What will it be like?

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar-ji,

You have asked the following questions:--

The prArabdha karma which resulted in the present birth

( the birth in the course of which the Self-knowledge arose) does not get

destroyed immediately on the dawn of Self-knoledge, but it has to be

exhausted by being actually experienced. When this is exhausted there will

be no further birth for that jIva. He becomes a videhamukta.

 

> In the above statement of yours, there is an implication that there are

two stages in Atma jnAna, one is self knolwedge and second is *actual*

experience...Kindly tell me what is the difference between self-knowledge &

*actual experience*?? what exactly this *self-knowledge* exclusive of

*actual experience*?? Hope, you are not taking about krama-mukti which is

achieved through dhyAna & upAsana. Moreover, as we know,ignorance is never

created due to accumulation of karma or any such other things. Action only

results in merit and demerit & it invariably follows *katrutva buddhi.

Ignorance is natural (naisargika)and beginingless (anAdi). And only

self-Knowledge can remove this ignorance. If that self-knowledge itself is

not sufficient to eradicate the *katrutva buddhi & resultant karma & karma

phala, what else can bring the ultimate liberation?? As you know, shankara

extensively discusses this mukti with or without dEha (body)...for that

matter for a jnAni whether he is with body or without body it hardly

matters..it is not the *body that gets liberated to give it undue

importance is it not?? While commenting on the one of the maNtra-s of

bruhadAraNyaka maNtra, shankara says, Being but Brahman, he is said to be

merged in brahman. Because he has no desires that cause the limitation of

non-brahmanhood, therefore 'being but Brahman, he is merged in Brahman.

Shankara continued to say that this *merging*(if we can say so!!) will

happen *in this very life* and NOT when the body falls*. .Hence, I am

humbly requesting you to throw more light on the above statement of yours

i.e. self knowledge AND actual experience..I am aware of the observations

with regard to jnAni mAtra & brahma jnAni by Sri VidyAraNya swamiji in

jIvanmukti vivEka.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

I am giving my answers below:--

 

You have studied the bhAshyas thoroughly and I am sure you know that

whatever I have said is only extracted from the bhAshya. I have not taken

any of the ideas of Svami Vidyaranaya in Jivanmuktiviveka,

 

The following are the relevant extracts from the bhAshya, on which my

statements were based:--

Br.up.1.4.7.S.B—*s'ariiraarambhakasya karmaNaH

niyataphalatvaat--*------- * anyaarthaasambhavaat.

*

 

The past actions that gave rise to the present body must necessarily produce

their results and so the body, mind and organs will continue to function

even after the attainment of Self-knowledge, just as an arrow that has

already been discharged must continue to move forward until its force is

exhausted. The operation of Self-knowledge, which is weaker than the

*praarabdha

karma, *is liable to be affected by the latter. There is therefore need to

keep up the train of remembrance of the knowledge of the Self by means of

renunciation of action and detachment.

 

Br.up.1.4.10.S.B—*yena karmaNaa s'ariiram aarabdham---- itarat. *

 

The residue of *praarabdha karma *is the cause of the body continuing even

after the attainment of knowledge. Knowledge cannot prevent the results of

this category of Karma from producing their effect, since the two are not

contradictory to each other.

 

Ch.up.6.14.2.S.B--- *yaani pravr.ttaphalaani--- *

 

Those actions which have started yielding results and by which the body of

the man of knowledge was brought into existence get exhausted only by their

results being actually experienced, just as an arrow that has gathered

momentum after having been discharged stops only when the momentum is

exhausted.

 

Br.up.4.4.22.S.B--- *s'ariiraarambhakayostu upabhogenaiva kshayaH *

 

Actions that caused the present body are exhausted only by the results being

experienced.

 

B.G.4.37.S.B--- Since the karma because of which the present body came into

existence has already taken effect, it gets exhausted only by being

experienced. Self-knowledge destroys only those actions performed in past

lives and in the present life prior to the dawn of knowledge which have not

yet taken effect. Actions performed after the dawn of knowledge do not

produce any effect in the form of merit or demerit.

 

*videhamukti *

 

A *jiivanmukta *(one who is liberated in life) continues to live till

the *praarabdhakarma

*which gave rise to the present body is exhausted. Then his body falls and

he attains *videhamukti *or Absolute oneness, from which there is no return

(see S'rii S'ankara's Vaakya vr.tti- verses 52,53).

 

Ch.up.6.14.2.S.B—For a person who has already become a *jiivanmukta *the

delay (in attaining *videhamukti) *is only till the body falls after the

enjoyment of the fruits of action due to which it was born.

 

I am not alking about kramamukti at all.

 

Perhaps your paramaguru's views on these points are different. If so, I

would request you to state his views for the benefit of persons like me who

have not studied his works.

 

S.N.Sastri

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Re: What will it be like?

 

(1st response)

 

Shri Dennis Waite wrote:

 

" the only benefit of self-knowledge must be in the

remainder of this life. There is only ever brahman in reality and, from

this

pAramArthika standpoint, no one is ever born or dies. This understanding

is

given to one who is self-realized but is the truth whether or not the

understanding is there. Who-I-really-am was never born and is not going

to

be reborn whether or not that knowledge is realized in a particular

mind.

Conversely, Brahman is going to continue to appear as names and forms

presumably, assuming that there are mind-forms to perceive them as

separate.

Accordingly, one might ask why one should pursue enlightenment if,

although

the 'false' I will not be reborn, the real 'I' will continue to appear

as

deluded jIva-s.

 

I appreciate that these are simply ideas playing in the mind but I would

be

interested to know of any references where they are discussed. And it

goes

without saying that I would be interested in the thoughts of members,

too! "

 

 

The universe is infinite response to request…. Here is an offering

of thoughts

 

 

In order to directly answer Sri Dennis Waite's relatively complex

question, I feel

it requires to be dissected into simpler statements and questions,

without losing the essence

of the whole question. Often seemingly puzzling complex abstract

questions can be answered

by reformulating them into their constituent parts: first, the simple

direct questions and

second, the indirect implied questions arising from the statements, and

third, the assumptions.

So here is an attempt to do that…

 

 

The direct questions are only one….

 

Why should one pursue enlightenment if, although the 'false' I will not

be reborn, the real 'I' will continue to appear as deluded jIva-s?

 

 

These are what I think are a few of the many implied questions….

 

What is the benefit of self-knowledge?

What is the difference between my earlier life as a deluded jiva

and my later remaining life as the realized man?

Is it true that there is only Brahman in reality? and Is Brahman

eternal?

and Is Brahman the only eternal? and Is Brahman real, and the only real?

From the standpoint of Brahman, is no one ever born and is there no

death?

Is it true from the paramarthika standpoint that no one is ever born or

dies?

Is the standpoint of Brahman the same as the paramarthika standpoint?

Can understanding be given? and if so, What understanding is given?

What understanding does a self-realized one have?

Does the truth exist whether understanding is there or not?

Does realization occur in a particular mind?

Why should I pursue enlightenment?

Under what conditions will the false I not be reborn?

Why does the real I appear as deluded jivas?

Does Brahman eternally continue to appear as names and forms?

Why, if Who-I-Really-Am was never born and is not going to be

born, or reborn, should that knowledge have to be realized in a

particular mind,

eg `my' own mind, or `my' mind as a deluded jiva?

Do all mind-forms perceive everything as separate?

Is a mind-form a necessary condition for perceiving separation?

Who-I-really-am, Brahman, was never born and is not going to be reborn,

so why, when I am Brahman, does Brahman, myself, continue to appear as

names and forms?

Why does Who-I-Really-Am appear to have been born as a name and a form?

Why does Who-I-Really-Am appear to be eternally born into names and

forms?

Why, if I am already the real I, Brahman, should I strive to become the

real I, Brahman?

After my Realization, are there mind-forms to perceive, as separate, the

names and forms

that Brahman, myself, is going to continue to appear as?

Is it true that the only benefit of self-knowledge must be in the

remainder of this life?

 

 

These are what I believe are the assumptions….

 

It is possible to benefit from life.

Self-knowledge is a benefit.

Self-knowledge is of benefit exclusively in this life.

Self-knowledge occurs in this life.

Brahman is the only real.

Brahman as the real is the paramarthika standpoint

There are individual selves.

No individual self is ever born or ever dies

Understanding is something given.

Truth exists whether or not understanding is in any individual.

Who-I-really-am has never been born in the past, and will never be

reborn

in the future.

Who-I-really-am is a who, and an `I', and is real.

Brahman appears as names and forms.

Brahman continues to appear as names and forms even after an individual

self-realizes.

Brahman continues to appear as names and forms even after a

self-realized individual

realizes the knowledge that he is not going to be reborn in any name or

form.

Realization is individual.

Self knowledge and self realization are the same.

Enlightenment is the same as self knowledge and self realization.

Mind-forms perceive names and forms as separate.

It is `one', or `I' , or myself, who pursues

enlightenment.

Jivas are deluded.

Real `I' appears as deluded jivas.

Real `I' continues to appear as deluded jivas after

enlightenment.

False `I' is different from real `I'.

False `I' is not reborn after self-realization.

 

 

Now the discussion can begin….

 

When Sri Dennis Waite's statement-question is read carefully, rather

astonishingly one sees that almost every part of it is flawed.

 

We usually betray ourselves by the words we use.

The word " benefit " gives it all away. Predominantly the jiva

seeks some

benefit from existence. The fully realized man, desires nothing and the

question

of benefit to himself probably does not occur, and if it does occur it

meets with

his natural disinteredness.

 

Everything the jnani does is for the benefit of others.

 

One sage from the past said: " What one man creates, another man

destroys,

what can be the profit in that? " His words also give him away,

because even to make such

a statement, or to ask such a question, reveals that he was interested

in making a profit,

obtaining some benefit? To his credit he realized that Creation and its

destruction is

of no profit to anyone, and that surprising fact is `great

knowledge'. Brahma creates,

Siva destroys, and Visnu seeks to make a profit from preserving it,

maintaining it all

upon its course? Therefore that sage was probably an incarnation of

Visnu, a special

incarnation of Visnu, who realized there is no possible benefit in

either Creation or Destruction,

or the Maintenance of anything. Jivanmukta, self-realization while yet

within Creation,

can therefore be of no consequential profit to anyone.

 

Sri Dennis, the seeker of some benefit from Self-Realization, is also

therefore likely to be an incarnation of Visnu. A shadowy incarnation.

 

The thesis is offered that everyone and, perhaps more widely,

everything… is

an incarnation of (one of) the triad of gods…. Brahma, Siva, Visnu.

In order

to understand life, and the concept of benefit, and self-knowledge, it

may be

necessary to study human types, as well as divine types, and what they

want?

There are, I believe, three main divisions…

 

Siva has profound malevolence of being and a defective intellect

and to human limited vision and incomplete understanding is clearly

deluded. He has a strong sense of injustice and he sees something in

creation, and in you the jiva, of which he profoundly disapproves.

The combination of a sense of injustice together with a defective

intellect

is very disturbing. He is enormously powerful, and if he focuses his

attention

on you, then you have very little chance. He seeks to destroy you, the

jiva,

not directly, but by getting the jivas to destroy each other. He

secretly

places a suggestion in your ear, that " the negative is the

good " . The jivas

naturally believe this is their own thought, and begin to inflict

violence upon

each other, soon mutually reducing themselves to the pathos of

fragments.

The smashed souls. Siva covers over, hoods, the higher intellect, the

Buddhi,

so that right discrimination is very difficult, even impossible. In his

own

domain he completely covers over, for aeons of time, myriad lost souls.

In schools and ashrams he appears to teach by exciting, revolutionary,

profound, attractive, revelations, but subtly introduces errors so that

those who follow such a way eventually come to nothing. If fact they

go in the opposite direction to that they had intended. His people are

recognized by their inner blackness.

 

Brahma because of his tendency to forget himself, and to sleep

for inexorable periods of time, his attachment to his image of nobility,

is also flawed. Despite his universal benevolence of being he is

easily overpowered by Siva's suggestive strategies. At the end of

the Kalpa he is compressed into apparent nothingness. The tenth Rig

Veda Hymn describes his self-remembering, his awakening, and the

rediscovery of the principle of existence. Brahma discovers that

Existence is possible if all support all. This is love-existence. Only

because

he loves, does Brahma remember himself, only because he loves does he

discover the principle necessary for existence. In schools and ashrams

he teaches directly with clear understandable concepts and language.

His people carry around within a certain quantity of golden light.

 

Visnu is pure slyness. He has an aim which he conceals from everyone.

He pursues his aim relentlessly, considering and valuing it before

anything else.

He uses everyone and everything he meets as part of his aim. He has no

attachment to his image, and often appears as the humblest of people, or

creatures, all playing their obscure parts, maintaining creation upon

its course.

He is completely unethical, untrustworthy, which view of himself

he probably intentionally inculcates, knowing that your revulsion

at the quality of his sly being will force you not to believe him,

not to rely on him, but instead to discover everything for yourself.

You therefore become a self-evolving being…. which is what

he intended you to be from the very beginning. In schools and ashrams

he teaches indirectly with stories, enigmas and mysteries. His people

have a strange shadowy quality of being.

 

The thesis is offered that these three great beings must originally have

been one.

And if so, still are one. Eventually they may remember who they are and

merge,

without trace, back into the one. However, there is little indication at

present,

to the human consciousness, that this is possible.

 

Another analysis suggests that the three gods can be regarded as

manifestations

or personifications of the three gunas: rajas could be said to equate

with Brahma,

tamas with Siva, and sattva with Visnu, although there are some

incongruencies

in such a thesis.

 

Samkhya philosophy proposes that following a disturbance of the

equilibrium

in Prakriti the three gunas appear, and the three great gods, Brahma,

Siva, Visnu,

are merely manifestations of the three gunas. Most of Samkhya has been

absorbed

into Yoga and Advaita, therefore it is assumed this idea is acceptable

to advaitins.

 

Siva is unquestionably tamasic, demonstrable at the end of the Great

Kalpa (great age

or cycle of the universe) when complete destruction and inertia

dominates under

his influence. Brahma has great beauty of form and a benevolent nature

which seem

sattvic characteristics. He is pure goodness and the universal friend

which also

seem aspects of sattva. Visnu is always playing with everyone,

manipulating everything

in creation to respond to, and ultimately achieve, his unimaginably

subtle scheme.

