Enlightened Empirical Engagements!!! - School-1

January 31, 2009

Namaste Raj-ji,

#110 I meant of course otherwise I couldn’t have referred back to #48 and the note by Swami Jagadananda. The good Swami seeing that an enthusiastic reading would draw the unwary towards the precipice placed a note to the effect : Danger abyss. Obviously this was something that he has encountered before. What his note stated was "You will never again feel pain in the states of waking and dream" (note) As real and pertaining to the Self.

In our ordinary unenlightened state we feel pain and state the fact ‘I feel pain’. In the enlightened state this might be expressed as ‘There is pain’. In chapter1 #34 it is expressed in this way.

"For, on being asked where one’s pain lies, one says, ‘I have pain in the head, in the chest or in the stomach’. Thus one points out pain in the place where burns or cuts occur, but never in the perceiver. If pain or its causes viz. Burns or cuts were in the perceiver one would have pointed out the perceiver to be the seat of the pain, like the parts of the body the seats of the burns or cuts."

The purport of this paragraph is that even in our unenlightened state we intuitively know that pain is in the afflicted part and not in the perceiver/witness. To realise the significance of this in a profound way is to be enlightened. But even then it will still be true to say - there is pain.

Best Wishes,

Michael.

January 31, 2009

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Dear Jai-ji,

>

> For the sake of this discussion or for your sake, let me admit that

> the jnAni perceives his BMI. Now having my gone this far, will you

> kindly tell me if you can describe what that peception is like? That

> is the real point here under discussion.

Dear Nairji,

Let me quote some BG verses which shows how jnANi interacts in this

world and which will make sense once you have accepted that jnANi

perceives the world.

Totally contented jnAni

na me pArthAsti kartavyam triSu lokeSu kijncana

nAnavAptamavAptavyam varta eva ca karmaNi | BG 3.22

Oh! PArtha, for me, there is nothing to be done. In the three worlds,

there is nothing to be accomplished by me, which is not yet

accomplished. Yet, I am engaged in action. - BG 3.22

tattvavittu mahAbAho guNakarmavibhAgayoh

guNA guNeSu vartanta iti matvA na sajjate | BG 3.28

Whereas, Oh! Arjuna, the knower of the truth, knowing the distinction

between body-mind-sense-complex and action, knowing that the senses,

mind, and organs of action engage themselves with reference to their

respective objects alone, is not bound

sadrSam ceState svasyAh prakrterjNanavAnapi

prakrtim yAnti bhUtAni nigrahah kim kariSyati | BG 3.33

Even a wise person acts in keeping with his or her own nature. Because

all beings follow their own nature, of what use is control?

A very active jnANi

tyaktvA karmaphalAsangam nityatrpto nirASrayah

karmaNyabhipravrtto'pi naiva kijncitkaroti sah | BG 4.20

Giving up the deep attachment to the results of action, always

contented, being not dependent on anything, he (or she) does not do

anything even though fully engaged in action.

The opposite of the above mentioned type

nirASIryatacittAtmA tyaktasarvaparigrahah

SArIram kevalam karma kurvannApnoti kilbiSam | BG 4.21

The person who is free of expectations, whose body, mind, and senses

have been mastered, who has given up all possessions, doing only action

that sustains the body, does not incur pApa.

yadrcchAlAbhasantuSTo dvandvAtIto vimatsarah

samah siddhAvasiddhau ca krtvApi na nibadhyate | BG 4.22

The one who is happy with whatever comes by chance, who is unaffected

by the opposites, free from jealousy, and even minded with reference to

success and failure, is not bound even though performing action

gatasangasya muktasya jnAnAvasthitacetasah

yajjnAyAcaratah karma samagram pravilIyate | BG 4.23

The karma of one who is free from attachment, who is liberated, whose

mind is rooted in self knowledge, who performs for the sake of daily

yajna, resolves totally.

jnAni as a teacher

tadviddhi praNipAtena paripraSnena sevayA

upadekSyanti te jnAnam jnAninastattvadarSinah | BG 4.34

Understand that (which is to be known) by prostrating, by asking proper

questions, (and) by service. Those who are wise, who have the vision of

the truth, will teach you (this) knowledge.

jnANi, the atmA of all

yogayukto viSuddhAtmA vijitAtmA jitendriyah

sarvabhUtatmabhUtAtmA kurvannapi na lipyate | BG 5.7

One whose mind is purified by being committed to a life of karma yoga,

who has mastered the body and has the sense organs under control, and

who knows oneself to be the self in all beings, (such a person) is not

affected even while doing (actions).

naiva kijncitkaromIti yukto manyeta tattvavit

paSyanSrNvan sprSanjighrannaSnan gacchan svapanSvasan | 5.8

pralapan visrjan grhNannunmiSan nimiSannapi

indriyANIndriyArtheSu vartanta iti dhArayan | 5.9

The one who is together, who knows the truth, thinks, `I do not do

anything at all,' even while seeing, hearing, touching, smelling,

eating, walking, sleeping, breathing, talking, releasing, grasping,

opening and closing the eyes, (the person) knowing (full well that) the

organs are engaged in their objects.

I can go on but I think you can get an idea by now.

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

January 31, 2009

Namaste, all

I have come across the following article in www.mudgala.com

and i think it is relevat to the subject under discussion:

------

In this day and age, when it is normal practice to evaluate not only students, but even professors and our peers (peer-review), we find ourselve in the business of judging those we take to be gyanis. Often, we find them doing things that are not "gyani-like". Of course, we define what a gyani should be like as we wish, without regards to shastra. In particular, we all know that gyanis are beyond likes and dislikes. Yet, we sometimes feel that they act like the common man. They seem to get angry, or feel sad.. How do we explain this? We need to understand the nature of karma. KarmaThere are three kinds of karma: Prarabdha - Action from past births that have led to the current birth. These karmas are only exhausted when the doer experiences them. Sanchita - Action from past births which are set to fructify in future births. If we take another birth, these karmas will fructify. For gyanis, who will not take another

birth, these karmas have no effect. Aagaami - The karmas performed after one becomes a gyani. These are not reaped by the gyani, but by mankind in general. Thus, when we say that a swami is performing good for mankind, this is exactly true. In Tattwa-bodha, we are told that a gyani's good karmas go to his well-wishers, and bad karmas go to his ill-wishers. Thus, two of the three kinds of karma, aagaami & sanchita karma have no effect on the gyani. This is because the aagaami karma is experienced by mankind, and sanchita karma has no opportunity to fructify since the gyani does not take another birth. Thus, after the dawn of knowledge, a gyani continues to interact with the world so long as prarabdha karma remains. Prarabdha Karma and GyanisThe nature of prarabdha karma is brought up by Shankaracharya in his Vivekachudamani: Like an arrow released towards its target, the karma begun before the dawn of knowledge (prarabdha)

is not destroyed by gyana. 454. Now, we can understand the following verses from the famed Panchadashi. Once he is convinced of the unreality of the world, a knower, with mind undisturbed, allows his prarabdha karma to wear out, and engages himself in worldly affairs accordingly. 7-131. Do not fear irregularity when the wise engage themselves in actions according to their Karma. Even if it happens, let it be; who can prevent the karma? 7-132. In the experience of their prarabdha karma, the enlightened and the unenlightened alike have no choice; but the knower is patient and undisturbed, whereas an ignorant man is impatient and suffers pain and grief. 7-133

If by the force of his prarabdha karma, a wise man is compelled to enjoy the fruits of desires, he does so with indifference and great reluctance like a man who is impressed for labour. 7-143. Once the prarabdha karma is exhausted, the seer either attains videha-mukti (i.e. death), or, he is in constant one-ness with the paramatma. Thus, prarabdha karma is a great blessing to the world, as the world can benefit when the gyani interacts with it. If prarabdha karma were burned up in the fire of gyana, the only medium of teaching from these great masters would be pure silence. Types of GyanisThus, it is also possible to grade gyanis based on the amount of interaction with the world. Those with larger interaction with the world have a larger reservoir of this karma to exhaust. Swami Chandrashekara Bharati brings this out beautifully (VC 459). They are graded, in ascending order of superiority: One who has adopted sannyasa for the

fruition of his gyana, and abides in sattwa guna. He is a brahmavit. One who gets out of his samadhi of his own volition, by the force of his own karma. Happiness and sadness pertain to him. He is a brahmavidarah. One who is responsive when awakened by others. When awake, he is connected with the prarabdha karma. He is a brahmavidariyan.

One who has reached the transcendant, and is unresponsive even when awakened by others. His prarabdha karma is exhausted, and thus, has no effect on him. He is a brahmavidvarishthah.

Madhusudana Saraswati says that a tattva-gyani (knower of the truth) may not be a jivan-mukta (liberated while living). The yogi of the highest order is one who is both a tattva-gyani and a jivan-mukta. However, he also clarifies, that there is absolutely no doubt that both classes of gyanis will reach videha-kaivalya. i.e. liberation upon the falling of the body. (BG 6.36) Gyanis and Prarabdha KarmaWhat is the nature of the gyanis interaction with the world when prarabdha karma is in play? Swami Vidyaranya quotes the Gita in the Panchadashi: O Arjuna, your own karma, produced by your own nature, compels you to do things, even though you may not want to do them. B.G 18.60 The Ashtavakra Gita gives us a perfect example: Like a dry leaf blown about by the winds of prarabdha karma from previous lives, the desireless, independant, free, liberated person moves about. The gyani is compelled to interact with the world, as is

his nature formed over a multitude of previous births, without attachment to them. Since they have no effect on the gyani, and since there is no doer-ship attached to it, there is no fault in this. The illusion of actionAfter all, it is us (the ignorant) who superimpose action on the gyani. In reality, the gyani does nothing, so there is nothing for us to judge. He ... does nothing, even if he be acting vigorously in the eyes of the world. AG 19.19 It may be difficult for us to see inaction in the multitude around us, but thankfully, we have an entire vedanta tradition designed to take us there. All of us strive to become yogis of one kind or another, and as the Gita puts it: He who recognizes inaction in action, and action in inaction is a yogi. BG 4.18.

ConclusionThe gyanis move about in accordance to their prarabdha karma. Let us stop judging them. Let us learn from them actively, so that we may develop our own sanchita karma. Let us praise them, so that we may benefit from their positive agami karmas.

Sources

[AB] Swami Tejomayananda. Atma Bodha. [AG] Ashtavakra Gita [bG] Swami Madhusudana Saraswati. Bhagavad Gita. trans. Swami Gambhirananda. [PA] Swami Vidyaranya. Panchadashi. trans. Swami Swahananda. [VC] Swami Chandrashekara Bharati. Viveka Chudamani. trans. P. Sankaranarayanan.

WWW.MUDGALA.COM

--Please send comments to Ajit Krishnan ( webmaster _at_ mudgala.com ) Last updated Jan 2005. Copyright Ajit Krishnan [ 1999 - 2005 ] --

Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now.

January 31, 2009

advaitin , " R.S.MANI " <r_s_mani wrote:

>

> Namaste, all

> I have come across the following article in www.mudgala.com

> and i think it is relevat to the subject under discussion:

Dear Shri Mani,

A nice article indeed. Thanks for posting it.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

January 31, 2009

Dear Bhaskar ji,

namaskArams.

Please see below.

> Hare Krishna

>

> I know, I owe you a reply (whether you like it or not :-)) to your

> previous post to me & my explanations for overlooking your shankara

quotes

> in that..That I shall do in due course..

Jai: I am waiting.

