Is Enlightenment Personal?

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends in Advaitin

 

I just recently wrote something on the HS blog

(http://.net/blog/index.html) with the following title.

 

Is Enlightenment Personal?

The Self as Satyam-Shivam-Sundram (Truth, Consciousness, Beauty).

 

The thoughts in the essay are based on Advaita and Bhagavad Gita.

 

If any one of you are interested in writing about such topics and

related ones, Please let me know.

 

Harsha

 

--

 

 

 

community blog is at

 

http://.net/blog/

 

"Love itself is the actual form of God."

 

Sri Ramana

 

In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma

[Guest guest]

Dear shri Harsha-ji,

 

namaste. I went through the HS blog "Is enlightenment

personal?". While I find the blog presentation extremely

good and contemplative, I find the title provocative

enough for me to think that I have to respond. As

per my understanding, Enlightenment is *not* personal.

I think 'personal Enlightenment' is a contradiction

in terms. Only if one looses 'personal', Enlightenment

dawns. As long as one feels 'personal', Enlighetnment

cannot be attained. Thus, both cannot co-exist.

I quote here shri T.M.P. Mahadevan (the great advaitic

scholar from University of Madras, Chennai) from his

book "Time and the Timeless" where he defined (described)

moksha: "Moksha is not freedom for the individual. It is

freedom *from* individuality."

 

I find all the blog presentations in the HS blogs

extremely good. Please keep up the good work.

 

regards

gummuluru murthy

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

 

 

advaitin, Harsha wrote:

>

> Dear Friends in Advaitin

>

> I just recently wrote something on the HS blog

> (http://.net/blog/index.html) with the following

> title.

>

> Is Enlightenment Personal?

>

> [...]

>

> Harsha

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Murthyji,

 

Its wonderful to hear from you after such a long time. I agree with you

that the Enlightenment cannot be possessed as an object by an individual

as that would constitute a gap between the individual and the natural

state of being. I also agree that Self-Realization happens when one

loses the personal, or fully surrenders the personal. By personal, I

mean a sense of identity and individuality. When the very root of

existence itself, our core identity of "I Am" is consciously surrendered

to the Lord, the Heart of existence, then the Lord reveals Him Self as

the Heart or our True Identity. Yes, I did say the following on the HS

blog:

> Some people say that Enlightenment is not personal. That is just a

> fashion statement. Enlightenment is as personal as it gets. The Self

> is both personal and impersonal. It is personal because it is you. How

> can it be any more personal? It is impersonal because its existence

> (your ultimate nature) is not dependent on time and space bound

> relationships.

 

I do not think this is inconsistent with what you are saying. However,

since the same words have to be used in different contexts, their

meaning changes and there is room for differing interpretations. Later

in the article, I stated:

> In Hinduism, the Reality is often referred to as

> Satyam-Shivam-Sundram. Truth-Consciousness-Beauty. That which is of

> the nature of the ultimate truth, pure consciousness, and the essence

> of beauty is the Self. One's own Self. It is of such overwhelming

> beauty because the devotee who worships the God or the Self with all

> love and might and with desperation suddenly realizes that the devotee

> and God are in essence identical. The seeker had been looking for

> something that constituted the core of his/her very own Being. Imagine

> the shock! First the shock, and then the smile. Of course, how could

> it be anything else? The Lord always sits in our Heart as our own Heart.

>

> This Realization is one of overwhelming beauty. The one that you had

> been longing for has been here all along as your own Self. Self is

> empty of all concepts. Its nature is that of completion that is devoid

> of all longing. Its nature is that of utter fullness that has nowhere

> to flow out to, being One without a second. The ancients called it

> Sat-Chit-Ananda. It has no basis for comparison and no reference

> point. We can say that it is the essence of beauty and bliss.

Thank you for your comments Murthyji. I shall be putting more of my home

spun wisdom on the blog.

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

gmurthy_99 wrote:

>

> Dear shri Harsha-ji,

>

> namaste. I went through the HS blog "Is enlightenment

> personal?". While I find the blog presentation extremely

> good and contemplative, I find the title provocative

> enough for me to think that I have to respond. As

> per my understanding, Enlightenment is *not* personal.

> I think 'personal Enlightenment' is a contradiction

> in terms. Only if one looses 'personal', Enlightenment

> dawns. As long as one feels 'personal', Enlighetnment

> cannot be attained. Thus, both cannot co-exist.

> I quote here shri T.M.P. Mahadevan (the great advaitic

> scholar from University of Madras, Chennai) from his

> book "Time and the Timeless" where he defined (described)

> moksha: "Moksha is not freedom for the individual. It is

> freedom *from* individuality."

>

> I find all the blog presentations in the HS blogs

> extremely good. Please keep up the good work.