His obsession with results and his active participation in the world are

all suggestive

of ragas. But these three must, I feel, be evaluated not by their middle

period aspects,

which reveal a borrowing from each others natures, an intermingling of

characteristics,

but at the beginning and the end, when there is a tendency to manifest

in the purest form.

Although everything, the entire universe, is destroyed at the end of the

Kalpa,

the seed (bija) remains, is latent, waiting until the

`conditions' are appropriate for the

next cycle of manifestation. Brahma is buried in the seed, compressed

into minuteness

by Siva, his eternal enemy. Brahma is covered over, deeply buried, his

head

swaddled by Siva who causes him to forget himself. Brahma sleeps in

non-existence,

which is simply the negative form of existence. It is at the beginning

of the new Kalpa,

when Brahma awakes, that his true nature is apparent. Intensely

suppressed by Siva

he struggles magnificently to remember himself. The power necessary to

free himself

from Siva's loka, that mausoleum of somnolence, that tundra of

nihilism, is immense.

Brahma reveals his active power. During those first visible moments he

is pure Ragas.

 

And where is Visnu during all this? He is said to be also sleeping (ie

without consciousness)

upon a serpent couch floating in the ocean. In the struggle between Siva

and Brahma

he is neutral, not involved, and remains harmoniously himself. He is the

absent third,

which when withdrawn allows the warring opposites to wrestle for

domination.

Visnu only appears when the struggle becomes out of balance, and his

neutral

interventions are designed with great schematic subtlety to restore the

balance.

Therefore he is the quintessence of the neutral and harmonizing Sattva.

With sattvic Visnu appearing, Siva and Brahma go on struggling with each

other

for apparently ever, neither able to completely triumph over the other,

neither able

to completely eliminate the other, both are immortal, both in immortal

combat.

Only when unseen, unknowable, Visnu appears and intervenes can family

harmony

be restored.

 

Siva is earth, Visnu is water, Brahma is fire (light), Saguna Brahman is

air,

Nirguna Brahman is space, The Parabrahman is….. ?

 

 

In one sense we have all three (Brahma, Siva, Visnu) within us, perhaps

as adjuncts,

and they contest the control of ourselves. First we fall under the

influence of one,

then another, then the third may make its entrance. Possibly all that we

can do,

if we can in fact do anything, is to choose which influence to fall

under,

to surrender to? If the truth is that we cannot do anything, then

one's inner essence

will prevail, which ever of the three types, the three gods, that

essence originally

is related to, was and is and will be. The shakti of either Brahma,

Siva, or Visnu

may be present in us, probably within or associated with the antakarana

complex

that we usually identify with (antakarana consists of manas-mind,

buddhi-higher intellect-spirit,

chitta-memory ). (Ahamkara is not strictly part of the antakarana

although it interacts with it,

because it is an emissary of Maya).

 

When you see the gunas manifesting within one, they are seen not simply

as

abstract qualities, but as personifications. It is possible to see

rajas, tamas and sattva

as persons, natures, spirits, struggling with each other within one.

Then one is

looking down from high within oneself, looking down onto an arena where

these three enact out their struggle for domination. Once you see the

quality,

the characteristics, of each personified guna within one, you recognize

the same

essential characteristic qualities in everyone and everything you meet.

Then you know what they want, and possibly what their ultimate aim is,

and what the probable outcome of your entanglement with them is likely

to be….. romance, tragedy, history.

 

In advaita there is the principle " If you can see it you cannot be

it " . If it is true….

then this is a magnificently great and liberating concept. The concept

can be

applied at the beginning, the middle, and probably even towards the end

of the

search for oneself. This liberating concept prevents one from

identifying with any form.

No image or reflection can be oneself. Nothing in consciousness can be

oneself.

Because the gunas can be seen, even seen within oneself, ultimately one

cannot be

any of them. Because the gunas manifest as Brahma, Siva and Visnu then

one

cannot be a god or a shakti (power representative of a god) or any

spirit resembling them,

or any incarnation of them. Even if the shakti is within one, and

possesses one

and manifests through one, it is not yourself. There are lovers of

Brahma, Siva, and Visnu

and all their many avatars and manifestations, and forms, and some

people cultivate complete

devotion to them, and desire union with them. Wisdom says… if you

can see it

then you cannot be it.

 

The tension between the three, the struggle between them, the

inter-reaction

between them…. is simply the drama that Brahman is performing all

around

you and I. We are also part of the drama, one of the parts, whether we

fully

realize that or not. There is a war in heaven, there is a war in the

cosmos, and

the conflict descends down upon the Earth, and mankind generally does

not

realize that a cosmic war is going on. The Mahabharata epic hints at

such a war.

The war is between the beings of the Brahma Loka and the beings of

the Siva Loka. Those in the Visnu Loka interact between the two opposing

sides, maintaining a balance. The drama, including all life on Earth,

is simply

the interaction between the benevolent, the malevolent, and the cunning.

Some jnanis have said that all three types are required to produce an

interesting

and entertaining drama. Perhaps therefore one should study drama?

 

The world one is enmeshed in, the life one is living, the person who one

has become,

are all merely entanglement with prakriti, and the disturbed equilibrium

of prakriti

consisting of three gunas, manifesting as three principle gods,

functions through desire,

domination, conflict, and illusion. How can the struggle between

desire-ridden competing gods be anything to do with oneself? How can

there be

any benefit in getting oneself involved in their war? If there is a war

going on,

especially a `phoney' war, it is advisable not to get involved.

As prakriti, when in

the phaze of manifestation, is little more than a gigantic piece of

cosmic machinery

what benefit can there be in cogs turning cogs remorselessly? If

prakriti is in fact related

to Maya, what benefit can an illusion have, except to pass the time?

If there is no benefit in life, then there can be no benefit in any

remainder of a life,

even the remainder of the self realized life. Is there some benefit in

escaping from,

withdrawing from, the entanglement with prakriti and Maya? Only the

Purusha,

or the Parabrahman would know or not know. Maybe it doesn't make any

difference?

Benefit is indicative of change. The changeless probably doesn't

change, doesn't

seek any benefit. If the Parabrahman doesn't benefit, how can the

self realized

one benefit, if they are identical?

 

What is the benefit of self-knowledge? There is none. It is not possible

to

benefit from the life that you are living. Both before and after self

realization

there can be no possible benefit. The reason why there is no direct

personal benefit

is because the universe is founded on the principle that all support

all.

Therefore no one can directly benefit from their own actions. If you

attain

self-realization you have done that for another, not for yourself.

You are not living your own life. It is only possible

to understand this if one can remember the events at conception.

 

There are different types of conception, but here is one, as an

illustration.

 

At conception you, the jiva, have been offered an incarnation that is

not yourself. The jiva is limited. The limited jiva cannot stand itself,

it

cannot endure being severely limited in both the quality of its being

and its

inability to move, to evolve, and is inherently in search of a finer

quality self.

The jiva is in search of itself. The jiva formulates this search as the

search

for its real self. The jiva is offered an incarnation but upon close

examination

of the proposed incarnation, looking at the person he is to become, he

realizes

it is not his self, not the genuine self that he has been longing for,

long

searching for. After some temptation by the divine arranger of lives,

even some bribes, which may or may not be of interest or acceptable

to the jiva… very reluctantly the jiva accepts the incarnation….

because

it is believed there is no choice. The jiva has a very limited

intellect, similar

to the poor quality intellect that we have in our dreams when asleep.

The

decision to accept the incarnation is therefore based on merely a belief

which may or may not be true.

 

Jnanis say that there is a difference between a divine birth and an

ordinary birth. In the case of a divine birth there is a choice, and the

Param-atman incarnates of his own free will, but in the case of an

ordinary

birth there is no choice, and the incarnation is a consequence of past

actions.

 

The life you are living is therefore `some one else's life',

perhaps even an

imaginary, fictitious life, a pseudo life. It is certainly not your own.

At the

moment of conception you were aware that it is not your own life, and

not

your own self, but as you live out that life you have forgotten that

fact,

and believe it is your own. As the life is not your own how can anything

resulting from it be of any benefit to you? It can only be of benefit to

the

person whose life you are living, and if it is a pseudo life then it is

of

benefit to apparently no one. Is it of benefit to the divine arranger of

lives? Who knows? Is it of benefit to the whole? Who knows? The one

thing that can be certain is that nothing you apparently do or achieve

in

the universe or in your life can possibly be of benefit to you

personally.

That would be contrary to the principle of creation itself, that all

support all.

All love all. All reciprocally feed all.

 

There is a cosmic being, of awesome almost absolute ethical purity,

whose

function appears to be…. to put things up and to put things down.

Even the gods

are apprehensive about him. If you live for your own benefit, he puts

you down,

if you live for the benefit of all and everything, he puts you up. It is

an

inexorable process.

 

But all this is within consciousness, within the manifestation, and

is ultimately part of the subtle illusion?

 

Sages have reported the realization that nothing is their own. If it is

true

that you have nothing of your own, how can anything be of benefit to

you?

Whether you realize it or not, all the actions you do are for someone

else.

At conception the arranger asks you to take the jiva along the long and

exceedingly difficult way and reach the manifestation of the perfect

self.

The perfect self is the holy self. The shankaracharyas are addressed

as `your holiness' because it is assumed that they have reached

the manifestation of the holy perfect form of the self.

No doubt the holy form of oneself has a sanskrit name, and I guess it

may possibly be `mahat'. The unmanifest holy self wishes to

manifest.

You are asked to achieve that. By some, that may be called `self

realization'.

You agreed to do that at the moment of conception, and you would not be

in life

if you had not agreed to accept the offer that the divine arranger made.

You agreed to the undertaking, not for your own benefit, which is quite

absent,

but for the love of the good. You agreed to the undertaking knowing that

there

could be no benefit to yourself. There may be a vague hint of

compensation,

who knows?

 

The principle is… no one is paid for anything in this universe.

There is no possible

benefit for oneself. The divine works on the principle of compensation.

Compensation is vague, better let it fall from your mind. Do everything

for the love of it.

It may be useful to remember that you are not living your own life,

you are apparently living someone else's life. You are not even

present here in life.

You, the person you agreed to get into, the person you accepted to

incarnate as,

to be… is not yourself. And even you, identified with and as the

jiva, who did the

accepting, you who made the decision to accept the incarnation, you who

agreed to be

dressed up in the incarnation… that you is also not you. So… you

have accepted

an incarnation, and you have to act as if it is yourself, and you have

to take the person

along the entire length of the way, to the real, to Saguna Brahman, to

the ocean of unity,

to the crossing place, to as close to the truth as is possible… and

you are doing it all

for someone else. Neither he nor you are you. So how can there be any

benefit

to yourself? Impossible. You have to undertake it all for love, if you

are a Brahma,

for wrath, if you are a Siva, and for opportunism, if you are a Visnu.

 

Brahmas undertake the incarnation for the love of the good, Sivas with a

sense of injustice and Visnus from an opportunity to make it ultimately

profitable.

Lower Visnus undertake the incarnation to profitably fulfil their own

aim and

Higher Visnus as an act of service to the Parabrahman. But ultimately

all this is Maya.

 

 

Just one implied question answered, just one assumption

contradicted….

with your kind permission and indulgence may this discussion continue

tomorrow?

 

 

John Ward

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " selwyndyffryn " <selwyndyffryn

wrote:

 

>

> When Sri Dennis Waite's statement-question is read carefully, rather

> astonishingly one sees that almost every part of it is flawed.

>

> We usually betray ourselves by the words we use.

> The word " benefit " gives it all away. Predominantly the jiva

> seeks some

> benefit from existence. The fully realized man, desires nothing and the

> question

> of benefit to himself probably does not occur, and if it does occur it

> meets with

> his natural disinteredness.

>

> Everything the jnani does is for the benefit of others.

 

> John Ward

 

Namaste Sri Johnji,

 

While I have to confess that I was unable

due to time pressure to read the total of your,

no doubt, very thorough analysis, I would like

to address what you say with the following

statement.

 

What I have been taught, and I take it as true

because it makes sense to me in all the ways

which I have examined it, is this.

 

It is the mind of the individual which suffers.

And it is the mind of the individual which

gains liberation.

 

In what way does self-ignorance cause suffering?

Self-ignorance causes suffering because the

self-ignorant mind takes brahman, which in reality

I am, to be one with the body/mind, and subject

to all aspects of change.

 

So the ignorant mind takes that which is immutable

and not subject to any sort of modification to be

completely at the mercy of the creation. Then

the mind concludes, " That's who I am. And it's not a

very pretty picture. I am going to get sick. I

am going to die. Happiness, even when achieved,

is brief and turns on a dime into sorrow. "

 

Liberation is the clear and direct knowledge that

none of those above thoughts is actually true.

Who I am is ever free, never subject to change,

and the actual source of all happiness.

 

If the mind knows that directly then there is

tremendous relief. No longer seeking here and

there for my self, the source of all happiness,

the mind now realizes that never at any time can it,

or has it, ever been away from that source.

 

So liberation is for the mind. One mind at a time.

 

This is my understanding. The implications of

having self-knowledge are enormous.

 

You have said above:

" Everything the jnani does is for the benefit of others. "

And that a jnani has no desires.

 

If a jnani had no desires then a jnani would not

want to eat, or drink, or take a bath. And clearly

this is not the case. What a jnani does know is

that the fulfillment of any desire is not the cause

of true happiness. But still desires will arise and

be fulfilled according to that jnani's prarabdha karma.

 

And certainly there are those jnanis who because of their

prarabdha karma do, through their actions, benefit others.

But then again there may be those jnanis who sit quietly by

themselves, unknown and supremely happy, with a mind which

" revels in the self. "

 

I have heard it said that a jnani who does act to

benefit others shows ultimate compassion, because

that jnani, knowing fully that there is in

reality no problem, seeks to help others who

still believe that there is one.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Season's Greetings , Durgaji !

 

You write :

 

" I have heard it said that a jnani who does act to

benefit others shows ultimate compassion, because

that jnani, knowing fully that there is in

reality no problem, seeks to help others who

still believe that there is one. "

 

Durge ! Your observations brought to mind the following verse from

Srimad Bhagvat Gita .