Now to your latest observation

> below :

>

> Sri J prabhuji :

>

> The point under discussion is not whether a jnAni identifies

> himself/herself with a particular body.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> If jnAni is not identifying himself with a particular body...then

who is

> saying jnAnis has the localized BMI & upahita chaitanya (bordered

> consciousness)?? is it the assertion of jnAni or ajnAni?? kindly

clarify.

>

Jai: You seem to say that no jnAni ever claims that he/she is a jnAni

or that they are willing to teach. Then what about the statement

'manye viditam' in kenopanishad. Even Arjuna says 'naSTo mohah smrtir

labdhA' i.e. 'By your grace, my delusion is gone; and I have gained

recognition of myself'. We cannot say that brahman claims it is a

jnAni. So it is the the upahita-chaitanya ( conditioned/qualified brahman) in

the jnAni's upadhi which can claim the status of a jnAni.

Further a jnAni may not go door to door like a missionary to teach

Vedanta. But if some sishyA asks for the teaching then they do teach

what they know. And they teach with the recognition that they are a

jnAni and they would want their sishyAs also to be like themselves.

> Sri J prabhuji :

>

> Everyone agrees that the jnAni cannot entertain any notion about

> himself/herself as a limited jiva with a Body-Mind-Sense complex.

But the

> Body etc.. continues due to prarabdha karma and

>

> bhaskar :

>

> If it is true, then the theory of prArabhdha karma does not suit the

vigor

> of jnAni..If jnAni does not entertain any notion about himself /

herself

> there is no point in saying *he has* the prArabhdha karma & hence

> associates himself with the BMI complex..

>

Jai: I am not saying this. This is what Sankara says in BG Bhasya and

the Brahmasutra Bhasya on Sutra 4.1.15 and 4.1.19. Let me quote here

aprvrtaphale eva pUrve janmAntarasanchite asminapi ca janmani

prAgjnAnotpatteh sanchite sukrtaduSkrte jnAnAdhigamAt kSIyete na tu

ArabdhakArye sAmibhuktaphale yAbhyAm etat brahmajnAnAyatanam

janmanirmitam | BSB 4.1.15

Translation: After the acquisition of knowledge, those virtues and

vices that have not begun to yield their fruits and that were

accumulated in earlier lives or even in this life before the dawn of

knowledge are alone destroyed, but those karma whose results have

already been partially enjoyed and by which this present life has been

begun, in which the knowledge of brahman arises, are not destroyed.

Further in the same sutra's bhAsya comes the clincher:

api cha naiva atra vivaditavyam brahmavidA kanchitkAlam sharIram

driyate, na vA, iti. katham hi ekasya sva-hRdaya-pratyayam

brahmavedanam dehadhAraNam cha apareNa pratiksheptum shakyeta?

shruti-smRtiShu cha sthitaprajnalakshana-nirdeshena etadeva

nirUpyatte.// (Bhashya on the Brahmasutra 4.1.15)

Translation of the above:// Furthermore, no difference of opinion is

possible here as to whether or not the body is reatined for some

period (after enlightenment) by the Knowers of Brahman. For, when

somebody has the conviction in his heart that he has realised Brahman

and yet retains the body, how can this be denied by anyone else? This

very fact is elaborated in the Upanishads and Smritis in the course of

determining the chasracteristics of a sthitaHprajna./

If you still have any doubts then in bhAsya of Sutra 4.1.19

anArabdhakAryayoh puNyapApayoh vidyAsAmartyAt kSaya uktah | itare tu

ArabdhakArye puNyapApe upbhogena kSapayitvA brahma sampadyate 'tasya

tAvadeva ciram yAvanna vimokSye atha sampatsye' (Chan Up 6.14.2) iti

'brahmaiva san brahmApyeti' (br. Up 4.4.6) iti ca evamAdisrutibhyah |

Translation: It has been said that the virtues and vices that have not

begun yielding their results get annihilated through the power of

knowledge. But from the texts like, 'He has to wait so long as the

body does not fall, and then he merges (in brahman)' (Chan Up 6.14.2)

, 'being but brahman he is merged in brahman' it is known that the

other virtues and vices that have already begun to fructify are

exhausted through experiencing the results and then the aspirant

becomes brahman.

> bhaskar :

>

> this guru-shishya saMbandha (teacher-pupil relationship), pramAtru-

prameya

> vyavahAra ( knower-known transactions), scriptural teachings etc.

etc. for

> us not for the jnAni..No jnAni would say you are shishya, you are

ajnAni &

> I am jnAni, take teaching from me..

Jai: This is a very flimsy argument. jnAnis who choose to become

teachers consider themselves to be jnAnis and then only teach. In

chandogya Upanishad, uddAlaka even asks his son svetaketu whether he

knows that by knowing which all else is as well known. Then he goes on

to teach him. In BG Bhagavan Krishna says that 'imam yOgam aham

vivasvate proktavAn' (Ch 4.1) i.e. 'I told this yoga to vivasvAn ...'

.. Interestingly in Tai. Up there is a mantra 'AmAyantu brahmachAriNa

svAha..' which can be used to perform a yajna by a teacher to get good

students. I think any jnAni who has an aptitude to teach will wish and

welcome good students because there is no better occupation than

teaching for a jnAni.

>In Sutra bhAshya (1-1-4) shankara says

> All injunctions and all other means of knowledge can function as

such upto

> the moment of realization that I am brahman..for after the

realization of

> the non-dual Atman neither to be shunned nor to be acquired, there

can be

> no means of knowledge whatever, since there would be no object or

cognizer

> for them..( dont jump on me again by saying it is paramArthA :-))

by

> saying 'upto', 'after' cognition etc. shankara definitely talking

about the

> post realization period of jnAni..

>

Jai: Sankara only says there is no vedokta vidhi to do karma for a

jnAni and there by refutes jnAna-karma-samucchayavAda. He does not say

that the jnAni does not perceive duality or cannot take part in

vyavahAra.

>

> Now to your particular observation that ' jnAni can function like

guru,

> father, sannyAsi etc.' pUrva paxi in (2-1-14) raises an objection

that : if

> absolute non-dualism to be taken literally there would be no room

for

> diversity and perception and other empirical means of knowledge

would be

> nullified since they would have then no object in the same way as

the idean

> of a man etc. relating to a stump etc. And even the Sastra teaching

release

> and the taught etc. on which alone its validity depends ...For this

> shankara gives an apt reply (CAPS or mine) : To this we reply, no

such

> blame can be attached to our position..For all forms of usage can

very well

> be real PREVIOUS TO THE REALIZATION of one's identity with brahman,

like

> the PROCEDURE DURING DREAM BEFORE WAKING. So long as the real

oneness of

> Atman is not realized, no one would think that the modification,

means of

> knowledge, objects of knowledge and the resultant knowledge are

false

> appearances.

>

Jai: In this Sutra Bhasya Sankara only says that the BhedavyavahAra is

for ajnAnis and it is negated by the AtmaikatvajnAna. But he does not

say that henceforth jnAni cannot perceive anything and the world will

vanish for him. Negating a thing as mithyA only changes its status of

reality. It need not make it vanish. Shankara himself admits in

BrahmaSutra Bhasya 4.1.19

That the dualistic vision lasts before the fall of the body is because

of the need of exhausting the remaining portion of the result of

active puNya and pApa through anubhavA (experience).

>

> What we would understand from the above bhAshya?? Does it not say

that

> Atman is no agent of action and he is no more cognizer??

Jai: That is correct. That is why I am saying jnAni's svarUpa is

Atmacaitanya but Atma is not a jnAni.

Being secondless

> by his very nature, agency and other properties (like guru, father

sannyAsi

> etc.) seem to be real for the time being LIKE THE ILLUSORY

APPEARANCE in a

> dream for the simple reason that WE THE IGNORANT ONES DONOT KNOW OUR

> SECONDLESS REAL NATURE??

>

Jai: I agree

>

> So, it is onceagain clear from shankara bhAshya that jnAni-s

vyavahAra, his

> localized set of senses, his limited chaitanya etc. etc. are the

wrong

> cognition of ajnAni who is yet to realize his real nature...

>

Jai: This is your own imagination which is not supported by sruti,

yukti and anubhava. You are pushed to take such a rigid stand because

your starting assumption that 'avidya is adhyAsa only' and 'ajnAna is

jnAnAbhAva' itself is wrong.

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

February 5, 2009

praNAms Sri Jaishankara prabhuji

Hare Krishna

This is my thoughts on your old mail dated 27th Jan'2009 ( since I donot have the internet access, I cannot give you the mesg. no.)..Sorry, there is a delay from my side due to month end/beginning official work...Since this is an old mesg. I am keeping my old replies also for which you have responded, to make the continuity a sensible...Here we go prabhuji :

> bhaskar :

>

> Kindly tell me, whether the statement : 'jnAni has the localized

senses &

> he would continue to operate under the influence of reflected

consciousness

> (upahita chaitanya)' is from vyavahArika drushti or paramArthika

drushti??

Jai: It is from vyAvahArika drushti.

bhaskar :

Thanks for accepting this reality...Now you tell me whether this vyAvahArika drushti is enough to determine the 'confines' of the jnAni?? Why I am asking this question is shankara says in bruhadAraNyaka (3-5-1) as long as you are seeing the names & forms relationship with absolute relationless Atman it is avidyA vyavahAra drushti..this is the reason why we are saying jnAni's association with upAdhi-s is our own grand imagination...It is because of the simple reason that jnAni's pAramArthik status is devoid of any duality..yekamevAdvitIyaM (one without second), neha nAnAsti kiMchana (there is no duality whatsoever)..See for further reference about this vyavahAra & paramArtha in geeta bhAshya 18-17th verse, wherein shankara clarifies why killing is not killing from pAramArthik drushti & still say 'he kills'...apply this to jnAni's vyavahAra also..Though it appears for us that he is doing action (kriya) due to his dEhAtma buddhi..in reality he is neither katru nor bhoktru (dehadyAtmA buddhyA hantA ahaM iti loukikeem drushtiM...says shankara in this commentary)..That is what we are also insisting eversince this thread started prabhuji...jnAni's walking, jnAni's talking, jnAni's sneezing etc. etc. are mere loukika drushti wherein dEhAtma buddhi holds sway...Hope our stand is clear now...

> bhaskar :

>who gave us the authority to inflict the BMI on jnAni?? Kindly note

when I

> tried to say it is only in avidyA vyavahAra, we, the ajnAni-s still see

> the indriya-s of jnAni & individuality of consciousness..It has been

> repeatedly emphasized that jnAni has this localized body &

chaitanya...and

> these BMI & reflection of chaitanya are must to show his unlimited

> chaitanya realization etc. What is your take on that??

Jai: If we say jnAni with a mithyA Body-mind-sense complex

participates in this mithyA vyavahAra with the full understanding that

it is all mithyA, what is your problem with that? Do you say it will be advaita-virodha (opposed to advaita)?

bhaskar :

you are not getting the point here..As you rightly said above, we can say 101 things about jnAni, we can say he is like a pot space despite absolute ether, he is like a reflection of sun despite he himself is sun, he is a part & parcel of Ishwara like sparks of fire despite he is absolute fire..etc. etc. We dont have any problem, as long as these are all only our 'tittle-tattle'..But dont you think we ought to know what our scriptures say about the 'reality of the jnAni's body' ?? Problem starts there where we start our own assumptions about the *ashareeri jnAni*...Dont you think this inference without any hetu is advaita virOdha??

