jnani say he has a body? He may look

to you as if he has a body and he may appear to be doing things with

the body, as others do, but he himself knows that he is bodiless. The

burnt rope still looks like a rope, but it can't serve as a rope if

you try to bind anything with it. A Jnani is like that – he may look

like other people, but this is only an outer appearance. So long as

one identifies oneself with the body, all this is difficult to

understand.

That is why it is sometimes said in reply to such questions, `The

body of the Jnani will continue till the force of Prarabdha works

itself out, and after the Prarabdha is exhausted it will drop off'.

An illustration made use of in this connection is that of an arrow

already discharged which will continue to advance and strike its

target. But the truth is the Jnani has transcended all Karmas,

including the Prarabdha Karma, and he is not bound by the body or its

Karmas.

Not even an iota of Prarabdha exists for those who uninterruptedly

attend to space of consciousness, which always shines as `I am',

which is not confined in the vast physical space, and which pervades

everywhere without limitations. Such alone is the meaning of the

ancient saying, `There is no fate for those who reach or experience

the heavens'.

UNQUOTE

Why don't we earnestly do a samanwaya between Sw. Krishnanananda and

Bh. Ramana and see where we reach? I hope our Members will take

pains to read Sw. Krishnananda at the link mentioned by you.

I am closing this exchange as I have nothing more to say because the

two great sages have said all that there is to say.

Best regards.

Madathil Nair

March 2, 2009

Namaste Ramji.

What is the conclusion reported by Sampatji?

I have no doubts about what Sw. Krishnanandaji has said and what I

have made out of it, notwithstanding the great lineage of teachers

you have now identified to support the stand of School 1.

Swamiji's statements are in simple English. Pertinent sections are

quoted below with links. You can contact the Ashram and confirm for

yourself if those unambiguous statements were penned by Swamiji. I

already said I have no doubts. I have not misinformed anybody. If

Members get a different meaning after reading Swamiji's unambiguous

statements, then I can't be blamed for that. Neither can Swamiji be

blamed.

QUOTE

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/realis/realis_6b.html

1. Jivanmukti is the highest spiritual experience by the individual

when the mortal body is still hanging on due to the remainder of a

little of Sattvika-ahamkara or Prarabdha. *In this condition the usual

empirical functions of the mind cease, even this remainder of

Prarabdha is not felt, and the mind takes the form of shuddha-sattva,

the original nature of universal knowledge freed from the relations

of space, time and cause.* The Jivanmukta experiences his being the

lord of all, the knower of all, the enjoyer of everything. The whole

existence belongs to him; the entire universe is his body. He neither

commands anybody, nor is he commanded by anybody. He is the absolute

witness of his own glory, without terms to express it. He seems to

simultaneously sink deep into and float on the ocean of the essence

of being, with the feeling 'I alone am', or 'I am all'. He breaks the

boundaries of consciousness and steps into the bosom of Infinity. "

2. " The Jivanmukta is in the extreme condition of Jnana, the state of

Self-absorption, non-related and Self-Identical. *There is

practically no difference between the highest Jivanmukti and

Videhamukti,* though in the former state the body is unconsciously

made to linger on for a short time on account of the last failing

momentum of the desires arisen in him before the time of Self-

Experience. For all matters concerning life we need not make any

distinction between the two conditions. *The highest Jivanmukta does

not feel that he has any body.* Hence he is not in any way inferior

to, or lower than, the Videhamukta. *The distinction is made, not by

the Mukta, but by the other ignorant people, who perceive the

appearance or the disappearance of his body. " *

3. " Much has been said and written by speculative geniuses on the

relation between the perfectly liberated soul and the universe. *If

liberation means the experience of the Infinite, the question of the

liberated soul's relation to the universe is a puerile one.* It is

like speculating over the relation of the sky to the sky. It is

stated by some that the liberated condition need not annihilate the

perception of plurality. If we say that the Absolute can perceive

plurality, we go against all sense and reason. Or, can we hold that

the liberated soul retains individuality? In that case, the liberated

soul would become non-eternal, for all that is individual is a part

of the process of the universe. Further, what do we mean by

plurality? Plurality is the intervention of non-being or space

between things. Then we have to say that the Absolute has internal

differentiations and external relations, which would mar the

indivisibleness and the secondlessness of the Absolute. No perception

is possible without the intervention of non-being in

undifferentiatedness. *If the Self is the All, there cannot be non-

Self in Self, and as long as there is perception of the non-Self, it

cannot be the liberated state. Nor can we understand the argument

that there can be any duty for the liberated soul. " *

____________

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/moksha/moksh_10.html

4. A Jivanmukta is a sage who is liberated from bondage even while

living with a body. The perception of the material universe as such

vanishes and he beholds the One Brahman appearing as the universe.

5. The Jnani realises that the whole universe is Brahman only. But

the desires which he had given rise to during the time when he

thought that the objective world is real will not cease from

demanding materialisation into effects as long as the momentum of

their craving lasts. Hence these desires keep up the physical body of

the Jivanmukta for some time even after his Self-realization. When

the Prarabdha-Karma is exhausted the body drops off by itself and the

sage becomes unified with the Infinite Brahman.

6. But, even while living with a body, the Jivanmukta identifies his

consciousness with Brahman and is not affected by the pairs of

opposites and the forces of nature. The whole universe is his body

for he is in tune with all the forces of Nature due to his

transcending all phenomenal relativities and resting in Brahman-

Consciousness at all times.

UNQUOTE

Best regards.

Madathil Nair

_____________________

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran

wrote:

>

> Namaste dear Sampathji:

>

> Thank you very much for the link and statement by Swami

> Krishnandaji. I am again a great admirer of Swamiji who has a very

> clear exposition of Vedanta in simple language. I have gone

through

> the entire Swami Krishnanandaji's Webpage and I have the same

> conclusion as reported by you in this message.

>

> The link and its content accurately reflect the views of Swamiji.

> Swami Sivanandaji is the parama guru to Sri Krishnanandaji and he

is

> also the parama Guru to many other great Vedantins including Swami

> Chinmayanandaji, Swami Dayanandaji and Swami Paramathmanandaji. As

> many of you know that Swami Paramathmanandaji is a disciple of

Swami

> Dayananda who is the Disciple of Swami Chinmayanda whose Guru is

> Swami Sivanandaji. In other words, Swami Sivanandaji has

instituted

> the most dynamic Parampara of Vedantins to teach and spread the

> message of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta. Those who have followed the

> works of all the above mentioned great souls would be able to

> recognize that all of them have expressed the same view about

> Jivanmukta. They all belong to the lineage of Sivanandaji

> (Krishnanandaji also belongs to the same lineage).

>

> If Nairji still has doubts, I will be more than happy to contact

the

> Sivananda Ashram in Rishikesh (Divine Life Society) to confirm what

> is being stated here for its authenticity. I am quite sure that

> Nairji will agree that the understanding of a current Swamiji from

> Divine Life Society will be more authoritative than an

understanding

> based on or two paragraph of materials published in Web Pages. I

> request Nairji to send me an email with all references to support

his

> claims. All of us including Nairji is obligated to help the

members

> with the correct information so that they are not misinformed.

>

> With my warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

March 2, 2009

2009/3/2 Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair:

> distinction between the two conditions. *The highest Jivanmukta does

> not feel that he has any body.* Hence he is not in any way inferior

> to, or lower than, the Videhamukta. *The distinction is made, not by

> the Mukta, but by the other ignorant people, who perceive the

> appearance or the disappearance of his body. " *

When it is said that a distinction is made by " ignorant people " what

is meant is that such a distinction pertains in vyavahAra. From a

parAmArtha perspective, there is no distinction between mokSha and

saMsAra in the first place, let alone a distinction between jIvanmukti

and videhamukti. In fact there are no distinctions in paramArtha.

Any conception of mukti is relevant only within vyavahAra and to that

extent, the concept of jIvanmukti is relevant and is in fact one of

the central points of advaita vedAnta that makes it worthy of serious

pursuit.

There are any number of schools that promise some kind of videhamukti.

Our worthy mAdhva friends go to the extent of accepting only

videhamukti and denying the plausibility of jIvanmukti. To me, only a

teaching that promises jIvanmukti is at least worth pursuing. If

jIvanmukti is not feasible, then I might as well live as the

chArvaka-s are said to have done - " borrow money and drink ghee " , for

who knows what happens after death. On the other hand, jIvanmukti is

" verifiable " , so to speak, and that alone makes advaita worthy of

serious pursuit.

> 6. But, even while living with a body, the Jivanmukta identifies his

> consciousness with Brahman and is not affected by the pairs of

> opposites and the forces of nature. The whole universe is his body

> for he is in tune with all the forces of Nature due to his

> transcending all phenomenal relativities and resting in Brahman-

> Consciousness at all times.

As long as you accept the concept of jIvanmukti, I don't see what your

issue is. As far as school 1 is concerned, they are simply using the

word jnAnI as a synonym to Krishnananda-ji's usage of the word

jIvanmukta above.

To put it simply,

for school-1, jnAnI = vyAvahArika concept of jIvanmukta

for school-2, jnAnI = pAramArthika concept of brahman

Honestly, I don't see any meaningful difference between the 2 schools.

If at all, to the extent that philosophy and teaching occur in

vyavahAra, school-1 seems to offer a simpler explanation to a student

of advaita vedAnta.

Ramesh

March 2, 2009

--- On Mon, 3/2/09, Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy wrote:

Honestly, I don't see any meaningful difference between the 2 schools.

If at all, to the extent that philosophy and teaching occur in

vyavahAra, school-1 seems to offer a simpler explanation to a student

of advaita vedAnta.

Shree Ramesh - PraNAms

I did mention to Shree Nairji in a private mail that it appears to be more a

semantic problem.

One has to distinguish from what reference the teaching or the statements are

made - paaramaarthika vs vyaavahaarika. The confusion and semantics arise if

these two gets mixed up. Both versions are alright looking from the correct view

point. That was emphasized by Shree Vidya and shree Subbuji also.

I know Nairji does not accept this, but that is also O.K.

It looks like we have made all the points that need to be made - and I do not

see any new insights that are being presented to press the issue. Personally it

is futile to continue this discussion other than keep pounding on the same

theme. I request everyone to present only if they have something new to say.

That is also one of the reasons, I stopped responding to Bhaskarji. He said I am

presenting in the name of my understanding what is not advaita. That is his

judgment but what was presented as my understanding is what I learned from my

teachers and in tune with what others have learned too, just to keep the record

straight. Even though Bhaskarji thinks that it is not advaita it is authentic

advaita from the point all the lineage of teachers from whom I have learned. We

are very happy that scholars like Shree Sastriji, Subbuji and Vidya are

available that confirm and ready to correct if our understanding differs from

the authentic advaitic teaching.

Thanks for your summarizing comment. Let us hope that this discussion terminates

by itself soon.

I will not be contributing any further on this topic since whatever I understood

is already presented.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

March 2, 2009

Namaste Rameshji:

It is not clear what Nairji is talking about and Krishnanndaji is

quite clear and consistent in his writings. His views are not any

different from the traditional point of view expressed through the

well written article by Subbuji. It should be also stated that

Krishnanandaji is a follower and believer of Advaita tradition as

established by Sankara. In his many writings he has very clear

ideas about Vyavaharika and Parmarthika reality. If Nairji accepts

Krishnandaji, he needs to accept the comprehensive understanding of

swamiji as expressed in Swamiji's works (readily available in the Web

at http://www.krishnanda.org.

We are not newspaper reporters to choose and paste that suits our

views and remove all relevant materials that provide the full

picture. Sivananda Ashram and Swami Krishnananda strictly follow the

Guru Parampara. Nairji in his post #43813 has given the impression

that he is very much against the Guru Parampara and now he wants to

take shelter on it! I request Nairji to revisit his own statements

in the discussions lead by him during the monthly discussions

on " Purnamidha..... " His recent views do not support what he

advocates in the discussions on " Purnamidha …….. "

Members who are interested to read may visit the list discussions

including Purnamidha..... etc. can access the link:

http://www.advaitin.net/Advaitin%20Discussions.htm

Your conclusion as stated by you below is the best way to close the

discussions and move on to another topic.

With my warm regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin , Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy

wrote:

>

> As long as you accept the concept of jIvanmukti, I don't see what

your

> issue is. As far as school 1 is concerned, they are simply using the

> word jnAnI as a synonym to Krishnananda-ji's usage of the word

> jIvanmukta above.

>

> To put it simply,

>

> for school-1, jnAnI = vyAvahArika concept of jIvanmukta

> for school-2, jnAnI = pAramArthika concept of brahman

>

> Honestly, I don't see any meaningful difference between the 2

schools.

> If at all, to the extent that philosophy and teaching occur in

> vyavahAra, school-1 seems to offer a simpler explanation to a

student

> of advaita vedAnta.

>

> Ramesh

>

March 2, 2009

Namast Ramji.

Your post below is hilarious! That is the least I can say about it.

Please keep it up.

Best regards.

Madathil Nair

_____________

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran

wrote:

>

> Namaste Rameshji:

>

> It is not clear what Nairji is talking about and Krishnanndaji is

> quite clear and consistent in his writings. His views are not any

> different from the traditional point of view expressed through the

> well written article by Subbuji. It should be also stated that

> Krishnanandaji is a follower and believer of Advaita tradition as

> established by Sankara. In his many writings he has very clear

> ideas about Vyavaharika and Parmarthika reality. If Nairji accepts

> Krishnandaji, he needs to accept the comprehensive understanding of

> swamiji as expressed in Swamiji's works (readily available in the

Web

> at http://www.krishnanda.org.

>

> We are not newspaper reporters to choose and paste that suits our

> views and remove all relevant materials that provide the full

> picture. Sivananda Ashram and Swami Krishnananda strictly follow

the

> Guru Parampara. Nairji in his post #43813 has given the impression

> that he is very much against the Guru Parampara and now he wants to

> take shelter on it! I request Nairji to revisit his own statements

> in the discussions lead by him during the monthly discussions

> on " Purnamidha..... " His recent views do not support what he

> advocates in the discussions on " Purnamidha …….. "

>

> Members who are interested to read may visit the list discussions

> including Purnamidha..... etc. can access the link:

> http://www.advaitin.net/Advaitin%20Discussions.htm

>

> Your conclusion as stated by you below is the best way to close the

> discussions and move on to another topic.

>

> With my warm regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

> advaitin , Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy@>

> wrote:

> >

> > As long as you accept the concept of jIvanmukti, I don't see what

> your

> > issue is. As far as school 1 is concerned, they are simply using

the

> > word jnAnI as a synonym to Krishnananda-ji's usage of the word

> > jIvanmukta above.

> >

> > To put it simply,

> >

> > for school-1, jnAnI = vyAvahArika concept of jIvanmukta

> > for school-2, jnAnI = pAramArthika concept of brahman

> >

> > Honestly, I don't see any meaningful difference between the 2

> schools.

> > If at all, to the extent that philosophy and teaching occur in

> > vyavahAra, school-1 seems to offer a simpler explanation to a

> student

> > of advaita vedAnta.

> >

> > Ramesh

> >

>

March 2, 2009

Namaste Nairji:

I am glad that you find my post hilarious. Please note that my humor

is based on truth and please take the truth and put a little

ornamental twist at the end!

" Common sense and a sense of humor are the same thing, moving at

different speeds. A sense of humor is just common sense, dancing. "

William James.

A sense of humor helps me as a needed bulletproof vest. Happiness in

my heart and some laughter on mylips indicates that I have a pretty

good grasp of life.

Please keep it up!

With my warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namast Ramji.

>

> Your post below is hilarious! That is the least I can say about it.

>

> Please keep it up.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

March 5, 2009

SrI Nair-ji,

Due to my third year mbbs final exams, I am finding it difficult to be active

here. Just two more weeks and I will be free!

As time is less, I want to address the issue from a different angle based on my

understanding. And I don't want to speak much about your questions, for even in

the quotes you mentioned, Swamiji clearly said, " The whole universe is jnAni's

body " but not, " jnAni has no body " . So, you were actually contradicting

Swamiji's every statement. And your conclusion is absolutely far from Swamiji's

statements such as,

// " He(jnAni) behaves as the occasion of the environment requires, but is

absolutely detached within. " //

I feel, central to all your conclusions is this one belief, " that jnAni has no

standpoints. "

This must be purely your own belief which by repeated usage seems to have gained

some validity these days.

As SrI Sadananda-ji has put it in a lucid way,

//Jnaani is the one who realizes that world is mithyaa - that is it has no

independent existence other than Brahman - That does not mean it is non existent

either since non-existent things need not be negated.//

So, jnAni is the one who acts in the vyAvahArika plane and at the same time is

established in brahman. This can be clearly followed from the words of Swami

Krishnananda in the same website as below:

//A Jivanmukta who is in the seventh Jnana-Bhumika cannot do any action in the

plane of earthly consciousness. Those of the Jivanmuktas who wish to do

Loka-sangraha have to come down to the fourth or the fifth state of

Consciousness in order to be useful to humanity. A little of Rajas is necessary

for doing all kinds of action. The pure Sattwa state of the highest kind of

Jivanmuktas is completely devoid of Rajas and hence is unsuitable for working in

the world. The very existence of such a blessed being will give solace to the

whole world. His life itself is the most supreme teaching and help. Wherever he

is, he spreads around him such a force of conscious equilibrium of being that

those who are near him are easily transformed. The Satsankalpa of the Jnani is

beyond all powers of Ashta-Siddhis and Nava-Riddhis and he works through his

mere Self which is in all. He is the ocean of Knowledge and Power and there is

nothing that is impossible for him.//

## Now, allowed to use whatever flowery English possible, can you explain the

above words to suit your own interpretation that jnAni is ajnAni's projection?

Before that, can you assure us that such a claim as, " jnAni is ajnAni's

projection " is found in scriptures?

No logic works here to interpret the words like, //Those of the Jivanmuktas who

wish to do Loka-sangraha have to come down to the fourth or the fifth state of

Consciousness in order to be useful to humanity.//

You are bound to accept those words as they are, for they were not mere

theories. They were the facts as experienced by jnAni and narrated by jnAni. So,

we have no right to dissect them.

Now the theory that " jnAni has no standpoints " being disproved beyond all doubt,

there is nothing so strange in SrI Ramana's words as you quoted. We must

understand that those words were from the pAramArthika standpoint. Otherwise the

very usage of his as, " he himself knows that he is bodiless " would be

self-contradictory.

Next, you seem to be mis-interpreting my statements regarding prarabdha and

free-will. I repudiated your view that ones past karmas define his present

karmas. I find it weird and against all logic because, if that were true, one

would never get realization because of the vicious circle of karmas. So, I say,

jnAni and ajnAni both have the same free-will to take up any karma they wish.

This has nothing to do with prarabdha. Prarabdha decides only the fate of body

including its condition but not the actions one could do!

So, as I observe, all through the discussion,

(1.) You were mixing up the two standpoints of reality and,

(2.) Using the weapon, " jnAni has no standpoints " to support such mixing.

When you asked for a samanvaya, it reminded me of the words of a well-learned,

respectable person who said,

SrI Sankaracharya has beautifully spoken of the two positions in just one

sentence! Who can beat Him, the Supreme Acharya!:

// Thus since embodiedness is the result of a false perception, it is

established that the enlightened man has no embodiedness (this is the

paramarthika standpoint) even while living (this is the vyavaharika viewpoint)//

[brahmasutra bhashya 1.1.4)

Who can indeed beat this Great Master of communication!! What a great Samanvaya

kAra He is!!

[uNQUOTE]

Ever yours in the Lord,

Sampath~

!! Aum namO brahmavidbhyaH !!

March 5, 2009

Listen sonny Vivekananda or Paramahamsa or whatever.

Don't test my patience just because you know that you are in the league of those

who are at the helm of affairs.

If Sw. Krishnananada said " The whole universe is jnAni's body " ,

I, as a man endowed with common-sense, would ask the question " What is the

universe? " .

The logical answer to that would be all that I see, all that I know and all that

I think there is and I know not. That is the inifinite without a beyond or

inside. If that is the case, the universe is not a thing or any particular

thing like the body. Thus, what Swamiji could have meant is that a jnAni is

all-pervasive. He is everywhere all the time.

To arrive at the above understanding, I don't need the scriptures. Don't insist

on one just because you can't do your own thinking even when the Lord has give

you the capacity to do so without hiding behind the text of scriptures.

If you want to really know the understanding of the definition of jnAni that I

follow, you can refer to message 12177 penned by Shri Atmachainayaji.

It is better that you attend to your MBBS syllabus than take cudgels with others

on Advaita because you have done some reading. It is none of my business to say

so. The tone of your mail made me do that.

Madathil Nair

____________________

advaitin , " paramahamsavivekananda "

<paramahamsavivekananda wrote:

>

> SrI Nair-ji,

>

> Due to my third year mbbs final exams, I am finding it difficult to be active

here. Just two more weeks and I will be free!

>

> As time is less, I want to address the issue from a different angle based on

my understanding. And I don't want to speak much about your questions, for even

in the quotes you mentioned, Swamiji clearly said, " The whole universe is

jnAni's body " but not, " jnAni has no body " . So, you were actually contradicting

Swamiji's every statement. And your conclusion is absolutely far from Swamiji's

statements such as,

> // " He(jnAni) behaves as the occasion of the environment requires, but is

absolutely detached within. " //

>

> I feel, central to all your conclusions is this one belief, " that jnAni has no

standpoints. "

>

> This must be purely your own belief which by repeated usage seems to have

gained some validity these days.

>

> As SrI Sadananda-ji has put it in a lucid way,

>

> //Jnaani is the one who realizes that world is mithyaa - that is it has no

independent existence other than Brahman - That does not mean it is non existent

either since non-existent things need not be negated.//

>

> So, jnAni is the one who acts in the vyAvahArika plane and at the same time is

established in brahman. This can be clearly followed from the words of Swami

Krishnananda in the same website as below:

>

> //A Jivanmukta who is in the seventh Jnana-Bhumika cannot do any action in the