>

> regards

> gummuluru murthy

> ---------------------------

>

>

> advaitin, Harsha wrote:

> >

> > Dear Friends in Advaitin

> >

> > I just recently wrote something on the HS blog

> > (http://.net/blog/index.html)

> <http://.net/blog/index.html%29> with the following

> > title.

> >

> > Is Enlightenment Personal?

> >

> > [...]

> >

> > Harsha

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Harsha wrote: Dear Murthyji,

 

Its wonderful to hear from you after such a long time. I agree with you

that the Enlightenment cannot be possessed as an object by an individual

as that would constitute a gap between the individual and the natural

state of being. Dear Sir,

Enlightenment is surely not a personal thing in

the sense of evolution of the unreal jiva into the state of transcendental

through time, as some teachers put it. But it is intensely personal in the sense

of the true individuality obtaining only in the enlightened state consciousness,

in the unenlightened state, the apparent individual being only a particular

manifestation of the collective ignorance. In essence, true individuality

pertains only to the, 'I' not attached to anything. The etymological meaning of

the word individuality is indivisible. The present state of individuality is

fragmented.

Sankarraman

 

 

 

Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using

Messenger with Voice.

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Harsha wrote:

>

> Dear Murthyji,

>

> Its wonderful to hear from you after such a long time. I agree

with you

> that the Enlightenment cannot be possessed as an object by an

individual

> as that would constitute a gap between the individual and the

natural

> state of being. I also agree that Self-Realization happens when

one

> loses the personal, or fully surrenders the personal. By personal,

I

> mean a sense of identity and individuality.

 

 

Namaste Harsha ji and Murthy ji,

 

While i am not competent to sit in judgement over the matter under

discussion, i feel like giving an opinion on this:

 

As bondage is experienced by an individual, and sadhana is

undertaken with a veiw to get over the bondage by the individual,

the fruit of the sadhana, namely Aparoksha Atma Sakshatkara, has to

be had by the individual alone. Only then does that individual

personally experience that he is 'Ever Free'. It is quite

reasonable to admit this for, otherwise how will one know that one

is free from ignorance and will never ever have birth again?

Further, as the others who have not had that Aparoksha Atma

Sakshatkara continue to experience bondage, the one who has had that

experience of Liberation has to be admitted as having had a unique

experience to make only him free.

 

In the Upanishads we have such declarations of the personal

attainment of Enlightenment:

 

The Taittiriya Upanishad: Etat Sama Gaayan Aaste. Aham Annam...etc.

The Bhashyam says that the above expression is a continuation of the

sentence 'Brahmavid aapnoti param''The Knower of Brahman attains the

Supreme' occurring in the earlier valli.

 

The Aitereya Upanishad: Vamadeva realized the Atman while still in

his mother's womb: He declares: 'While still in the womb of my

mother i obtained the knowledge of all ...Hundred (numerous)

citadels (bodies) of iron (as if made of iron) held me. Then

forcefully by the power born of knowledge i came out like a hawk

tearing trhrough a net.' Acharya Shankara writes: By saying

that...Vamadeva attained the state of Brahman...the Sruti shows that

from spriritual disciplines practised....knowledge can arise...

 

The Bhagavad Gita 13.24: Dhyanena Atmani Pashyanti Kechid Atmanam

Atmana: Through meditation some realise the Atman in the intellect

by means of a mind purified through meditation.

 

There is the experience of the knower depicted by Bhagavatpada in

the Brahma sutra bhashya 4.1.15:

'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 Upanishads and Smritis in the course of

determining the characteristics of a Sthita-prajnaH (the man of

steady knowledge of the Truth).'

 

These and several other passages in the scriptures speak of the

unique experience that occurs to a specific person. It is in this

sense I think that it would not be wrong to call enlightenment as a

personal experience, inasmuch as it is not shared by the others who

are still in bondage. That the one who is Enlightened no longer

holds on to the limited ego, individuality, is not in dispute. The

Gita Sixth chapter verse: Sarva-bhutastham Atmanam Sarva-bhutani cha

atmani. Ikshate yoga yuktaatma sarvatra sama-darshanaH: speaks of

such a Jnani's Universal Vision.

 

The above opinion is expressed not with a view to contradict anyone.

 

Warm regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

Dear Subuji,

 

Namaste. Thank you for your analysis based on the scriptural support. It

is quite excellent. I would like to put the insights of the learned and

wise members on my blog if permitted. The story of sage Yagnavalkya is

instructive in the same way.

 

Janaka, King of Videha, on a certain occasion, performed a sacrifice and

in connection therewith distributed costly gifts. Among those who

attended the ceremony were the wise men of Kuru and of Panchala. King

Janaka observed them and wanted to find out which was the wisest. "Now

it happened that the king kept a thousand cows enclosed in a pen, and

between the horns of every one of them were fastened ten gold coins.