Jai prabhuji :

Do you say perception of dvaita by jnAni will bring advaita-hAni (loss of advaita)?

bhaskar :

Please understand we are not saying after realization jnAni becomes a blind person and he wont see anything :-)) But at the same time, linking him with limited set of adjuncts of his own & upahita chaitanya of his own are definitely a advaita hAni & to say least, a dangerous development in the absolute non-dual philosophy of shankara. Scriptures repeatedly say, he can 'see' without eyes, he can hear without ears, he can think without mind...though we can see he is walking, it is only appearance, though we can see he is meditating, it only *looks like* that...says shruti...Dont bring again the pet theory of paramArtha & vyavahAra here..when shruti talks about walking, talking, meditating etc. it only talks about these kriya-s (actions) in vyavahAra & reality behind it...

>bhaskar :

>

> Kindly note shankara himself says in sUtra bhAshya that the pratibimba

> (reflection) theory is within the sphere of avidyA & resultant

saMsAra also

> a product of this avidyA drushti...Can we drag this reflection theory to

> the pAramArthik reality of realized one also?? that is the main question

> I've been asking in this forum from the very beginning...

Jai: All theories are only in mithyA vyvahAra. so if Sankara has said

that, it is in keeping with the upanishad sampradAya. But there is no

pAramArthik reality of realized one. The realisation is also mithyA

because brahman cannot be a 'realizer' nor does atma/brahman require

any realization. That is why any reference to the realized one implies

mithyA vyavahAra only.

bhaskar :

Atlast you are getting my point..I am happy to note that...Yes, all vyavahAra (vidyA-avidyA, kAraNa-kArya, sAmAnya-vishesha, ghatAkAsha-mahAkAsha, bimba-pratibimba etc. etc.) are within the sphere of mithyA vyavahAra only..And this mithya vyavahAra is due to the absence of knowledge that we are secondless Atman...once this truth is intuitively realized this mithyatva of vyavahAra (duality) will not be there and blown away without any trace (atyantika abhAva of saMsAra insists shankara..and this atyatika abhAva is like nadee samudravat pravilApitAni clarifies shankara in bruhadAraNyaka 2-4-12)

>

> bhaskar :

>

> jnAni here is not an embodied one as we are presuming...it is not like

> rings and bangles are gold but gold is not rings & bangles...

Jai: Why not?

bhaskar :

again you are going back to your own old track after saying all the above prabhuji :-)) Kindly go through what you said earlier and what you have concluded above..you will make out the difference.

Those who know

> the brahman would become brahman itself is the express statement of

> shruti...For that matter you cannot point your finger on anything

and say

> 'this is not brahman' or brahman is not this...if you want to negate

> anything, you have to negate everything that includes all anAtma

> vastu...again this includes socalled jnAni's upAdhi-s & bordered

chaitanya

> of his also... so, brahman is not ONLY a jnAni, he is

everything...that is

> the realization of the jnAni and that realization says him that he

is all

> pervading brahman forever...

Jai: I agree

>

> If brahman is not a jnAni, then who is brahman?? is there any positive

> description?? perhaps you may say : brahman is satyaM, jnAnaM

> anantaM..which of these svarUpa lakshaNa is lacking in jnAni to say

there

> is a difference in jnAni & brahman & brahman is NOT a jnAni??

Jai: jnAni's svarUpa is brahman. for that matter any vastu's svarUpa

is brahman. But in our understanding of brahman there is no jnAtrtvam

(status of being a knower). So we have to say 'brahman is not a jnAni'.

bhaskar :

Again you are missing the very important point here...Yes I agree there is no jnAtrutvaM in brahmAn..Likewise, The Atma jnAna which jnAni congregates reveals him the truth that he was/is/will never be a jnAtru at any point of time..He is brahman always (trishvapi kAleshu)..If you have any doubt in this regard kindly refer shankara's geeta bhAshya (2-69)...Here bhAshyakAra quite categorically declares that : The final pramANa (scriptures) indeed removes the very knowership (jnAtrutvaM) of Atman...If you have any other meaning for jnAtrutvaM & pramAtrutvaM here kindly bring it on...we will discuss it further.

>bhaskar :

> Because if we say brahman is a

> jnAni, it means brahman is personified in 'a' jnAni, that will go

against

> the non-dual doctrine of advaita..

Jai: At last you are getting to the point.

bhaskar :

Yes I have got this point much earlier prabhuji...but you are still missing the point by saying jnAni is 'shareeri'...

>

> bhaskar :

> So, in my opinion, there is absolutely no difference between brahman

& the

> jnAni/jnAna..it is because of the simple fact that it is not possible to

> draw any bifurcation line between brahman & the jnAni when jnAni is

> established himself in the absolute non-dual reality without any

trace of

> individuality.

>

Jai: Establishment is only in vyavahAra and the establishment is only

for the jiva-upAdhi-upahita-chaitanya only (Consciousness apparently

conditioned/qualified by the individual upAdhis). Brahman doesn't

require any establishment as it is self-established and upAdhi doesn't

require any establishment as it is jada (insentient).

bhaskar :

I agree with the above statement...but sorry to mention that it is not quite relevant to the present context of discussion...yes, establishment in brahman is vyavahAra & this vyavahAra is avidyAkruta..Yes, brahman doesnot require this, nor a jnAni for that matter..coz. the jnAnaa of jnAni (if at all I can say like this) is that which says that the Atman is self-effulgent one...and this svarUpa jnAna was never ever departed from the jnAni..

But here we are not discussiong whether bandha-mOksha vyavahAra...what we are discussing is jnAni & his (supposed) post realization status of embodiedness...Hope for you the context is clear now..

>

> JS prabhuji :

>

> So what you have to understand is when we talk of a 'jnAni' it

implies only

> vyavahAra (empirical transactions). There is no jnAni or ajnAni

> in pAramArthikadrsti.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> yes, what you have to understand here is that jnAni's indriya-s

also are

> within the realm of vyavahAra which is avidyAkruta

Jai: I agree

bhaskar :

so, problem is resolved no?? jnAni cannot see any satyatva in avidyAkruta mithya..his localized indriya-s, his bordered chaitanya within this localized indriya-s is kevala avidyAkruta vyavahAra is it not??...For a jnAni who has realized his ultimate reality of non-dual nature cannot carry this duality of avidyA anymore..If at all we see the jnAni in a compartment of flesh & bones, that is ONLY the drushti dOsha of us who are still getting the thrashing from mAya is it not?? if you agree to this, I think no more discussion required on the embodied status of the jnAni..

> JS prabhuji :

>

> And in vyavahAra jnAni's Body-mind-sense complex can be perceived by

both

> jnAnis and ajnAnis.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> I doubt whether you have understood the purpose of this

discussion...Issue

> here is not about the BMI complex & its perception by jnAni & ajnAni-s

> etc...

Jai: There is an issue here as you keep saying only ajnAnis perceive

jnAni but jnAni doesn't perceive anything. If you agree that jnAni has

perception of jagat but doesn't take it as satyam then there is no

issue. what is your stand?

bhaskar :

As said above, we ( who are talking about umembodiedness of the jnAni) are not saying jnAna brings any physical deformity to jnAni nor we are saying jnAna makes jnAni a permanent handicap:-)) If you see my lead post of the subject heading, you can see I've covered jnAni's vyavahAra (??) right from jnAni's vegetable chopping to jnAni's geetOpadesha :-)) I onceagain reiterate here jnAni's socalled vyavahAra is not a stone in my curd rice :-)) (thorn in flesh for non-veggies :-)) Problem is jnAni's identity which we are imposing on jnAni by attributing him the localized indriya-s & limited chaitanya...Since you are telling now that it is only mithyA vyavahAra...I think we can close this issue now..

>issue is more particular about localized BMI complex of the jnAni &

> his reflected consciousness..No need to mention this pratibimba vAda

> (reflection theory) is an illogical one & has very limited usage ONLY in

> avidyA vyavahAra.

>

Jai: who denied it is not avidyAkrta-vyavahAra. The only point is,

this avidyAkrta vyavahAra continues because of praradhakarma for the

jnAni, even though he/she knows all this to be mithyA and avidyAkrta.

bhaskar :

see again you have started to sing the old song in same tune prabhuji :-)) Just now you have agreed that jnAni's indriya-s & his embodiedness is kevala avidyAkruta, but here you are again telling jnAni has prArabdha karma!! if the avidyAkruta vyavahAra continues without any sublation then we have to say Atma jnAna that which jnAni accrued is not paramArtha jnAna coz. in paramArtha jnAna there cannot be a avdiyAkruta vyavahAra!!..how can there be a room for existence of a thing that is caused through avidya when avidyA itself vanished completely (I will come back on Sri Sadananda prabhuji's Ishwara srushti, jeeva srushti theory later) ..when we know the real nature of rope where is the scope of seeing the snake again in place of rope ?? At the end of the fourth sUtra commentary shankara quotes a sloka (source I donot know) which questions : how can there be anything to be performed after the realization of one's own self or brahman, the pure being for then there is neither the figurative nor the false Atman consequent on the sublation of the idea of the son, as well as of the body and other associates of the self ?? Here it should be noted that by the denial of any remainder of duty (karma) after realization the writer of this sloka evidently implies that men are active agents merely because of the absence of realization...

jnAni's prArabhdha karma is another issue for deliberation...ksheeyante chAsya karmANi tasmin drushte parAvare..says shruti, jnAnAgni (the fire of knowledge) will burn all types of karma-s says smruti text geeta...But despite that shankara as you have rightly mentioned talks about it in fourth adhyAya of sUtra bhAshya..what would be the context of it?? whether this observation is going to help us to do siddhAnta nirNaya as far as jnAni's prArabhdha karma concerned ?? We will see that, when we take your sUtra bhAshya references (4-1-15 to 4-1-18) for the discussion.

>

> JS prabhuji :

>

> If you say perception of duality implies there is no advaita then

you are

> no better than dvaitins who say drSyatvat dvaitam satyam (I see

therefore

> dvaita is

> real). I thought advaitins say drSyatvat dvaitam mithyA (I see therefore

> dvaita is false).

>

> bhaskar :

>

> Since I have not said anything as above..your comment is irrelevent

here..

Jai: It is relevant. Do you agree that perception of duality is not a

problem for advaita? If you agree with this then what is the problem

in accepting that jnAni can perceive this dvaita-jagat?

bhaskar :

do you agree with me perception involves triputi i.e. jnAtru, jnEya & jnAna..do you agree with me jnAna removes this tripod?? do you agree with me that those who have realized their identity with brahman is that they are verily brahman itself, eternally pure, self-known and free by nature, devoid of all distinctions of knower, knowledge and the object there of?? if it is true then where is the question of perception of duality (dvaita jagat) by the jnAni?? The seeer is ONLY ONE that is Atman (there is no seer other than HE says bruhadAraNyaka - 3-7-23)..In that Atman there is no duality whatsoever to see the avidyAkruta dvaita bedha or jagat...dvaita is bAdhita, jagat bedha is bAdhita..for him left, right, top, bottom, in & out everything Atman only..

>

> JS prabhuji :

>

> Your explanation that only ajnAnis perceive jnAni but jnAni does not

> perceive ajnAnis or any duality makes jnAni's vyvahAra prAtibhAsika

> (subjective projection by ajnAnis).

>

> bhaskar :

>

> vyavahAra means duality...there is a tripod invovled vyavahAra i.e.

> pramAtru, prameya & pramANa..if the realization sublates the very

> pramAtrutva of the jnAni where is the question of *his* vyavahAra??

Dont

> you yourself said that final pramANa removes the very knowership of

jnAni??