 

i reproduce verse 25 , chapter 3 from the Bhagvat Gita

 

saktah karmany avidvamso

yatha kurvanti bharata

kuryad vidvams tathasaktas

cikirsur loka-sangraham( CH 25 , VERSE 3)

 

 

As the ignorant perform their duties with attachment to results,

similarly the learned may also act, but without attachment, for the

sake of leading people on the right path.

 

Poojya Gurudev Swami Chinmayanandaji explains this seemingly simple

verse very beautifully ! pl read on and understand the finer nuances

of this statement how jnanis help others from going 'astray'

 

" O scion of the Bharata dynasty, as the unelightened poeple act

with attachment to work, so should the enlightened person act,

without attachment, being desirous of the prevention of people from

going astray.

 

 

O scion of the Bharata dynasty, yatha, as; some avidvamsah,

unenlightened poele; kurvanti, act. saktah, with attachment;

karmani, to work, (thinking) 'The reward of this work will accrue to

me'; tatha, so; should vidvan, the enlightened person, the knower of

the Self; kuryat, act; asaktah, without attachment, remaining

unattached. [Giving up the idea of agentship and the hankering for

the rewards of actions to oneself.] Whay does he (the enlightened

person) act like him (the former)? Listen to that: Cikirsuh, being

desirous of achieving; lokasamgraham, prevention of people from

going astray.

 

'Neither for Me who am a knower of the Self, nor for any other

(knower of the Self) who wants thus prevent people from going

astray, is there any duty apart from working for the welfare of the

world. Hence, the following advice is being given to such a knower

of the Self:' IN VERSE 26 OF THE SAME CHAPTER 3 BY SRI Krishna

Paramatma

 

na buddhi-bhedam janayed

ajnanam karma-sanginam

josayet sarva-karmani

vidvan yuktah samacaran ( ch 3 , verse 26)

 

 

The enlightened man should not create disturbance in the beliefs

of the ignorant, who are attached to work. Working, while himself

remaining deligen [some translate yuktah as, 'in the right manner'.

S. takes it in the sense of Yoga-yuktah, merged in yoga.-Tr.], he

should make them do [Another reading is yojayet, meaning the same as

josayet.-Tr.] all the duties.

 

 

 

Vidvan the enlightened man; na janayet, should not create; buddhi-

bhedam, disturbance in the beliefs-disturbance in the firm

belief, 'This has to be done; and the result of this action is to be

reaped by me'; ajnanam, of the ignorant, of the non-discriminating

one; karma-sanginam, who are attached to work. But what should he

do? Himself samacaran, working, performing those very activities

of the ignorant; yuktah, while remaining diligent; josayet, he

should make them do; sarva-karmani, all the duties. "

 

Yes! Folks - in order to understand the entire message of the Srimad

Bhagvat gita , it is important to read each and every verse in each

chapter in relation to the previous verse and the following verse !

then only , it makes sense !

 

The difference between a jnani and an ajnani is a fundamental one -

The jnani has no sense of doership !Nor is he egotistical!

 

SRI RAMANA BHAGWAN WAS OFTEN FOND OF QUOTING PATANJALI'S YOGA SUTRA

1 :37 while describing the characteristics of a Jnani !

 

Vita-raga-visayam va cittam( patanjali yoga sutras - 1:37)

 

" Friendship, kindness, happiness and such other bhavas (attitudes)

become natural to them. Affection towards the good, kindness towards

the helpless, happiness in doing good deeds, forgiveness towards the

wicked, all such things are natural characteristics of the jnani. "

 

In fact , a true jnani like sri Ramana does not even regard others

as 'ajnani'

 

On that beautiful note , may i wish you all a very very happy happy

New Year!

 

love and light !

[Guest guest]

may i please add a few more words to this post ?

 

Bhagwan RAMANA SAYS :

 

" The jnani sees no one as an ajnani. All are only jnanis in his sight.

In the ignorant state one superimposes one's ignorance on a jnani and

mistakes him for a doer. In the state of jnana, the jnani sees nothing

separate from the Self. The Self is all shining and only pure jnana.

So there is no ajnana in his sight. There is an illustration for this

kind of illusion or superimposition.

 

Two friends went to sleep side by side. One of them dreamt that both

of them had gone on a long journey and that they had had strange

experiences. On waking up he recapitulated them and asked his friend

if it was not so. The other one simply ridiculed him saying that it

was only his dream and could not affect the other.

 

So it is with the ajnani who superimposes his illusory ideas on

others. "

 

an excerpt

 

http://www.hinduism.co.za/jnani-.htm

 

Folks, as we bid goodbye to 2007 , let us welcome 2008 with the

following immortal words from Sri Ramana maharishi :

 

" You are not instructed to shut your eyes from the world. You are

only to " see yourself first and then see the whole world as the Self " .

If you consider yourself as the body the world appears to be external.

If you are the Self the world appears as Brahman. "

 

This REALIZATION Is the ultimate bliss ! ( SAT CHIT ANANDA)

 

 

love and only love

[Guest guest]

Re: What will it be like?

 

(2nd response)

 

 

Refreshing the memory…

Shri Dennis Waite wrote:

" the only benefit of self-knowledge must be in the

remainder of this life. There is only ever brahman in reality and,

from this pAramArthika standpoint, no one is ever born or dies. This

understanding is given to one who is self-realized but is the truth

whether or not the understanding is there. Who-I-really-am was never

born and is not going to be reborn whether or not that knowledge is

realized in a particular mind. Conversely, Brahman is going to

continue to appear as names and forms presumably, assuming that there

are mind-forms to perceive them as separate. Accordingly, one might

ask why one should pursue enlightenment if, although the 'false' I

will not be reborn, the real 'I' will continue to appear as deluded

jIva-s. "

 

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

 

 

The words: " There is only ever Brahman in reality "

can be split into several direct statements and several

implied statements:

 

Brahman is,

Only Brahman is.

For ever, for eternity, only Brahman is.

There is reality, and Brahman is the reality, or is in the reality.

Exclusively only Brahman is, or is in, the reality.

For ever, for eternity, only Brahman is, or is in the reality.

Brahman is the real.

Brahman is the only real.

Brahman is the eternal real.

Generally it is implied that… Anyone having access to reality would

realize that there is only Brahman, eternally.

 

 

The word `is' is part of the verb `to be' and has at least seven

categories of meaning in English, of which the most common one is `to

exist'.

 

`To be' can mean…

existential eg Brahman is living, enduring, actual,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

existing.

predicative eg Brahman has properties, attributes,

eg Brahman is motionless.

classifying eg Brahman is an Absolute.

identifying eg Brahman is myself,

Brahman is the totality.

veridical eg Brahman is Truth.

present tense eg Brahman is here now.

timelessness eg Brahman is eternal,

Brahman is beyond time.

 

It is suggested that all the following existential meanings are

dubious… If Brahman is alive, living, then he is either life or in

life? Brahman is Prana or conditioned by Prana? Unlikely. If Brahman

endures then it seems a struggle? If Brahman is an actual then there

may be another of him which is not actually there? If Brahman exists

and is an existent then ceasing to exist and becoming non-existent is

a possibility? Most of these uses fail the duality test, and so does

the veridical word Truth if applied, because the concept of truth

cannot exist without intimating the existence of the false, a lie.

Even if it is argued that the false, the lie, was never there and only

the truth is ever there, then why apply the word truth? It is

unnecessary. The fact that it has been used in relation to Brahman is

indicative of some attempt to convince, convince of the

veracity, or quality, of something…. and it clearly fails because

Brahman requires no accolades, no promotion, no distinguishment from

anything else. All convincers are liars, including myself if you find

this convincing, or detect in these words any attempt to convince you.

Be relatively wary? Feel free to read these words as completely

neutral, or not, as you may.

 

Clearly Brahman has no properties, attributes or characteristics and

nothing can be predicated upon him. In relation to Brahman, who is

there to pronounce the word Truth? It is suggested there is not

anyone. Similarly who is there to identify Brahman by pronouncing the

words Totality? Who is there to reveal Brahman as an aspect of

illusory time… the Here and Now, or the Eternal? Even those who feel

compelled to classify everything, and turning their minds upon

Brahman, place him top of the class… the Absolute… suddenly look

dismayed when it is realized that he absorbs, subsumes,

all the other classes. When all other classes disappear so does

classification itself?

 

If no one can use any of these words about Brahman, is Brahman using

the words about himself? Is Brahman saying I am Brahman? or My Self is

Brahman? The jnanis suggest that Brahman doesn't speak. Brahman does

not sound " I am " . If Brahman were to say " I am " , creation comes into

being. Brahman is beyond " being " . Brahman does not seem to have a

self and therefore cannot say " My Self is… " And if it is suggested

that Brahman has a locational relation to time, by `being beyond

time', then duality again creeps in. For all these reasons it is

dubious to use the verb `to be' together with the word `real' as

indicating Brahman. It is not possible to say the Absolute Brahman

(Parabrahman) is real. In addition, real and unreal are opposites that

introduce duality into the analysis. Is it being proposed that Brahman

is only one side of a pair of opposites? ie only the real and not the

unreal? The statement `Brahman is real' clearly has flawed

intimations. If Brahman is not describable as real, then how can it be

said that there is only ever Brahman in reality?

 

Are these uses and meanings of the verb `to be' really distinguishable

and separate? Are such uses and meanings more subtle and complex than

demonstrated here? Possibly. Is the concept of `to be' or `being' a

fusion of all these meanings? OK…. Combining all seven meanings of the

verb `to be' one arrives at something like this… Brahman is

timeless identified existence that is classified as some particular

presence now, that is believed to be true? Somehow that definition

doesn't sound accurate or acceptable. One is slowly being led towards

the concept that Brahman is not definable or describable in terms of

the verb `to be', nor the verbal substantive `being', nor the

participial adjective `being'. And a further concept appears in the

mind that Brahman is beyond recognizable language all together? And

probably beyond mind, in which language manifests, from the most fine

to the most gross. And possibly even beyond the range of human faculties?

 

Therefore when Sri Dennis Waite says…. " There is only ever brahman in

reality " nothing is being said about Brahman. But something is being

said, so whom is it being said about? It could be presumed that

something is being said about Saguna Brahman.

That makes a considerable difference to solving the paradox inherent

in Sri Dennis Waite's statement-question. One has either to omit the

word `reality' from the enquiry and make it clear that the Absolute

level of Brahman is under discussion, or admit that

one has identified with Saguna Brahman. Saguna Brahman has been

mistaken for Nirguna Brahman. Moreover Saguna Brahman seems to have

been superimposed on the Absolute Parabrahman?

 

It appears that the attempt to say anything indicative about Absolute

Brahman is likely to fail. This is well known. But because `that' is

`oneself' the desire to say something in relation to the highest level

of Self remains, and so one should perhaps explore some other

possibilities. One useful approach is to observe the way jnanis, who

claim experience of the Parabrahman, actually use their words.

Nisargadatta is a good example.

 

" When you are absolutely one with Brahman,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you do not use the mind. There is no sound, and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you cannot talk. You keep quiet. To talk you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

have to use the instrument of the mind,

and so you need to detach a little from

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brahman, then talk can come out " .

 

The attempt to capture Absolute Brahman in words has not been an

entirely futile experience. Although nothing true can be said about

the Absolute Brahman, it is now realized what the Absolute

is not. The Absolute is not captured by the concept of the real.

Saguna Brahman is the real and the jiva is the unreal. You may

initially consider the jiva as unfortunate to be unreal, and Saguna

Brahman, and the myriad of devotees, including the `realized' men,

absorbed in him without trace, as the really fortunate one(s). But

Advaita states that Maya makes everything appear inverted, makes

everything appear as the opposite to what it genuinely is.

 

Can there be being that does not participate in or occur as an existence?

 

`There is only Brahman in reality'…. no. `Brahman' is commonly

conceived as the real, and everything else is said to be unreal. But

the witness is also the real, the first of the real. The witness is

the reflection of the real in the mind. The witness, the first of the

real, can be referred to as the lower witness, or Sakshin. The second

of the real is the higher witness, the Purusha. The Purusha looks down

upon the first witness, the Sakshin. The Sakshin witnesses all the

manifestation. This is what Nisargadatta has to say on this subject:

 

" Is the witness Brahman? In an absolute sense…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no. For witnessing there must be something else

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to

witness. You are still in duality.

As long as there is consciousness, its witness is

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

also there. The two appear and disappear

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

together. Without mind there cannot be any

witnessing. Witnessing can happen only when

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the

objects of mind exist, which is predicated

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

upon

the presence of the consciousness " .

 

" There are two witnessing stages; beingness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

witnesses all this manifestation.

Witnessing of this beingness, witnessing of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

consciousness, happens to the Absolute. The

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

witness is both real and unreal. The witness is the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

last remnant of illusion, the first touch of the real.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To

say: I am only the witness is both false and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

true;

false because of the `I Am', true because

of the witness. It is better to say: `there is

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

witnessing'. The moment you say `I Am', the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

entire universe comes into being along with its

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

creator " .

 

" Whatever you witness will not remain with you. It

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

is imperfect. The one who

recognizes the imperfect is perfect. Ultimately

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

even the observer you are not.

You are the ultimate potentiality of which the all-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

embracing consciousness is

the manifestation and expression " .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

(note: when Nisargadatta talks about " the ultimate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

potentiality " he is probably

referring to the unmanifest Brahman which is

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nirguna Brahman).

 

Because the witness (Sakshin) is " the first touch of the real " on this

basis alone one cannot say that Saguna Brahman is the only real.

Because " consciousness and its witness appear and disappear together " ,

neither the witness, nor consciousness, nor the real, can be the

Absolute Brahman. The conclusion is that there are several reals but

none of them are Absolute.

 

" As long as you deal in terms: real - unreal,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

awareness is the only

reality that can be. But the Supreme is

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

beyond all distinctions,

and to him the term `real' does not apply,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for it is all real, and

therefore need not be labeled as such. The

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supreme is the very

source of reality, it imparts reality to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

whatever it touches " .

 

 

The ultimate real is beyond. The Sakshin or first witness takes you

to the door through which you can pass beyond. Beyond is pure

consciousness and pure knowledge, side by side. Even here Parabrahman

has not yet been reached. Parabrahman is beyond, beyond being, beyond

the mind, beyond consciousness, beyond……?

 

" from this pAramArthika standpoint, no one is ever born or dies " .

 

I do not know what the paramarthika stand point is. I have no

knowledge nor experience, therefore I am unable to contribute

anything, other than some logical reasoning based on a few hints in

vedantic literature and the enigmatic speeches of jnanis.