"'Venerable brahmins' said King Janaka, 'let him who is the wisest among

you take away these cows.' "The Brahmins dared not stir, save

Yagnavalkya alone. "'My learned son,' said Yagnavalkya to his disciple,

'drive home my cows.' "'Hurrah!' cried the lad, and made for them. "The

rest of the Brahmins were enraged. 'How dare he call himself the

wisest!' they shouted. At last, Aswala, priest to King Janaka, accosted

Yagnavalkya, saying: "'Yagnavalkya, are you quite sure you are the

wisest among us?' "'I bow down,' replied Yagnavalkya, 'to the wisest.

But I want those cows!' "Then Aswala began to question him."

 

Anyway, it is an enjoyable and interesting topic.

 

Harsha

 

subrahmanian_v wrote:

> Namaste Harsha ji and Murthy ji,

>

> While i am not competent to sit in judgement over the matter under

> discussion, i feel like giving an opinion on this:

>

> As bondage is experienced by an individual, and sadhana is

> undertaken with a veiw to get over the bondage by the individual,

> the fruit of the sadhana, namely Aparoksha Atma Sakshatkara, has to

> be had by the individual alone. Only then does that individual

> personally experience that he is 'Ever Free'. It is quite

> reasonable to admit this for, otherwise how will one know that one

> is free from ignorance and will never ever have birth again?

> Further, as the others who have not had that Aparoksha Atma

> Sakshatkara continue to experience bondage, the one who has had that

> experience of Liberation has to be admitted as having had a unique

> experience to make only him free.

>

> In the Upanishads we have such declarations of the personal

> attainment of Enlightenment:

>

> The Taittiriya Upanishad: Etat Sama Gaayan Aaste. Aham Annam...etc.

> The Bhashyam says that the above expression is a continuation of the

> sentence 'Brahmavid aapnoti param''The Knower of Brahman attains the

> Supreme' occurring in the earlier valli.

>

> The Aitereya Upanishad: Vamadeva realized the Atman while still in

> his mother's womb: He declares: 'While still in the womb of my

> mother i obtained the knowledge of all ...Hundred (numerous)

> citadels (bodies) of iron (as if made of iron) held me. Then

> forcefully by the power born of knowledge i came out like a hawk

> tearing trhrough a net.' Acharya Shankara writes: By saying

> that...Vamadeva attained the state of Brahman...the Sruti shows that

> from spriritual disciplines practised....knowledge can arise...

>

> The Bhagavad Gita 13.24: Dhyanena Atmani Pashyanti Kechid Atmanam

> Atmana: Through meditation some realise the Atman in the intellect

> by means of a mind purified through meditation.

>

> There is the experience of the knower depicted by Bhagavatpada in

> the Brahma sutra bhashya 4.1.15:

> '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 Upanishads and Smritis in the course of

> determining the characteristics of a Sthita-prajnaH (the man of

> steady knowledge of the Truth).'

>

> These and several other passages in the scriptures speak of the

> unique experience that occurs to a specific person. It is in this

> sense I think that it would not be wrong to call enlightenment as a

> personal experience, inasmuch as it is not shared by the others who

> are still in bondage. That the one who is Enlightened no longer

> holds on to the limited ego, individuality, is not in dispute. The

> Gita Sixth chapter verse: Sarva-bhutastham Atmanam Sarva-bhutani cha

> atmani. Ikshate yoga yuktaatma sarvatra sama-darshanaH: speaks of

> such a Jnani's Universal Vision.

>

> The above opinion is expressed not with a view to contradict anyone.

>

> Warm regards,

> subbu

>

>

 

 

 

community blog is at

 

http://.net/blog/

 

"Love itself is the actual form of God."

 

Sri Ramana

 

In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sankarraman Ji,

 

Yes, agreed. Self-Realization is perfect wholeness and unity. The sense

of "I" itself is swallowed up by the Heart. The True Identity is the

Self. It is not Identity in the usual sense as it is not dependent upon

relationship to the other (things, space, time, celestial beings, etc.).

It is One without a second. It is can only be referred to imperfectly

and hence language has inherent limitation to describe it.

 

Harsha

 

Ganesan Sankarraman wrote:

>

> Dear Sir,

> Enlightenment is surely not a

> personal thing in the sense of evolution of the unreal jiva into the

> state of transcendental through time, as some teachers put it. But it

> is intensely personal in the sense of the true individuality obtaining

> only in the enlightened state consciousness, in the unenlightened

> state, the apparent individual being only a particular manifestation

> of the collective ignorance. In essence, true individuality pertains

> only to the, 'I' not attached to anything. The etymological meaning of

> the word individuality is indivisible. The present state of

> individuality is fragmented.

> Sankarraman

>

 

 

 

community blog is at

 

http://.net/blog/

 

"Love itself is the actual form of God."

 

Sri Ramana

 

In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma

[Guest guest]

namaste. I agree that Enlightenment would be a unique

'experience' not shared by others. But I would use the

word "guhyAti guhyam" for this. I am not sure if

Enlightenment is an 'experience', but for lack of better

word, we can continue to use it.