> Under this circumstance only shankara asks us : through which instrument

> can jnAni operate?? Dont again say it is from paramArtha drushti..for a

> jnAni there is nothing like avidyA & vidyA vyavahAra..coz. his jnAna

> transcends these dualities..

>

Jai: Again you are missing an important point here. Realization only

sublates the pramAtrutva (status of being a knower) of the jnAni not

the pramAnas and the prameya vastus which are part of Isvarasrsti.

That is why we have to accept bAdhita-anuvrtti (negated but continues)

of the jnAni's upAdhis and the vyAvahArika-jagat

bhaskar :

When there is no jnAtru is there any existence to jnEya & jnAna?? dont you think jnEya vastu & jnAna which is used to know jnEya are entirely dependent on jnAtru?? If there is no pramAtru there cannot be possibility of any pramANa, prameya vayvahAra..Kindly see geeta bhAshya (2-69)..shankara says : na hi AtmasvarUpAdhigame sati punaH pramANa pramEya vyavahAraH saMbhavati...If there is no imposition of pramAtrutva on Atman there is no possibility of known & knowledge transactions...If the pramANa & pramEya are Ishwara srushti and it is eternal & has the idependent existence apart from pramAtru shruti would not have said Atra veda aveda etc..by the way where is the Ishwara srushti in sushupti?? we all know there is no knower (as such) in deep sleep state..Hence no mind..but Ishwara srushti should be there in sushupti no?? but this Ishwara srushti & its existence is not their in our anubhava and since shankara does not talk anything that goes against sArvatrika anubhava...your distinction between Ishwara srushti & jeeva srushti does not hold water here in the analysis of pramAtru-pramEya-pramANa vyavahAra.

>

> JS prabhuji :

>

> If jnAni's vyvahAra is prAtibhAsika, it cannot be bAdhita-anuvrtti

(negated

> but continues). Further Gita verses and so many other veda vakyAs

relating

> to jnAni's vyavahAra become meaningless.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> to explain jnAni's socalled vyavahAra, it does not require to put

> parameters on the jnAni, his avidyA lesha (remnant of ignorance) &

> prarabdha karma etc....

Jai: I did not use avidyA lesha and I don't need to use that word if

you don't like it. But Sankara himself talks about prarabdha karma and

I have given BG and BG Bhasya quotations which support that. Now you

are conveniently not talking about those quotations.

bhaskar :

Now the time has come for me to explain why I had to overlook your quotes from geeta :-)) prabhuji, first of all you have quoted ONLY one part of the geeta bhAshya from shankara...as you know shankara gives two interpretations about the status of janaka in this verse (3-20)..More importantly these quotes are useful for you to prove against those who are not parting with jnAni's vyavahAra...As I have explained above, we are not here to debate above jnAni's kriya..we are talking about jnAni's individuality & upAdhi ( this is already an age old issue & has been said more than thousand times :-)) Since quotations do not speak specifically about the jnAni-s deha etc. & it is mainly a councelling by bhagavan to encourage arjuna to do battle, based on this we cannot determine anything in favour of embodiedness of jnAni..(first of all shankara himself does not categorically say janaka is a jnAni and hence interpret this verse in two ways)..

But I agree with you that sUtra bhAshya quotes (4-1-15 to 4-1-18) exclusively talks about it...we will have a look into it subsequent mails...BTW, I think I've quoted somany references from shankara bhAshya about reflection theory, jnAni-s vyavahAra through sublated knowledge etc. etc. how many of you care to comment?? I've seen only general sweeping remarks from prabhuji-s not related to the context or I am not a scholar to quote or interpret...Atleast would you make an attempt to show me how & why references provided by me is not relevant & out of context & what exactly is the real context of those quoted references etc..As you know, general comments & sweeping remarks as Sri Sadananda prabhuji gives often on references can be made by anyone on anything without even going through the originals :-))

> I dont have to go by the theories of some personal

> understandings...

>

Jai: It is not my personal understanding alone but the understanding

of an unbroken chain of Gurus and SishyAs with Adi Sankara in the

middle of the chain.

bhaskar :

I am very happy to note that you have admitted that it is not mere personal understanding of advaita but based on shankara saMpradAya & prasthAna trayi bhAshya..Hope our discussion would be more fruitful if we both have the common premise i.e. shankara bhAshya.

J prabhuji :

You have all the freedom to selectively filter out some sentences from

Sankara bhAsyas and form a prakriyA out of it. But the least one

expects from a prakriyA is that it should be internally consistent and

properly explain away this apparent duality. It should not give some

convoluted explanation and confuse people.

bhaskar :

It is really painful to see scholars like your goodself & our beloved Sri Sadananda prabhuji have already started to conclude others (especially mine & Sri Nair prabhuji) view points are always spurious & convoluted but yours are always a genuine understanding :-)) Since I am an odd man (lonely...I feel sometime :-)) with my understanding of advaita in this forum..I cannot comment anything against those who have wide circle of readers & admirers :-)) After all, I could say I dont have an iota of intention to confuse people & I dont think people who are here on this forum not so intelligible as you think to get confused by these regular exchanges...

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!

bhaskar

February 5, 2009

praNAms Sri Jaishankara prabhuji

Hare Krishna

This is my reply to your message dated 1st Feb.2009...

> bhaskar :

>

> If jnAni is not identifying himself with a particular body...then

who is

> saying jnAnis has the localized BMI & upahita chaitanya (bordered

> consciousness)?? is it the assertion of jnAni or ajnAni?? kindly

clarify.

>

Jai: You seem to say that no jnAni ever claims that he/she is a jnAni

or that they are willing to teach. Then what about the statement

'manye viditam' in kenopanishad. Even Arjuna says 'naSTo mohah smrtir

labdhA' i.e. 'By your grace, my delusion is gone; and I have gained

recognition of myself'. We cannot say that brahman claims it is a

jnAni. So it is the the upahita-chaitanya ( conditioned/qualified brahman) in the jnAni's upadhi which can claim the status of a jnAni.

bhaskar :

If jnAni says I am jnAni by pointing out his finger towards his body & chaitanya in that boddy, then we are really duped to think that he is a jnAni...If jnAni says anything in first person like my, mine (ahaM, mama) etc. we should understand that it is invariably pointed towards akhanda rasa chaitanya and NOT upahita chaitanya..He knows upAdhi-s are no more upAdhi-s of his nature..and there is no obligation for him to maintain his upAdhi either..So, when krishna says surrender unto me (mamekaM sharaNam vraja) dont worry I'll give you the liberation etc.(mOkshaishyAmi mA shucha) etc. it is not an utterances of an individualized jnAni...it is paripUrNa chaitanya that which does not have any limited boundaries...

Jai prabhuji :

Further a jnAni may not go door to door like a missionary to teach

Vedanta. But if some sishyA asks for the teaching then they do teach

what they know. And they teach with the recognition that they are a

jnAni and they would want their sishyAs also to be like themselves.

bhaskar :

For that matter there is an incidence where jnAni is keen to have shishya-s:-))...rAmakrishna paramahamsa himself says in one of satsangs (gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, exact reference donot remember) every day after sunset I used to weep, this day has also been wasted, nobody has turned up here to take the knowledge what I have...my country men please common I'll teach you something sublime..totApuri, the advaita guru of rAmakrishna had come to teach advaita jnAna to rAmakrishna..how do you explain all these attitudes of jnAni-s?? doyou think they have real urge to have shishya-s or do you think they were very eager to make it public their knowledge?? IMO, we cannot take this literally & interpret the whole incident in our way like jnAni has the upahita chaitanya, since he still carries the upAdhi-s of his own, he still sees the difference between him & shishya etc..It is only upadesha nimitta we, the ajnAni-s make these distinctions for our convenience...but for a jnAni shAstra, shishya, upadesha all vikalpa-s only...shishyAdibedha vikalpOpi prAkpatibodhAdeva upadesha nimittaH..says shankara in mAdukya kArikA bhAshya (1-1-8)...and after upadEsha what happens : upadeshAdayaM vAdO jnAte dvaitaM na vidyate (mandukya kArika-1-18)...Because he knows the ultimate reality that all these pramANa pramEya vyavahAra whether loukika or vaidika are in the sphere of avidyA.

> Sri J prabhuji :

>

> Everyone agrees that the jnAni cannot entertain any notion about

> himself/herself as a limited jiva with a Body-Mind-Sense complex.

But the

> Body etc.. continues due to prarabdha karma and

>

> bhaskar :

>

> If it is true, then the theory of prArabhdha karma does not suit the

vigor

> of jnAni..If jnAni does not entertain any notion about himself /

herself

> there is no point in saying *he has* the prArabhdha karma & hence

> associates himself with the BMI complex..

>

Jai: I am not saying this. This is what Sankara says in BG Bhasya and

the Brahmasutra Bhasya on Sutra 4.1.15 and 4.1.19. Let me quote here

bhaskar :

Thank you very much for quoting these bhAshya vAkya-s prabhuji...I like discussions based on shankara bhAshya without citing mundane excuses like all references are not relevant & one has to study whole bhAshya to understand that bhAshya vAkya meaning etc.

Yes, I whole heartedly agree that here shankara indeed talks about jnAni's prArabdha karma...Though I have very valid reasons to infer that shankara talks about upAsana jnAna & upAsaka jnAni..(in the subsequent sUtra-s shankara talks about dEva yAna, pitru yAna etc.) I can go with your interpretation here...But I think this adhikaraNa should be understood that shankara talking about prArabdha karama as if jnAni has a body...It is just like in 2-2-29 holding waking state reality as against dream state...The whole of this prakaraNa should be understood in the light of samanvayAdhikaraNa in sutra 1-1-4 tattu samanvayAt..wherein shankara expressly talks about jnAni's body & the existence of body...and if you see bruhadAraNyaka shruti bhAshya (4-4-7)shankara makes his stand clear about the jnAni's body : when all the desires residing in one's heart have been got rid of, then the mortal being becomes immortal, and attains brahman here in this very life....Just as the cast off slough of a snake would lie lifeless in an ant-hill, so also does the body of the enlightened person lie there and he is now (really) bodiless, the prANa, brahman alone, the pure consciousness alone...and you can also refer the sUtra 1-1-28 where shankara says : For the absolute destruction of *all* karma-s is well known to result from the knowledge of brahman, in shruti like the following ' and his karma-s are destroyed when that brahman which is both the higher and the lower is realized as one's own self (mundaka 2-2-8)..

Kindly have a detailed look at the 1-1-4 sUtra bhAshya and you will come to know what exactly shankara offers with regard to jnAni's body..If jnAni is ashareeri always where is the questions of 'his' prArabhdha karma?? karma pertains to upAdhi-s or to jnAni himself?? if jnAni is nothing but brahman where & how can you attribute prArabhdha karma to him without associating the upAdhi-s to him?? Kindly study the whole bhAshya prakaraNa in detail let me know what you understand from that with regard to jnAni's body....

> bhaskar :

>

> this guru-shishya saMbandha (teacher-pupil relationship), pramAtru-

prameya

> vyavahAra ( knower-known transactions), scriptural teachings etc.

etc. for

> us not for the jnAni..No jnAni would say you are shishya, you are

ajnAni &

> I am jnAni, take teaching from me..

Jai: This is a very flimsy argument. jnAnis who choose to become

teachers consider themselves to be jnAnis and then only teach.

bhaskar :

Kindly see my quote with regard to shishya, shAstra, upadesha etc. The flimsy argument has been given by shankara himself :-)) you have every right to accept it or discard it..

>bhaskar :

> So, it is onceagain clear from shankara bhAshya that jnAni-s

vyavahAra, his

> localized set of senses, his limited chaitanya etc. etc. are the

wrong

> cognition of ajnAni who is yet to realize his real nature...

