Fwd: RE: Realisation !

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote:

 

 

namaste sai,

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi states the following:

 

" A Jnani does not find anything different or separate from the Self.

All are

in the Self. It is wrong to imagine that there is the world, that

there is a

body in it and that you dwell in the body. If the Truth is known,

the

universe and what is beyond it will be found to be only in the Self.

The

outlook differs according to the sight of the person. The sight is

from the

eye. The eye must be located somewhere. If you are seeing with the

gross

eyes you find others gross. If with subtle eyes (i.e., the mind)

others

appear subtle. If the eye becomes the Self, the Self being

infinite, the

eye is infinite. There is nothing else to see different from the

Self. "

('Talks' 106)

 

Regards,

 

Peter___

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On

Behalf

Of sai9701

11 July 2006 05:26

advaitin

Realisation !

 

 

 

Dear All,

 

I have never met a realised being in my life. Hence I am putting

forth

this question to you all. Have you ever asked a realised being how

the

world seems to him/her ? I mean does the vision of the world changes

after realising the ultimate truth.

 

<snip>

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " subrahmanian_v "

<subrahmanian_v wrote:

 

advaitin , " shnkaran " <shnkaran@> wrote:

>

> advaitin , " subrahmanian_v " <subrahmanian_v@>

> wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > Furthermore, no difference of opinion is possible here as to

whether

> > or not the body is retained for some period (after

enlightenment) by

> > the knowers of Brahman. For, when somebody has the conviction in

his

> > heart that he has realised Brahman and yet retains the body, how

can

> > this be denied by anybody else? This very fact is elaborated in

the

> > Upanshad-s and Smriti-s in the course of determining the

> > characteristics of a sthita-prajna (the man of steady knowledge

of

> > the Truth).

> >

> > Dear sir,

> Does not Bhaghavan Ramana say that the retention or

> otherwise of the body is purely from the viewpoint of the

bystanders,

> the jnani himself seeing only the one flood of the light of the

self?

 

Namaste Sir,

 

The words of Acharya Shankara quoted above from the Sutrabhashya may

be understood better in the light of the following quotes, a

selection from the Panchadashi. The jnani's vyavahara is clearly

brought out by these verses.

 

Chapter 6 of the Panchadashi "

 

249. (Doubt): But even after realisation I suffer from hunger and

thirst. (Reply): Who denies it? This suffering is in your egoity (a

product of duality) expressed in your use of `I'.

 

250. (Doubt): The sufferings may come to the immutable Self, because

of identification with the body. (Reply): Do not subject yourself to

this identification which is due to mutual superimposition, but

practise discrimination for its removal.

 

251. (Doubt): The superimposition, which is due to the first

impressions, suddenly may occur, because of the beginningless

association of Jiva and Avidya. (Reply): Then begin new impressions

of non-duality by means of repeated discrimination of the truth.

 

263. By the force of the fructifying Karma, a knower may be subject

to desires, as in spite of theoretically knowing the truth you are

not satisfied.

 

264. A man who has overcome egoity and realised identity with the

changeless consciousness is not distressed by desires or diseases

and other changing conditions of body and fortune, just as the

growth and death of trees in a forest do not affect him.

 

265. (Doubt): But it is well known that the immutable Self is ever

unaffected by desires even before illumination. (Reply): Do not

forget this truth. The realisation that Kutastha is ever dissociated

from desires is called the `snapping of the knot of ignorance'. It

is this knowledge which leads to the attainment of the purpose of

life.

 

266. (Doubt): The dull-witted are ignorant of this truth. (Reply):

This is what we mean by the `knot of ignorance', nothing else. The

difference between the ignorant and the wise, is the existence of

doubt in the former group and its destruction in the latter.

 

267. From the point of view of the body, senses, mind and intellect,

there is no difference between the ignorant and the illumined when

they engage themselves in action or abstain from them.

 

268. The difference between one who has been initiated into the life

of Brahmacharya and one who has not is that the former studies the

Veda, whereas the latter does not. But as regards food etc., there

is no difference. The same applies to the wise and the ignorant.

 

269. In the Gita it is said that the wise man who has destroyed his

desires does not hate what is present nor does he hanker after what

he has not. He sits like one who is disinterested. This is

called `snapping the knot of ignorance'.

 

9. (Doubt): How can the idea of egoity arise in the detached

Kutastha ? You have to attribute egoity to it. (Reply): `I' is used

in three senses, of which one is primary and the other two secondary.

 

Chapter 7:

 

10. The immutable Kutastha becomes identified with the reflected

intelligence, Chidabhasa, due to mutual superimposition. This is the

primary meaning of `I' in which the spiritually dull people use it.

 

11. `I' in the two secondary senses refer to either Kutastha or

Chidabhada but one is differentiated from the other. The wise use

the same word `I' either in the worldly or in the philosophical

sense, meaning Chidabhasa or Kutastha respectively.

 

12. From the conventional standpoint, the wise use the expression `I

am going', meaning Chidabhasa, differentiating it from Kutastha.

 

13. From the philosophical standpoint the wise mean by their `I' the

pure Kutastha. In this sense they say: `I am unattached. I am the

Spirit Itself'.

 

Pranams,

subbu

 

--- End forwarded message ---