 

I tend to agree with shri Shankararaman's assessment

that individuality as understood now is indicative of

a fragmentive nature, and my thinking is it is this

fragmentation which individuality means that is

contra-indicator of Enlightenment.

 

shri Subrahmanian-ji writes

>

> As bondage is experienced by an individual, and sadhana is

> undertaken with a veiw to get over the bondage by the individual,

> the fruit of the sadhana, namely Aparoksha Atma Sakshatkara, has to

> be had by the individual alone.

 

Does this not imply that kartr^itva (doership) and bhoktr^itva

(enjoyership) are still there. In that case, where is aparoksha

Atma sAkshAtkAra?

 

> Only then does that individual

> personally experience that he is 'Ever Free'. It is quite

> reasonable to admit this for, otherwise how will one know that one

> is free from ignorance and will never ever have birth again?

> Further, as the others who have not had that Aparoksha Atma

> Sakshatkara continue to experience bondage, the one who has had that

> experience of Liberation has to be admitted as having had a unique

> experience to make only him free.

>

 

Does a jnAni ever bother to think that He is free from

ignorance and He will not have birth again? I think the

jnAni is unconcerned of ignorance and birth/death cycles.

May be, I am wrong. I will go through the shruti statements

referred and the bhAShya. Thanks very much for the references.

> Warm regards,

> subbu

>

 

regards

gummuluru murthy

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

[Guest guest]

Dear Members,

 

A learned member said:

 

"As bondage is experienced by an individual, and sadhana is

undertaken with a veiw to get over the bondage by the individual,

the fruit of the sadhana, namely Aparoksha Atma Sakshatkara, has to

be had by the individual alone. Only then does that individual

personally experience that he is 'Ever Free'. It is quite

reasonable to admit this for, otherwise how will one know that one

is free from ignorance and will never ever have birth again?"

 

Sri Murthy's post talks of the absence of 'ego' or a notion of 'self' in

enlightenment. This is how I understand the Vedantic enlightenment, which in my

understanding is not different from Nibbana (Let's not argue over that please).

But what surprises me is the above quote by the learned member.

 

Yet since he quotes from the Upanishads and from Sri Sankara's bhashyas I would

want to take his word for understanding Advaita Vedanta correctly. However, the

other learned members who are participating, viz. Sri Sankarraman, Sri Harsha

and Sri G Murthy are also most welcome to comment. I also request the silent

members to see if they can help me in understanding this better. If you think

you can, please do so.

 

My question is:

 

'In Sankara's opinion, upon the attainment of Moksha, does one have the thought,

"I am enlightened."?'

 

Unfortunately the question is not so straightforward as it leads to several

complications. Perhaps I am thinking wrongly. Please correct me. Let me phrase

it again:

 

'When Atman is ever-enlightened, ever-Supreme, ever-Knowing, then is there some

phenomenon called "Enlightenment" that occurs to/on the Atman?'

 

Again rephrasing:

 

'Would it be appropriate to say that "Atman is enlightened"?' I ask this because

according to Vedanta the only sense of self that is correct is Atman/Brahman. In

that case, the false self cannot be enlightened, because what is false is verily

not there for it to be enlightened.

 

Furthermore:

 

'Is there a definite answer to the question "Who gets enlightened?" in Advaita

Vedanta as in - "he gets enlightened" or "that person gets enlightened"?'

 

In contrast to this:

 

'Whom do we point out and say: "He is ignorant."?'. In other words, what is said

to be ignorant? Atman? But that is ever-Knowing.

 

Conversely:

 

'Is it appropriate for the enlightened one in Advaita Vedanta to say "I undergo

enlightenment."?'

 

If any of the above has a definite answer as 'Yes, it is appropriate to say

thus', then I shall have to concede that Advaita Vedanta's idea of Moksha is

different from that of Nibbana, in that Moksha would mean the lingering of a

subtle sense of ego. That is how I can understand it.

 

Yet, I agree with the learned member who posted the above quote that when a

person takes effort on the path of Dharma/Dhamma, he does attain enlightenment

eventually. But I wonder if the enlightenment is for the real self or for the

false self (ego). The confusion is because the real self is always enlightened

and the fasle self cannot be enlightened for it does not exist in reality. Then

whence enlightenment. This might sound like a contradiction of terms. Yet this

does not mean that the path of Dhamma is to be abandoned.

 

There is an answer to this question in Buddhism, but since the group is not

interested in that, I shall not discuss that. Instead I would want to know what

the group members feel about this issue with respect to Advaita Vedanta.

 

Please donot misunderstand me. I am not trying to prove that Vedanta is superior

or inferior to Buddhism. I am just trying to clear a genuine doubt that crossed

my mind upon reading this post, and since I had not read of any explanation to

this paradox in Sankara's prasthana traya bhashya (atleast not to what I

remember - my memory is very poor sometimes, so please check the Bhashyas - they

may have some explanation. Please point it out to me if you know.)