>

Jai: This is your own imagination which is not supported by sruti,

yukti and anubhava. You are pushed to take such a rigid stand because

your starting assumption that 'avidya is adhyAsa only'

bhaskar :

again I am not saying avidyA is adhyAsa..shankara himself says avidyA is adhyAsa in adhyAsa bhAshya :-))

Jai prabhuji :

and 'ajnAna is jnAnAbhAva' itself is wrong.

bhaskar :

Have you read my mail why ignorance to be treated as jnAnAbhAva?? again prabhuji, you can accuse me whatever I say is mere assumption..but for your kind information these assumptions are being made by shankara himself : See bruhAdAraNyaka (3-3-1) for example : yadi jnAnAbhAvO, yadi saMshaya jnAnaM, yadi vipareeta jnAnaM vA uchyate 'ajnAnam' iti sarvam hi tat jnAnenaiva nivartyate...

Now, prabhuji I've shown you exactly where shankara says avidyA is adhyAsa & ajnAna is jnAnAbhAva ...Now it is your turn to show me where shankara says ajnAna is jnAna virOdhi..

Hope you would do the needful...

with love and prayers,

Jaishankar

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

February 5, 2009

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>See bruhAdAraNyaka (3-3-1) for example : yadi jnAnAbhAvO, yadi saMshaya

> jnAnaM, yadi vipareeta jnAnaM vA uchyate 'ajnAnam' iti sarvam hi tat

> jnAnenaiva nivartyate...

>

> Now, prabhuji I've shown you exactly where shankara says avidyA is

adhyAsa

> & ajnAna is jnAnAbhAva ...Now it is your turn to show me where

shankara

> says ajnAna is jnAna virOdhi..

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

> bhaskar

>

Hari Om Shri Bhaskarji, Pranaams!

ajnAna is jnAnavirodhi and bhAvarUpa.

The very paragraph you have quoted says ajnAna is jnAna virodhi and

karma is jnana avirodhi. This is Acharya's position.

The refutation, yadi cet is to proove ajnAna is removed only by jnAna

even if it is considered as jnAna-abhAva.

But you are right in saying ajnAna is adhyAsa only.

sA-iyam bhrAntiH-nirAlambhA sarva-nyAya-virodhinI.

sahate na vicAraM sA tamo yadvad divAkaram .. (Naishkarmyasiddhi 3.66)

This ignorance is without any support. It is opposed to all logic. It

cannot endure inquiry in the same way as darkness cannot endure sun.

Excellent posts.

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

February 5, 2009

advaitin , " pranipatachaitanya "

<pranipatachaitanya wrote:

>

> The very paragraph you have quoted says ajnAna is jnAna virodhi and

> karma is jnana avirodhi. This is Acharya's position.

>

Hari Om! Pranaams!

karma is ajnAna avirodhi.

Sorry for typing error.

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

February 6, 2009

praNAms Sri Chaitanya prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Sri Chaitanya prabhuji :

ajnAna is jnAnavirodhi and bhAvarUpa.

bhaskar :

Frankly, right now I am sick & tired of dealing with body of a jnAni :-)) I dont have enough time & spirit to debate on the above issues..We can keep this for our future discussion. Since you are the one who often quotes shankara bhAshya for support...Kindly let me know where shankara says avidyA is bhAva rUpa?? Hope you are aware of the vivaraNa school's interpretation of avidyA as bhAvarUpa which is the material cause for adhyAsa etc.

Sri chaitanya prabhuji :

The very paragraph you have quoted says ajnAna is jnAna virodhi and

karma is jnana avirodhi. This is Acharya's position.

bhaskar :

I dont think so...if this avidyA is bhAva rUpa (a positive entity) it cannot be removed by any amount of jnAna..shankara says this in sUtra bhAshya very clearly on a different context (2-2-22) : na hi bhAvAnAM niranvayO, nirupAkhyO vinAshaH saMbhavati...Though it is said while refuting the buddhistic doctrine, I think it is quite relevant to the bhAva rUpa avidyA also...

Sri chaitanya prabhuji :

The refutation, yadi cet is to proove ajnAna is removed only by jnAna

even if it is considered as jnAna-abhAva.

bhaskar :

if the avidyA is really there in a positive form jnAna cannot take that away..nAbhAvO vidyate sataH..

Anyway, for the time being we shall close this thread prabhuji...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

February 7, 2009

--- On Fri, 2/6/09, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

Frankly, right now I am sick & tired of dealing with body of a jnAni :-)) I dont

have enough time & spirit to debate on the above issues..We can keep this for

our future discussion.

Bhaaskarji - PraNAms.

I am not sure I understand your above statements - What are you doing with the

body of jnaani anyway? Why are you getting sick and tired dealing with some

body's body who he himself does not consider that it is his?

I do not think those statement are needed for any debate since no one is forcing

you to debate.

Can you feel how others have to take it when they see wrong notions, as you

consider other's notions are wrong and you have to debate on it to prove your

point.

There is no debate here. what we are discussing is what is the correct view of

the scriptures. Scriptures form the basis.

Bhaskarji there is nothing to debate and decide - it is something to understand.

No body has any body - BMI belongs to prakRiti only - whether jnaani or ajnaani.

Jnaani knows he is not the BMI - He sees the BMI like he sees the world - and

knows that what he sees is mithyaa since he is the seer, conscious entity

whatever is SEEN is mithyaa - neither unreal not real. He never owned a body -

what he thought he owned he realized that it was a notional ownership and

understood that he never owned it in the past-present or future. Since it was

notional, he could drop it in the awakening of the knowledge. If it is real, he

could never drop it. If he stops seeing after jnaanam then you are giving

reality to mithyaa.

ajnaani thinks he is BMI - and suffers due to the identification of that.

That is samsaara - samsaara is also mithyaa but for samsaari it is real.

Jnaani does not have samsaara - He sees the world and takes it as either his

vibuuti or Iswara's vibhuuti - pasyam me yogam aiswaram. He sees his BMI

undergoing the six modifications but he is unaffected and also knows that he is

unaffected. He can see the people operating on his hand or giving medicines for

his throat. Knee-problems belong to knee - if legs need a third leg, a stick, to

walk it is utilized. ajnaani is also unaffected by the six modifications of BMI

but he thinks he is undergoing the modifications and therefore gets affected due

to identification with BMI and with its modifications. If knees have problem he

thinks he has a problem - and suffers due to that notion.

The difference between jnaani and ajnaani is very simple and straight forward

without the need of complicated arguments and debates and bhaashyaas and

BSuutras.

One knows and one does not know, by definition.

One knows he is Brahman and hence real and whatever he sees is mithyaa. Seeing

is also part of mityaa too. Mityaa is not asat or not non-existence. One does

not have to eliminate the world - it has to be understood that it is mithyaa and

not real.

The other does not know that he is Brahman - and takes himself to be BMI and

therefore what ever he sees though BMI is taken as real since BMI is real.

In reality there is only Brahman - appearing in the form of jnaani as well as

ajnaani. Both are mithyaa and from Brahman point there is neither jnaani or

ajnaani - but pure satyam jnaanam anantam - sat chit ananda - one without any

second. This we understand directly from the scriptures. No need for any further

debates and headaches and getting unnecessarily sick and tired in dealing with

notions.

That is all.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

February 9, 2009

Bhaaskarji - PraNAms.

I am not sure I understand your above statements - What are you doing with the body of jnaani anyway? Why are you getting sick and tired dealing with some body's body who he himself does not consider that it is his?

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

I was just wondering what would have been my fate in this list had I responded in the same manner as above to any of general passing comments of yours:-)) No problem prabhuji, since I am an ordinary member of this list, I am obligated to receive these type of comments from the esteemed prabhuji-s of this group..Anyway, the point I'd like you to note here is *sick & tiredness* is a general figurative comment from my side considering the volume we have exchanged on the thread which is dedicated to jnAni's body :-)) prabhuji, IMHO, there was absolutely no need for you to take my general comment to someone ( Sri chaitanya prabhuji) literally and taking all the trouble to comment on it...

Anyway, I am happy to note that in the second question you asked me above is nothing but the answer that we have been providing in all these threads...Yes, when jnAni himself does not consider that BMI is not his...why some of you prabhuji-s are tirelessly taking all the trouble to say that he has localized body, mind & intellect & chaitanya entangled in it ?? :-)) Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

February 9, 2009

In reality there is only Brahman - appearing in the form of jnaani as well as ajnaani. Both are mithyaa and from Brahman point there is neither jnaani or ajnaani - but pure satyam jnaanam anantam - sat chit ananda - one without any second. This we understand directly from the scriptures. No need for any further debates and headaches and getting unnecessarily sick and tired in dealing with notions.

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Is there any difference between brahman's point & jnAni's point of view prabhuji ?? Since you, yourself talking about brahman's point of view, I hope there is no problem in asking this question & there is no mixing of two stand points :-)) If jnAni's point of view is anything less than brahman's point of view then he is not a brahmavida or brahma...IMO, that absolute knowledge would not give anything short of that of brahman's point of view to the jnAni :-)) But you prabhuji-s have an unorthodox notion here that jnAni is brahman but brahman is NOT jnAni..It is clear that we, the ajnAni-s still not seeing jnAni as a jnAni but ONLY jnAni's body...We are fluently talking about brahman's point but not ready to accept brahman is the jnAni/jnAna svarUpa :-)) what a paradox prabhuji !!!

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

February 9, 2009

--- On Mon, 2/9/09, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

Is there any difference between brahman's point & jnAni's point of view prabhuji

?? Since you, yourself talking about brahman's point of view, I hope there is

no problem in asking this question & there is no mixing of two stand points

:-))

Bhaskaraji - PraNAms.

Let us go over again, perhaps the umpteenth time.

From Brahman - there is no point of view. There is a misinterpreting my

statement. When we say from Paaramaarthika point - even that statement is also

looking from vyavahaarika only - Hence satyam, jnaanam anantam - Brahman, one

without a second are all description of paaramaathika from vyavahaarika only. To

repeat again: - yatho vaacho nivartante apraapya manasaa saha. No words or

mind can reach there.

--------

Bhaskar:

If jnAni's point of view is anything less than brahman's point of view then he

is not a brahmavida or brahma...IMO, that absolute knowledge would not give

anything short of that of brahman's point of view to the jnAni :-))

---

Bhaskarji - Let us be clear about the statements. The above is your conclusion

- not my statement. Look at your conclusion see if that follows my statement.

Jnaani is one who knows I am Brahman - THE SUBSTANTIVE OF JIIVA-JAGAT-ISWARA. He

also knows therefore whatever is seen is mithyaa only.

He can communicate this knowledge within the mithyaa only since at Brahman level

no communication can occur or needed any communication is within dvaita. Hence

the communication with students also is in mithyaa level - mithyaa again - is

not asat not sat - not unreal and not real - this jnaani knows. Hence he is

communicating yet knows that it is at vyaavahaarika level only. He sees the

differences between jiiva-jagat and Iswara but since he see (dRistavaat) he

knows it is mithyaa - that is part of jnaanam he has.

Now read your conclusion again. Does it differ from mine or not?

Without drawing incorrect conclusion Let us again go over- Brahmavit is from

whose reference - from Brahman or paaramarthika reference or vyavahaara

reference? Brahman can not Brahma- vit, by definition - Brahma vit means KNOWER

OF BRAHMAN - since there is no knowledge of .. in Brahman. When it is said that

Brahman is Jnaanam, it is not jnaanam of ..- it is pure consciousness, one

without a second. Jnaanam of ..involves dvaita which is different from pure

jnaanam. Pure jnaanam cannot be defined - discussed extensively in the knowledge

series.