Sadly, I find it impossible to resolve any questions which include the

word paramarthika. Everything written in this essay is therefore from

entirely within the vyavaharika viewpoint.

 

 

Saguna Brahman is part of the illusion. Saguna Brahman is probably

nothing more than an evolute of Prakriti. And Prakriti is primordial

energy, or primordial matter, if you prefer. If Prakriti

is eternal then potentially so is Saguna Brahman. Nirguna Brahman is

beyond existence and non-existence, beyond the real and unreal, and

beyond being and non-being, but as Purusha, it is also eternal.

Therefore logically the real, the existent,

and all the seven meanings of the verb to be, do not apply to Nirguna

Brahman. Therefore many of the assumptions made by Sri Dennis Waite

are incorrect if it was believed they applied to Nirguna Brahman. eg:

" There is only ever brahman in reality " and " Brahman is going to

continue to appear as names and forms " .They do all correctly seem to

apply to Saguna Brahman.

 

Therefore it can be concluded that the statement and assumption " There

is only ever Brahman in reality " is not the paramarthika standpoint.

It is the vyavaharika standpoint. Real and unreal relate

to the phenomenal world of appearance.

 

Brahman is real at one level and unreal at another. Brahman is not the

Absolute. Nisargadatta proposes three levels…. manifest Brahman,

unmanifest Brahman, and Parabrahman. Only Parabrahman can be

considered absolute.

 

" Brahman is created out of your beingness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All this Brahman is illusion.. Out of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ignorance, this beingness develops

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

everything, the entire manifestation. In this

Brahman everything is illusion. The

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

principle that understands, realizes, and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

witnesses, is the Parabrahman.

Saguna and nirguna are one in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parabrahman. There is

only the Supreme. In movement it is

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

saguna. Motionless it is nirguna. The

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paramatman does not participate in

the activities of the world, but without that

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

principle no activities could take place at

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

all. Just as without akasha (space) no

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

activities are possible. In the state of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parabrahman there are no desires, no likes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or

dislikes. That is Niskama Parabrahman.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Niskama Parabrahman

is desireless, and in that state this

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

manifestation has

appeared and is doing what it pleases " .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(note: When discussing Brahman, it may be helpful to indicate which of

the three levels of Brahman is under consideration, otherwise

confusion and misidentification are always possible?)

 

 

" Brahman is going to continue to appear as names and forms " .

 

" The Parabrahman does not participate in the activities of the world "

Parabrahman is not appearing as names and forms but is a kind of

enabler, and without it nothing is possible. It is the lower Brahman,

Saguna Brahman, which is a mass of Being, including your own being,

which has produced the manifestation, appearing as name and forms.

According to the jnanis, this manifestation of names and forms is

doing what it wants to. If it wants to continue after Sri Dennis'

self-realization, it will. It may even continue to manifest the name

and form of Dennis Waite even if the self-realized Sri Dennis declines

to be associated with it. What is even more surprising is that the

incarnation of Dennis Waite may be offered to a jiva, another jiva,

who may accept it and live the life of Dennis Waite. Therefore, to use

Sri Dennis' vernacular… the false " I " will be born again. It is quite

probable that the persona of Dennis Waite has been and will be lived

many times, by different jivas, which are nothing but the projections

of different buddhis (spirits). Someone else has already lived Sri

Dennis' life before he has. If Sri Dennis retires from the universe,

then someone else in the waiting room will be glad to take over. The

universe is said to be beginningless and endless, and the persona and

life of Dennis Waite, as part of the universe, is apparently also

endless. It is bizarre…. yes. Fortunately it is all illusion.

Someone is playing with us.

 

 

" You imagine reality to stand apart from

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

names and forms, while to me names and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

forms are the ever changing expressions

of reality and not apart from it. You separate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

existence from being, and being from reality,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

while to me it is all one " .

 

What is the difference between my earlier life as a deluded jiva and

my later remaining life as the realized man? There is no difference.

The jiva is only an appearance and doesn't exist. The jiva is not

yourself and being independent of you continues exactly as before,

whether you are realized or not. Jnanis say they just let it do what

it wants. When a jnani is asked why they did something, something

apparently incongruous, they reply that they didn't think they were

doing it, it seemed to them as if someone else was doing it. Because

the realized man doesn't want anything and doesn't do anything… how

can there be any difference in his life, pre realization or post

realization?

 

Can understanding be given? Probably not.

 

Understanding is not given. Understanding is not given to

anyone.Understanding is not given to the realized man. Understanding

for the jiva is the result of intense right effort, and is said to be

a combination of his knowledge and being. The divine gives you

experience. Darshan is a characteristic of divine beings. Darshan

occurs in silence because words are subject to a process of

degeneration as they journey from the divine source in the akasha

(subtle inner space or ether) through varying levels of mental

dynamism to the manifesting surface of the human mind where the

bubbles break open and appear stale and frozen, an almost random poor

approximation to the great and fine quality at their cosmic source.

The human individual mind is connected deep within to the divine

universal mind. Mind is, in fact, inner space and it is possible to

dive so deeply into the mind, following the origin of a thought or

question, that one goes beyond oneself, and outside oneself into

universal transcendental inner space. Beyond the range of human

faculties lies the origin of our thoughts and questions, but

transcendentally the source is out of range. The knowledge that is

realized in a particular mind is very different in quality to the

knowledge that resides in the transcendental cosmic mind.

 

Words are subject to inevitable misinterpretation and divine beings

communicate by a more certain and direct method. Darshan is the

placing of an experience in your mind. The divine being gives you

sight of his own experience. He shows you what he has experienced as

though it is occurring in yourself at the present moment. You see what

the gods have seen. It is not past, it is still there. You are free to

ponder your own understanding of it. Some of the knowledge is

immediate, and accompanies consciousness itself, and some will takes

years of contemplation, but the result is certain. Darshan is a direct

conveyance from the divine to the jiva. Without it there can be little

understanding of the subtle universe.

 

Understanding causes you to ascend. There is a tree growing in the

midst of the garden of life, and it has roots in heaven and branches

reaching down to the ground. You ascend the tree by means of

understanding alone. By understanding you free yourself from the

stones in which your feet are embedded, and firmly set. The stones

when examined consist of myriad attachments to life. Understanding

sets you free to ascend. You ascend naturally. Once you free yourself

from all the myriad attachments to life there is nothing to stop you

ascending. You ascend into Brahma Loka, into heaven. But is that where

you want to go? Is heaven ultimately permanent or completely

satisfying? There is always the threat from Siva Loka below and the

danger of falling. And do they like you, when you arrive? One lie and

you are out again.Brahma Loka is an evolute of Prakriti, a very

supportive prison, but everyone is released from prison one day? There

are three prisons, called Brahma Loka, Siva Loka, Visnu Loka. In the

first you are imprisoned by one law and love, in the second you are

imprisoned by ignorance and hatred, in the third you are imprisoned by

reality and the desire for union. Brahma Loka is a feminine world,

Siva Loka a masculine world, and in Visnu Loka the dissolved pairs

temporarily forget their irritation with each other. Understanding

takes you to Brahma Loka, Truth to Siva Loka, and Reality to Visnu

Loka. Ultimately they are all Maya.

 

Does the truth exist whether understanding is there or not? The Real,

The Truth, Understanding, are all separate, they exist eternally

separate from each other. You have a choice, perhaps, perhaps not, to

pursue one at the expense of the others. If you have understanding you

wouldn't want to bury yourself in the truth. The truth is that

understanding is never absolute, because if you try to know everything

you end up knowing nothing. Truth and Understanding are not really

what they seem to be because Maya inverts everything, makes everything

appear the opposite of what it is. You are real, yes, but once you are

real you can never escape being real.

 

Are there individual selves? Ordinarily we separate self and world,

but in truth they are not separate. Therefore there must be

considerable doubt that a separate world exists, and there must be

equally considerable doubt that a separate self exists? If the world

does not exist, then self also must not exist. Self and world are two

great illusions. If you eliminate one, philosophically, you eliminate

the other. But both exist in the merged state, where they disappear

without trace. Therefore it can be tentatively concluded there are no

individual selves, possibly even no Self, and realization does not

occur in a particular mind belonging to an individual self, and more

surprisingly realization is not individual. There is no individual

realization.

 

Shantanand Sarasvati, Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math (1953-80), says:

everyone realizes at the same time.

 

That statement is one of the most astonishing concepts that I have

ever heard. If it is true, then one has to revise and reformulate

every philosophical concept that one has ever held, every system one

has ever absorbed, even release them all into oblivion. How can one

understand it? I cannot understand it. I try… I theorize…. I pull from

memory every deep experience that has occurred….. I try to incorporate

this idea into the deepest union of them….. but I still cannot

understand it…. it is quite amazing.

 

I think, Sri Dennis, those six words answer your question.

 

Who pursues enlightenment? Is it `one', or `I', or myself, who pursues

enlightenment? No, it is the jiva who pursues enlightenment. The jiva

desires to evolve. The jiva is an illusory projection (vikshepa)

of buddhi which is an evolute of Prakriti. When you examine the buddhi

closely you realize that it is a mechanism. It is a mechanism that has

been animated by ahamkara. The touch of ahamkara makes it move and

talk, gesture, and appear to be a living being, a living spirit, your

own internal living spiritual self. It is a brilliant illusion. Your

spiritual self is merely part of the internal organ, antakarana. All

the desire to evolve, to gain enlightenment, is in Prakriti. All

evolution is in Prakriti. If you internally feel the desire to evolve

to a higher level, if you have the intense desire to become spiritual,

to gain beatific enlightenment, to gain great knowledge and profound

understanding it is the Prakriti, not yourself. The purusha just looks

on. Because the purusha has become entangled in Prakriti it is

enveloped by the qualities (gunas) and elements (tattvas) which cloud

its true awareness and subject it to apparent ignorance and suffering.

It is often believed that enlightenment is something to be pursued,

something to be attained.

 

" I did nothing for my realization. It just happened. My teacher told

me that the reality is within me. I looked within and found it there,

exactly as my teacher told me " .

 

" Self-realization is not something to be reached, it must be there

already. You are perfect right from the beginning. Your mind is trying

to create a goal. Self-realization is already there. There is no

spiritual progress. There is no path, no instruction,

no method, no technique, at all. You are all One, not two " .

 

" All realization is only sharing. You enter a wider consciousness and

share in it " .

 

" I was undeceived, that is all. I used to create a world

and populate it.....now I don't do it any more. The mind ceased

producing events. The ancient and ceaseless search stopped. I wanted

nothing, expected nothing, accepted nothing as my own. There was no

`me' left to strive for. Even the bare `I Am' faded away. The other

thing that I noticed was that I lost all my habitual certainties.

Earlier I was sure of so many things, now I am sure of nothing. My not

knowing was in itself knowledge of the fact that all knowledge is

ignorance, that `I do not know' is the only true statement the mind

can make " .

 

 

 

From the standpoint of Brahman, is no one ever born and is there no

death? Nisargadatta, Shantanand Sarasvati and most of the other

jnanis regard your birth and death as a show being performed by

Brahman, Saguna Brahman, all around you. In that sense your birth and

death occurs, but you watch it all as uninvolved as you would watch

your birth and death being performed on a theatrical stage.

It is the physical body, associated with the jiva, that is born and

dies, merges back into the planet. The persona dramatis, the part in

the drama, that you were clothed in at conception, falls away in front

of you at death. As you are neither a part in a play nor a body, you

are unaffected. However if the you, the atman, consciousness, identify

with the jiva and forget that you assumed a persona dramatis at

conception… then you will be born and you will die, in the sense that

you will believe that it is happening to you. You may even try to hold

on to what you are not, and be reluctant to let it go.

 

 

As long as consciousness remains, and as long as you the atman

continue to believe that what ever you see is yourself, which is

almost an inevitability and derives from the principle that

consciousness is one… then rebirth is possible. It is possible because

atman, consciousness, identifies with the physical body, or with the

jiva, the natural body, with the buddhi, the spiritual body, and with

deva, the divine body, and identifies with even the sakshin, the

witness, whenever any of these appear in front of him. Who has placed

the four bodies in front of him?… Prakriti and Maya. Identifying with

the jiva leads to rebirth, death, and subsequently all the sufferings

of isolation, the limitations of sense of self, and the desire to

evolve…. which is a desire frustrated by the world of good and evil.

 

There may be two types of self realization, one absolute and another

limited. If self-realization is going beyond consciousness, beyond

being, beyond " I am " , then rebirth may cease, but if self-realization

is within consciousness, within mind, then rebirth is possible. Until

consciousness disappears rebirth is always possible. Until atman

realizes that he is identical and one with Parabrahman and not the

various evolutes of Prakriti entangling him, then rebirth is possible.

Only sakshin, the witness, the first of the real, can detect that the

physical body, the natural body (jiva, soul, `astral body', nature,

character etc), the spiritual body (buddhi), and the divine body

(deva, conscience) are mere mechanisms. All mechanisms are evolutes of

Prakriti. Only that knowledge can release atman (consciousness) from

identification and all its consequent problems? What else other than

knowledge could be necessary?

 

Identification with Isvara, Saguna Brahman, is the limited form of

self realization. Genuine full self relization consists in discovering

the source and abiding there, and that may include discovering the

source of Saguna Brahman? `The fully realized man is not related to

anybody and anything. Not even to a self, whatever that self may be.

He remains forever.....undefined.'

 

" Some people have realized. They have stabilized in the

consciousness. They have understood the godhead, that they are God,

but could not transcend it. Brahman is brih (= world) together with

aham (= I am). Brahman is `I am the world'. "

 

 

Under what conditions will the false I not be reborn? Possibly only

when the gunas return to equilibrium. Possibly only when no one

wishes to accept the offer of the incarnation. I guess I do not really

know.

 

Is Who I really am a who, and an `I', and real? The highest Self is

not a `who', but may be a `who?' The question mark is essential. The

highest Self is not an " I " nor an " I am " but is beyond " I am " . The

highest Self is not real, nor unreal. Therefore the expression

" Who-I-really-am " used by Sri Dennis Waite is suspect.

 

 

 

Let the illiterate cigarette seller have

the final words….

 

" If you expect any benefits from your search, material, mental, or

spiritual, you have missed the point. Truth gives no advantage. It

gives no higher status, no power over others. All you get is truth and

the freedom from the false. " [Nisargadatta}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you can bear any more, tomorrow, the analysis can be completed, and

an attempt made to resolve the outstanding paradoxes.

 

 

John Ward

[Guest guest]

PraNAms to all and Happy new year to all.

 

What it will be like - if I know the truth as the

truth and false as false, then my life becomes

simplified. What it will be like if I know that it is

rope and not a snake? There is no more fear of that

snake where the rope is. Once I recognize that

duality is not reality, then the apparent duality does

not cause any fear. The paper tiger does not give any

problem. I can play as much as I want in life without

worrying about the consequence since playing itself is

fun. If I mistakes myself something other than myself,

I have to bear the consequence of that mistake. But

if I know that I am actor, the role is only for a play

or fun, I can play even the role of a begger on the

street, since I know I am not really a begger. It will

be like that. Actually even now it is like that. But

I am getting carried away with the role that I am

playing forgetting that it is only a role and I am

actor who is really beyond the role.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhagini-ji.

 

HAPPY NEW YEAR.

 

Of all your quotes here, your Bh. Ramana quotes in post 38747 appeal

to me the most. I have, therefore, appended your post hereto in full.

 

In reply to Durgaji's reference to prArabdha karma, I had begun

penning similar thoughts. But, some misfingering on the keyboard

erased all my work and, subsequently, I was either too reluctant or

too busy to pursue the issue. However, as Providence or Consciousness

or simple coincidence would have it, you have brought in the timely

quotes.

 

Now, I have some questions for you. In 38746, you quoted extensively

from the Bhagvad GItA. Can you please locate and list references in

the Bhagvad GItA (or for that matter anywhere in the prastAnatraya)

which express a view similar to what Bh. Ramana has said? Aren't all

the stitaprajna lakshanas of BG, including the embodiment of a jnAni

perambulating in our midst takinig care of the welfare of the

deluded, mithyA superimpositions by mithyA ajnanIs? Instead of saying

so directly, why is it that we find so much stress laid on the

balance of a jnAni's karma etc. in our bhAshyAs? Any explanations?

 

At the end of VedAnta ParibhASA (VP), to which Michaelji refers off

and on, the issue of the entire world getting enlightened with one

individual's enlightenment is referred to. VP initially seems to say

that no ajnAnis ever remain on a jnAni's enlightenment but then takes

a rather circuitous route and brings in scriptural references to talk

about prArabdha karma etc. etc. To me, this is very baffling.

 

My questins above are not addressed to you alone. All in our learned

fraternity are welcome to kindly contribute.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , " bhagini_niveditaa "

<bhagini_niveditaa wrote:

>

> may i please add a few more words to this post ?

>

> Bhagwan RAMANA SAYS :

>

> " The jnani sees no one as an ajnani. All are only jnanis in his

sight.

> In the ignorant state one superimposes one's ignorance on a jnani

and

> mistakes him for a doer. In the state of jnana, the jnani sees

nothing

> separate from the Self. The Self is all shining and only pure

jnana.

> So there is no ajnana in his sight. There is an illustration for

this

> kind of illusion or superimposition.

>

> Two friends went to sleep side by side. One of them dreamt that

both

> of them had gone on a long journey and that they had had strange

> experiences. On waking up he recapitulated them and asked his

friend

> if it was not so. The other one simply ridiculed him saying that it

> was only his dream and could not affect the other.

>

> So it is with the ajnani who superimposes his illusory ideas on

> others. "

>

> an excerpt

>

> http://www.hinduism.co.za/jnani-.htm

>

> Folks, as we bid goodbye to 2007 , let us welcome 2008 with the

> following immortal words from Sri Ramana maharishi :

>

> " You are not instructed to shut your eyes from the world. You are

> only to " see yourself first and then see the whole world as the

Self " .

> If you consider yourself as the body the world appears to be

external.

> If you are the Self the world appears as Brahman. "

>

> This REALIZATION Is the ultimate bliss ! ( SAT CHIT ANANDA)

>

>

> love and only love

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sadaji.

 

I don't think it is that simple Sada-ji. Kindly see within after

your statements quoted below. Hope this won't be considered an

imprudent act. I have real problem accepting a jnAni's role-playing.

______________________

 

> What it will be like - if I know the truth as the

> truth and false as false, then my life becomes

> simplified.

 

[You seem to be treating Truth and falsity as a pair of opposites

here. Isn't falsity's apparent existence sustained by Truth? So,

knowing falsity's falsity reveals the Truth like the Sun's

reappearance after the cloud has passed.]

______________________

 

> What it will be like if I know that it is

> rope and not a snake? There is no more fear of that

> snake where the rope is.

 

[When the rope is found, there is no more any snake at all.]

_________________________

 

> Once I recognize that

> duality is not reality, then the apparent duality does

> not cause any fear. The paper tiger does not give any

> problem.

 

[if there is no snake any more in the analogy, why do we expect the

apparent duality to persist after its falsity has been recognized?]

____________________________

 

> I can play as much as I want in life without

> worrying about the consequence since playing itself is

> fun. If I mistakes myself something other than myself,

> I have to bear the consequence of that mistake. But

> if I know that I am actor, the role is only for a play

> or fun, I can play even the role of a begger on the

> street, since I know I am not really a begger. It will be like that.

 

[One can do all that if the apparent duality persists. But we have

seen that it doesn't.]

________________________________

 

> Actually even now it is like that. But

> I am getting carried away with the role that I am

> playing forgetting that it is only a role and I am

> actor who is really beyond the role.

 

[That is right. The role-playing, therefore, seems to have been

prescribed for the ones stationed between academic knowledge and

direct knowledge of Truth, and not for the real jnAni.]

 

I am only trying to be logical. Kindly bear with me.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Nairji

Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote:

>

> > What it will be like if I know that it is

> > rope and not a snake? There is no more fear of that

> > snake where the rope is.

>

> [When the rope is found, there is no more any snake at all.]

> _________________________

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am just an ordinary person (meaning Ignorant and I don't want to sound

too humble) but would like to express my views on the above

 

I am taking the literal sense of the rope and snake analogy, meaning I

should not interpret this as taking every snake for a rope, the dual

world is much real and I should take action and precaution considering

every apparent snake just the way I would take for a snake, but without

the fear part (which only puts me at a greater risk).

 

I can not escape duality till the ultimate half of the couple meets me.

 

Dinesh

[Guest guest]

Nairji - PraNAms

 

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

wrote:

______________________

>

> > What it will be like - if I know the truth as the

> > truth and false as false, then my life becomes

> > simplified.

>

> [You seem to be treating Truth and falsity as a pair

> of opposites

> here.

 

 

 

Nairji - that is not the implication of my statement -

at least from my perspective. Truth and falsity

discrimination requires nitya anitya vastu viveka -

discrimination of what is eternal and what is

ephemeral - Taking Upanishadic example - like ring

and the gold. If I know that it is not golden ring but

ringly gold, I understood the truth as the truth and

false as the false relating to that ornament - (falsie

is mityaa and not asat) Knowing the substantive as

well as its superimposition as such without taking the

false as the truth - samsaara is taking the false as

the truth - that is I am giving reality to the

fleeting jagat forgetting its substantive. Jnaani

knows what is substantive and what superimposition is.

Taking the roles in a drama of life is just playing

the role, knowing very well, I am not the role but I

am an actor playing the role.

 

Isn't falsity's apparent existence sustained

> by Truth? So,

> knowing falsity's falsity reveals the Truth like the

> Sun's

> reappearance after the cloud has passed.]

 

That example has limited application. Here jagat is

not separate from Brahman. Brahman being infinite

nothing can be separate from it. Hence superimposition

or adhyaasa is only superficial naama ruupa (as

though) superimposed on Brahman, the substantive- like

ring on the gold. Existence is taken as attribute

rather than substantive, while the truth is the other

way around.

 

_____________________

>

> > What it will be like if I know that it is

> > rope and not a snake? There is no more fear of

> that

> > snake where the rope is.

>

> [When the rope is found, there is no more any snake

> at all.]

 

Yes that example is again limited since snake is

praatibhaasika - I was only emphasizing the fear part.

One can take the mirage water, which still remains

after knowing that there is no real water there. The

best examples are what Upanishad gives - pot from

clay, ring from gold and tools from iron.

 

> _________________________

>

> > Once I recognize that

> > duality is not reality, then the apparent duality

> does

> > not cause any fear. The paper tiger does not give

> any

> > problem.

>

> [if there is no snake any more in the analogy, why

> do we expect the

> apparent duality to persist after its falsity has

> been recognized?]

 

Nairji, that is why one should be careful how far one

can use a particular example. Shankara is very keen in

specifying not to extend the example beyond what it is

intended for.

 

In the snake example, how unreal is projected on the

real due to saadRisyam or due to some similarity of

the rope and the snake. Since snake is subjective

objectification, it is more like praatibhaasika satyam

like the dream projection. Sunrise and sunset are more

of vyaavahaarika illusions that remain even after the

discovery that sun neither rises nor sets.

 

Some of these I have discussed in the adhyaasa

bhaashya of Shankara in the Notes on Brahma suutras

stored in the files - for those who are interested.

Dennis White also has provided an abridged version.

 

> ____________________________

>

> > I can play as much as I want in life without

> > worrying about the consequence since playing

> itself is

> > fun. If I mistakes myself something other than

> myself,

> > I have to bear the consequence of that mistake.

> But

> > if I know that I am actor, the role is only for a

> play

> > or fun, I can play even the role of a begger on

> the

> > street, since I know I am not really a begger. It

> will be like that.

>

> [One can do all that if the apparent duality

> persists. But we have

> seen that it doesn't.]

 

Not true. Now do you think Krishna is jnaani or not?

If he does not have any apparent dualtiy how he is

going to treat his mother different from his father

and his foster parents and all the cows and cowherds.

It is not only they think he is playing, he was also

playing and enjoying the play. Pasyma me yogamaiswaram

- Look at my glory Arjuna.

 

Plurality does not disappear - it becomes His

aiswaryam - what disappears is the notion that the

plurality is reality.

 

Actually there is absolutely no difference between

jnaani and ajnaani - other than one knows and the

other does not know. I am consistent in my statements

that knowledge does not eliminate the world of

plurality. It will only provide the truth of

plurality that it is only superimposition on the

reality. Knowing the substantive, Brahman, one knows

everything else - like knowing gold, I know the

essence of every gold ornament - I don’t need to know

the superficial details of each and every ornament.

Remember Swami Dayanandaji arguments - I will keep the

gold and you can take back your ring - There is no

substantive for the ring other than the gold. That

does not mean there is no ring. Ring is only name and

form and it has its utility different from another

name and form, bangle. But if I am gold-smith, my

value for it is only how much gold is there in each of

the ornaments, although as a goldsmith I do

differntiate ring and bangle, but my value depends

mostly on the substantive and not for the naama and

ruupa. I am gold-jnaani! - I could have been

clay-jnaani instead!

 

> ________________________________

>

> > Actually even now it is like that. But

> > I am getting carried away with the role that I am

> > playing forgetting that it is only a role and I am

> > actor who is really beyond the role.

>

> [That is right. The role-playing, therefore, seems

> to have been

> prescribed for the ones stationed between academic

> knowledge and

> direct knowledge of Truth, and not for the real

> jnAni.]

 

Nair - the role playing is an advice for the saadhaka

- just as to see the advice that one should see the

Lord in everything but when he really does that role

playing all the time or when he really sees the Lord

in everything in all names and forms then he has

become a jnaani. Yo mam pasyat sarvatra, sarvam ca

mayi pasyati - tasyaaham na praNasyaami sa ca me na

praNasyati - the one who sees me in everywhere and

everything in me, he is never away from me and I am

never away from him! A jnaani is seeing the

substantive of everything and every form - while

others are only seeing the forms and things without

the knowledge of the substantive. Others take the

names and forms as real while jnaani takes them as

false and the reality is the substantive Brahman.

There is no change in the universe for both jnaani and

ajaani - only one vision is differnet from the other.

one knows the truth as the truth and the other takes

the false as the truth - Both are there in mityaa -

not that they are opposite to each other - mityaa is

neither sat nor asat also.

 

> I am only trying to be logical. Kindly bear with

> me.

>

 

No problem Nairji - we are all learning in the

process. The ideas are meant for everyone to

contemplate and there is nothing personal here. I

only present what I understand, and try to state that

clearly in all my posts. If my understanding is wrong,

I will be more than happy to know too.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Shri Rajendera Nair-ji :

 

Happy New Year to you too! Nairji , i am really honored that you

liked my Ramana quote.

 

Nairji , to be quite honest with you , i have never read the

Prashnatrayas or VP - neither i am familiar with the bhashyas ----

so even if i were to quote from these great texts , that would be

Mithya jnanam ! Smile :- ) I would encourage other members of this

royal fraternity like Shastriji , Shri Anandaji , Sadaji ,

Michaelji , Bhaskar prabhuji, SUNDERJI OR FOR THAT MATTER our young

lion cub Sampathji TO COME FORWARD and address your concerns .

 

on my part , i would only like to state what a parama jnani Sri

Ramana bhagwan himself says on the subject of Prarabda karma ( which

was previously quoted by our beloved Sunderji also - some thinga are

worth repeating! )

 

Ramana Maharshi says (page 422 of Talks):

 

" The scriptures say that jnana is the fire which burns away all karma

(sarvakarmani). Sarva (all) is interpreted in two way : (1) to

include prarabhda (2) to exclude it. In the first way : if a man

with three wives dies, it is asked, " Can two of them be called

widows and the third not? " All are widows. So it is with prarabdha,

agami and sanchita. When there is no karta none of them can hold out

any longer.

 

The second explanation is, however, given only to satisfy the

enquirer. It is said that all karma is burnt away leaving prarabdha

alone. The body is said to continue in the functions for which it has

taken birth. That is prarabdha. But from the jnani's point of view,

there is only Self which manifests in such variety. There is no body

or karma apart from Self, so that the actions don't affect him. "

 

Furthermore, sri Ramana says :

 

" Prarabdha Karma is of three categories, Ichha, Anichha and

Parechha (personally desired, without desire and due to others'

desire). For the one who has realised the Self, there is no Ichha-

Prarabdha but the two others, Anichha and Parechha, remain. Whatever

a Jnani (Self-realised) does is for others only. If there are things

to be done by him for others, he does them but the results do not

affect him. Whatever be the actions that such people do, there is no

Punya and no Papa attached to them. But they do only what is proper

according to the accepted standard of the world – nothing else. "

 

pl read Sri Ramana's views on 'karma'

 

http://www.hinduism.co.za/karma & .htm

 

Nairji , for me it is sufficient only to remember the following

verse from Viveka chudamani on Karma ( in the prsent stage of my

spiritual journey) :

 

Chittasya shuddhaye karma,

rut tu vastu-upalabdhaye.

Vastu-siddhih vicharena

na kinchit karma-kotibhih. ( verse 11 , Viveka chudamani)

 

 

Karma (desire-prompted, ritualistic action) may be required to

purify the mind, but it is not meant for realization of the Truth

(or Moksha, the fourth Purushartha or value in the Hindu tradition).

Realization of the Truth is achieved by Vichara, discrimination

(between the Real and the unreal); and not by millions of karma.

 

Nairji , the jump from Karma yoga to JNANA YOGA IS A GIANT LEAP and

all Karma yoga is 'useless' if it does culminate in Jnana and vice

versa !

 

Hari Aum Tat Sat !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Bhagini-ji.

>

> HAPPY NEW YEAR.

>

> Of all your quotes here, your Bh. Ramana quotes in post 38747

appeal

> to me the most. I have, therefore, appended your post hereto in

full.

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>Dear sir,

Namasthe,

I have gone through the web site http://www.hinduism.co.za/j_html

Ths site deserves any type of Award.It is nothing but a Ocean of

knowledge and information from our ancient scriptures.The Total

information cannot be read in a day or Two.An aspirant of vedanta and

vedic knowledge must go through this web site in detail.All topics of

vedanta are put together in one sight as a capsule of Medicine which

can cure all the diseases with one capsule( " Sarvaroga Nivarini " )A

common man like myself cannot refer different types of books for

getting the total matter given in this site.This is just like cooked

food ready to eat without gathering materials from here and there to

prepare my desired food.I feel that this site is useful not only to

read but also to preserve for the reading of many others as and when

they desire.I also Request you send such useful sites in future

also.Thanking you very much. Hari Ohm

Sd/sastry

 

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Dinesh Rao-ji.

 

I too am ordinary. That is why the doubts.

 

I don't understand the last sentence of your post, i.e. the ultimate

half of the couple meeting you. Will you please clarify?

 

I anticipate a cessation of duality (snake) when direct (not

academic) knowledge occurs whereafter no further precautions are

required. If you meant the occurrence of direct knowledge by the

above expression, then the question is if duality will continue from

that point onwards?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , Dinesh Rao <hgdinesh wrote:

 

> I am just an ordinary person (meaning Ignorant and I don't want to

sound

> too humble) but would like to express my views on the above

>

> I am taking the literal sense of the rope and snake analogy,

meaning I

> should not interpret this as taking every snake for a rope, the

dual

> world is much real and I should take action and precaution

considering

> every apparent snake just the way I would take for a snake, but

without

> the fear part (which only puts me at a greater risk).

>

> I can not escape duality till the ultimate half of the couple meets

me.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sada-ji.

 

Immense thanks.

 

I will now avoid the mire of analogies and go to the last part of

your reply quoted below this post.

 

As a 'yet-to-be jnAni', I have to admit Krishna as a jnAni. But,

logically, if and when I become one, where is Krishna, his mother,

father, Arjuna, the cows., cowherds et al. Two jnAnis won't be

advaita, no? So, " pashya me yogamIshwaraM " is only for the ignorant

me and Arjuna. When I am a jnAni, I am already *pashyanti*

(Incidentally, that is one of the names of Beloved Mother LalitA,

who is verily Consciousness.) and there is nothing there for me

to 'see' any more as external duality.

 

By implication, this would mean that the riddle of the whole world

of duality is resolved with my self-realization. I have no reason

then to labour any further to emancipate others, because there are

no more any others. That is the Absolute Point of View. No other

points of view can dare enter there.

 

Isn't this thinking reasonable, Sada-ji?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________________

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

> > [MN: One can do all that (role playing)if the apparent duality

> > persists. But we have

> > seen that it doesn't.]

>

> Sada-ji: Not true. Now do you think Krishna is jnaani or not?

> If he does not have any apparent dualtiy how he is

> going to treat his mother different from his father

> and his foster parents and all the cows and cowherds.

> It is not only they think he is playing, he was also

> playing and enjoying the play. Pasyma me yogamaiswaram

> - Look at my glory Arjuna.

>

> Plurality does not disappear - it becomes His

> aiswaryam - what disappears is the notion that the

> plurality is reality.

>

> Actually there is absolutely no difference between

> jnaani and ajnaani - other than one knows and the

> other does not know. I am consistent in my statements

> that knowledge does not eliminate the world of

> plurality. It will only provide the truth of

> plurality that it is only superimposition on the

> reality. Knowing the substantive, Brahman, one knows

> everything else - like knowing gold, I know the

> essence of every gold ornament - I don't need to know

> the superficial details of each and every ornament.

> Remember Swami Dayanandaji arguments - I will keep the

> gold and you can take back your ring - There is no

> substantive for the ring other than the gold. That

> does not mean there is no ring. Ring is only name and

> form and it has its utility different from another

> name and form, bangle. But if I am gold-smith, my

> value for it is only how much gold is there in each of

> the ornaments, although as a goldsmith I do

> differntiate ring and bangle, but my value depends

> mostly on the substantive and not for the naama and

> ruupa. I am gold-jnaani! - I could have been

> clay-jnaani instead!

>

> > ________________________________

> >

> > > Actually even now it is like that. But

> > > I am getting carried away with the role that I am

> > > playing forgetting that it is only a role and I am

> > > actor who is really beyond the role.

> >

> > [That is right. The role-playing, therefore, seems

> > to have been

> > prescribed for the ones stationed between academic

> > knowledge and

> > direct knowledge of Truth, and not for the real

> > jnAni.]

>

> Nair - the role playing is an advice for the saadhaka

> - just as to see the advice that one should see the

> Lord in everything but when he really does that role

> playing all the time or when he really sees the Lord

> in everything in all names and forms then he has

> become a jnaani. Yo mam pasyat sarvatra, sarvam ca

> mayi pasyati - tasyaaham na praNasyaami sa ca me na

> praNasyati - the one who sees me in everywhere and

> everything in me, he is never away from me and I am

> never away from him! A jnaani is seeing the

> substantive of everything and every form - while

> others are only seeing the forms and things without

> the knowledge of the substantive. Others take the

> names and forms as real while jnaani takes them as

> false and the reality is the substantive Brahman.

> There is no change in the universe for both jnaani and

> ajaani - only one vision is differnet from the other.

> one knows the truth as the truth and the other takes

> the false as the truth - Both are there in mityaa -

> not that they are opposite to each other - mityaa is

> neither sat nor asat also.

>

> > I am only trying to be logical. Kindly bear with

> > me.

> >

>

> No problem Nairji - we are all learning in the

> process. The ideas are meant for everyone to

> contemplate and there is nothing personal here. I

> only present what I understand, and try to state that

> clearly in all my posts. If my understanding is wrong,

> I will be more than happy to know too.

>

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

[Guest guest]

nairji writes :

 

( By implication, this would mean that the riddle of the whole world

> of duality is resolved with my self-realization. I have no reason

> then to labour any further to emancipate others, because there are

> no more any others. That is the Absolute Point of View. No other

> points of view can dare enter there.)

 

nairji , may i bring to ur kind attention what sri Ramakrishna

paramahamsa says in this regard ?

 

" " A man cannot live on the roof a long time. He comes down again.

Those who realize Brahman in samadhi come down also and find that it

is Brahman that has become the universe and its living beings. In

the musical scale there are the notes sa, re ga, ma, pa, dha, and

ni; but one cannot keep one's voice on 'ni' a long time. The ego

does not vanish altogether. The man coming down from samadhi

perceives that it is Brahman that has become the ego, the universe,

and all living beings. This is known as vijnana. "

 

in fact , a paramjani like sri Ramakrishna acted like an ordinary

bhakta only to be part of Loka SANGRAHAM !

 

SRI RAMAKRISHNA USED TO SAY :

 

There are two types of paramahamsas: the jnani and the premi. (Lover

of God.) The jnani is self-centred; he feels that it is enough to

have Knowledge for his own self. The premi, like Sukadeva, after

attaining his own realization, teaches men. Some eat mangoes and

wipe off the traces from their mouths; but some share their mangoes

with others. Spades and baskets are needed to dig a well. After the

digging is over, some throw the spades and baskets into the well.

But others put them away; for a neighbour may use them. Sukadeva and

a few others kept the spades and baskets for the benefit of others. "

Excerpt from The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna

 

 

BHAKTAS AE FULL OF RASA - AND IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT I WOULD LIKE TO

RECALL THE WORDS OF SRI ANANDAJI ON 'ANANDA ' OR WHAT IS rasa !

 

The 'Ananda' aspect is described in the Taittiriya Upanishad 2.7, as

appended below (with a rather free translation).

 

yad vai tat sukRRitam raso vai saH

[it is just this essential savour that is quite spontaneous and

natural.]

 

rasaM hy evAyaM labdhvAnandI bhavati

[it's only when one reaches this true savour that one comes to

happiness.]

 

ko hy evAnyAt kaH prANyAt yad eSha AkAsha Anando no syAt]

[For what could be alive at all, what could move with energy, if

there were not this happiness -- here at the background of all space

and time, pervading the entire world?]

 

so , jnanis also know how to enjoy the 'rasa' by Loka sangraham!

THAT IS WHY ADI SHANKARA BHAGVADAPADA ALSO COMPOSED ALL THOSE

STOTRAS ON GODS AND GODDESSES AFTER ATTAINING JNANA !

 

enjoy!

[Guest guest]

3rd reponse to Dennis Waite's question

 

Another refreshing of memory…

 

Shri Dennis Waite wrote:

 

 

" the only benefit of self-knowledge must be in the

remainder of this life. There is only ever brahman in

reality and, from this pAramArthika standpoint, no one

is ever born or dies. This understanding is given to one

who is self-realized but is the truth whether or not the

understanding is there. Who-I-really-am was never born

and is not going to be reborn whether or not that knowledge

is realized in a particular mind. Conversely, Brahman is

going to continue to appear as names and forms presumably,

assuming that there are mind-forms to perceive them as

separate. Accordingly, one might ask why one should

pursue enlightenment if, although the 'false' I will not be

reborn, the real 'I' will continue to appear as deluded jIva-s.

 

Yes, there is a paradox in all this which is very difficult

to resolve. I have been thinking about it for much of the day

but failed to each a resolution that did not incorporate some

sort of contradiction. More time is necessary to work on it.

I just hope it doesn't go on until the end of the present Kalpa.

 

Some of the concepts that have recently appeared in mind

are perhaps worth sharing? Here are a few…

 

 

The whole purpose of all the previous analysis was to

eliminate problems in the language Sri Dennis Waite used

in formulating his question. Now that has been reasonably

completed…. as an interesting exercise it may be useful

to reformulate Sri Dennis Waite's statement-question in

a more correct form of advaitic language? Here it is again

as best I can ?…..

 

" Post self-realization is there some difference in the

remainder of this life? There is only Parabrahman, the

absolute, and from this paramarthika standpoint there is

no birth and no death. The self-realized one understands

there is no birth and no death. The truth is that there is

no birth and no death whether anyone understands this

or not. Myself, the Atman-Brahman, was never born,

will never be born, or reborn, even if that knowledge is

not present in any mind. Saguna Brahman, from the

vyavaharika standpoint, apparently endlessly manifests

as names and forms and it is assumed that there are minds

to perceive the names and forms as separate. Why should I,

the atman, identified with the jiva, pursue enlightenment if

Saguna Brahman together with Maya are continuously

presenting myself, the atman, with the delusion of the very

jiva with which I am identified, when I am always the

unborn Parabrahman? "

 

When the question is re-formulated like this, if this is valid

and acceptable to Sri Dennis, then immediately it becomes

clear that all the problems are going on from the vyavaharika

standpoint, but nothing is happening from the paramarthika

standpoint. It is simply which standpoint one is looking from

and which of the two one prefers.

 

It is also immediately clear, because the question " why "

is being posed, that atman doesn't know the reason why

the delusion is being played upon himself, and requires

a witness (shaksin) and a mind to detect both the plot and

his own vulnerability or inherent weakness. If the realized

man is now Parabrahman, the ultimate observer, then

atman dissolves into himself (because there is the realization

that they are One) and consciousness disappears, being

replaced by, or supported by, the superior absolute

awareness. The problem is solved? Nothing can delude

the Absolute Parabrahman. No pursuit of enlightenment

is necessary because the Parabrahman is beyond

enlightenment.

 

If however the realized man is merely identified with

Saguna Brahman, then consciousness persists, and the

atman, after a long period of union with Isvara, Saguna

Brahman, may return to repeat the same process of

misidentification? That is perhaps why Saguna Brahman

continues to appear as deluded jivas… full realization

has not occurred? The `deluded' jivas will continue for

as long as is necessary. The divine seems to function

only in accord with the principle of necessity? Therefore

if the jivas are there, still there after so called realization

then it must be necessary. It is necessary because the

atman has not fully realized who he is. He has mistaken

Isvara, mistaken, Saguna Brahman, mistaken evolutes of

prakriti, as himself, not the lowest evolutes now, but only

the very best. This may be anandamaya stage? So, there

is another veil to remove? If there is a deluded jiva

temptingly in front of one then be assured full realization

has not yet occurred. Atman, consciousness, has separated

from the knowledge of Parabrahman, and until consciousness

and knowledge come together again, side by side, so that

consciousness can see knowledge and knowledge can know

consciousness, ignorance will remain. Ignorance is with the

atman, and atman remains ignorant until knowledge manifests

to help it realise who it is not. Knowledge is not able to tell

the atman who he is. All knowledge can intimate is that

Atman is not Saguna Brahman nor any of the mechanisms

evolving from Prakriti. That should be enough?

 

Mechanisms are not conscious, but they appear to be

living conscious beings because of the touch of ahamkara

upon them. It is because the atman is pure consciousness,

without knowledge, without knowledge of himself, that he

sees himself in consciousness everywhere. Where ever

there is consciousness there is the atman. The atman can

lift a stone and see himself there, because the same

consciousness is in the stone. Moreover the atman can

actually become the stone and see himself walking along

a road,(by that I mean see the body container carrying the

atman along). This is an illustration of this idea… A human

being walking along a road initially sees the paving stones

in front of him, but next instant actually mystically becomes

one of the paving stones looking at the human being

walking along the road. Then he returns to being

himself walking along the road. This I-am-the-paving-stone,

and the-paving-stone-is-me experience is possible because

consciousness is in the human being and also in the stone,

and the two consciousnesses are not different, but are in

truth the same. Therefore the atman sees himself in

everything, and everything both animate and inanimate

equally sees him. Therefore consciousness is a significant

part of the problem…. consciousness identifies with itself.

Consciousness is the source of identification and

is vulnerable to misidentification.

 

When the everything sees the atman it is really the atman

seeing himself. It is consciousness seeing consciousness.

Consciousness can leap anywhere and instantly look back

and see itself. But what it sees is not the actual

consciousness, nor its own actual consciousness,

but only the form carrying the consciousness around.

The form naturally obscures the consciousness within it.

The form can be any of the four bodies, the physical body,

the natural body, the spiritual body, the divine body. If a

sequence of bodies are presented in front of it, atman leaps

instantly from form to form identifying with them. Then

it becomes the consciousness within that form, and looks

out from that form as though it is itself. Atman has

identified with what it sees. Atman identifies with everything

it sees. This is ignorance. The interesting question to ask

is… what is the source of the consciousness

present in the forms? Consciousness is light. Consciousness

can only be light, there is nothing else that could create it?

In the subtle world it can be observed that there is a ray of

light that is coming from behind one, over one's right

shoulder. Because one can see that light, one cannot be

that light. This conclusion is based on the advaitic principle:

" You cannot be what you see, because consciousness

cannot see itself " . One hopes this advaitic principle is

true, otherwise one has no means of knowing what one is

not. Another conclusion is that consciousness is not oneself.

Therefore this light cannot be the true light of the atman.

It must be an artificial light. Atman has assumed a

consciousness which is not itself, nor its natural state.

 

The source of the illusion is behind one. One has to

somehow enter the subtle world and turn round in the subtle

world and look at what is happening behind one. In fact

the witness can turn around and look back towards the

light and attempt to discern its source, but the source is

transcendental, and cannot easily be penetrated. The witness

can see that the images appearing upon the reflecting

screen of space called mind are coming from a mixing of

light and the touch of ahamkara. The witness can also

observe ahamkara comes out of shadows behind one.

Behind one are light and shadows, and when they combine

are the source of the illusion.

 

Light and shade are the two great magicians of religious stories,

usually described as white and black magicians. One of the

magicians is concealed in shadows. Shadows

are not black, but of course what is concealed within the

shadows could possibly be black? Why is it important to

differentiate black from shadow? Black is the destroying

force, shadow is the maintaining force, light is the

creating force. Tamas, sattva, rajas. The illusion is

connected with two of the three gunas. Which two?

 

Ahamkara is merely a emissary that comes out of the

shadows. Ahamkara is also a self, a small self. It appears

to be a servant. It is serving its master. The shadows

behind oneself are transcendental, very obscuring, and I

provisionally believe impossible for the human faculties

to penetrate. Who is concealed within the shadows?

Whoever, or whatever, is concealed within the shadows

has sent ahamkara, with great magical power, to create

the illusion? I can only think that it is Maya. Who else

could it be? It is shadowy… so it could be Visnu. Who

or what is Maya? I do not know.Therefore further

knowledge is necessary to solve the mystery. The jnanis

say that Maya is Brahman. But which of the three levels

of Brahman are they referring to? I doubt it is the

Parabrahman.

 

It is light that creates the forms, and it is ahamkara that

animates them, making them appear as living beings.

The animated forms are the spirits, buddhis. It is the atman,

the awesome consciousness deep within oneself, that which

is looking out, which identifies with the animated forms,

and the projections of the animated forms. The projections

of the animated spirit forms are the jivas. You may have

noticed that sanyasins carry around with them a long pole

which they place over their right shoulder and angled

downwards in front of themselves. This is probably an

analogy of something in the subtle world, a prop to remind

the sanyasin of an important principle? It seems reasonable

to believe that this represents light. Light, subtle light,

comes from behind oneself, passes over ones right shoulder,

and creates the world upon the screen of mind. The world

is nothing more than reflected light. The witness looks at

the world being projected upon the screen of mind with

interest. The witness is not deluded and sees the process,

and realizes that it is all unreal, but he is interested.

This interest may be another problem.

 

It is all a trick, it is all the creation of a mixture of light

and shadow… yes. Do I like it…. no. Is it necessary?

That I do not ultimately know. Is it necessary to go along

with the trick? Maybe. Unless one penetrates to the source

of the illusion possibly one isn't going to have sufficient

knowledge to free oneself absolutely from it. Is that true?

Maybe not. Maybe one is simply fascinated by the

subterfuge. As long as one is interested in the illusion

one is likely to remain in its power? Only when one

is no longer interested in it will someone want to

leave the theatre.

 

 

When full realization occurs it is said that all the

manifestation disappears. Therefore it would appear

that the only possible way to escape the problem is to

pursue enlightenment very intensely? Who pursues

such an enlightenment…. it must be the jiva? That is

why there is a jiva? Hopefully the jiva is not quite so

deluded as you may think? Therefore post realization

there is a difference…. varying according to whether

partial or full realization has occurred? Understanding

is not given, only the tools to understand for yourself

are given. The tools appear to be Saguna Brahman,

Maya, and the Sakshin or to use different English

words God, the Devil, and the Witness. In Samkhya

philosophy Saguna Brahman and Maya are probably

two aspects of Prakriti (primordial energy) and the

Shaksin is connected or related to Purusha (pure

awareness) although the comparison is not exact.

 

Atman is not the same as the Witness. Atman sees the

Witness and identifies with it. Atman, being only that

awesome presence, deep behind one, that which is looking

out, consciousness, pure consciousness without knowledge,

consciousness that is everywhere and everything,

consciousness that identifies with everything presented

in front of it because it is everything… that Atman sees

an octave of forms in front of itself and in quantum jumps

identifies with one after the other up to the fifth. It doesn't

identify with the sixth and seventh and any further. What

are the forms being presented to the Atman in the series

called the `octave'? First is the physical body, second is the

natural body (or jiva, nature, soul), third is the spiritual body

(buddhi), fourth is the deva (the divine conscience), fifth

is the Witness.

 

The witness sees the illusion and therefore no further

identification with any form occurs. After the Witness is

reached Atman can look in front of itself and see the images

of the world appearing on the screen of mind. He can see

that it is not real, but because he is identified with the

Witness he finds it interesting, maybe even entertaining

(some jnanis say it is all entertainment but I am presently

unsure about that, although I can partially see why they

offer that explanation). Atman, as the Witness, can also

now look behind himself and see that the source of the

images is a combination of light and shadow coming

from behind himself. Two magicians, if you like. At last

Atman has the possibility of detecting the illusion

that is being played upon himself. Without Atman making

contact with the witness there is no possibility of himself

seeing the illusion, knowing it is an illusion, and escaping

from it.

 

 

Since the Parabrahman, or Absolute, enables everything

to occur, he is ultimately responsible for the delusion and the

entanglement and the weakness as well as enabling

the tools for detecting the illusion and bringing the atman

back to himself. Why does it all happen…. because the

Parabrahman has a problem…. he sounded " I am "

because it was necessary. Part of the Parabrahman, the

Atman, has separated from it, ever so slightly, and

does not know who it is.

 

 

 

Why pursue enlightenment?

 

 

There are innumerable gods, each in his own universe.

They create and recreate eternally. Are you going to wait

for them to save you?

 

 

 

 

 

It is true that it is not necessary to pursue enlightenment.

However it is observable that Sri Dennis is in pursuit

of full enlightenment, and there is nothing that can stop

him once he has begun. Once anyone begins it is certain.

It is completely certain that you, and everyone else will

attain self-realization. Why?… because it already has been.

And will be again. The unmanifest desires to manifest, not

once but again and again. The future has already been

and therefore realization is absolutely certain because it

already has been. So why do it all over again?

 

You do it all over again because you do not remember

doing it before. That is why everyone is already self realized.

Time is strange. It is not linear as we ordinarily believe.

 

You have achieved the manifestation of the holy form

of yourself before. At conception the divine arranger of

lives shows you the holy form of yourself. You want it.

But it is Maya. You can see that holy form of yourself,

and because you can see it, you can not, ultimately, be it.

The holy form of yourself is a carrot. Carrots on sticks

dangled in front make a static creature move. The holy

form of yourself is designed to make you move, to

make you want to evolve. Does the donkey ever

get the carrot? I doubt it. They dangle a holy form of

yourself which you greatly desire and then when you

get there it is taken away. But you moved.

 

Shantanand Sarasvati says that everyone realizes at the same

time. I do not understand this concept but… here is an effort

to do so….

 

The logistics seem puzzling. Have we all got to wait for

the end of the Kalpa? Do the fast ones have to wait for

the slow ones to self realize? Is there in advaita vedanta

something resembling the Christian concept of the final

and general resurrection? This is all crude theorizing.

I simply do not know. But what is known is that there

is fire present in the world, not ordinary fire, but spiritual

fire.

 

Realization connects an individual to spiritual fire, which

is present, but unseen, in the world. When an individual

turns completely around, looks back and finds himself,

a fire sweeps over the whole world, and everything and

everyone catches fire. That is the nature of fire, even

spiritual fire, everything and everyone is swiftly, and

instantly, caught up in the great conflagration.

 

All that I can say is that everyone seems to be

looking outwards, forwards. No one seems to look

back into themselves to find themselves. It only

requires one individual to do so, and spiritual fire

spreads over the whole Earth. We are all connected.

We are all waiting for one individual to fully remember

themselves. Then we all realize at the same time.

[best thesis to date].

 

 

There are two ways. The fast way and the slow

way. We are all on the slow way, whether that is

known or unknown. The slow way is the way of

enjoyment (Bhoga). By enjoyment we slowly evolve.

The subtle universe has been constructed so that all

its beings move inexorably along the way by means

of enjoyment. When there is enjoyment one evolves.

This is the way of the Bhogi. How slow is such

a way? Very, very slow. The way is perhaps a

seeming million miles and we are moving along it

perhaps a quarter inch per life. But it is certain. Everyone

will reach the real, reach the truth. It is certain because

it already has been. The fast way is for those who study

a subtle hidden philosophy in the culture of ordinary life.

Language, law, religion, art etc all contain deep hidden

philosophy. But it is intensely difficult. For example,

the study of the subtle philosophy hidden in religious

language would take the student the entire length of the

way, to the closest and best approximation to the truth.

This is the way of the Yogi. How fast is it? One lifetime

is sufficient, but it is very, very difficult. It requires an

intensity of effort beyond that known to ourselves as

ordinary man. The divine observer knows that there is

little chance. Those yogis who make the attempt also

know that there is little chance. Why then do they

continue with the attempt? For the love of the good.

But the love of the good is entrapment in the duality

of good and bad. So are the ways entirely what they

seem to be?

 

Both of the ways are really forms of looking forward,

looking outside of oneself. The truth is the way to Siva

Loka, where the buddhis-spirits are either smashed

to fragments or covered over for aeons of time. Do

you want to go there? The real is the great ocean

of being, upon which Visnu is said to float asleep.

Nisargadatta says that beingness is the problem. We

love our being, we love `ourself'. Self-love is love

for one's being. But the Parabrahman is neither being

nor non-being. All opposites are Maya. So do you really

want to go to Visnu Loka and become fixed? Once

you are real you are fixed as whatever you are. Once

you are real you can never escape being real.

Only someone who is unreal can escape being fixed.

Therefore being unreal may be not so unfortunate

as it may first appear? Maya may therefore be one's

friend, and Isvara one enemy? In advaita everything

is inverted. If Maya is Brahman in disguise, probably

Nirguna Brahman, then it is easy to see why Maya

is your friend?

 

Possibly there are ten levels. The bhogi and the yogi are

probably traversing levels two and three. You are what

you think you are is the main problem. What you think

the world is adds to the problem.

 

If you think it is all imprisonment then you are a criminal

If you think it is all entertainment then you are a bhogi

If you think it is all education then you are a yogi

If you think it is all meaningless then you are a nihilist

If you think it is all spit then you have an I that is offended.

If you think it is all service then you are a servant.

If you see it is all your own creation then you are a God

If you know then you are the only person who does.

If you don't know then you are the Nirguna Brahman

If………………. then ………. the Parabrahman.

 

 

There is a child in you, a child consciousness located

in your breast, it stuffs dreams randomly into your head

at night and during the day it sends you in search of

enjoyment. A jnani is able to see what type of child you

have within your breast, and if it is a child who seeks

enjoyment then the jnani will probably tell you that you

are not suitable for the way of the yogi. Are there different

types of child? I believe there probably are. How and

when did you acquire this child? Is the child your enemy

or your friend? Or both, or neither? I do not know.

 

It is possible to meet this child within your breast. You

may come face to face. Then you realize that it is not

yourself. You can detect the child by the desires it sends

up into your consciousness. It desires enjoyment. It wriggles,

agitates, kicks for enjoyment. It wants you do things

knowing that the drama produced will be great entertainment

for himself. When the child enjoys something it produces

wonderful emotion in your breast, even tears in your eyes.

But observe that in truth you are completely unaffected by

all this.

 

The child makes you even pretend you are a brahmacharyi

trying desperately to become a jnani, acquire books, perform

sadhana, dhyana, find a guru…. but really it is all being done

for enjoyment of the concealed child.

 

You have to decide whether you want this child to rule your

life or not. You can also ask yourself the question whether

you have any choice.

 

Why pursue anything outside yourself, when all that is

necessary is to turn completely around, look back behind

and discover what is there.

 

Isvara is not the Absolute. My self at the origin, my

original self is Isvara, God. But I am one alone. In

darkness and alone. There is nothing except myself.