 

Thanks a lot in advance.

 

-Bhikku Yogi

 

 

 

Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+

countries) for 2¢/min or less.

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "gmurthy_99" <gmurthy wrote:

>

> Does this not imply that kartr^itva (doership) and bhoktr^itva

> (enjoyership) are still there. In that case, where is aparoksha

> Atma sAkshAtkAra?

>

> Response:

Namaste Murtigaaru,

 

There is the Sutrabhashya (4.1.9.13) vakyam:

Purva-siddha-kartritva-bhoktritva-viparItam hi Akartrtva-Abhoktritva

Svarupam Brahma Aham Asmi. Na itaH pUrvam kartaa Bhoktaa vaa aham

aasam. na idAnIm, naapi bhavishyatkAle ITI BRAHMAVID AVAGACCHATI.

 

Meaning: 'Quite contrary to what had been previously regarded as

agent and enjoyer, I am verily that Brahman, which, by nature, is

neither agent nor enjoyer. at all in all the three periods of time.

Even earlier I was never an agent or enjoyer, nor am I at present;

nor shall i be so in future - such is the realisation of the knower

of Brahman.'

 

 

Sri Murtigaaru says:

>

> Does a jnAni ever bother to think that He is free from

> ignorance and He will not have birth again? I think the

> jnAni is unconcerned of ignorance and birth/death cycles.

> May be, I am wrong. I will go through the shruti statements

> referred and the bhAShya. Thanks very much for the references.

>

regards

> gummuluru murthy

 

 

Response:

 

The Panchadashi Tripti Deepa-prakaraNam, VII says:

Dhanyo'ham Dhanyo'ham nityam svaatmaanam anjasaa vedmi |

Dhanyo'ham ......

 

I am Fortunate....I am directly aware of the Eternal Atma.

Brahmananda shines for me clearly.

 

Dhanyo'ham....duHkham saamsaarikam na vIkshye adya |

............svasya ajnaanam palaayitam kvaapi ||

 

I am fortunate....the misery pertaining to samsara is not

experienced by me now. I am fortunate,...my ignorance has taken a

flight to some unknown destination !!

 

There is a verse in the Panchadashi, i do not remember the location,

which says, in effect: Seeing the others in various stages of

progress, the Jnani heaves a sigh of relief: Oh! All this is no

longer there for me'.

Thus and in various other ways does a jivanmukta express/contemplate

his experience of Direct Realisation.

Care should be taken not to attribute arrogance to the Jnani for

such utterances as above; the Advaita Acharya Sri Vidyaranya writes

all this.

 

Warm regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhikku Yogi,

 

Namaste.

 

advaitin, Yogendra Bhikku <bhikkuyogi

wrote:

> My question is:

>

> 'In Sankara's opinion, upon the attainment of Moksha, does one

have the thought, "I am enlightened."?'

>

 

According to my understanding of advaita, no, Shankara denies the

knowership of Atamn in pAramArtha.

>From his adhyAsa-bhAShya:

 

asaNgasyAtmanaH pramAtRitvamupapadyate . na ca pramAtRitvamantareNa

pramANapravRittirasti. tasmAdavidyAvadviShayANyeva pratyakShAdIni

pramANAni shAstrANi ceti |

 

(It is illogical to speak of pramAtRitva of the Self, which is

spoken of 'detached'. Without a pramAtRi, there cannot be any

operation of pramANas. Therefore, pramANAs such as the shAstras and

pratyakSha operate only in the realm of avidyA)

 

Also in his commentary on the BU2.4.14:

 

"taM kena vijAnIyAt" yena vijAnAti, tasya karaNasya, vij~neye

viniyuktatvAt. j~nAtushca j~neya eva hi jij~nAsA, na Atmani; na ca

agneriva AtmA Atmani viShayaH; na ca aviShaye j~nAtuH

j~nAnamupapadyate; tasmAt yena idaM sarvaM vijAnAti, "taM

vij~nAtAraM" kena karaNena ki vA anyaH vijAnIyAt, yadA tu punaH

paramArthavivekini brahmavidi vij~nAtaiva kevali.advayi vartate, taM

vij~nAtAraM are kena vijAnIyAditi."

 

Here, Shankara denies the total knowership of aatma *including*

knowledge about its own Self ".. na cha agneriva AtmA Atmani

viShayaH" (The Self is not an object of knowledge for the Self)

 

> Unfortunately the question is not so straightforward as it leads

to several complications. Perhaps I am thinking wrongly. Please

correct me.

Let me phrase it again:

>

> 'When Atman is ever-enlightened, ever-Supreme, ever-Knowing, then

is there some phenomenon called "Enlightenment" that occurs to/on

the Atman?'

>

> Again rephrasing:

>

> 'Would it be appropriate to say that "Atman is enlightened"?' I

ask this because according to Vedanta the only sense of self that is

correct is Atman/Brahman. In that case, the false self cannot be

enlightened, because what is false is verily not there for it to be

enlightened.

>

> Furthermore:

>

> 'Is there a definite answer to the question "Who gets

enlightened?" in Advaita Vedanta as in - "he gets enlightened"

or "that person gets enlightened"?'

>

> In contrast to this:

>

> 'Whom do we point out and say: "He is ignorant."?'. In other

words, what is said to be ignorant? Atman? But that is ever-Knowing.

>

> Conversely:

>

> 'Is it appropriate for the enlightened one in Advaita Vedanta to

say "I undergo enlightenment."?'

>

> If any of the above has a definite answer as 'Yes, it is

appropriate to say thus', then I shall have to concede that Advaita

Vedanta's idea of Moksha is different from that of Nibbana, in that

Moksha would mean the lingering of a subtle sense of ego. That is

how I can understand it.

>

> Yet, I agree with the learned member who posted the above quote

that when a person takes effort on the path of Dharma/Dhamma, he

does attain enlightenment eventually. But I wonder if the

enlightenment is for the real self or for the false self (ego). The

confusion is because the real self is always enlightened and the

fasle self cannot be enlightened for it does not exist in reality.

Then whence enlightenment. This might sound like a contradiction of

terms. Yet this does not mean that the path of Dhamma is to be

abandoned.

>

 

Another important question regarding enlightment for which I am

seeking the answer is, when a jnyAni gets enlightment does others

continue to be in samsAra or not. If it said to be yes, then

Brahman, who is akhanda (partless) can not be imagined to be in both

the states as in enlighten state as a jnyAni and also in a samsAra

as a ajnAni. Any help in understanding this riddle is appreciated.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

Hari Om

~~~~~~~~

 

Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p wrote:

Dear Bhikku Yogi,

 

Namaste.

> >'In Sankara's opinion, upon the attainment of Moksha, does one

> have the thought, "I am enlightened."?'

 

Namaste mumuksha,

Your question is of interest and has merit...

The question is what part of enlightement does the exclamination

come? Let me , if I may, outline a few ideas.

 

On the way to God Consciousness or Bhagavat Chetana, there are

certain levels of experience and consciousness the aspirant (sadhu)

will experience, a specific quality of the doer ( us).

 

This is called naishkarmyam, a quality of non-attachment, where the

doer enjoys freedom and the non-binding influence of actions. So

what is binding? - cause and effect. Rebirth into ignorance ( that

is, not knowing ones SELF). Unfulfilled desires is the reason one

comes back to earth they say. Much can be said about vasana's or

these impressions brought from birth to birth.

 

So , How is this adjusted? This naishkarmyam experience of Self-

consciousness (but not yet God Consciousness or Bhagavat Chetana) is

not overshadowed by any other state of consciousness e.g. waking

dreaming or sleep. So why is this of any interest? Is this where

one asks " is this enlightement?".

 

Well, the evolution to God consciousness requires this level

(naishkarmyam) to be established, as it forms the foundation for God

Consciousness. the SELF finds itSELF separate from the field of

activity. It's underlying nature, and a quality of GOD as being all-

pervasive. The SELF or Pure consciousness, is every where ( like

akasha or space, everywhere). So , we begin to experience HIM

within our SELF as separate from activity, a very personal

experience. This is the experience of PURE CONSCIOUSNESS, or the

Absolute, HIS transcendental form.

 

NOW, once this level of consciousness is stable ( called Turiyatit

Chetana or Cosmic Consciousness), the individual ( Sadhu) can now go

to the the next level... God Consciousness . What that means is this

Pure consciousness begins to be experienced through the senses...

The eyes see HIM in HIS creation, the nose smells HIM, etc etc. His

creation gets experienced buy the individual from a whole different

level of appreciation - as an extension of ones SELF, which is

HIM!!! ( e.g. Divine Union) The person delights in his own SELF.

Fullness of Life is reached 100% of the relative field of life (the

environment, family, job, expansion) is United with 100% of Pure

Consciousness called SELF.

 

[ What is missing today, is the Pure consciousness part, that is why

life/society is so unbalanced , we're missing the 200% formula!!!

and the boat is leaning to one side only]

 

So , what's the non-attachment? Once you have established this

consciousness, the individual (small) self becomes SELF. Your

actions are in accord with Nature or the cosmic purpose ( dharma,

expansion of happiness, Bliss, Sattva). You are doing HIS work.

Every thing becomes and extension of HIM and as the Veda's say a

person does the "Highest Good". You are basically "non-attached"

from the 3 Gunas that cause re-birth again and again ( this, is my

humble estimation, is God's compassion for us to try again to get it

right - it is said that "no effortis lost" - so if you get to the 20

yard line and ya don't get to Cosmic Consciousness, it stays on your

credit and is rolled over... )

Some key tenets on this ... some folks over the millennium read the

instructions for this and thought this state of consciousness is

a "Mood" or behavior to emulate... so the thought was to become "non-

attached" or act without desires. This is not the instructions.

 

Some thought that one had to become a recluse - not so , its a level

of achievement both recluse and householder can enjoy.

The key here is to "withdraw, then withdraw from the withdrawal" or

transcend, then come back into activity and perform actions -

infusing more and more Turiyatit Chetana into ones daily life; like

bleaching a piece of cloth in the sun , over time, the cloth turns

white.

LAST point - the SELF realizes itself to itSELF. We can only provide

the conditions for this to occur - hence mediation, Prayers, (japa -

or repetitions), reading scriptures, all conditions we do to set up

the SELF to realize itSELF by itSELF.

 

Once this occurs, there is the instruction Tat Tvam Asi, That thou

Art... then one is established in HIS gace by HIS grace.

 

 

Pranams,

yajvan

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

Kindly enlighten me as to what exactly is "Enlightenment" in this context?

What is the sanskrit equivalent word for it and is it "Moksha" and if so,

liberation/freedom or moksha from what bondage or bandhanam?

Hari Om

Mani

 

 

R. S. Mani

 

 

 

Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min

with Messenger with Voice.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hari Om

 

Thank you for your mail. After consulting with Swamiji

we will give reply. Now see the attachment for

Swamiji's Tamail New Year Blessings.

 

Namaskarams

 

Pandimani.P

Sri GUru Sevak

 

--- "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani wrote:

>

>

> Namaste,

> Kindly enlighten me as to what exactly is

> "Enlightenment" in this context? What is the

> sanskrit equivalent word for it and is it "Moksha"

> and if so, liberation/freedom or moksha from what

> bondage or bandhanam?

> Hari Om

> Mani

>

>

> R. S. Mani

>

>

>

> Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+

> countries for just 2¢/min with Messenger with

> Voice.

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Yogendra Bhikku <bhikkuyogi wrote: Dear Members,

 

 

A learned member said:

 

"As bondage is experienced by an individual, and sadhana is

undertaken with a view to get over the bondage by the individual,

the fruit of the sadhana, namely Aparoksha Atma Sakshatkara, has to

be had by the individual alone. Only then does that individual

personally experience that he is 'Ever Free'. It is quite

reasonable to admit this for, otherwise how will one know that one

is free from ignorance and will never ever have birth again?"

 

Sri Murthy's post talks of the absence of 'ego' or a notion of 'self' in

enlightenment. This is how I understand the Vedantic enlightenment, which in my

understanding is not different from Nibbana (Let's not argue over that please).

But what surprises me is the above quote by the learned member.

Dear Bikku Maharaj,

The following verse from the

Gaudapada karika:

"There is neither creation, nor destruction, none bound, none, desirous of

Liberation, and striving hard after that, none emancipated. Know this to be the

supreme truth," should set rest the doubt whether enlightenment is personal,

which is surely not. The enlightened mind is not aware of some bondage having

been experienced earlier, and some sadhana having been performed for its

removal. Even, in Upadesasahasri it has been clarified that enlightenment is not

for the Witness, but for the intellect. If there is even a trace of feeling that

one has been enlightened, it means, surely, that there is the lingering of the

separate consciousness still, and one has to do some sadhana to remove it.

Further, the Tamil texts like Kaivalya Navaneetham, Advaitha bodha deepika, and

ribu geetha, unequivocally declare that the feelings, one is enlightened or

otherwise, are only for the ego, and not for the atman. The learned member's

averment that in enlightenment there is still the

awareness that one is enlightened, is only for purposes of encouraging people

to perform sadhana to become free; otherwise the transcendental state will be

taken for the face value, and people will have a complacent attitude about

truth. Metaphysically, only the position that there is no sense of personality

in enlightenment is correct, lest we should be landing up in the position of

vishishtadvaita or dvaita. In a place, Ramana says that the feeling, "I exist,"

does not obtain in the enlightened consciousness. There is a beautiful verse in

Guadapadakarika, which is as follows: " The ignorant, with their childish minds,

cover the Atman by predicating of It such attributes as existence,

non-existence, existence and non-existence, and total non-existence, deriving

these characteristics from the notions of change, immovability, combination of

change and immovability, and absolute negation, which they associate with

Atman.†This must dispose of your doubts about the idea of

eternal existence predicated of Atman, a recent discussion on this topic.

Further, the late philosopher J.Krishnamurthy used to constantly say that there

was no enlightenment for the individual, and that neither enlightenment was a

process in time. Nisargdatta Maharaj also, frequently, in the work, “I am

That,†says there is no enlightenment for a vyakti, that is individuality.

 

Yours truly,

Sankarraman

 

 

 

New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

 

 

[Guest guest]

gmurthy_99 <gmurthy wrote:

 

 

shri Subrahmanian-ji writes

>

>

 

 

> Only then does that individual

> personally experience that he is 'Ever Free'. It is quite

> reasonable to admit this for, otherwise how will one know that one

> is free from ignorance and will never ever have birth again?

> Further, as the others who have not had that Aparoksha Atma

> Sakshatkara continue to experience bondage, the one who has had that

> experience of Liberation has to be admitted as having had a unique

> experience to make only him free.

>

Dear Sir,

There is no sense of otherness for the jnani. Does, as Ramana says, the

waking individual worry about the concerns of those with whom he trafficked in

the dream? The idea that there are others to be enlightened is incompatible with

both dhrist-shrishti vada and ajati-vada. The yogavasishta is dead against the

idea of personal enlightenment. Do the others exist in the deep-sleep state?

Their existence vouchsafed by the other individuals of the waking state is not

apriori. When even in a state covered by avidya, there are no others

tentatively, there being only the otherness of the avidya superimposed on the

Witness, how could there be sense of otherness in an enligtened consciousness?

The sense of personality is only vis-a-vis others, which is not compatibel with

enlightenment.

Sankarraman

Sankarraman

 

 

 

Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates

starting at 1¢/min.

 

 

[Guest guest]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Since I know the background & intentions of Sri Srinivas Kotekal prabhuji,

the observant of below comments, I would like to address these issues

bluntly according to advaita perspective :

 

SK prabhuji:

 

According to my understanding of advaita, no, Shankara denies the

knowership of Atamn in pAramArtha.

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, coz. shankara upholds the upanishadic verdict that there is no duality

whatsoever there (nEha nAnAsti kiNchana)...pramAtru, pramANa, pramEya etc.

involves duality but in brahman there is no such divisions....When one

thinks that there is *real* distinction between jnAtru & jnEya it is avidyA

vyavahAra only.

 

SK prabhuji:

 

(It is illogical to speak of pramAtRitva of the Self, which is

spoken of 'detached'. Without a pramAtRi, there cannot be any

operation of pramANas. Therefore, pramANAs such as the shAstras and

pratyakSha operate only in the realm of avidyA)

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, to use pratyakshAdi pramANa, one has to identify himself with body

mind & intellect...but for a jnAni there is no entanglement with these

upAdhi-s..bruhadAraNyaka clearly says, when all the desires residing in

one's heart have been erased, then the mortal become immortal..and

*attains* brahman here in this life...just as the cast off slough of a

snake would lie lifeless in an ant hill, so also does the body of the

enlightened person lie there...and he is now (really) bodiless, he is

brahman alone...so it is evident that pratyakshAdi pramANa-s hold water

only & only if you identify yourself with body, mind &

intellect...shankara's position that loukika & vaidika vyavahAra is in the

realm of avidyA is quite valid & more importantly it is according to shruti

nothing else!!

 

SK prabhuji:

 

Here, Shankara denies the total knowership of aatma *including*

knowledge about its own Self ".. na cha agneriva AtmA Atmani

viShayaH" (The Self is not an object of knowledge for the Self)

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, can you sit on your own shoulder?? asks shankara elsewhere...self

knowledge cannot be an objective knowledge at any point of time since its

very nature is witnessing consciousness..then dont ask me how can you know

the existence of *apramEya* Atman!! shankara himself answered this question

too when he explains how *Atman* is *ahaM pratyaya gOchara*...see sUtra

bhAshya.

 

SK prabhuji:

 

Another important question regarding enlightment for which I am

seeking the answer is, when a jnyAni gets enlightment does others

continue to be in samsAra or not. If it said to be yes, then

Brahman, who is akhanda (partless) can not be imagined to be in both

the states as in enlighten state as a jnyAni and also in a samsAra

as a ajnAni. Any help in understanding this riddle is appreciated.

 

bhaskar :

 

Though I know you donot have the real intention of *knowing shankara's

position in this regard, for the benefit of other membes in this list, I

request them to study shankara's commentary on *sa yEva tu

karmAnusmrutishabdhavidhibhyAH* Here shankara makes explicitly clear that

brahman alone that is spoken of as jIva owing to connection with a

upAdhi..if we hold the individual antaHkaraNa-s as they are many upAdhi-s

for Atman then it can be considered as nAna jIva...jnAni cannot see

individual Atmans as such & say...see I am jnAni & you are ajnAni....& you

will have to wait for your turn etc. etc. jnAni's drushti is *saMyag

drushti* samaM pashyan hi sarvatra says gIta...so the above doubt pertains

to ajnAni who thinks there is a huge gap between jnAni & ajnAni....It does

not anyway mean, *everything become one* for jnAni as dvaitins

assume......bhAdita jnAna or avagati jnAna or sublated knowledge is what

is meant here....

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar