Guest guest Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 To Fellow Pilgrims... First of all many thanks to Dennis Waite for your book 'The book of One', I found it very lucid and comprehensive, quite the best introductory outline on non-dualism that I have read. The list of resources is also excellent and I am chasing up a couple of book recommendations. As you state in this book, and as I have found in experience, enlightenment or an unmediated experience of the Divine such that one enters Spaceless Unity with the Absolute, does not mean that suddenly that person increases in knowledge of 'facts'. I become One with Essence yet in so doing I do not become knowledgable about, say, nuclear physics, or about what is going on in other places. I enter the Eternal Now, but I do not transcend time (if time exists) so that despite being in a timeless, spaceless 'place' I cannot predict the future, discover winning lottery numbers, (very ignoble!) or the gender of an unborn baby. Why is this so? What is my misconception in Ignorance here? Though Attributeless yet the Divine is described sometimes as Truth, as Knower of all things. Why, in Transcendent Unity, do I not share in that knowledge? Many thanks for your time Pilgrim Simon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Dear Simon, Apologies for late reply - I have been away for a few days. Many thanks for your kind remarks about the book. The problem with your conception of ignorance and knowledge is two-fold really. Firstly, enlightenment is about the dawning of Self-knowledge and the elimination of Self-ignorance. This is the realization of the nature of the Self and reality (Everything is brahman, Thou art That etc.) As you probably know, Shankara is said to have summed this up as 'brahman is the ultimate reality; the world is mithyA; the jIva is not other than brahman'. The key to your problem is in the second of these - the world, together with its knowledge of 'things', and the dualistic 'knower' of those things. is mithyA. It is not really real, deriving its semblance of reality from brahman. It is name and form of that brahman only. There are not really any separate things, including a knower knowing facts about other things. This is the one aspect. The other aspect is not dissimilar from a very prolonged discussion we had a month or two back on what happens to the mind of an enlightened 'person' when they become Self-realized. The answer hinges on the distinction between the microcosm and macrocosm at the level of transactional reality. The point here is that 'knowing' things at the level of the person involves that person's mind. And that person's mind will only know of 'things' with which it has come into contact, whether that be familiarity with a physical location or understanding of quantum mechanics. If you haven't spent many years learning Chinese, you are not going to be able to understand or communicate with a Chinese speaker, whether or not you are enlightened! And you are certainly not going to be able to see into the future - the human mind does not have an organ for this function! The idea of 'knowing everything' is not a concept that applies to a person; it is a concept that applies to Ishvara - the Lord who effectively creates this world and allocates all of the jIva-s their particular roles in life according to their accumulated karma. Of course, Ishvara too is mithyA from an absolute standpoint but this is how the concept is used in the teaching of advaita. The oft-quoted metaphor is that of seeing the sun rise and set. Even after learning that this is really an illusion caused by the rotation of the earth, one still sees this happening. So it is with the rest of Ishvara's projected illusion. The enlightened man can no more read minds or predict the future than he could before. So no winning lotteries by other than pure luck, I'm afraid! Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of bobbyandpoppy Friday, May 08, 2009 2:59 PM advaitin Knowledge and enlightenment As you state in this book, and as I have found in experience, enlightenment or an unmediated experience of the Divine such that one enters Spaceless Unity with the Absolute, does not mean that suddenly that person increases in knowledge of 'facts'. I become One with Essence yet in so doing I do not become knowledgable about, say, nuclear physics, or about what is going on in other places. I enter the Eternal Now, but I do not transcend time (if time exists) so that despite being in a timeless, spaceless 'place' I cannot predict the future, discover winning lottery numbers, (very ignoble!) or the gender of an unborn baby. Why is this so? What is my misconception in Ignorance here? Though Attributeless yet the Divine is described sometimes as Truth, as Knower of all things. Why, in Transcendent Unity, do I not share in that knowledge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Hi Simon again - here's a P.S. I forgot to add to the message I just sent. If you read any of the previous discussion to which I referred, you will know that not all professed advaitins agree with the contention that an enlightened man still has a mind and still carries out action for the rest of his life. Interestingly, it seems that the same applies to the concept of 'all-knowing'. Here is an excerpt from Swami Parthasarthy's translation and commentary on the Atma Bodha: " Knowing the Self is different from knowing anything else. The knowledge of Self destroys not only the ignorance of Self but all other types of ignorance in you. For example the knowledge of Sanskrit removes the ignorance of Sanskrit. The knowledge of science removes the ignorance of science. But the knowledge of Self removes total ignorance. This truth is shown by an illustration. " A traveler has lost his sense of direction. You point out the east to him. He understands not only the east but the west, north and south. This example proves that knowledge of one entity can remove the ignorance of other entities besides its own. Likewise the knowledge of Self removes total ignorance and makes you omniscient. " Needless to say (from my previous post) I do not agree with this position and deny the validity of the metaphor (since east is related to the other directions as part of its definition; it is not a question of 'different' knowledge). It would be interesting to hear other view on this, although I most definitely do not want to trigger another marathon discussion! Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of bobbyandpoppy Friday, May 08, 2009 2:59 PM advaitin Knowledge and enlightenment To Fellow Pilgrims... First of all many thanks to Dennis Waite for your book 'The book of One', I found it very lucid and comprehensive, quite the best introductory outline on non-dualism that I have read. The list of resources is also excellent and I am chasing up a couple of book recommendations. As you state in this book, and as I have found in experience, enlightenment or an unmediated experience of the Divine such that one enters Spaceless Unity with the Absolute, does not mean that suddenly that person increases in knowledge of 'facts'. I become One with Essence yet in so doing I do not become knowledgable about, say, nuclear physics, or about what is going on in other places. I enter the Eternal Now, but I do not transcend time (if time exists) so that despite being in a timeless, spaceless 'place' I cannot predict the future, discover winning lottery numbers, (very ignoble!) or the gender of an unborn baby. Why is this so? What is my misconception in Ignorance here? Though Attributeless yet the Divine is described sometimes as Truth, as Knower of all things. Why, in Transcendent Unity, do I not share in that knowledge? Many thanks for your time Pilgrim Simon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Namaste Dennis, As you asked for another view - there's an interesting and relevant passage from Sri Ramana Maharshi on this question. Questioner: But does God know everything? Maharshi: The Vedas declare God to be omniscient only to those who ignorantly think themselves to be people of little knowledge. But if one attains and knows him as he really is, it will be found that God does not know anything, because his nature is the ever-real whole, other than which nothing exists to be known. ( " Be As You Are, The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi " , p206, by David Godman.) Sri Ramana puts the same view in his Ulladu Narpadhu (also called, Sat Darshan). " Know that that alone is true knowledge, in which there is neither knowledge nor ignorance: the (so-called) knowledge of objects, understand, is not at all true knowledge. The Real Self shines always alone, with neither things for Him to know, nor persons to know Him: therefore He is only Consciousness: do not think that he is non-being. " (verse 12) Peter > > advaitin > [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Dennis Waite > 11 May 2009 16:33 > advaitin > RE: Knowledge and enlightenment > > > Needless to say (from my previous post) I do not agree with > this position and deny the validity of the metaphor (since > east is related to the other directions as part of its > definition; it is not a question of 'different' > knowledge). > > It would be interesting to hear other view on this, although > I most definitely do not want to trigger another marathon discussion! > > > > Best wishes, > > Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Dennis - PraNAms The sloka and the intended meaning have to be properly understood. In MunDaka - the student asks - sir please teach me knowing which I will know everything. Similar aspect is addressed in the Ch. Up sat vidya where the teacher asks the student - have you learned that knowing which one knows everything? Students says such a situation is not possible. The teacher says it is possible if (only if) the thing I know is the material cause for the rest of the objects - thus the example given is knowing Gold one ESSENTIALLY knows every ornament made up of gold similarly knowing clay one knows ESSENTIALLY knows all the pots made of clay and knowing iron one knows all the tools made of iron. It does not mean knowing gold I will know the iron tools. The samaanadhikaraNa applies to the cause and its effects only. Then the teacher goes in to exhaustive details in explaining the material cause for the Universe as Brahman - existence-conscious principle that is one without a second. Hence ALL products came from one material cause - Brahman. Using the above principle knowing the material cause one ESSENTIALLY knows all the products made of that material. Hence the concussion drawn by the end of the chapter is - The ESSENCE of everything in this universe is the existence alone and that you are. aitadaatmya idam sarvam tat satyam, sa aatmaa, tat tvam asi. Knowing the essence does not mean the details of the naama ruupa - if I know Gold, I know the essence of gold ornaments but not the attributes of this ring vs. that ring etc which belong to mithyaa realm not satya. I only know the ESSENCE of all as the very existence itself - Hence does not mean jnaani who did not know quantum mechanics will start teaching that subject after self realization. What he would know is The self that I am is the SELF in all and all in my self. sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutanica aatmani. That means I know in ESSENCE everything that really counts - superficial details I would not know and there will be any desire to know also. yat jnaatvaa naaparam jneyam. Hope this helps. Hari Om! Sadananda --- On Mon, 5/11/09, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote: Needless to say (from my previous post) I do not agree with this position and deny the validity of the metaphor (since east is related to the other directions as part of its definition; it is not a question of 'different' knowledge). It would be interesting to hear other view on this, although I most definitely do not want to trigger another marathon discussion! Best wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 the knowledge of Self removes total ignorance and makes you omniscient. " praNAms Hare Krishna Yes, for a jnAni there is no 'omni' this 'omni' (all) is nothing but ONE and only ONE without second for him...He know the ocean is complete water and nothing but water but that does not mean he should know each & every minute detail of wave length, bubbles etc. etc. of that ocean water :-)) The Atma jnAna can remove the ignorance about our svarUpa which is nAma & rUpa rahita and it does not bring any fresh material or worldly knowledge to the 'mind' of that jnAni....So we cannot expect a jnAni to do what he does not know prior to his jnAna :-)) However, I heard that Some members of 'jnAni club' have shown miraculous qualities of omniscient, (like speaking fluently in a language which they never spoken before, talking hours to gether on the subject in which they are completely unfamiliar, some accurate prediction of future events etc.) omnipresent and omnipotent (like appearing at two different places at the same time, pushing up the sinking bus with one hand, etc.etc.)....We can read & heard lot of episodes like this in the history of shrungeri & kanchi jagadguru-s....However, I consider these miracles are not the result of Atma jnAna but some sort of siddhi which they accrue through some yOga sAdhana..We should not get confused these miracles with nitya shuddha, buddha, mukta, Atma jnAna. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Dear bhaskar, Namaste. You are right. The similar answer i remember was given by Bhagavan. THe question is something like this. Q: Does a Jnani knows *everything*? A: The Jnani knows everything *worth* knowing. Hope this is clear. with regards, sriram advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > > > the knowledge of Self removes total ignorance and makes you omniscient. " > > > praNAms > > > Hare Krishna > > > Yes, for a jnAni there is no 'omni' this 'omni' (all) is nothing but ONE > and only ONE without second for him...He know the ocean is complete water > and nothing but water but that does not mean he should know each & every > minute detail of wave length, bubbles etc. etc. of that ocean water :-)) > The Atma jnAna can remove the ignorance about our svarUpa which is nAma & > rUpa rahita and it does not bring any fresh material or worldly knowledge > to the 'mind' of that jnAni....So we cannot expect a jnAni to do what he > does not know prior to his jnAna :-)) However, I heard that Some members > of 'jnAni club' have shown miraculous qualities of omniscient, (like > speaking fluently in a language which they never spoken before, talking > hours to gether on the subject in which they are completely unfamiliar, > some accurate prediction of future events etc.) omnipresent and > omnipotent (like appearing at two different places at the same time, > pushing up the sinking bus with one hand, etc.etc.)....We can read & heard > lot of episodes like this in the history of shrungeri & kanchi > jagadguru-s....However, I consider these miracles are not the result of > Atma jnAna but some sort of siddhi which they accrue through some yOga > sAdhana..We should not get confused these miracles with nitya shuddha, > buddha, mukta, Atma jnAna. > > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > > > bhaskar > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Dear sir, sarvajnat-va need not mean that the jnani *should know* all sciences that are in the world. Afterall, we cannot expect C++ / Java programs from a vedanti / jnani. A jnani knows what is *worth* knowing. regs, sriram advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: > > Hi Simon again - here's a P.S. I forgot to add to the message I just sent. > > > > If you read any of the previous discussion to which I referred, you will > know that not all professed advaitins agree with the contention that an > enlightened man still has a mind and still carries out action for the rest > of his life. > > Interestingly, it seems that the same applies to the concept of > 'all-knowing'. Here is an excerpt from Swami Parthasarthy's translation and > commentary on the Atma Bodha: > > " Knowing the Self is different from knowing anything else. The knowledge of > Self destroys not only the ignorance of Self but all other types of > ignorance in you. For example the knowledge of Sanskrit removes the > ignorance of Sanskrit. The knowledge of science removes the ignorance of > science. But the knowledge of Self removes total ignorance. This truth is > shown by an illustration. > > " A traveler has lost his sense of direction. You point out the east to him. > He understands not only the east but the west, north and south. This example > proves that knowledge of one entity can remove the ignorance of other > entities besides its own. Likewise the knowledge of Self removes total > ignorance and makes you omniscient. " > > Needless to say (from my previous post) I do not agree with this position > and deny the validity of the metaphor (since east is related to the other > directions as part of its definition; it is not a question of 'different' > knowledge). > > It would be interesting to hear other view on this, although I most > definitely do not want to trigger another marathon discussion! > > > > Best wishes, > > Dennis > > > > advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf > Of bobbyandpoppy > Friday, May 08, 2009 2:59 PM > advaitin > Knowledge and enlightenment > > To Fellow Pilgrims... > > First of all many thanks to Dennis Waite for your book 'The book of One', I > found it very lucid and comprehensive, quite the best introductory outline > on non-dualism that I have read. The list of resources is also excellent and > I am chasing up a couple of book recommendations. > > As you state in this book, and as I have found in experience, enlightenment > or an unmediated experience of the Divine such that one enters Spaceless > Unity with the Absolute, does not mean that suddenly that person increases > in knowledge of 'facts'. I become One with Essence yet in so doing I do not > become knowledgable about, say, nuclear physics, or about what is going on > in other places. I enter the Eternal Now, but I do not transcend time (if > time exists) so that despite being in a timeless, spaceless 'place' I cannot > predict the future, discover winning lottery numbers, (very ignoble!) or the > gender of an unborn baby. > > Why is this so? What is my misconception in Ignorance here? Though > Attributeless yet the Divine is described sometimes as Truth, as Knower of > all things. Why, in Transcendent Unity, do I not share in that knowledge? > > Many thanks for your time > > Pilgrim Simon > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Hi Peter, I think this is one of those examples where the speaker is talking about the absolute and not about the relative. It is the Self, brahman, that is the 'ever real' and 'other than which nothing exists to be known', not Ishvara. Similarly with respect to the second quotation. Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Peter Monday, May 11, 2009 5:33 PM advaitin RE: Knowledge and enlightenment Maharshi: The Vedas declare God to be omniscient only to those who ignorantly think themselves to be people of little knowledge. But if one attains and knows him as he really is, it will be found that God does not know anything, because his nature is the ever-real whole, other than which nothing exists to be known. ( " Be As You Are, The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi " , p206, by David Godman.) Sri Ramana puts the same view in his Ulladu Narpadhu (also called, Sat Darshan). " Know that that alone is true knowledge, in which there is neither knowledge nor ignorance: the (so-called) knowledge of objects, understand, is not at all true knowledge. The Real Self shines always alone, with neither things for Him to know, nor persons to know Him: therefore He is only Consciousness: do not think that he is non-being. " (verse 12) Peter .. <http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=4 4927/stime=1242059603/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Dear Sada-ji, Of course, I agree with all that you say here. I don't think I was claiming anything different. But the actual commentary by Swami Parthasarathy ( " Likewise the knowledge of Self removes total ignorance and makes you omniscient. " ) certainly implies other than this. I think you will agree that only Ishvara is omniscient in the sense that this word is normally understood (i.e 'knowing everything', not 'knowing the essence of'). Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of kuntimaddi sadananda Monday, May 11, 2009 6:10 PM advaitin RE: Knowledge and enlightenment The sloka and the intended meaning have to be properly understood. In MunDaka - the student asks - sir please teach me knowing which I will know everything. Similar aspect is addressed in the Ch. Up sat vidya where the teacher asks the student - have you learned that knowing which one knows everything? << >> Hari Om! Sadananda .. <http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=15939/grpspId=1705075991/msgId=4 4928/stime=1242061819/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Hi Dennis, Yes, indeed. I thought it was knowledge of the Self that we were talking about with your reference to " all knowing " and your quote from " Atma Bodha " and Swami Parthasarthy's translation and commentary. Have I misunderstood? Apologies, if I have. Best wishes, Peter > > advaitin > [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Dennis Waite > 12 May 2009 12:10 > advaitin > RE: Knowledge and enlightenment > > Hi Peter, > > I think this is one of those examples where the speaker is > talking about the absolute and not about the relative. It is > the Self, brahman, that is the 'ever real' and 'other than > which nothing exists to be known', not Ishvara. > Similarly with respect to the second quotation. > > Best wishes, > > Dennis > > > > advaitin > [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Peter > Monday, May 11, 2009 5:33 PM > advaitin > RE: Knowledge and enlightenment > > > > Maharshi: The Vedas declare God to be omniscient only to > those who ignorantly think themselves to be people of little > knowledge. But if one attains and knows him as he really is, > it will be found that God does not know anything, because his > nature is the ever-real whole, other than which nothing > exists to be known. > > ( " Be As You Are, The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi " , p206, by David > Godman.) > > Sri Ramana puts the same view in his Ulladu Narpadhu (also > called, Sat Darshan). > > " Know that that alone is true knowledge, in which there is > neither knowledge nor ignorance: the (so-called) knowledge of > objects, understand, is not at all true knowledge. The Real > Self shines always alone, with neither things for Him to > know, nor persons to know Him: therefore He is only > Consciousness: do not think that he is non-being. " (verse 12) > > Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Hi Peter, I can only repeat the relevant quotation from Swami Parthasarathy: " The knowledge of Self destroys not only the ignorance of Self but all other types of ignorance in you. For example the knowledge of Sanskrit removes the ignorance of Sanskrit. The knowledge of science removes the ignorance of science. But the knowledge of Self removes total ignorance. " To my mind, this is saying that the j~nAnI also acquires knowledge of quantum mechanics on enlightenment. Does it not say this to you? Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Peter Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:23 PM advaitin RE: Knowledge and enlightenment Hi Dennis, Yes, indeed. I thought it was knowledge of the Self that we were talking about with your reference to " all knowing " and your quote from " Atma Bodha " and Swami Parthasarthy's translation and commentary. Have I misunderstood? Apologies, if I have. Best wishes, Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Hello again, Dennis, It does imply that to me. We would need to check that Swami intends that deduction. If so, then from this deduction not only would a jnani acquire a knowledge of quantum mechanics but a jnani would have all knowledge in every field of knowledge possible - present, past and future. My understanding was that you found this view questionable. I agree which is why I offered the passages from Sri Ramana Maharshi which I felt supports your view. But I get the impression you feel I am disagreeing with you. Have I still got the wrong end of the stick? Sorry. Questioner: But does God know everything? Maharshi: The Vedas declare God to be omniscient only to those who ignorantly think themselves to be people of little knowledge. But if one attains and knows him as he really is, it will be found that God does not know anything, because his nature is the ever-real whole, other than which nothing exists to be known. Best wishes, Peter > > advaitin > [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Dennis Waite > 12 May 2009 16:49 > advaitin > RE: Knowledge and enlightenment > > Hi Peter, > > I can only repeat the relevant quotation from Swami : > > " The knowledge of Self destroys not only the ignorance of > Self but all other types of ignorance in you. For example the > knowledge of Sanskrit removes the ignorance of Sanskrit. The > knowledge of science removes the ignorance of science. But > the knowledge of Self removes total ignorance. " > > To my mind, this is saying that the j~nAnI also acquires > knowledge of quantum mechanics on enlightenment. Does it not > say this to you? > > Best wishes, > > Dennis > > > > advaitin > [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Peter > Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:23 PM > advaitin > RE: Knowledge and enlightenment > > Hi Dennis, > > Yes, indeed. I thought it was knowledge of the Self that we > were talking about with your reference to " all knowing " and > your quote from " Atma Bodha " > and Swami Parthasarthy's translation and commentary. Have I > misunderstood? > Apologies, if I have. > > Best wishes, > > Peter > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Hello again, Peter! No, it is I who has got hold of the wrong end of the stick - my apologies! I did once contact Swami P with regard to copyright permission to use several of the stories that he quotes in his Bhagavad Gita talks in 'Book of One'. (He gave permission, provided that I include a footnote of tape and side for each!) When I again tried again for 'Back to the Truth' I received no reply. There are a number of email addresses given at his website but none for the Vedanta Life Institute at Mumbai, which I think is where he lives when not travelling. Maybe it is significant that his Atmabodha commentary was an early work (1971). His major work, first entitled 'Vedanta Treatise' was not published until 1978. Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Peter Tuesday, May 12, 2009 5:25 PM advaitin RE: Knowledge and enlightenment << >> My understanding was that you found this view questionable. I agree which is why I offered the passages from Sri Ramana Maharshi which I felt supports your view. But I get the impression you feel I am disagreeing with you. Have I still got the wrong end of the stick? Sorry. << >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 ks ji : only 'if' there was a beginning,then creation takes place.but,if there was never a time,as that 'whole' existed as 'whole' only,then aadiyum illai anthamum illai. THAT IS un-explainable. THIS (CREATION) IS ALSO un-explainable. FROM THAT un-explainable (I.E. BRAHMAN ONLY) THIS un-explainable HAS COME OUT (CREATION) BUT EVEN THOUGH THIS un-explainable HAS COME OUT OF THAT un-explainable YET THAT un-explainable REMAINS un-explainable ONLY. (i.e. Brahman remains unaffected, retains His/Her/Its fullness and completeness.) siva destroys avidya for creativity of brahmaa to take place,so that vishnu sustains all time forever and forever.sarvam siva mayam. suresh. advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > Peter and Dennis - PraNAms > > The question has shifted from jnaani to God or Iswara. The two are different. Jnaani does not become Iswara - He is Brahman. Brahman identified with local BMI is jiiva and jiivan mukta is the one with local BMI but with the understanding that I am Brahman and this BMI is in me. > Brahman identified with samaShTi or total BMI is Iswara; with total subtle mind as HiraNya garbha. > > Jnaani has a limited mind. Any knowledge takes place in the mind or with the mind. The limited mind can know only limited 'things' or information. > > Iswara is defined as jagat kartaa - creator of the entire universe and the creator has to have the knowledge of creation - just as when we create the dream world we must of what we are dreaming - not the individual localized mind in the dream but the waker's mind that is projecting the entire universe of things and being. > > Hence Iswara must know all that is created in the field of creation - Hence scripture do declare that he is sarvajnaH- sarva shaktimaan. > > When it comes to jnaani - jnaani has localized BMI which are limited. The knowledge that we are referring to is objective knowledge not the knowledge of Brahman as the pure undifferentiated existence-consciousness-limitless. > > Jnaani need not know the naama and ruupa of every object in the universe but he knows the substantive of everything as nothing but as I am. Shankara may not know pizza or how to make one and need not have to know also to be a jnaani. > > Whether God knows about Pizza or not you can ask Him. > > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > > > --- On Tue, 5/12/09, Peter <not_2 wrote: > > > Hello again, Dennis, > > It does imply that to me. We would need to check that Swami intends that > deduction. If so, then from this deduction not only would a jnani acquire a > knowledge of quantum mechanics but a jnani would have all knowledge in every > field of knowledge possible - present, past and future. > > My understanding was that you found this view questionable. I agree which is > why I offered the passages from Sri Ramana Maharshi which I felt supports > your view. But I get the impression you feel I am disagreeing with you. > Have I still got the wrong end of the stick? Sorry. > > Questioner: But does God know everything? > > Maharshi: The Vedas declare God to be omniscient only to those who > ignorantly think themselves to be people of little knowledge. But if one > attains and knows him as he really is, it will be found that God does not > know anything, because his nature is the ever-real whole, other than which > nothing exists to be known. > > Best wishes, > > Peter > > > > > advaitin@ s.com > > [advaitin@ s.com] On Behalf Of Dennis Waite > > 12 May 2009 16:49 > > advaitin@ s.com > > RE: Knowledge and enlightenment > > > > Hi Peter, > > > > I can only repeat the relevant quotation from Swami : > > > > " The knowledge of Self destroys not only the ignorance of > > Self but all other types of ignorance in you. For example the > > knowledge of Sanskrit removes the ignorance of Sanskrit. The > > knowledge of science removes the ignorance of science. But > > the knowledge of Self removes total ignorance. " > > > > To my mind, this is saying that the j~nAnI also acquires > > knowledge of quantum mechanics on enlightenment. Does it not > > say this to you? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Dennis > > > > > > > > advaitin@ s.com > > [advaitin@ s.com] On Behalf Of Peter > > Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:23 PM > > advaitin@ s.com > > RE: Knowledge and enlightenment > > > > Hi Dennis, > > > > Yes, indeed. I thought it was knowledge of the Self that we > > were talking about with your reference to " all knowing " and > > your quote from " Atma Bodha " > > and Swami Parthasarthy' s translation and commentary. Have I > > misunderstood? > > Apologies, if I have. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Shree Sureshji PraNAms My post is pertinent and relavent to only to Peter, Dennis, who are mutually different and other interested members of this list who feel they are different from the list and different from each other but not to the one who is never created, sustained and annihilated and therefore not even there to read and respond. Hope this helps. Hari Om! Sadananda --- On Wed, 5/13/09, sureshbalaraman <sureshbalaraman wrote: ks ji : only 'if' there was a beginning,then creation takes place.but,if there was never a time,as that 'whole' existed as 'whole' only,then aadiyum illai anthamum illai. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.