But I am weary of it, I am weary of everything being

myself. The universe is infinite response to request

and part of myself separates and become the gods who

arrange for all the forms to appear, as delusory appearances

separate from myself. The One therefore becomes the

many. That is the drama. The drama will continue until

I in turn become weary of it all, weary of the many,

and wish to return to my original self. I am always the

original self, all that I have to do is to remember who

I am. I am not many, I am the original One. Weariness

causes myself to desire others in the oneness, and from

where can they be created except from myself? And

weariness of the many eventually causes me to desire to

return to my original aloneness. The Absolute as Isvara

does not like being alone. That is his problem.

 

" I was undeceived, that is all. I used to create a world

and populate it.....now I don't do it any more. The mind

ceased producing events " .

 

The Absolute as Isvara desires to become many, and

then eventually desires to become one again. What is

the benefit of that? Probably of no benefit. It just

relieves the weariness of God. Why does the Absolute

appear as Isvara, as God? That is a difficult question.

Perhaps human beings see it like that, when in fact

the truth is completely and utterly different?

 

Everything is mechanism… even cosmic mechanism

Cosmic cogs turning human cogs. Prakriti is awesome

cosmic mechanism. We have become firmly attached to it.

 

 

 

Why pursue enlightenment?

 

" It is said in the teaching: Better not to begin. Once you

begin, better to finish it. So you had better not step onto

the spiritual path unless you must. Once you have stepped

foot on the path you have really done it, you can't step

back. There is no way of escaping. "

 

Your false self realization already has been, and already is,

and already will be. And yet, it all has to be manifested

again. Therefore false self realization is in recurrence.

 

Because false self realization is in recurrence it may not be

the final state. It may be the end of one illusion and the

beginning of another. If you knew that your seeking

and your false self-realization recurred eternally would you

become tired of it? Would you wish to escape from

recurrence itself? Is it even possible to escape? You will

not want to escape until you become tired of it.

 

Many avatars have come to Earth and they could change

nothing. Maybe only four small things change in the whole

of thousands of recurrences.

 

 

As Nisargadatta says:

 

" When you realize the Truth what can you do?

Many great men have come, and they can do

nothing different, make no change " .

 

 

 

 

John Ward

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

>

> PraNAms to all and Happy new year to all.

>

> What it will be like - if I know the truth as the

> truth and false as false, then my life becomes

> simplified.

 

Dear Sri Sadananda,

 

After knowing the truth as truth and false as false,

will there be " my life " or just " LIFE " in which 'my life'

appears ?

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhagini-ji.

 

Yours 38763.

 

You are missing the point. I do know all that you have said and

quoted. I don't understand why you think I don't.

 

The point I am trying to drive home is that all this great

understanding is mithyA in this mithyA vyAvaharikA and, therefore,

has no relevane to jnAni per se. We have got to admit this at least

in the name of advaita. Otherwise, we are contradicting ourselves.

 

A jnani can be seen to be doing anything in our mityA phenomenal

including enjoing rasgulaas and saying 'ha ha'. That is the

experience of us ajnAnis. We deserve only that much. If we swear by

Advaita, then we have to bear in mind that all that is seen is not

true. Otherwise, we are engaging in 'lucid' contradiction. The jnAni

doesn't do anything at all.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

> As a 'yet-to-be jnAni', I have to admit Krishna as a

> jnAni. But,

> logically, if and when I become one, where is

> Krishna, his mother,

> father, Arjuna, the cows., cowherds et al. Two

> jnAnis won't be

> advaita, no?

 

Nairji - PraNAms.

 

First my shaShTaanga praNaams to Sastriji for

endorsing my understanding of the scriptures.

 

Logically also when one becomes a jnaani - I have only

understanding that the truth of everything is nothing

but Brahman that 'I am' - Yet the power of maaya still

manifests as long as the upaadhiis (BMI) - ahankaara

still plays not like in ajnaani but with a realization

that it is a game of life to be played as the

'praarabda' demands. You can say jnaani has a visa to

have the main foot on the truth and still have a

leverage to pay role now as a jnaani - to teach others

who come to him seeking knowledge.

 

In VivekachuuDaamaNi there is a sloka - as warning to

the student. Even after realization, guru is still

guru and shishyaa is still shishyaa. He has to

prostrate to his guru - where guru starts from mother

(who is the first guru) next father and then the

aachaarya. Na guru na sishyaa is only meant for

transcending the realities to understand the

paaramaarthika satyam. But once understood, one still

has to play the game of life - as nivedita mentioned

as loka kalyaaNam or as a model for others to follow -

yadat aacharitiH shreShTaH ..'

 

Rama, Krishna every deity played their roles knowing

very well the truth is beyond.

 

There can be many jnaani in advaita, since all jnaanis

know that the SUBSTANTIVE of all of them is the

existence-consciousness-bliss which is one without a

second. Advaita is not monism - it is a-dvaita.

non-duality in spite of duality, implying the duality

that I see or perceive is not real but substantive

that pervades the duality is one and only one that is

sat-chit-ananda that 'I am' stands for. There is no

contradiction in having many jnaanis and many deities

in advaita. Shankara taught his disciples as well

wrote great bhakti slokas on every god on the earth!

 

 

 

So, " pashya me yogamIshwaraM " is only

> for the ignorant

> me and Arjuna. When I am a jnAni, I am already

> *pashyanti*

> (Incidentally, that is one of the names of Beloved

> Mother LalitA,

> who is verily Consciousness.) and there is nothing

> there for me

> to 'see' any more as external duality.

 

No Nairji - When Krishna is saying and indicating his

glory. If he himself cannot see it how he is going to

point out that glory to Arjuna. While showing he

tells that they are all in me but I am not in them.

Showing his plurality as well as his non-duality too.

That is his aiswaryam.

 

 

>

> By implication, this would mean that the riddle of

> the whole world

> of duality is resolved with my self-realization.

 

Only I understood the truth of the plurality - and via

shaastra pramaaNa also understand that that truth is

my self that I am. The second part is more riddle and

it cannot be logically deduced.

 

 

I

> have no reason

> then to labour any further to emancipate others,

> because there are

> no more any others.

 

Others are there as long as BMI is there to see the

others! But I as the Sat-chit-ananda do not see since

there is nothing other that. But I in the form of BMI

can see and operate knowing well that is only

superficial and not real. Hence I see but I do not

really see. I act, but do not really act. I

essentially remain as akartaa while action is going on

in my presence. That is true even when I am ajnaani

but I take myself as kartaa due to ignorance of my

real state. Essence - brahma satyam - jagat mithyaa -

mithyaa implies that the apparent plurality is not

reality - advaita in spite of seeming dvaita. I do act

as in like drama but that is action less action -

playing Kings role for the kingdom in the play-

knowing well I am not really a King but just an actor.

 

 

That is the Absolute Point of

> View. No other

> points of view can dare enter there.

 

Not true. All points do enter - paaramaathika,

vyaavahaarika and praatibhaasika - but now as jnaani,

I have knowledge of the reality of all these. All

there avathaas - waking, dream and deep sleep states

are there for jnaani too but he knows that he is none

of the three states. He is the turiiyam beyond any

state. All these states are there as long as BMI or

upaadhiis are there. That is what jiivan mukta means.

Once upaadhiis fall out, He shines in his true nature

without any projection.

 

In Ch. Up - 6th there is last example by Uddaalaka -

about the difference between jnaani and ajnaani - Hot

Iron Axe example. Janaani is the one who when he makes

contact with the Hot world, he does not get burned.

Ajnaani is the one who gets burned all the time

whenever he makes a contact with the hot world.

Shankara writes a brilliant commentary on this. The

world is still there but jnaani is not affected since

he knows how to pay the game of life, just as drama

roles do not affect the actor's life!

 

>

> Isn't this thinking reasonable, Sada-ji?

 

Given the above understanding, you should answer the

question Nairji.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri John Ward.

 

Your posts are indeed long and demand repeated reading. I may not

agree with all that you are saying. However, there are many points

of convergence of thought.

 

This is just to highlight just one thought that occurred as I ran

through your 38764.

 

You said:

 

QUOTE

 

> When the question is re-formulated like this, if this is valid

> and acceptable to Sri Dennis, then immediately it becomes

> clear that all the problems are going on from the vyavaharika

> standpoint, but nothing is happening from the paramarthika

> standpoint. It is simply which standpoint one is looking from

> and which of the two one prefers.

 

UNQUOTE

 

One can have standpoints only in the vyAvahArikA. Naturally,

therefore, all the problems are located there. The paramArthikA has

no standpoint at all and it can't simply brook any. The paramArthikA

standpoint you are talking about is a mithyA conceptual standpoint

that belongs to the vyAvahArika. It is, therefore, a full-fledged

vyAvahArika standpoint and ridden with problems.

 

There is, therefore, no way in which the paramArtha, which is another

word for jnAnihood, can be understood. All our efforts and concepts

are defective in one way or other.

 

If we are therefore convinced about the paramArtha and have no doubts

about it, then the only thing left for us to do is to contemplate on

it and cry out to it without engaging in any more hair-splitting.

That is what, I believe, the scriptures and sages are asking us to do.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sada-ji.

 

Thanks for the long string of clarifications.

 

As I told Bhagini-ji, I am aware of most of the references you have

mentioned in your post. My problem is with accepting them literally.

 

Let me, therefore, concentrate on where exactly I have problem with

what you are saying. This topic is like quicksands. I need,

therefore, to select my words very carefully.

 

You said:

_______________

 

QUOTE

 

> Others are there as long as BMI is there to see the

> others! But I as the Sat-chit-ananda do not see since

> there is nothing other that. But I in the form of BMI

> can see and operate knowing well that is only

> superficial and not real. Hence I see but I do not

> really see. I act, but do not really act. I

> essentially remain as akartaa while action is going on

> in my presence. That is true even when I am ajnaani

> but I take myself as kartaa due to ignorance of my

> real state. Essence - brahma satyam - jagat mithyaa -

> mithyaa implies that the apparent plurality is not

> reality - advaita in spite of seeming dvaita. I do act

> as in like drama but that is action less action -

> playing Kings role for the kingdom in the play-

> knowing well I am not really a King but just an actor.

 

UNQUOTE

 

[so a jnAni needs the BMI to see? Although he really doesn't see

when he sees, he needs the BMI to do the 'not seeing seeing'? I

thought a knower of Brahman won't have a restricted BMI awareness

because Self-Knowledge has totally blown his BMI individuality out of

existence. He is now Universal Awareness. Otherwise, what is Self-

Knowledge worth? When the roof and walls of my house are blown out,

do I still look for a window to see the open sky? You mentioned

that " Na guru na sishyaa is only meant for transcending the realities

to understand the paaramaarthika satyam " . Did you mean it

(transcendence) as an ordinary understanding like understanding the

Laws of Gravitation? I take it that 'the walls and roof' have gone

for ever with transcendence, whereafter the knower of the paramArtha

doesn't need any BMI at all. The ajnAnis, however, would continue to

visualize him as engaged in different activities and write detailed

justifications and explanations for his seeming actions, which all

belong to the mithyA. A jnAni doesn't have anything do with that.

This is how I understand our scriptural references which you have

quoted.]

_________________________________

 

QUOTE

 

> Not true. All points do enter - paaramaathika,

> vyaavahaarika and praatibhaasika - but now as jnaani,

> I have knowledge of the reality of all these. All

> there avathaas - waking, dream and deep sleep states

> are there for jnaani too but he knows that he is none

> of the three states. He is the turiiyam beyond any

> state. All these states are there as long as BMI or

> upaadhiis are there. That is what jiivan mukta means.

> Once upaadhiis fall out, He shines in his true nature

> without any projection.

 

UNQUOTE

 

I am afraid we are here setting gradations to jnAnidom and using

different names. jnAni being paramArtha, I find this explanation

difficult to accept logically. A jnAni should always shine in his

true nature without any projections to be shone after. He doesn't

have to wait for the death of his body, which vanished from his view

long long ago. Projection is not his nature and there is nothing

there for him to see by the 'not seeing seeing' mentioned above.

______________

 

I can fully accept all that you are saying with reference to someone

who is quite knowledgeable and endowed with considerable

chittashuddhi but still in pre-jnAnihood. Such a person needs to do

the role-playing in order to qualify for transcendence.

 

Sorry Sada-ji. This is how I feel about it and I have to go against

our common understanding of the pramAnAs in order to drive home my

point of view. Nevertheless, your words have been very helpful to me

and I hope I would be able to understand them in the right sense one

day. Till then, I have to live with what I think is a logical

conclusion.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Further to my 38770.

 

I found the following question and answer at the link

http://www.hinduism.co.za/jnani-.htm kindly provided by Bhagini-ji,

which corresponds more or less to my understanding of jnAni. Of

course, I don't deny that the site presents certain contradictions

too, which I can't resolve.

 

QUOTE

 

Question: How can we say that the jnani is not in two planes? He

moves about with us in the world and sees the various objects we see.

It is not as if he does not see them. For instance he walks along. He

sees the path he is treading. Suppose there is a chair or table

placed across that path; he sees it, avoids it and goes round. So,

have we not to admit he sees the world and the objects there, while

of course he sees the Self?

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: You say the jnani sees the path, treads it,

comes across obstacles, avoids them, etc. In whose eyesight is all

this, in the jnani's or in yours? He sees only the Self and all in

the Self.

 

UNQUOTE

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Nairji,

 

>Madathil Rajendran Nair wrote:

>

> I don't understand the last sentence of your post, i.e. the ultimate

> half of the couple meeting you. Will you please clarify?

>

 

 

 

The counter part of birth.

>

> I anticipate a cessation of duality (snake) when direct (not

> academic) knowledge occurs whereafter no further precautions are

> required. If you meant the occurrence of direct knowledge by the

> above expression, then the question is if duality will continue from

> that point onwards?

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my opinion, yes. I don't have any knowledge of scriptures, but from

whatever little I understand, I feel that I won't know that I have got

Knowledge (In short that I am a realized person) it is not a subject of

knowledge, I will continue my normal activities but with the self, which

is always at the center, fading out gradually.

 

With respect

Dinesh

[Guest guest]

Dear Nairji,

 

I think that if we want to figure out what the Jnani sees, the correct

question is not " what does the jnani see? " but rather, " what is the

nature of the world? " The jnani's perspective is born of vichara,

which is available to everyone, and not from some exclusive occurance

which only the jnani has access to.

 

When we say that a pot has come into existence, what has come into

existence? The clay was already there and so no clay is coming into

existence. Further, there is no pot whatsoever apart from the clay. So

what has come into existence?

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.