Jnaani is Braham vit - is jiivan mukta - who NOW knows that he is not jiiva but

substantive of jiiva-jagat-Iswara which is Brahman.

Hence jnaani knows that He is in absolute sense Brahman since scripture says

Brahma vit brahma eve bhavati - and He realizes that He is therefore the

SUBSTANTIVE of all three - jiiva-jagat-Iswara. He knows He is the paaramathika

satyam underlying the vyaavahaarika sathyam. All the duality in the vyaavhaarika

sathyam is NOW realized as vyaavhaarika only - that is it is mithyaa and not

absolutely real.

Jnaani's from the point of Substantive - He is Brahman - no further discussion

is possible. Since all the discussions are from vyavahaara only.

Jnaani from the point of vyavahaara knows that jiiva, jagat and Iswara are NOT

satyam but mithyaa only. Realization involves this - Brahma satyam, JAGAT

MITHYAA and jiiva Brahma eva na aparaH that is the substantive of jiiva is

nothing but Brahmna only. That Bhaskarji is the essence of advaita from

Shankara. That is the knowledge of jnaani. This description is from vyavahaara

only since from paramaarthika no words can be said.

Jnaani knows that he sees is mithyaa - that is the definition - whatever seen

is mithyaa - dRisyatvaat. This is not the understanding of ajnaani- for him

what is seen in satyam. The difference between obviously is not in seeing but

taking what is seen - mithyaa vs stayam. That is all.

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

Bhaskar:

But you prabhuji-s have an unorthodox notion here that jnAni is brahman but

brahman is NOT jnAni.

KS: Bhaskarji - please look at your statement again from the above explanation -

where the problem is as you are calling authentic understanding of advaita as

unorthodox and your as orthodox, making dvaita in views. From my understanding

advaita is clear: it involves a-dvaita. If there is no apparent duality there is

no need to call philosophy advaita, and the truth as advaita; ...advaitam

carturtham manyante, sa aatmaa savijneyaH.

It is Non-duality, since I am seeing the duality. Non is negation by

understanding the substantive of all duality is Brahman. I do not find any

unorthodox or orthodox views here. There is only a-dvaita understanding.

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

Bhaskarji:

..It is clear that we, the ajnAni-s still not seeing jnAni as a jnAni but ONLY

jnAni's body...We are fluently talking about brahman's point but not ready to

accept brahman is the jnAni/jnAna svarUpa :-)) what a paradox prabhuji !!!

KS: Yes I cannot but agree with you in the above statement. But see if you can

without the sarcasm implied.

Now you or Naiji - have not answered the question - Please address this.

If jnaani does not see the duality - who teaches the ajnaani's about Brahman,

since Brahman cannot teach as there is nothing other than Brahman.

If it is the vision of ajnaani's that jnaani is teaching - His vision of the

teaching is also defective since by definition ajnaani does not know and if he

knows He is also jnaani and therefore no need to teach.

It follows then that whatever ajnaani sees or hears is from his view only and it

can only be ajnaanam since that is all he knows. How can knowledge by taught -

tat vijnanaatham gurum eva abhigacchet, shRotriyam brahmaniShTam - approach a

teacher who is Brahma jnaani and studied shaastra- says Shruti. Upadesyanti te

jnaanman- the wise teach you the knowledge when you approach them with humility

says Krishna.

Then no one can teach and whatever that is taught is ajnaanam only.

This in fact one of the fundamental questions that Bhagavaan Ramanuja raises in

His Shree Bhaashya.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

February 9, 2009

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> Is there any difference between brahman's point & jnAni's point of

> view ??

Hari OM!

Difference is jnAni has point of view, and Brahman has no point of

view. Brahman has no point, no view, no point of view, no nothing,

it is just IS. And this is my ignorant point of view.

---

Hari OM!

-Srinivas

February 9, 2009

All follower of this thread;

praNAm.

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Now you or Naiji - have not answered the question - Please address

this.

>

> If jnaani does not see the duality - who teaches the ajnaani's

about Brahman, since Brahman cannot teach as there is nothing other

than Brahman.

>

> If it is the vision of ajnaani's that jnaani is teaching - His

vision of the teaching is also defective since by definition ajnaani

does not know and if he knows He is also jnaani and therefore no

need to teach.

>

> It follows then that whatever ajnaani sees or hears is from his

view only and it can only be ajnaanam since that is all he knows.

How can knowledge by taught - tat vijnanaatham gurum eva

abhigacchet, shRotriyam brahmaniShTam - approach a teacher who is

Brahma jnaani and studied shaastra- says Shruti. Upadesyanti te

jnaanman- the wise teach you the knowledge when you approach them

with humility says Krishna.

>

> Then no one can teach and whatever that is taught is ajnaanam

only.

>

> This in fact one of the fundamental questions that Bhagavaan

Ramanuja raises in His Shree Bhaashya.

>

Yes, as I have pointed out in my earlier postings, this issue

of " teachings " is really a problem for follower of School-1

(Sri.Bhaskarji, Sri.Nairji and Sri.Raj). School-1 holds that it is

we ajnAni's perception that jnAni has BMI and with such BMI jnAni

appears to be " teaching " us etc. But, school-1 followers are not

noticing the defect of their position, where such

apparent " teachings " of a jnAni is also a case of avidya kalpita by

we ajnAnis. Therefore has no real value to it. There is no meaning

for teaching tradition and entire vEdAnta tradition falls apart.

This leads to another big issue -- when there are no valid teachings

at all (because jnAni's all teachings are another case of our

avidya), then how do we know there is such thing as " bhama "

or " jnAni " or " bhamavit " in the first place? How do we know we are

ajnAni and all our perception are avidya? Therefore, school-1's

position will lead us to a final position where all talks about

Brahma, jnAna, avidya, mithyatva, non-duality etc all falls apart

and we are back to raw perception of this world *as is*. Thus, the

status quo of this jagat as given *right now* is maintained *as is*!

On the other hand School-2 (for which Sri.Sadanadaji and other

) is not out of problem either.

To avoid above teaching issue, School-2 s to a view that

jIvan mukta jnAni while still perceives dvaita-prapancha,

but " knows " that it is mithya. While perceiving this mithya

prapancha and mithya students, a jIvan-mukta can mithya-cally

(pardon my new word here) teach " his " mithya students.

This way School-2 seems to solve the " teaching " issue. But School-2

will draw fresh difficulties. It needs to posit " knowership " on such

jnAni (he has to " know " the difference between him as sattya and his

students as mithya). This " knowership " will compromise on knower-

known duality and hence in direct opposition to non-duality of

Brahman. Also it is against mUla-siddhAnta of Shankara where he

denies any pramitrittvam of Brahman. To overcome this " knowership "

issue, Sri.Sadananada-ji posits two perspectives about such jnAni

itself. While viewed from pAramArthika point, Jivan-mukta jnAni is

substantive and no further discussion is possible. When viewed from

vyavhArika point, Jivan-mukta jnAni is the " knower " and knows that

that jagat and Iswara are NOT satyam but mithyaa only. From such

vyavhArika point, there will not be any issue in

positing " knowership " to jIvan-mukta jnAni.

But this way of looking at jnAni from vyahArika-pAramArthika view

points will attract very fundamental issue. Is this way of looking

at jnAni, is from absolute neutral framework? Or from someone's

perspective? If it is from absolute neutral framework, it leads to

duality at the absolute neutral level (duality of vyahArika-

pAramArthika) and hence advaita-hAni. If from someone's perspective,

who is it's exactly? If it is from ajnAni, we can disregard

outrightly as it is another case of avidya. If it is from jnAni, the

same question as before and hence it leads to infinite regress. So,

however one sees, School-2 is not out of trouble as regards to jIvan-

mukta and his status.

To summarize,

School-1 has the " teaching " issue to deal with. As a corollary and

on more fundamental level, how at all we (originally ajnAnis) come

to know that we are in fact nothing but Brahman and we need to

realize it.

School-2 has the " knowership " issue to address with. Also on more

fundamental level, they need to address how this jagat still persist

for perception for a jnAni. At least, it still persists for

perception although he knows it is mithya. School-2's position of

persistence of raw jagat (not the perception of wrong knowledge

about it) even after dawn of jnAna is critically opposed to

siddhAnta. It is said in the siddhAnta that this jagat is work of

avidya and upon dawn of knowledge it will be sublated. School-2

posit it is knowledge-about-jagat is the one which is being sublated

but not the actual jagat itself. This distinction of sublation

between " knowledge-of-jagat " vs. " actual-jagat " undermines the

doctrine of non-duality. Basic question they need to address is, non-

dual of what? Non-duality of knowledge-of-existemnce or non-duality

of existence itself?

This is the reason, not long ago, I was pointing the difficulties in

both the schools.

Regards,

Srinivas.

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

February 9, 2009

praNAms Shri Bhaskar-ji,

You would be doing the group a *huge* favor

if you kindly go over your objections to

what Shri Jaishankar-ji has called as School 2.

I am eagerly waiting for it. I believe others

are as well.

Instead of that, in my humble opinion, you have

been repeating what you said in earlier mails.

Repetitions do not make a point of view, a truth.

Further, it never is an accepted means of reasoning.

It would also be great if you can kindly state your

disagreements with what Shri Sureshwara has stated

in His praNava vaartika, which I have recently posted.

As far as I can see, there is no difference between

that position and what Shri Sada-ji has been stating.

Please enlighten me if you think otherwise.

praNAms to all Advaitins,

Ramakrishna

February 9, 2009

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> If jnaani does not see the duality - who teaches the ajnaani's about

Brahman, since Brahman cannot teach as there is nothing other than

Brahman.

> If it is the vision of ajnaani's that jnaani is teaching - His vision

of the teaching is also defective since by definition ajnaani does not

know and if he knows He is also jnaani and therefore no need to teach.

> It follows then that whatever ajnaani sees or hears is from his view

only and it can only be ajnaanam since that is all he knows.

Dear and respected Sadaji,

I have a question regarding your above statements.

According to the definition of Mythia, mythia implies that there is an

element of Truth and an element of Ignorance in it.

The rope appears as snake because the are some attributes on every rope

(coiled, circular, long, etc) that under dim light match some attributes

of a snake.

Could we say that Shastras and Jnanis being mythia have also an element

of Truth " emebeded " that is the one that Ajnanis perceive and make them

start the quest for Knowledge?

In other words, the Jnani teaches Shastras (both Mythia) in the Mythia

world of the Ajnani. Grace or Isvara would be the element of Truth in

that Mythia, that actually infiltrates through Maya and start the

process of recognition.

Let's say that even in Ignorance there is Knowledge in potential form.

This line of thought would explain why the Teachings of the Jnani

happens for the ignorant ajnani.

Thank you,

yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

February 9, 2009

Dear Mouna,

Namaste.

advaitin , " Mouna " <carlos wrote:

>

> I have a question regarding your above statements.

> According to the definition of Mythia, mythia implies that there

is an

> element of Truth and an element of Ignorance in it.

> The rope appears as snake because the are some attributes on every

rope

> (coiled, circular, long, etc) that under dim light match some

attributes

> of a snake.

> Could we say that Shastras and Jnanis being mythia have also an

element

> of Truth " emebeded " that is the one that Ajnanis perceive and make

them

> start the quest for Knowledge?

> In other words, the Jnani teaches Shastras (both Mythia) in the

Mythia

> world of the Ajnani. Grace or Isvara would be the element of Truth

in

> that Mythia, that actually infiltrates through Maya and start the

> process of recognition.

> Let's say that even in Ignorance there is Knowledge in potential

form.

> This line of thought would explain why the Teachings of the Jnani

> happens for the ignorant ajnani.

>

Your above observation makes element-of-truth and element-of-

ignorance co-exist with each other. That makes the duality in

existence and hence advaita-hAni. Non-duality demands truth alone

exist, not even definition of truth, and what to say about element-

of-ignorance?

On the other hand, to save such advaita-hAni, if we were to say such

co-existence (of element-of-truth and element-of-ignorance) itself a

mithya, we run into infinite regress. Hope this helps.

Regards,

Srinivas.

> Thank you,

> yours in Bhagavan,

> Mouna

>

February 9, 2009

Dear Sri. Ramakrishna,

Greetings.

Few comments on praNava vaartika:

advaitin , " Ramakrishna Upadrasta "

<uramakrishna wrote:

> It would also be great if you can kindly state your

> disagreements with what Shri Sureshwara has stated

> in His praNava vaartika, which I have recently posted.

> As far as I can see, there is no difference between

> that position and what Shri Sada-ji has been stating.

> Please enlighten me if you think otherwise.

>

advaitin , " Ramakrishna Upadrasta "

<uramakrishna wrote:

>

> praNAms to all the followers of this thread.

>

> The following is an excerpt titled Jivanmukta,

> from praNava vaartika of Shri Sureshwaracharya.

> The excerpt is from Dakshinamurthy Stotra by Shri

> Alladi Mahadeva Sastri, published by Samata books,

> pages 206-208.

>

> ==

> On the other

> hand, he sees the universe as false, like the confusion

> of the four quarters, or like the appearance of many

> moons. Then, owing to the accumulated praarabdha-karma

> -- karma which has already begin its effects -- he is

> aware of a semblance of the body.

But that makes saying something other than avidya-nivriti is

responsible for jagat-niShEda (world sublation) and subsequent mOxa.

In Advaita vEdAnta, it is held that this jagat is avidyA kalpita,

which means created by avidya. It is also said the very knowledge

about this jagat mithyatva will liberate and cause brahma siddhi in

a sAdhaka. Only knowledge is responsible. Now, if you say this jagat

continues to get perceived even after attaining avidya-nivriti

knowledge for a jnAni, it is as good as saying knowledge alone is

not responsible for mOxa. Also another flaw is saying this jagat was

not created by avidya alone to begin with. Then what exactly is the

ontological status for this jagat?

>The shruti says that

> he has to wait only till death; and even the continuance

> of the praarabdha in the case of a liberated one is a

> mere illusion. This person, having known the Reality,

> is always free from bonds and never otherwise. On the

> exhaustion of the fruits of the praarabdha, he attains

> at once the Vishnu's state, which is beyond the darkness

> of avidya, free from all false appearances -- the pure

> stainless Consciousness which is beyond the reach of

> thought and speech, free from all designated objects, and

> devoid of anything which has either to be acquired or

> cast aside; which is Bliss ans Wisdom in one solid mass.

> ==

Attains Vishnu's state? But Vishnu's state is not non-dual, for

Vishnu is saguNa-brahma and in shAstra-s He is said to be having

knowledge of difference between Himself and other jIvas. So,

whomever attains Vishnu's state is not jnyAni, but another ajnAni

under strict Advaita reading.

Regards,

Srinivas.

>

> praNAms to all Advaitins

> Ramakrishna

>

February 10, 2009

praNAms Shri Shrinivas-ji,

> In Advaita vEdAnta, it is held that this jagat is avidyA kalpita,

> which means created by avidya. It is also said the very knowledge

> about this jagat mithyatva will liberate and cause brahma siddhi in

> a sAdhaka. Only knowledge is responsible. Now, if you say this jagat

> continues to get perceived even after attaining avidya-nivriti

> knowledge for a jnAni, it is as good as saying knowledge alone is

> not responsible for mOxa. Also another flaw is saying this jagat was

> not created by avidya alone to begin with. Then what exactly is the

> ontological status for this jagat?

Either this mAya jagat has an ontological status, at the same

time having positive epistemic status. Or, it has no

ontological status, and at the same time, has no epistemic

status. It defies defining, and hence is best defined as

anirvacaneeya. That is the beauty of the advaitic

formulation!

> Attains Vishnu's state? But Vishnu's state is not non-dual, for

> Vishnu is saguNa-brahma and in shAstra-s He is said to be having

> knowledge of difference between Himself and other jIvas. So,

> whomever attains Vishnu's state is not jnyAni, but another ajnAni

> under strict Advaita reading.

Please see many instances of Shankara bhashya,

where bhagavadpAda uses the same phrase to mean

moksha. It has the same meaning as the phrase

tat-dhaama used many times by the gItAcArya.

That status of moksha is not a far-away entity,

located in some distant space and time, but

available in a self-verifiable way (aparoksha),

the way my " I-ness " is available for me and

your " I-ness " is available for you.

praNAms to all advaitins,

Ramakrishna

February 10, 2009

Srinivas - praNAms

I agree with your comments of so-called school 1, although there is no such

thing as school 1 - that is only to differentiate from the correct advaita

position Jaishankarji used it. No further validity to it as He himself expounded

in his mails.

Your criticism of the so-called second position is the criticism of advaitic

stand and I am not really keen to take up on it - but may point the defect in

your arguments without going into detail.

--- On Mon, 2/9/09, Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p wrote:

On the other hand School-2 (for which Sri.Sadanadaji and other

) is not out of problem either.

To avoid above teaching issue, School-2 s to a view that

jIvan mukta jnAni while still perceives dvaita-prapancha,

but " knows " that it is mithya. While perceiving this mithya

prapancha and mithya students, a jIvan-mukta can mithya-cally

(pardon my new word here) teach " his " mithya students.

-----

Just some clarification -Other than Brahman - the creation comes under

vyaavahaarika which is mithyaa at global level and prAtibhAsika which is mithyaa

at individual level.

Hence it is not while perceiving mithyaa - No one perceives mithyaa - what is

perceived is understood as mithyaa that only means it has no absolute reality.

Ring, bangle and bracelet are mithyaa in the sense that they do not have any

substantivity of their own other than their material cause, gold. This knowledge

comes once I know the substantive of the ornaments is nothing but gold alone.

Gold has not become ornaments but only appears as ring etc - says the scriptures

and confirmed by logic and day to day experiences.

The world of plurality is mithyaa in the sense it does not have substantiality

of its own - what is there is the material cause, Brahman. This comes from the

scriptures. Jnaani understands â€“ the jagat is mithyaa, Brahma alone is satyam

and he is non-other than Brahman â€“ that is jnaanam that he has realized.

Hence he understood that he is brahman and world is mithyaa. This is advaitic

teaching â€“ mithyaa means only transactional reality but not absolute reality.

Teaching is a transaction between a teacher and the taught - That at relative

level is relatively true but it is not satyasya satyam â€“ not at absolutely

real. This is true whether teacher is jnaani and the student is ajnaani or when

both are ajnaanis. That means whether they know or not. This knowledge comes

only from the Scriptures. Others may misinterpret it but that is not

advaitinâ€™s problem.

Hence world is mithyaa whether one knows are not. The difference between a

teacher and the taught is the teacher knows this while the student does not.

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

Srinivas:

This way School-2 seems to solve the " teaching " issue.

KS:

No- from advaitic position the world is mithyaa irrespective what school you

take. It is not school-2 is solving something. Since teaching is transactional

reality and no school will agree that it is real at absolute level which remains

the same in all periods of time. Only difference in understanding is the teacher

from his point is no more since he has realized he is Brahman while the correct

advaitic position is mithyaa is mithyaa only whether one knows or not- just as

ring is ring different from bangle and bracelet even if I know that they are

just one gold. Let us say the ring is a teacher and bangle is the student; the

difference remain at transactional level while ring knows that at absolute level

they are all gold. while bangle has no knowledge of gold at all to see that

oneness in spite of apparent dvaita.

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

Srinivas:

But School-2

will draw fresh difficulties. It needs to posit " knowership " on such

jnAni (he has to " know " the difference between him as sattya and his

students as mithya). This " knowership " will compromise on knower-

known duality and hence in direct opposition to non-duality of

Brahman.

KS: Srinivas - the difficulty arise for a dvaitin not for advaitin - Goldsmith

sees oneness in ring, bangle and necklace but at the same time treats them

differently for transactional purposes. He wares bangle differently and necklace

differently â€“ No confusion in transactions. Hence vision of oneness as the

substantive does not eliminate the superficial differences at apparent level. I

have given example many times - As a science student we know that all are just

made of fundamental particles - thus substantive of all is the same - yet the

difference between garbage and food exists at transactional level - Jnaani knows

oneness between brahmin or dog -yet dog is a dog and brahmin is brahmin - There

is no confusion in transactions since all transactions are done at superficial

level only or vyaavahaarika level only. Hence the sloka I quoted:

prakrityaivaca karmaani ..

=============

The rest of your mail has no more basis since it based on incorrect

understanding of advaita - it is beyond the scope of this list serve and nothing

to do with the agreements and disagreements being discussed under the topic.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

February 10, 2009

--- On Mon, 2/9/09, Mouna <carlos wrote:

Mouna <carlos

I have a question regarding your above statements.

According to the definition of Mythia, mythia implies that there is an

element of Truth and an element of Ignorance in it.

----------

Mounaji - PraNAms

Here is my understanding.

There is some mix-up between two terms mithyaa and adhyaasa in the above

statement.

Mithyaa definition is that which appears to be there but it is not really there

where really implies existence at all times. Hence it is defined as sat asat

vilakshaNam - It is not sat since it is not there all the time - it is not asat

since it appears to be there when I see it - ex. Ring or a pot. What is there is

really gold or mud - as you these examples come from Ch. 6th Ch. This analysis

comes from Scripture..

Adhyaasa is superimposed error - which involves satyaanRita mithuniikaraNam as

Shankara defines - mixing real and unreal. The errors in perception - the errors

are being discussed in the knowledge series. The projection of plurality where

there is only one is an error. The notion that I am a jiiva is an error. Error

in knowledge comes when I have no knowledge of the complete truth. If I do not

know the truth in complete, I misinterpret the perceptual experiences. There is

a snake - involve the truth part - there is and false part - a snake. There is a

rope - the untruth part - snake goes away when I see it as rope then there is

complete truth.

-----------

Mouna:

The rope appears as snake because the are some attributes on every rope

(coiled, circular, long, etc) that under dim light match some attributes

of a snake.

KS: Yes that is true - that is I am mixing the real and unreal to have the

vision of snake where there is rope. This is the error of superimposition.

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

Mouna:

Could we say that Shastras and Jnanis being mythia have also an element

of Truth " emebeded " that is the one that Ajnanis perceive and make them

start the quest for Knowledge?

KS: No. There are two types of errors as I have discussed in one of earlier

mails. One is jiiva sRiShTi and the other is Iswara sRiShTi. One has to have

clear understanding of these two - otherwise we get confused.Snake is jiiva

sRiShTi error - it is called praatibhaasika. The sunrise and sunset is Iswara

sRiShTi - vyaavahaarika error. When I know it is rope - the snake created by

jiiva will go away. When I know sun never rises nor sets - the experience of

sunrise and sunset are understood with the knowledge that sun never rises nor

sets and what is seen is only apparent.

Ignorance that is the cause for projection at jiiva level not at Iswara level -

No advaita puts ignorance to God - he is sarvajna - meaning all knower. Hence at

his level sRiShTi is vibhuuti - the whole 10ch of Giita Krishna talks about his

Vibhuuti. Hence at global level it is not called error due to ignorance but it

is his glory. The projection of plurality is glory at Iswara level.

Iswara knows who He is.

At jiiva level there is ignorance - since I do not know who I am. Hence I take

myself not Iswara not this whole universe but this BMI different from other

BMI's.

Knowledge removes ignorance at individual level since locus is at that level -

Hence only ignorant person becomes a jnaani my gaining jnaanam.

What knowledge does he gain - According to advaita it involves three aspects as

I mentioned many times.

1. Brahma satyam

2. Jagat mithyaa

3. aham brahmaasmi (not iswarosmi)- that means I am the substantive of

jiiiva-jagat-Iswara while the superficial differences between jiiva-jagat and

Iswara are only superficial and not substantial - that knowledge comes from the

second above. Hence jnaani will not have samsaara which is jiiva sRiShTi and

comes with the notion that I am BMI - resulting I-ness and my-ness or ahankaara

and mamakaara - these are jiiva sRiShTi. The BMI and the world are Iswara

sRiShTi. They remain but understood just as one understands the sunrise and

sunset and enjoys them without attributing absolute reality to them.

Hence teacher a jnaani knows that He is Brahman (at that level there are not

differences - that is at substantive level there is no difference of any kind -

which he knows.)

From the second point - he knows any differences are only apparent and not real.

Hence the difference between the teacher and taught is only mithyaa as part of

jagat naaTakam or play of the world of plurality.

Hence Teacher since is jnaani knowing all the three aspects, knows the world has

only transactional reality and not absolute reality.

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

Mouna:

In other words, the Jnani teaches Shastras (both Mythia) in the Mythia

world of the Ajnani. Grace or Isvara would be the element of Truth in

that Mythia, that actually infiltrates through Maya and start the

process of recognition.

KS - Yes Jnaani teaches in the transactional world (I am using transactional

reality than mithyaa since we do not have clear understanding of what mithyaa

really means)- that is at the relative world.

Transactional world is not world of ajnaani - it is the world where transactions

takes place - remember being infinite Brahman cannot transact. Teaching is a

transaction, is it not? Hence teacher - taught and the teaching can go on only

in the transactional world, not at paaramaarthika level.

Maaya is the power by which one appears to be many - hence the whole

transactional world is the product of maayaa only. Hence the teacher - the

taught and the teaching are with in maayaa only.

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

Mouna:

Let's say that even in Ignorance there is Knowledge in potential form.

KS: No Ignorance is opposite to knowledge in the sense that knowledge is covered

by ignorance and removal of ignorance is how knowledge takes place - This was

discussed in the knowledge series. Knowledge exists in the potential form

alright but can be revealed only when veil of ignorance is removed by PramaaNa

or means of knowledge.

-----------

Mouna:

This line of thought would explain why the Teachings of the Jnani

happens for the ignorant ajnani.

KS: Sorry - Then I do not need a teacher, jnaani to teach me. The knowledge in

potential form can be revealed by proper pramaaNa only - Vedas form the proper

pramaaNa in the hands of Teacher who knows. There is no way out of it.

What Bhagavan really teaches methodically in both his texts - upadesasaara and

Sat Darshanam (that is why I do not study his conversations with people since

these conversations are context and individual dependent)is pancakosha

vilakshaNam which comes from Tittiriiaya Upanishad and affirmation of aham

brahmaasmi - iisha jiivayoH vishaadhii bhidaa satva bhaavato vastu kevalam - if

one removes the costume of jiiva and Iswara - what remains is the fundamental

truth of unity which is sat swaruupa - puurnam - infinite.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

February 10, 2009

where such apparent " teachings " of a jnAni is also a case of avidya kalpita by we ajnAnis. Therefore has no real value to it. There is no meaning

for teaching tradition and entire vEdAnta tradition falls apart.

praNAms Sri Srinivas Kotekal prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Since I dont to the School-2 as an authentic representation of shankara's advaita, I dont think it has any validity in traditional shankara school...School-2 which mainly depends on *personal understanding of advaita philosophy* OTOH school-1 trying to understand advaita philosophy based on works of its mUlAchArya Sri Shankara bhagavatpAda...Difference between school-1 & school-2 exactly lies their...As you might have seen in this thread, they (school-2) often say their understanding is based on shAstra & shankara...but hardly they give us anything from scriptures & shankara to substantiate their claims. Hence, please dont ask me anything about School-2, IMHO, some of their innovative ideas about advaitic position are yukti viruddha, siddhAnta viruddha and shAstra viruddha...

And I know prabhuji, being a follower of dualistic school, you would happily enjoy these seeming internal inconsistencies within advaita & you are trying to score a point over advaita in general by raising objection on the issues presented in the name of advaita.

I too know the answer which I am going to provide below would not appease your tattvavAdi mind..Nevertheless, since Sri Sadananda prabhuji also asked the same question on the other thread, I am just sharing my thoughts on it, ofcourse based on shankara bhAshya.

Yes, shankara himself says in adhyAsa bhAshya that sarva loukika & vaidika vyavahAra & even mOksha has the base in avidyAkshEtra...I hope no disputes on this issue among advaitins..Since it has been said *all vyavahAra* is avidyApurassraH, is there any need to specially mention guru-shishya, shAstra-upadesha are also in the realm of avidyA?? But when do we realize all these are avidyA vyavahAra?? shankara says when we wakes up from the dream dont we realize that dreaming state does not have any existence?? (prAkprabodhAt svapna vyavahAravat tadupapaptteH)..It is because of the simple reason for jnAni-s there is no pratyakshAdi vyavahAra (since there is no pramAtrutva) it is only for the ajnAni-s these shAstra, pramANa-pramEya is meant for..(shankara in sUtra bhAshya 4-3-14 : shAstraM cha " yatra hi dvaitamiva bhavati taditara itaraM pashyati " ityAdinA 'aprabuddhavishaye' pratyakshAdi vyavahAraM uktvA punaH prabuddha vishaye ' yatra tvasya sarvamAtmaivAbhut tatkena kaM pashyet " (bruhadAraNyaka 4-5-15) ityAdinA tadabhAvaM darshayati..) However, the point to be noted here is, we, the saMsAri-s, enmeshed in mAya, whose minds are still weighing heavily due to these dualities, cannot kick the sand on the reality of shAstra vyavahAra & say this shAstra vyavahAra is avidyA purassara...So for us teaching is as real as our listening, guru in his body is as real as 'our' body, Atma vidyA is as real as our avidyA, mOksha is as real as our bandha...Keeping this state of affair in mind, shAstra itself comapssionately advocates the guru-shishya difference, shAstra-upadesha means etc. through adhyArOpa drushti...This adhyArOpa gets its apavAda once we get that knowledge of our svarUpa which is secondless...Shankara puts this beautifully in bruhadAraNyaka bhAshya (5-1-1) : athaivaM sati tadaudAseenya svarUpAvasthAne phale prApte shAstrasya prAmANyaM-pratyarthitvaM nivartate...'tadbhAvAt shAstrasyApi shAstratvaM taM prati nivartata eva, taThA pratipurushaM parisamAptaM shAstraM iti na shAstravirOdhagaNdhOpyasti, 'advaitajnAnAvasAnatvAt shAstra-shishya-shAsanAdi dvaita bhEdasya'..Since you are well versed in Sanskrit I dont thik you need any translation here prabhuji.

Now, the final question, if this shAstra, guru & his upadesha themselves are in avidyAkshetra & asat how can this means & gurupadEsha can give us the jnAna of satya?? shankara asks us, 'does not some one gets real 'death' through imaginary (unreal) poison!!?? ( thinking wrongly that he suffered snake bite !!), Can't mithyA svapna's roaring tiger give the *real* jerk in waker's heart..Again I am not saying this, shankara himself answers to this question...The propagators of School-2, could have quoted this answer before obliging this objection from you & thinking that this objection is irrefutable :-))..As usual, they simply ignored it (either they do not aware of this quote or donot want to share it since it is the objection on School-1 (which somewhat nowadays has become their rival school :-)) One must remember the fact that since Sri ramAnujA himself has raised this question, this objection is not the new theory of school-1, atleast it is something older than Sri rAmAnuja's dates :-)) I am just wondering what would have been the objection of Sri rAmAnuja if he would heard about recent theories about jnAni's localized indriya-s & paricchinna chaitanya etc. :-))..Let that be aside prabhuji...I shall quote the following bhAshya vAkya from vedanta sUtra 2-1-14) wherein shankara expressly states about mithyA shAstras' satya jnAna :-))

// kaThaM tu asatyena vedAntavAkyena satyasya brahmAtmatvasya pratipattirupapadyeta??......shankara answers : naisha dOshaH shankAvishAdinimitta maraNAdi kAryOpalabdhEH...svapna darshanAvasThasya cha sarpadaMshanOdaka snAnAdi kArya darshanAt...tatkAryamapi anrutameva iti chet bruyAt...tatra brUmaH, yadyapi svapnadarshanAvasthasya sarpadamshanOdakasnAnAdi kAryaM anrutam, taThApi tadavagatiH satyameva phalaM, pratibuddhasyApi abAdhyamAnatvAt (Sutra BhAshya -2-1-14) //

(The gist of the above commentary : just as the dream creatures are taken to be true till the waking state arrives, when we wake up after dream, we know the dream world is asat but the knowledge (jnAna/anubhava) of dreams is not false..Sometimes even some false dreams could bring the *real* death..Hence, reality of the realization of brahman cannot be said to be illusory, though shAstra which teachs IT is in the kshEtra of avidyA )...

For detailed explanation one could refer the original bhAshya..

Sri Srinivas prabhuji, atleast by this time you know, your objection is not that new to the advaita school & it has been addressed to the *satisfaction* of this school followers ages back by shankara himself...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

February 10, 2009

Instead of that, in my humble opinion, you have

been repeating what you said in earlier mails.

Repetitions do not make a point of view, a truth.

Further, it never is an accepted means of reasoning.

praNAms Sri Ramakrishna prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Do you still think this repetitions is only from one side prabhuji?? As you might have seen Sri Sadananda prabhuji himself agreed in one of his posts that he is going to say something which has been told by him umpteen times before :-)) Ofcourse, I agree, repetitions donot make a valid point of view to defend any siddhAnta..But this repetition (if at all you think so) has been made with a definite purpose..i.e. uphold the shankara's tradition at the cost of repetition :-))...That is the reason why during the school-1's repetition of their stand, you will find atleast some references from shankara bhAshya have been made...Ofcourse, you would agree with me, the reasoning (logic / tarka) what we are going to provide should comply with shruti and AchAryOpadEsha...That is what we (the socalled members of School-1 ;-)) have been trying to do in these discussions.

With regard to my comments on School-2, kindly bear with me sometime prabhuji...as you know,we are still in the process of discussions on the stand of school-1:-))...You can be rest assured prabhuji, I'd be agreeing with some of the points of School-2 as well...After all we are under the common ambrella of advaita and there can/should not be much difference among us :-)) But I do feel somewhere they do differ from the stand of classical shankara's advaita..Anyway, that is only my opinion which I dont hesitate to express :-))

With regard to praNava vArtika of sureshwara, kindly pardon me prabhuji, I dont have the text of the same...I cannot comment on it by going through the single quote from it...Hope you would understand my difficulty.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

Sign In

Enlightened Empirical Engagements!!! - School-1

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest