Enlightenment
Harish L B
- Anyone here who can kindly confirm that you are enlightened and is a jivanmukta? Or you think you are almost there? For how long have you been enlightened?
- Is there a better way for me to ask the above question more politely? Or do you advise such a question should never be asked?
- Do you know someone in the current/contemporary times whom you think is enlightened and is a jivanmukta? Why do you think so?
Sincere Namaskarams,
Harish
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Anyone here who can kindly confirm that you are enlightened and is a jivanmukta? Or you think you are almost there? For how long have you been enlightened?
Is there a better way for me to ask the above question more politely? Or do you advise such a question should never be asked?
Do you know someone in the current/contemporary times whom you think is enlightened and is a jivanmukta? Why do you think so?
Bhaskar YR
Hare Krishna
- Anyone here who can kindly confirm that you are enlightened and is a jivanmukta?
Or you think you are almost there?
For how long have you been enlightened?
- Is there a better way for me to ask the above question more politely? Or do you advise such a question should never be asked?
- Do you know someone in the current/contemporary times whom you think is enlightened and is a jivanmukta? Why do you think so?
> I am sorry for your genuine doubts I am giving hilarious answers...but fact remains that the answers what we are going to get should help us in some way or the other & I don’t think your queries and respective answers from various members would help you to progress in sAdhana mArga.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
aham brahmaasmi
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625B71466CE3D9610F6AA5A84CCA%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.
Harish L B
Blunt answers and hilarious responses, both of them are helping me to get clarity.
I was not exactly looking to understand about any names or individuals in this group (or outside the group) who are jivanmukta. However, i was not able to phrase my questions in a different way, which could invoke an answer from you that can provide me with a satisfying clarity of thought.
Thanks again. I also noted the inference of Shringeri Jagadgurus being jivanmukta. Thank you Sakshi ji.
I will also wait for any other responses.
Pranams. Hari Om.
Harish
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CADKAaHs_pE-A34EXxS7bg1bqmTgq2PSvK2Vn86TtyB8v%3D5GV8A%40mail.gmail.com.
Ram Chandran
Here is a mathematical question very similar to your question.
1. Anyone here who asks me to confirm that whether I know or seen infinity?
My answer is know what is infinity but I have no means to show anyone what infinity is.
2. Or if some asks to me say how close that I can describe infinity; my answer is whatever my answer I give close to infinity then someone can add an extra epsilon and declares that I am not close enough!
3) Or if the question is how long that I knew infinity then my answer is so far no one has agreed that I know the infinity!
The book, "The Man Who Knew Infinity: A Life of the Genius Ramanujan" is a biography of the Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan, written in 1991 by Robert Kanigel. The book gives a detailed account of his upbringing in India, his mathematical achievements and his mathematical collaboration with mathematician G. H. Hardy. I do believe that Ramanujan knows infinity and much more of mathematics.
Swami Chinmayanda during one of his discourses on Vedanta was explaining the role of "Vasanas" in human life and why that needs to be destroyed in order to realize the Brahman. One attendee got up and asked Swamiji to explain when did "Vasana" begin? Swamiji asked the attendee to write down the question in a large paper and asked him to multifold the
paper carefully and keep it safely. Then he suggested that the attendee after his death, take that paper to God and ask him to answer! Swamiji assured the attendee that God will certainly provide the answer!! The punchline of this incident is to understand, that we are better off to know what to ask and what not to ask!!
Warm regards,
Ram Chandran
Akilesh Ayyar
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/9DDC7420-50B6-4308-935F-E997E5805C0A%40gmail.com.
putran M
putran M
4. The knowers whose knowledge assimilation is so deep that it has resulted in mano-nasha. They are detached and disinterested in the events of the movie, and are ever rooted in the awareness ("Bliss") of the nondual Screen. They truly see the Self in all and all in Self, at all times.
If we consider this delineation, based on the movie analogy, there is a clear distinction between the ajnani of 1) and the categories of knowers who are distinguished not necessarily based on their fundamental knowledge of Reality but based on their chittashuddhi and resultant indulgence in maya-avidya (inspite of knowing it is indulgence in imagination, adhyasa). But I think this is a highly controversial topic within Advaita circle. Some say 2, 3, 4 are all enlightened and only 4 is also jivan-mukta; others say only 4 is enlightened = jivan-mukta. If we accept the first position, then I think there will be many among us who would have some insight/shraddha in advaita-tattva and hence may dare say they are not in 1, and closer to (if not in) 2 or 3. So "close to enlightened" perhaps though most here I expect would be well away from 4.thollmelukaalkizhu
.
Harish L B
For the past few years, I have been trying my best listening to the reflections shared in this group for some of these topics, and i have been quietly contemplating many of them within myself. I'm not an advanced student of Sanskrit myself, and therefore may have also missed a few inner meanings of those.
Coming back to the specific context in this email thread,
To me, these appear to be two subtly distinct orientations, and hence the question.
My apologies if my question seems elementary, but I am attempting to understand this distinction more clearly from the expert members of this group.
Kindly allow me to elaborate a little further on what I am trying to ask.
As i understand, the path towards enlightenment and the possibility of becoming a jīvanmukta is open to every human being.
If an individual has lived a life rooted in dharma because of his/her upbringing, has remained free from greed, has endured sufferings long enough to see the futility of emotional entanglement in it, has tasted enough small successes, yet no longer seeks to celebrate those successes anymore; And therefore the individual is detached and disinterested on the worldly pleasures and pains; then for such a person, what necessity remains for books or scriptures as prerequisites for enlightenment?
This is my doubt, and your guidance may be helpful.
Of course, such an individual has nothing to offer as a mentor to anyone, he/she may not be even a good communicator itself in the first place, the individual may not even know that something called advaitam and upanishad scriptures exist. His daily life itself maybe an example, and no one probably notices that.
I have listened to karmayoga vs jnanayoga. However, isn't that the purification process itself is leading to jivanmulkta in the example that i was citing? why does one need to learn the nuances in the scriptures and attain the knowledge to become one?
Since this realization (of enlightenment and jivanmukta) is a personal one, is it mandatory to follow the vedantic pursuit? unless there is a mandatory dharma for a jivanmukta to also explain and help others in an organized way to achieve that?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-qFFxNsMFf9qMNxiTrnKw_ZpPO7yjsFrLbVcfTn4vTWUQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Ram Chandran
Namaskar:
The question that you have in your mind may get refined more and more as time goes by with greater experience, right knowledge, faith with focus and determination and most importantly the grace of the Almighty. In a deterministic science like mathematics certain rules are developed for everyone to follow but there are exceptions. For example, for one to be become an expert in mathematics, the rule says that one has to undertake studies with mathematics from school, college and universities, etc. But some may undergo all such training but at the end may not become a great mathematician. On the other hand, we do have exceptions with the appearance of great prodigies such as Ramanujan to be exceptionally talented! To understand the essence of Vedanta, a good starter is the simple composition of Shankaracharya, the well known “Bhaja Govindam.” The essence of Bhaja Govindam is that intellectual and worldly pursuits are ultimately empty, and true peace and liberation come from one’s devotion to Govinda! The emphasis of this work is the need for spiritual awakening. It also advises us to surrender to God because material accomplishments, wealth, and desire will not help one at the time of death. The work illustrates that understanding the transient nature of life leads to ever-lasting happiness.
Here are some key observations:
Bhaja Govindam argues that material possessions, and achievements are temporary.
It cautions against lust and the sorrows that arise from desire.
It advocates for devotion to God for salvation and to avoid the cycle of birth and death.
The hymn urges one to question their true identity beyond the material world.
It reminds us once more that that must seek the eternal truth before it is too late.
My conclusion to your question is that we need to prepare ourself for an ultimate goal with a single focused mind instead of allowing our mind to wander without a focus!
Warm regards,
Ram Chandran
Harish L B
Thank you Putran ji, Ram Chandran ji and Akilesh ji.
khaaksaar
A story is told about Lao Tzu, who was once asked the same question: Are you enlightened?
His reply with wit winged with wisdom:
"If I say, 'yes,' then certainly I am not. If I say, 'no,' then probably I will not be telling the truth."
Perhaps, रहीमदास said it best:
'रहिमन' बात अगम्य की, कहनि-सुननि की नाहिं।
Srigurucharansarojrajratah,
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/9DDC7420-50B6-4308-935F-E997E5805C0A%40gmail.com.
putran M
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAD3Kb_koOArUKCMkyirUy-CqT0w2VMHcYgvWt3k4t4%3D_s2YOCA%40mail.gmail.com.
Chittaranjan Naik
Namaste Sri Harish-ji,
I generally keep to myself nowadays and do not engage much in discussions but something in your message invoked me to respond, so here goes....
May i humbly ask
whether it is accurate to say that the discussions that primarily illuminate
the functional knowledge found in the scriptures regarding the attainment of
enlightenment (and then leading to jivanmukta) is completely
different from embarking on a simple life journey that can lead to
becoming a jīvanmukta? To me, these appear to be two subtly distinct
orientations, and hence the question.
I presume that the scriptures you are referring to are the Vedanta scriptures comprising the Upanishads and all those subsidiary scriptures that elucidate what is revealed in the Upanishads and present varying degrees of arguments to dispel the doubts about them. If so, then they do not constitute a different path than the one that leads to jivanmukti. It is not the scriptures themselves but the orientation of the seeker that often makes it into a different path than the one laid out in the scriptures. How so?
The path of jnana nishta that leads to jivanmukti is a path that opens out to a seeker when he attains certain qualifications, primarily viveka accompanied by vairagya and mumukshatva. The kind of vairagya that is spoken of here is the complete loss of taste for the world and the kind of mumkukshatva referred to is an unbearable thirst for attaining Brahman. If those superlative degrees of vairagya and mumukshatva are lacking and one still retains some taste for the world, then the desire for Brahman is likely to be compromised to some extent. When the desire for Brahman thus gets diluted by worldly desires, then there is the likelihood that the scriptures may be used to argue for one’s ‘own philosophical position’ rather than as a means to attain knowledge. It is in such a situation that the seeker may take to a path of dry scriptural study and argumentation making the path appear to diverge from the genuine path that would take him to jivanmukti.
As i understand, the path towards enlightenment and the possibility of becoming a jīvanmukta is open to every human being.
Yes, of course, it is open to every human being. But one needs to keep in mind that for most human beings this does not consist of just one path but comprises two paths, the prior path of karma-marga and the succeeding path of jnana-marga. The prior path of karma-marga is the path that takes one to chitta-shuddi, mental purity, which is the condition required for the seeker to be able to attain fruition on the succeeding path of jnana-marga. In practice there may not be a sharp dividing line between the two paths, but the condition of chitta-shuddhi is a necessary condition in so far as jivanmukti cannot be attained if chitta-shuddhi has not been attained beforehand.
If an individual has lived a life
rooted in dharma because of his/her upbringing, has remained free from greed,
has endured sufferings long enough to see the futility of emotional
entanglement in it, has tasted enough small successes, yet no longer seeks to
celebrate those successes anymore; And therefore the individual is detached and
disinterested on the worldly pleasures and pains; then for such a person,
what necessity remains for books or scriptures as prerequisites for
enlightenment?
This is my doubt, and your guidance may be helpful.
What you’ve described here is an individual who has followed the path of karma-marga. And what such a person attains by following the path of karma is chitta-shuddhi. That chitta-shuddhi, because of the transparency of the stainless purity of mind, spontaneously gives rise to knowledge of the atman. But the rise of such atma-jnana is not the end. It is just the beginning of the path of jnana-nishta. The path of jnana-nishta is a path that begins with the rise of atma-jnana and takes one to its perfection known as sadyo-mukti. It is a state of perfection in which there is no more karma, hence it is also called naiskarmya-siddhi. It is the irrevocable attainment of jivanmukti.
Now, the question you’ve raised – what necessity remains for books or scriptures as pre-requisites for enlightenment for a person who has followed the path of dharma and attained disinterestedness in worldly pleasures and pains? This argument is similar to the argument that the (Purva) Mimamsakas offer – they say that when you faithfully follow the path of dharma, the knowledge of atman arises spontaneously, so what need is there for anything further to be done? But Vedanta says that that rise of knowledge is the beginning of the path of renunciation which, strictly speaking, is a path of sannyasa. It is a specific path marked by shravana, manana and nidhidhyasana which constitutes the path of nivritti dharma as distinct from the path of pravritti-dharma which is the path that the person you’ve described has followed so far. So yes, there is something more, by way of shravana, manana and nidhidhyasana for that person to adhere to before he may attain jivanmukti. And the scriptures do come in useful for manana, the dissolution of all the residual doubts so that his nidhidhayasana, abidance in Brahman, may be steady and unperturbed. That state of steadiness in abidance in Brahman is the state of a sthitha-prajna.
Warm regards,
Chittaranjan
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
The simple answer to your original question about asking someone if they are enlightened is that it is almost certainly the case that the questioner does not really understand what the term means so that the question cannot be answered without significant explanation. Similarly asking about jīvanmukti. You could almost say that the entirety of Advaita teaching is about explaining these terms.
The absolute ‘bottom line’ is that there is only Brahman. So ‘you’ are already Brahman. The ‘world’ is also Brahman and there are not really any separate people, objects etc. You do not actually have to do anything at all to ‘become’ Brahman. Indeed, you cannot. But this understanding is the END of the teaching of Advaita, not the beginning. Your mind (intellect) has to go through the process of hearing and learning all of the intermediate stuff, even though you effectively drop it in the end, because your education and upbringing means that it is simply unacceptable initially. It goes against all of your perception and interpreted experience, because that initial interpretation is based upon your present ignorance.
‘Doing’ anything is not going to bring about this understanding although, as others have pointed out, a certain degree of mental preparation is required in order to enable the mind to be able to listen to the teaching and not simply reject it as being unbelievable. All ‘desires’ other than the wish to gain this knowledge need to be dropped and ideally you would find a qualified teacher to explain everything. Then it is ‘just’ a matter of time and dedication. When you finally know these things to be true, that is ‘enlightenment’.
But the ‘person’ has long-learned habits and inclinations that are not going to disappear overnight, even once the understanding has been gained. The teaching is that you have repeatedly to revisit the teaching – listening, reading or even becoming a teacher yourself – before everything becomes ‘second nature’. If and when that occurs (it may well never do so), you can be called a jīvanmukta.
Best wishes,
Dennis
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
Ram Chandran
Harish L B
I have carefully gone through those verbose responses.
Thankful to Dennis ji, for explaining in a simple way, and calling out that you do not actually have to do anything at all to ‘become’ Brahman.
Thankful to Chittaranjan ji for explaining naiskarmya-siddhi. And the significance of shravana, manana and nidhidhyasana which constitutes the path of nivritti dharma as distinct from the path of pravritti-dharma.
With due respect, may I request a closing clarification on the point. This should be my final question on this topic. Hopefully.
If someone realises the truth entirely outside the formal framework of Vedantic study, would the traditional Advaitins refrain from acknowledging such a person as a jivanmukta solely because he has not studied the scriptures?
Is it appropriate to gently question the idea that one must formally follow Vedanta in order to become a jivanmukta?
Would you agree if one attempts to make this statement - Vedanta primarily aids in recognizing enlightenment by offering conceptual clarity and language, and thereby the continuous practices of shravana, manana and nidhidhyasana to achieve the realization. While realization may also arise through alternative or undocumented paths - one's life’s experiences and sufferings that has naturally dissolved every trace of desire, and every thought that arises in him without ego, motive, fear, or expectation, and thereby he who knows that there is no bondage and hence no liberation is needed.
Does Advaita itself encourage us to remain open to such possibilities?
Thank you again for your guidance.
Hari Om. Namaskarams.
Harish
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/660b8282-27c0-49a0-8f84-9e2d910e9982n%40googlegroups.com.
Vikram Jagannathan
Namaskaram Harish ji,
(long email unfolding)
If someone realises the truth entirely outside the formal framework of Vedantic study, would the traditional Advaitins refrain from acknowledging such a person as a jivanmukta solely because he has not studied the scriptures?
Is it appropriate to gently question the idea that one must formally follow Vedanta in order to become a jivanmukta?
Are there any verses outlined in Vedanta itself to caution seekers against clinging rigidly to terminology or intellectual constructs of vedanta?
Would you agree if one attempts to make this statement - Vedanta primarily aids in recognizing enlightenment by offering conceptual clarity and language, and thereby the continuous practices of shravana, manana and nidhidhyasana to achieve the realization. While realization may also arise through alternative or undocumented paths - one's life’s experiences and sufferings that has naturally dissolved every trace of desire, and every thought that arises in him without ego, motive, fear, or expectation, and thereby he who knows that there is no bondage and hence no liberation is needed.
Does Advaita itself encourage us to remain open to such possibilities?
Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi is a very clear modern example of a jivanmukta who realized the Self without any prior formal Vedantic study or even a physical guru, and only later found that his experience was perfectly corroborated by the teachings of Vedanta.
Per my understanding, there are multiple useful levels from which to look at your question.
1. From the standpoint of the Self and Vedanta as pramana
As others have mentioned, who you truly are - the Self - is ever present and never absent. Vedanta does not create the Self or produce enlightenment as a new event. It functions as a pramana, a means of knowledge, that turns the mind inward, removes ignorance, and allows what is always present to be clearly recognized.
In traditional language, Vedanta helps the prepared mind:
- Turn inward and discriminate through the layers (koshas)
- Resolve confusion about what is “I” and what is “not-I”
- Culminate in the rise of the one, non-dual knowledge (akhandakara vritti) that sublates ignorance
That is the whole purpose of Vedanta: to remove self-ignorance. When that ignorance is removed, the ever-shining Self is unobscured, like clouds dispersing to reveal the sun that was never absent.
Now, must this always happen through explicit study of Upanishads, Gita, Brahma Sutras, etc., with a formal guru? Advaita Siddhanta would say: the Self is not bound by any particular pedagogy. It is entirely possible that, owing to powerful purva-janma samskaras and Ishvara’s grace, there can be a spontaneous, intense inner turning that:
- Introverts the mind
- Cuts through identification with body, mind, and koshas
- Culminates in the same non-dual recognition that formal Vedantic study aims to generate
In that sense, the structure of what happens is Vedantic, even if the person has never heard the word “Vedanta.” Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi’s death-experience in his teens is exactly of this type. The later encounter with Vedanta did not “produce” his realization, but gave him a language, conceptual clarity, and a lineage in which that realization could be taught and communicated to others.
Even in the Upanishads themselves, many of the dialogues are between guru and disciple at a time when there is no “prior Upanishad syllabus” to study. The Upanishads record first-generation students who gain knowledge directly from a living guru, not from a library of pre-existing texts. For Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, one can say Ishvara as the inner Self functioned as the guru.
So, to your question “Would traditional Advaitins refuse to acknowledge a jivanmukta solely because he has not studied the scriptures?” - in principle, no. The criterion is not the outer form of study, but the presence of stable, non-dual knowledge, freedom from doership/ownership, and the absence of binding desires and fears. But they would interpret such a realization as still being in keeping with the vision of Vedanta, and they would cross-check it against that vision.
2. Adhikari categories and rare “spontaneous” realization
Traditional Advaita does recognize differing levels of preparedness (adhikara) based on how thoroughly sadhana-chatushtaya (viveka, vairagya, shatka-sampatti, mumukshutva) has been assimilated:
- Manda adhikari – relatively unprepared; needs long preparation, karma-yoga, upasana for substantial chitta-shuddhi (mental purification) and chitta-ekagrata (mental focus).
- Madhyama adhikari – moderately prepared; still requires repeated shravana–manana–nididhyasana.
- Uttama adhikari – highly prepared; for such a person, one clear teaching from the guru can be enough for the akhandakara vritti to arise.
Students in the Upanishadic dialogues are generally presented as uttama adhikaris: a few statements from the guru, some sharp manana, and knowledge is clear and firm.
Advaita Siddhanta also implicitly acknowledge an even rarer type, which we might call parama-uttama: in them, the culmination of past samskaras and Isvara's grace is so powerful that an intense inner crisis or inquiry becomes its own “guru-word”, and the mind resolves into Self-knowledge without any formal instruction. Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi is usually placed in this category. Others often cited in this spirit include Bhagavan Shuka Maharshi, Swami Hastamalakacharya, and Swami Nammalvar. One could also make a case, from a broader perspective, for someone like Gautama Buddha as an “extra-systemic” example of such maturity and insight.
These cases are not used to downgrade Vedanta. They are used to show that the normative path is guru–shastra–sampradaya, and that this norm is there precisely because most of us are manda or madhyama adhikaris. The ultra-rare exceptions are acknowledged but not held out as a model for the average seeker to bypass systematic study.
So, when you say:
“Vedanta primarily aids in recognizing enlightenment by offering conceptual clarity and language, and thereby the continuous practices of shravana, manana and nidhidhyasana to achieve the realization. While realization may also arise through alternative or undocumented paths…”
I would nuance it slightly in traditional terms:
- Vedanta is not only “conceptual clarity and language”; it is regarded as the final pramana for Brahman, the direct means for removing ignorance.
- Life experiences, austerities, and non-Vedantic disciplines can greatly mature the mind - dissolve desires, reduce ego, fear, and expectation - and thereby make one a high-grade adhikari.
- For such an adhikari, the final, immediate recognition “there is no bondage, therefore no liberation is needed” can come through a single Vedantic statement, through the presence of a realized person, or even as a spontaneous inner resolution.
Traditional Advaita would still interpret the content of that recognition as exactly what Vedanta reveals, whether or not the person uses Vedantic terminology.
3. What only Vedanta uniquely reveals: Brahman and the jiva-jagat-Ishvara relationship
Here it is helpful to distinguish two levels very clearly:
- Realization of the true nature of the Self: as ever-present, non-objectifiable awareness, free from birth and death, not limited by body or mind. In rare cases, this can arise without consciously taking Vedanta as pramana in this lifetime. A person may be inwardly free of fear and doership and know directly “I am not this perishing body–mind.”
- Precise knowledge that “this very Self is 'Brahman', one without a second,” and the clear understanding of how the individual (jiva), the world (jagat), and Ishvara are related to this Brahman.
This second piece is not available to the senses, nor to unaided reasoning. It is revealed only by shastra, that is, Vedanta as pramana. Equations such as “ayam atma brahma” and the detailed Advaitic vision that jiva–jagat–Ishvara are mithya while Brahman alone is satya do not arise merely by private experience; they are taught and unfolded by the tradition.
So we can say:
- Realization of the Self can, in principle, occur without formal exposure to Vedantic texts.
- Knowing that “this Self is the non-dual Brahman, the truth of jiva, jagat, and Ishvara,” in a structured and communicable way, comes only from Vedanta.
This distinction becomes critical when we speak of a tattva-darshi jivanmukta jnani who is also a guru. For a liberated person who lives quietly, personal realization may be enough. For one who teaches:
- Their insight must be in full harmony with the Vedantic vision of Brahman, not just a private formulation.
- They need shastra-aligned clarity about the relationship between jiva, jagat, and Ishvara and Brahman, so they can resolve students’ doubts consistently and avoid leading them into partial or self-contradictory views.
- Their teaching must stand as a continuation of the sampradaya, not as an isolated testimony that cannot be tested against a shared pramana.
This is exactly what we see with Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi. The realization is spontaneous, not text-produced. Yet when he later encounters Vedantic works, he affirms that they describe his experience precisely. From that point, his pointers, teachings and guidance to others are entirely aligned with Advaita Vedanta, even when he uses very simple language. In that sense, Vedanta provides the universal framework and vocabulary within which a tattva-darshi jivanmukta can reliably teach others.
4. Does Vedanta warn against clinging to words and constructs?
Yes, very much so. The tradition repeatedly cautions against mistaking terminology and intellectual constructs for the reality they point to:
- Mundaka Upanishad distinguishes between apara vidya (all Vedas, Vedangas, etc.) and para vidya as that by which the imperishable is known. In other words, scriptural learning as information is “lower”; the direct recognition of Brahman is “higher”.
- Kena and Taittiriya Upanishads emphasize that Brahman cannot be objectified by speech or mind, even though Vedanta still uses speech as a provisional pointer.
- Texts like Bhaja Govindam explicitly mock mere grammatical and intellectual obsession that does not lead to release from samsara.
So it is fully in line with Vedanta to say: do not cling rigidly to the terminology or intellectual constructs, or to the idea that “my particular conceptual map is the Truth.” The constructs are upayas that are meant to be outgrown once their work is done.
5. Does Advaita encourage openness to realization outside formal Vedanta?
Within its own framework, Advaita is both:
- Strict about the nature of realization: it must be clear, non-dual Self-knowledge (akhandakara vritti) that ends the sense of bondage and doership, not a fleeting experience or mystical high.
- Open about the outer form in which this realization may flower: it need not be preceded by a modern “course” in Vedanta or even explicit textual study in this life.
So, yes, I would say Advaita does encourage a guarded openness to such possibilities. It warns us not to absolutize pedagogy. At the same time, it warns seekers not to bypass the tried-and-tested means of guru, shastra, shravana-manana-nididhyasana by idealizing rare exceptions.
From the side of the jivanmukta, statements such as “there is no bondage, so no liberation is needed” are perfectly valid. From the side of the sadhaka, they can become dangerous slogans if not grounded in genuine self-knowledge. Traditional Advaita holds both these standpoints together.
Dhanyosmi for an opportunity to self-reflect.
prostrations,
Vikram
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
ANY teaching or method that brings you to the certain knowledge of non-duality must be fine. You have to drop everything in the end anyway, since all teaching is necessarily in duality. The reason why traditional Advaita is so valuable is that it has been proven to do this in a systematic and reproducible manner since the ‘consolidation’ by Śaṅkara. The problem for today’s seeker is finding a modern traditional source. Since Śaṅkara’s time, there has been a tendency to make the teaching more ‘academic’, arguing over meanings and complicating the message, or (with satsang and neo-Advaita) attempting to shortcut and jump to the bottom line so as to (theoretically) make it possible for a seeker to make the journey more quickly. (Of course that doesn’t work!) What is really needed is teaching that derives from prasthāna traya and Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya but which is cognizant of modern society and science and does not attempt to convey material in such a way that is likely to be rejected by an intelligent mind.
I address all these issues and more in the book recently published – ‘Self Seeking: Finding a Modern Teacher of Advaita’. (See https://www.advaita-vision.org/finding-a-teacher/ for contents.)
Best wishes,
Dennis
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAD3Kb_nkS5WpHcbZeqc%3DX0WSG6hPX9o7z3qnFx%3DN9XgYnssERQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Chittaranjan Naik
Namaste Sri Harish-ji,
A seeker needs scriptures only to the extent that he/she still has doubts in his mind about the Vedantic truth. If after hearing the Vedantic truth, the seeker has no doubts in the mind, then all those scriptures - and all the arguments contained in them including the terminologies - are entirely superfluous for him. So, yes, the 'formal framework' as you call it, may not be required at all.
But strictly speaking, there is no such thing as 'outside the framework' because what the Vedantic texts deal with is the great multitude of doubts that are prone to arise in the mind along with the reasoning required to clear those doubts. The framework is not something unnatural; it constitutes a natural path that leads from a condition wherein the seeker has doubts to a condition in which the seeker's doubts are dissolved. A seeker may resort to the scriptures only to the extent that it helps him to remove his doubts and ignore the rest.
There have been many great jnanis who have attained mukti without having undertaken any formal study of the scriptures, for example, Sri Ramana Maharshi. But one must be cautious before concluding that they hadn't undertaken study of the scriptures because the journey on the path to jivanmukti is not limited to just this one life. It must be understood, in their case, that they had undertaken sadhana in many previous lives. But if your question pertains to what is observed in this current life only, then yes, depending on the ripeness that the jiva has attained in its long journey through countless lives of sadhana, it is possible that the jiva may appear, in its current life, to have reached the goal from 'outside the framework'.
As to the question whether there are any verses outlined in Vedanta itself to caution seekers against clinging rigidly to the scriptures, etc, yes there are. Here is one instance: "This Self cannot be attained through much study of the scriptures, nor through the intellect, nor through much hearing of sacred texts. It is attained by him alone whom the Self chooses. To such a one, the Self reveals Its own form". (Katha Upanishad, I,ii,23).
In the end, one must follow one’s own calling or inner voice. At the same time, one needs to avoid falling into the trap of thinking that it can be achieved by oneself because one cannot know the impurities in one’s own mind and potential to be led astray by it. External help in the form of the guidance of a guru is therefore held to be indispensible.
Warm regards,
Chittaranjan
putran M
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/ded52ad3-1d5a-4541-b9bb-e4e1b3140750n%40googlegroups.com.
Harish L B
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-oDk1JAS-mCy6OZ-MUczZtUoFqou-5adRV7_B6Lk%2Bp5ww%40mail.gmail.com.
sunil bhattacharjya
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-oDk1JAS-mCy6OZ-MUczZtUoFqou-5adRV7_B6Lk%2Bp5ww%40mail.gmail.com.
putran M
Vedanta, the timeless principles and insights into self-inquiry, mediated by somewhat time-bound pedagogies.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAD3Kb_m2%3Dq2TR299cZ9281R46a%3DW7bUPn6ikE4tJMo6skeDhoQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Harish L B
I made that comment consciously, based on my own experiences.
Kindly let me clarify - my observation was not directed at the Vedanta texts themselves, but at the inferences, interpretations, and conclusions that have been drawn from them through various refined pedagogical traditions over the past few centuries.
For instance, I strongly feel that the way Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism is often practised today by the majority, does gross injustice to the teachings of Advaita Vedanta. I feel, these evolved pedagogies instead could have, and should have, served as a foundation for meaningful social reform in this country long ago.
My comments are directed toward the historical interpretations, including those found in the Smritis and Sutras that has shaped this disconnect.
Hari Om, Namaskarams.
On 22 Nov 2025, at 1:32 AM, putran M <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-qMYDTxrCNAoooPLfXL42GnVv%2BeqE4TRj8i-GMbujVSiw%40mail.gmail.com.
Ram Chandran
Namaste:
Your assertion that the majority practice of Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) does injustice to the teachings of Advaita Vedanta reflects the viewpoint held by some critics based mostly on misunderstanding. The argument that rituals and idol worship in modern practice diverges from Advaita Vedanta has no validity. These practices are not necessarily contradictory to the path of Advaita Vedanta. If we consider the Truth of Advaita Vedanta is at the top of the mountain, then there can be many paths to reach the top and ultimately those who pursue will likely reach the non-dualistic truth of Advaita. This entire topic is quite complex and will require very careful of all scriptures preferably through a Guru. We need to be quit cautious before making such assertions based on what little we know. I am glad that you have started asking the right questions and get clarifications.
In this group, we want to explore the diversity of beliefs and try to find the unity within the diversity. I hope this clarification is helpful,
Warm regards,
Ram Chandran
Chittaranjan Naik
Could you please be a bit more specific by providing some examples of the kind of inferences, interpretations and conclusions that your observations are directed at?
Respected Putran ji,Sincerely appreciate your response.I made that comment consciously, based on my own experiences.
Kindly let me clarify - my observation was not directed at the Vedanta texts themselves, but at the inferences, interpretations, and conclusions that have been drawn from them through various refined pedagogical traditions over the past few centuries.
For instance, I strongly feel that the way Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism is often practised today by the majority, does gross injustice to the teachings of Advaita Vedanta. I feel, these evolved pedagogies instead could have, and should have, served as a foundation for meaningful social reform in this country long ago.
My comments are directed toward the historical interpretations, including those found in the Smritis and Sutras that has shaped this disconnect.
Hari Om, Namaskarams.
HarishOn 22 Nov 2025, at 1:32 AM, putran M <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Namaskaram Harish-ji,
Vedanta, the timeless principles and insights into self-inquiry, mediated by somewhat time-bound pedagogies.The pedagogy is always valid in Ishvara's creation. But it may apply differently for different jivas. Not all are fit for SMN and not all have the same pravritti dharma. But the essential path of pravritti followed by nivritti is not regarded as time-bound, or otherwise bypassable. That's my understanding.thollmelukaalkizhu
Chittaranjan Naik
Harish L B
If Advaita could be treated as a set of independent principles - carefully and respectfully separated from the wider historical evolution of Smriti traditions and Puranas - then I have no further questions or arguments to make. I’m good to close this email thread, and am grateful for all the guidance and responses.
However, i'm finding it difficult to make such a separation as the pedagogies have evolved with it shaping up the religion and the social fabric. Based on my understanding from books and the associated commentary, Advaita did not remain isolated. Its development was deeply shaped by Smriti norms and Puranic devotional culture, particularly after Sankaracharya’s monastic institutions gained prominence. Advaitins influenced (and were influenced by) ritual practices and bhakti literature, and later Advaitins actively integrated devotional elements and Puranic deities into their pedagogical framework. Therefore, my understanding is that those Vedantic pedagogies evolved into our modern day Hinduism. Kindly advise if my factual understanding needs correction.
I would like to gently offer a few questions around this on a separate email thread in a few weeks time, and would be thankful for your guidance on how to understand these more clearly.
Hari Om.
Harish
Ram Chandran
Chittaranjan Naik
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Chitta-ji,
A very clear explanation as usual, but I would like to make a slight amendment to what you have written to avoid potential confusion.
You said: “The teaching of Advaita consists of two things: (i) The articulation of the Truth of Advaita, and (ii) the sadhana required to attain knowledge of that Truth as an 'Immediately Experienced Truth', referred to as aparoksha-jnana.” I would like to reword and simplify this slightly: “The teaching of Advaita consists of two things: (i) The articulation of the Truth of Advaita, and (ii) the sadhana required to attain certain knowledge of that Truth”.
Two reasons for this. 1) The reference to aparok
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Chittaranjan Naik
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2025 4:36 PM
To: advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: Enlightenment - the simple explanation
Namaste Sri Harish-ji,
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/84df5898-25b5-488f-890e-b1440ded2a0cn%40googlegroups.com.
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Chitta-ji,
*** Apologies for part message just sent. Extremely annoying. I use ALT-s to generate IAST version of ITRANS ‘sh’ in all my writing in MS Word. (OK = I should have used ALT-Shift-s since it is actually ‘Sh’.) But in Outlook, it is construed as ‘Send’! Here is the complete message (using ITRANS)! ***
A very clear explanation as usual, but I would like to make a slight amendment to what you have written to avoid potential confusion.
You said: “The teaching of Advaita consists of two things: (i) The articulation of the Truth of Advaita, and (ii) the sadhana required to attain knowledge of that Truth as an 'Immediately Experienced Truth', referred to as aparoksha-jnana.” I would like to reword and simplify this slightly: “The teaching of Advaita consists of two things: (i) The articulation of the Truth of Advaita, and (ii) the sadhana required to attain certain knowledge of that Truth”.
Two reasons for this. 1) The reference to aparokSha j~nAna is an unnecessary complication. 2) Enlightenment has nothing to do with ‘experience’. Certainty of the truth of the mahAvAkya-s that you mention is what is meant by ‘Enlightenment’.
Best wishes,
Dennis
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Chittaranjan Naik
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2025 4:36 PM
To: advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: Enlightenment - the simple explanation
Namaste Sri Harish-ji,
--
Chittaranjan Naik
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I agree with you that the language of experience is not appropriate for describing the Advaita sadhana; it is more suited to the path of Yoga which tends to describe its attainments in terms of spiritual experiences such as the attainment of various siddhis and samadhis (such as savikalpa samadhi, nirvikalpa samadhi, etc).
- Have you written anything in detail about it i.e. Advaita sAdhana AND the path of yOga or Advaita knowledge contrasted with siddhis and samAdhi-s in yOga??. If yes, kindly share it.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
Chittaranjan Naik
Have you written anything in detail about it i.e. Advaita sAdhana AND the path of yOga or Advaita knowledge contrasted with siddhis and samAdhi-s in yOga??.
Chittaranjan Naik
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji
Hare Krishna
But you may find it interesting to note that knowledge has been defined in Nyaya as two-fold, consisting of smriti and anubhava. Anubhava is subsumed under knowledge as being one kind of knowledge. This goes against the popular view held by most people that anubhava is something separate from knowledge having the capacity, especially in the spiritual domain, to lend validity to our knowledge.
- Yes that is the view point of some schools of thought within Advaita tradition 😊 As per them, shruti and shruti vAkya janita jnAna is JUST theoretical knowledge and you have to ‘experience’ that practically in the state of samAdhi!! As per them, shruti is just an ‘instruction manual’ and it has to be put in practice in the yOga lab to get the literal experience of ekatvam in the state of samAdhi. Hence some schools equated nidhidhyAsana to dhyAna and resultant jnAna (atma jnAna) as samAdhi experience. Some prakaraNa grantha-s like VC, JMV, PD etc. vociferously endorsing and insisting this mysterious state of experience (anubhava) to evaluate the shruti vAkya janita jnAna.
According to Nyaya, anubhava is a kind of knowledge and it consists of both prama and bhrama, so it is correct knowledge, prama, that makes spiritual experience valid rather than anubhava that makes spiritual knowledge valid.
Ø Individual anubhava is purusha tantra and knowledge of svarUpa is vastu tantra very clearly differentiated by bhAshyakAra in tattu samanvayaadhikaraNa.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji
Hare Krishna
And this perhaps explains why the words of a Shrotriya are held to be more reliable than the words of a Brahmanishta. For all said and done, the words of a (mere) Brahmanishta amount to little more than claims based on personal experience in contrast to those of a Shrotriya which are based on the infallible Shruti-vakhyas and arguments grounded in them.
Ø Nice to see you are finding some free time to share your thoughts in this group after a long time 😊 Hope you are going to continue your participation little more time. Now my doubt is : per tradition, to become brahmanishTa, shrotreeyatva is indispensable is it not?? Coz. for the brahma jnAna vedAnta vAkya shravaNa, mananaM, nidhidhyAsanaM are direct means as shruti is the untya pramANa. So if we want to identify someone as brahmanishTa he has to be shrOtreeya in his current janma, if not, in his previous janma/janma-s. So brahmanishTa without the aid of shAstra adhyayana / vedAnta vAkya shravaNAdi sAdhana is not acceptable atleast within the tradition. Hence, to maintain this rigid stand of tradition, we argue that brahmaNishTa-s like ramaNa etc. might have completed shAstra sAdhana in their previous life/lives and that sAdhana fructified in this janma etc. So, can we say each and every brahma jnAni must be shrotreeya as well either in his current janma or previous janma-s. Or can we say there might be some brahmanishTa-s without any backdrop of traditional shrOtreeyatvaM?? Answer for this question perhaps ‘yes’ as for the vedAnta adhyayana / shravaNa traditionally only dvija-s are allowed but for the brahma jnAna all are allowed through ‘other’ means!! Please share your observations.
Bhaskar YR
Yes that is the view point of some schools of thought within Advaita tradition 😊 As per them, shruti and shruti vAkya janita jnAna is JUST theoretical knowledge and you have to ‘experience’ that practically in the state of samAdhi!! As per them, shruti is just an ‘instruction manual’ and it has to be put in practice in the yOga lab to get the literal experience of ekatvam in the state of samAdhi.
praNAms Sri chitta prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I forgot to add here that how the schools like bhAmati would argue that the knowledge of scripture should be validated by ‘experience’ based on shankara’s bhAshya wherein bhAshyakAra says : brahmajignAsAyAm kim tu shrutyaadaya, ‘anubhavaavasAnatvaat, bhUtavastuvishayatvAccha brahma jnAnasya, unlike in dharma jignAsa wherein ONLY shAstra is the pramANa. As per this bhAshya vAkya, they argue that : the knowledge of brahman i.e. ultimate reality has to be culminated in “one’s own experience”. And no need to add here that in later post shankara works, interpretations like this, given way to advocate the importance of practical ‘samAdhi’ experience to validate what is learnt in shAstra.
Chittaranjan Naik
Chittaranjan Naik
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I do not think the Bhamati Chatuhsutri is arguing that knowledge of scripture should be validated by 'experience'.
- But in the hierarchical order of Advaita sAdhana of SMN, as per bhAmati, shravana and mananaM means dhAraNa nidhidhyAsana means dhyAna and darshana/bramasAkshAtkAra/AtmasAkshAtkAra/akhandAkAra vrutti (materialization or actualization of the ultimate reality) is the samAdhi where there is NO sAkshAtkAra of prapancha. I reckon it shows how bhAmatikAra tried to bring-in patanjali’s ashtanga yOga and asaMprajnAta samAdhi within the frame of Advaita sAdhana.
It is arguing that knowledge of Shruti Mahavakhya obtains only when there is immediate cognition of the identity of 'thou' and 'That' on hearing the Mahavakhya. And it goes on to argue that if it does not result in such an immediate cognition, or it results only in a mediate cognition, then further contemplation on the Mahavalkya is needed until a particular kind of vritti of the internal organ (I suppose the reference is to akhandakaravritti) is generated having Brahman for its content. And the author argues furthermore that what this vritti brings about is illumination of Brahman Itself through Sabda or Verbal Testimony.
- Yes that is true even as per bhAmati avidyA is destroyed by vidyA. But when defining the svarUpa of vidyA which removes the avidyA, they say that vidyA is a particular antaHkaraNa vrutti in the form of adviteeya brahma sAkshAtkAra, it not only removes avidyA BUT also shows up the brahmasvarUpa..and whenever there is brahmasAkshAtkAra there is an absence of sAkshAtkAra of prapancha, hence special insistence to samAdhi experience. And this vidyA cannot remove the prArabdha karma although it removeds anArabdha karma (saNchita/unbegun karma). And once the prArabdha karma is completely exhausted then ONLY mukti accurues. mOksha according to this school to attain brahma svarUpa alone which is Paramanandaghana. And this attainment and establishing in that truth needs the absence of sAkshAtkAra of jagat.
I know that this is a point of contention between the Bhamati school and the Vivarana school (and the SSS school which seems to be aligned with the Vivarana school on this point),
- And vivaraNa too if I am not wrong argues that the vidyA is brahman which is nishprapancha is itself I am…is itself vidyA happens through vedAnta vAkya shravaNa..but jnAna needs to be practiced over and over again till the aparOksha jnAna. And for seeing the world, they say this jnAna though removes the avidyA, the avidyA remains in the form of saMskAra therefore duality also may be seen and on certain occasions in asaMprajnAta samAdhi / nirvikalpa samAdhi there accrues cognition of Atmaikatva which is testimony to verify the shAstra vAkya janita Atmaikatva.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
Bhaskar
PS : I have not studied the bhAmati and vivaraNa schools, just sharing my thoughts by whatever I learnt in Sri SSS’s works about these two schools.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I completed writing one part of my next book, so I am taking a short break and it seemed in the meantime a good opportunity to once again engage in discussions for a few days on this list.
- If you don’t mind may I know something about your new book prabhuji.
Also, I just underwent a surgery to remove a large cyst on my shoulder and I am now spending some of my recovery time here. :-)
Ø Oh OK, please take care and I pray the Almighty for the speedy recovery.
I'm afraid my view will be based on a kind of speculation. I think that as far as jivanmuktas who attain mukti in this very life are concerned, we can conclude that they must have been shrotriyas in some previous janma but with regard to other brahmanishtas, I tend to think that they are on the krama-mukti route and that if they haven't studied the sruti so far, they will be led to study it in either a future birth or in another loka after shedding this body through the Grace of Ishvara before they attain final mukti. Just my thoughts on the topic - I am of course open to correction.
Ø With regard to your second observation, may I ask little elaboration, brahmanishTa-s who are not Jeevan mukta-s (paramArtha jnAni through the sAdhana of shAstra SMN) but on the route of krama mukti. In the krama mukti like sAlOkya, sAmeepya, sArUpya and sAyujya is there any scope for ‘further sAdhana’ in hiraNya Garbha lOka?? or after crossing all these stages the Ishwara grants them the paramArtha jnAna after mahApraLaya by default?? Krama mukti is the result of upAsana if I am right, so, can we say brahmanishTa type of jnAni-s (not Jeevan mukta-s) are jnAni-s different from jnAni-s who realized through shAstra adyayana?? Can we say upAsana phala ( the fruits of upAsana) is also brahmanishTata??
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Chitta-ji,
I think the distinction has to be made between the ‘process’ of reaching an understanding of what Advaita is saying and the actual realization that its conclusion is true.
All of what you say is reasonable from the standpoint of the teaching. And no one can deny that some sort of teaching is needed for (nearly?) all seekers. The potential problem with all teaching, however, is that the seeker can be derailed or diverted by some terms/concepts. At the very least, I think that most seekers spend a lot of time trying to understand, and/or argue about, some of the words that are used to convey the teaching. All of the arguments and ‘explanations’ have to be dropped in the end, anyway. They only have value to the extent that they help one to reach the understanding.
I believe that the idea of an entity called ‘ignorance’ is a particularly diverting one that has led to enormous amounts of material being written. Having read much of this over the past 2 - 3 years in order to write my book on ‘Confusions’ about the topic, my conclusion has to be that it is best not to think of it as a positive entity.
The reason that we do not initially understand that ‘I am Brahman’ is lack of knowledge. No one has explained this to us and used reason and arguments from PTB to convince us. That lack is remedied by the ‘correct’ teaching of Advaita. If we sometimes refer to all of this as the ‘removal of ignorance’, it should be understood only as a convenient way of talking about it, and not literally. Such an understanding would have avoided much of the wasted time and arguments of post-Śaṅkara authors, lots of it virtually incomprehensible!
Of course, I know that there has been lots of discussion on this, and there are many Sanskrit terms addressing the various nuances. I will not even attempt to consider any of this here. Nor can I be stimulated into indulging in discussion. I have noticed before that certain words trigger l-o-n-g exchanges on the group that rarely seem to reach any consensus! There are over 115,000 words on all of this in the book if anyone is interested, where I do address most of those aspects. The book is due to be published by Indica Books hopefully in the next couple of months, or it is available now in electronic form, converted from PDF, on Kindle from Amazon.
Best wishes,
Dennis
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Chittaranjan Naik
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 2:37 AM
To: advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: Enlightenment - the simple explanation
Namaste Sri Dennis-ji,
putran M
The reason that we do not initially understand that ‘I am Brahman’ is lack of knowledge. ... If we sometimes refer to all of this as the ‘removal of ignorance’, it should be understood only as a convenient way of talking about it, and not literally.
Yes — Śaṅkara does explicitly state in several places that the Self (Ātman) is never actually unknown to us, because it is self-revealing (svayaṃ-prakāśa). What is “unknown” is not the Self, but only the superimpositions (adhyāsa) that cover it.
Below are the clearest textual places where Śaṅkara says this:
1. Brahma-sūtra Bhāṣya 1.1.4 (“tat tu samanvayāt”)
Śaṅkara says that the Self cannot be an object of knowledge the way external objects are, because it is ever experienced by everyone:
“The Self is never a possible object of doubt, for it is always directly experienced; one cannot say ‘I do not know myself.’
The knowledge of one’s own Self is self-established.”
(na hy ātmā saṃśayopapannaḥ ... sākṣāt aparokṣād ātmā... na hi svātmānaṃ kaścit ajānāt)
2. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad Bhāṣya 4.3.23
Here Śaṅkara makes the point even more strongly:
“The Self is never unknown to anyone, for it is the witness of all.”
(ātma tu nāvijñātaḥ kadācana...)
He adds that ignorance is only about the non-Self, never about the Self.
3. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Bhāṣya 3.4.2 (“neti neti”)
Śaṅkara clarifies that Self-knowledge is not the attainment of something new:
“Knowledge of the Self is not something that must be newly produced.
The Self is already known, being the innermost Self and self-luminous.”
4. Ātma-bodha (traditionally attributed to Śaṅkara) 11
Even though not universally accepted as his, it is consistent with his teaching:
“The Self is ever manifest; ignorance alone makes It appear as if unknown.”
Core point in Śaṅkara’s epistemology
-
The Ātman is svayaṃ-prakāśa — self-revealing.
-
Ignorance (avidyā) obscures the recognition of the Self as Brahman, but not the Self’s presence.
-
Hence liberation is not the acquisition of new knowledge, but the removal of ignorance (avidyā-nivṛtti).
Short answer
Yes. Śaṅkara repeatedly teaches that the Self is never unknown, because it is always directly experienced as the very subject (the “I”). What we call “Self-knowledge” is only the removal of the mistaken identity with non-Self.
If you want, I can provide the Sanskrit passages with transliteration or translate them more closely.
Q2: Does Shankara say knowledge and ignorance can never co-exist?
Yes — Śaṅkara explicitly teaches that knowledge (jñāna) and ignorance (avidyā) cannot co-exist with respect to the same object at the same time.
He states this in multiple places, especially when explaining how liberation occurs through the destruction of ignorance.
Below are the clearest passages.
✅ 1. Brahma-sūtra Bhāṣya 1.1.4
Śaṅkara states the classical principle that knowledge removes ignorance just as light removes darkness, and therefore they cannot coexist:
“As darkness disappears when light arises, so ignorance is destroyed by knowledge.
Therefore knowledge and ignorance cannot coexist.”
(tamaso dīpa-prakāśavat jñānena avidyā nivartate; na ca jñāna-avidye ekatra saha sambhavet)
(This is a paraphrase of the argument Śaṅkara makes there. The analogy is explicit in his commentary.)
✅ 2. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad Bhāṣya 4.4.20
Śaṅkara explains that:
“Knowledge destroys ignorance completely;
just as the knowledge of the rope destroys the snake illusion.”
He also adds:
“Where knowledge arises, ignorance cannot remain.”
Again, the argument is that jñāna and avidyā, being opposite in nature, cannot abide together.
✅ 3. Upadeśa Sāhasrī (Prose section 1.1–1.4)
Śaṅkara is even more explicit:
“Ignorance and knowledge about the same object can never exist together.
When true knowledge arises, ignorance ceases.”
(na hi ekasmin viṣaye jñānam avidyā ca saha sambhavataḥ)
This is one of the clearest direct statements.
🔍 What Śaṅkara means
-
He does not say that ignorance and knowledge cannot coexist in the same person in general.
They can — about different objects. -
He says they cannot coexist regarding the same object, and especially not with respect to the Self once true knowledge has arisen.
-
This is foundational to Advaita: jñāna destroys avidyā and thereby destroys bondage.
🔎 A subtlety Śaṅkara maintains
Ignorance is not “removed” by producing knowledge;
rather, knowledge reveals what is already self-evident, and the ignorance dissolves.
Thus, Self-knowledge and ignorance about the Self cannot coexist.
⭐ Short answer
Yes. Śaṅkara clearly and repeatedly teaches that knowledge and ignorance cannot coexist with regard to the same object, and especially that Self-knowledge annihilates ignorance completely.
If you'd like, I can give you the exact Sanskrit lines with transliteration or point to the specific editions where they appear.
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Putran-ji,
As I indicated in the post, I am not going to participate in any discussion about this, having written exhaustively on the subject in the book. All that you (ChatGPT) say here does not appear to contradict what I was saying. You are effectively providing some input knowledge as per the teaching of Advaita, to remedy in part the presumed lack of that knowledge in the reader.
As you know, darkness being dispelled by light is often used as a metaphor to suggest that there is something called ‘ignorance’ that is dispelled by knowledge. I did post an extensive (6-part) essay on this, beginning at https://www.advaita-vision.org/the-darkness-of-ignorance-part-1/. Anyone interested in this topic should find it worth reading. Here is how I concluded it:
Of course, the whole darkness-light thing is our metaphor for ignorance-knowledge. I don’t know whether anyone has pointed out the similarity before but it reminds me of the ‘Phlogiston Theory’ in Chemistry in the 17th century. It was supposed that, when something burned, a fire-like substance was released from it. They called it phlogiston. Similarly, it seems that the belief in the ontological existence of ignorance is saying that a substance called ‘ignorance’ is given off (or destroyed) when we learn something new. The Phlogiston Theory had to be abandoned when it was discovered that some metals were heavier after they had burned, which would lead to the conclusion that phlogiston had to have a negative mass. Similarly, if one wants to be whimsical, it could be argued that our ‘knowledge-mass’ is greater after we have learned something new. One could then say that ignorance is therefore equivalent to ‘negative knowledge’. But it makes far more sense to say that there is no such thing as ignorance at all, only lack of knowledge.
Best wishes,
Dennis
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of putran M
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 6:28 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: Enlightenment - the simple explanation
Namaskaram Dennis-ji,
putran M
putran M
One can know this world and still realize it as nothing but (mithya) appearance in (adhyasa on) "all-pervading" nondual Light (Sun).
putran M
In the case of Self-knowledge, a better analogy would be the all-pervading Light that illumines all objects. We are mistaken when we attribute the Light dually to the objects themselves. But such attribution I argue is also a specific knowledge, a positive removable imagination added to the generally-speaking "irremovable" world knowledge.
Chittaranjan Naik
Sudhanshu Shekhar
One can know this world and still realize it as nothing but (mithya) appearance in (adhyasa on) "all-pervading" nondual Light (Sun).This does not contradict Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma.
Chittaranjan Naik
Chittaranjan Naik
Chittaranjan Naik
Oh OK, please take care and I pray the Almighty for the speedy recovery.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Putran prabhuji
Hare Krishna
One can know this world and still realize it as nothing but (mithya) appearance in (adhyasa on) "all-pervading" nondual Light (Sun).
This does not contradict Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma. Connecting to recent topic on vachyartha vs lakshyartha raised by Sudhanshu-ji, one can be aware of vachyartha (duality) at the level of appearance and still have realization of Brahman as the nondual lakshyartha.
- To derive either vAchyArtha or lakshyArtha we have to have something on hand and as per the theistic approach of Advaita that something is Ishwara srushti for which brahman is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNam. Yes, when we say, see there is a pot fetch me water from it, it is seeing the pot and utilizing it for the transactional purpose exercising its vAkyArtha but keeping its lakshyArtha that it is always clay ONLY though we are calling it as ‘pot’. This lakshyArtha (mruttketyeva satyaM) does not come in my way as obstacle to do the vyavahAra or using the vAchyArtha or calling the clay (mrut sAmAnya/lakshyArtha) with nAma rUpa pot (mrut vishesha / vAchyArtha) . After all it is Ishwara srushti and it is there for some definite purpose. By the way, bhAshyakAra himself says to know/realize that brahman is nirvishesha we have to have the nAma rUpa vishesha otherwise it would have not been possible to realize that truth.
- But having said that we are not telling brahman is multi designed product as we have been saying kArya is kAraNa but kAraNa is not kArya ( bangle is gold but gold cannot be described as bangle). So IOW, this should not be argued that brahman is associated with the vagaries of the world of effects and that therefore one has to understand oneself also as such. Though there is a sense of non-difference in this paramArtha jnAni’s sarvAtma bhAva of “all this is me”, notice that ‘all this/sarvam’ implies difference and ‘is me’ implies non-difference. This non-difference is sometimes described as non-difference with tolerance of difference. (bedha Sahishnu abedha). But point to be noted here that brahman does not tolerate any difference as there is absolutely no trace of difference in the svarUpa of brahman. Shruti asserts ‘this was all one sat only without a second, sadevasoumya edam agra aasit ekaM eva adviteeyaM/neha nAnAsti kiMchana etc. It is in this sense bhAshyakAra says : sarvaM brahma eti samanAdhikAraNyaM prapancha pravilApanArthaM etc. Again effect is not different from cause but cause is always free from effect. The shruti tells this without any ambiguity he who understands himself as brahman will become all this!! Ya evaM veda ahaM brahmAsmeeti sa edam sarvaM bhavati. It is not saying sarvaM needs to be eradicated completely to know / realize he is brahman but it is saying he becomes ‘all’ (like knowing pot, jug, pitcher etc. all are ONLY clay and there exists nothing but clay).
- Prapancha pravilayaM needs to be understood in this context without disturbing the ‘Astika drushti’ of Advaita that is Ishwara and Ishwara srushti/jagat for which he himself is material and efficient cause. And the world which is deemed
different from the brahman/Atman is non-existent like rabbits horns or like snake in the rope. But the
- world in front of us is not atyanta abhAva like that. But it is also true that not paramArtha satya like the nirvishesha brahman either. brahman is the transcendental truth and the jagat in front is transactional/ empirical truth (vyAvahArika ‘satya’). Since there is no transaction at all in the brahman, this is to be sublimated for nirvishesha svarUpa jnAna. But sublimation of Jagat does not mean its whole-sale destruction nor to argue it is atyanta abhAva like shasha-vishANa, so as to make it inaccessible to jnAni-s during post realization. bhAshyakAra makes some interesting comments on ‘What is sublimation of Jagat?. He asks, is it like melting the solidified ghee by contact with fire? No; because such a sublimation can effectively be done by the parameshwara at the time of ‘mahApralaya’ only. It cannot be done by any mortal. Seeing even in prapancha pravilayam / sublimation of world, how bhAshyakAra maintains the divine approach of shruti/Advaita without ignoring the importance of srushti / sthiti / layakarta Ishwara, and clarifying that such a sublimation cannot be advised to mortals!! Not only that; if such a sublimation has been done by one who has attained jnAna already by now, then the world should not be existing for us to explore but alas!! We are still seeing and experiencing it that means despite there are jnAni-s and their realization the Ishwara srusuti/jagat is still existing!!
- Bottom line is sarvaM khalvidaM brahma shruti vAkya driving us to the Ishwaraastitva Advaita Vedanta where sarvaM is brahman but brahman in its svarUpa is nirvishesha. Brahma vidya neither create nor destroy an object, it only gives us the knowledge that whatever is ‘existing’ and that existence is nothing but that ekameva adviteeya satyam.
- Only nireeshwara / naastika vAdins would argue that Ishwara his srushti etc. is just an illusion in your mind by using shruti bAhira shushka tarka.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I have not read the Bhamati in its entirety; I have read only the Chatuhsutri part of it, so I cannot comment on your claim that it treats shravana and manana as dharana and nidhidhyasana as dhyana. The Chatuhsutri by itself does not provide evidence to draw such a conslusion.
Ø As I said I have not read any classical text written by this school of thought scholars. So my knowledge is definitely limited to whatever Sri SSS says as ‘bhAmati’s stand’, ‘panchapaadika vivaraNa stand etc. about these schools of thought. But he gives the reference of the text what he is referring including page no., publisher name etc. like bhAmati by vAchaspati mishra, published by such and such press in the year etc.
With regard to the rest of your post, I see that making any reply to it is likely to draw me once again into that endless debate about whether a jnani has a body and experiences prarabda karma, whether a trace of avidya in the form of avidya-lesha still afflicts him and whether he attains complete mukti only on the fall of the body, termed videhamukti, etc. As you know I had actively participated in that debate in the years 2009-2010 and I don't want to enter it again. My views on the topic remain unchanged except that I would like to clarify that by 'jnani' I had always meant a jnani who had attained perfection in naiskarmya siddhi and had attained immediate mukti here and now, i.e., a jnani who had attained sadyo mukti. I put forth this clarification since the word 'jnani' can refer to a wide spectrum that includes paroksha jnanis, asthitha jnanis as well as sthitha-prajna jnanis. For a jnani who has attained sadyo-mukti and to whom there remains neither vasanakshaya nor manonasha to be attained, there is neither prarabda nor avidya-lesha nor any body that remains to fall, all these being attributes in the eyes of others' only, as they assign to the jnani. Nor does the world disappear since there never was a world that was not Brahman in the first place, so the world remains what it always was, that is, as Brahman, entirely subsumed in Brahman. No more discussion on this topic please.
Ø Fair enough prabhuji since my understanding is also very much in line with that of your above observation, there is nothing much left to discuss 😊
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Puran-ji,
I never suggested that there is ‘lack of knowledge in the Self’. Indeed, ‘knowledge’ does not really apply to the Self at all, since there is nothing else to know! The ‘lack of knowledge’ belongs to the intellect of the jIva. The wrong ideas and confusion have to be resolved by a qualified teacher so that the intellect realizes that ‘I am Brahman’. We call these wrong ideas and confusion ‘ignorance’ for the sake of talking about them. That the input of the ‘right ideas’ brings enlightenment shows that they were initially lacking.
Best wishes,
Dennis
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of putran M
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 2:56 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: Enlightenment - the simple explanation
Namaskaram Dennis-ji,
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-oqJebOgYdC25gsCQtAzfUWYP-%3DTBH6g4YHdVF%3DKFNkWQ%40mail.gmail.com.
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Chitta-ji,
I accept your point regarding the prior immediate knowledge of fire with smoke. But I do not accept that so called ‘merely intellectual’ knowledge has to be followed by some sort of ‘experience’ to validate it. I already AM the Self. I have always been Brahman; I just did not appreciate this before. Once Advaita has explained what this means and I have understood, cleared any doubts and consolidated that knowledge, why should I need to do anything else? Indeed, what could I possibly do to ‘make it real’. There is nothing else to ‘taste’.
Best wishes,
Dennis
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Chittaranjan Naik
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 5:20 AM
To: advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: Enlightenment - the simple explanation
Dear Sri Dennis-ji,
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Chitta prabhuji
Hare Krishna
As with my other two books, it is an attempt to show that the truths mentioned in our shastras are valid even today and that they are capable of withstanding the arguments that the modern world has brought against them.
Ø That would be very interesting subject prabhuji. Eagerly awaiting for its publication.
Does not Shankara himself say in the Sutra-bhashya that those who attain mukti through the krama-mukti path attain absorption with Brahman at the end of the Mahakalpa?
- Yes
So, I think it is fair to conclude that after fall of the body, if there is anything further to be done by these jnanis to attain the final and ultimate Truth, then Ishwara Himself will lead their way through His Grace. And I believe there are passages in the bhashya which say that sadhana in other lokas is possible. I may be corrected if I am wrong.
Ø See for upAsana mArga also shAstra is required as you observed below. The upAsya devata should be as per shAstra ( or as enshrined in our scriptures. So upAsaka for getting the krama mukti through upAsana has to study the scriptures through guru and take the initiation (Deeksha) to do upAsana. But my question is after attaining the krama mukti at any stage the upAsaka has to once again do the sAdhana for the jnAna mArga or by the grace of Ishwara (upAsya devata) by default he would get ultimate jnAna after pralaya?? That is not clear to me and I have not come across anything like this in bhAshya.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji
Hare Krishna
I accept your point regarding the prior immediate knowledge of fire with smoke. But I do not accept that so called ‘merely intellectual’ knowledge has to be followed by some sort of ‘experience’ to validate it.
- I don’t think Sri chitta prabhuji said like this!!?? like shAstra vAkya janita jnAna and AFTER that some sort of experience required to validate it!! OTOH if I am right he said some sort of knowledge should culminate in intuition and this intuition is not necessarily an individual experience. And in this context only he said in nyAya there are two jnAna-s in anubhava one is prama and another might be bhrama.
I already AM the Self. I have always been Brahman; I just did not appreciate this before. Once Advaita has explained what this means and I have understood, cleared any doubts and consolidated that knowledge, why should I need to do anything else? Indeed, what could I possibly do to ‘make it real’. There is nothing else to ‘taste’.
Ø Yes, Advaita paramArtha jnAna has been explained by giving the example of ‘you are the tenth man’ 😊 When uddalaka said shwetaketu tattvamasi there was no implication that there is gap between jnAna and anubhava of that jnAna.
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!
bhaskar
Best wishes,
Dennis
From:
adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of Chittaranjan Naik
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 5:20 AM
To: advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: Enlightenment - the simple explanation
Dear Sri Dennis-ji,
I don't find much to disagree with in what you say. I too hold that you don't need to know all those technical terms used in the post-Shankara Advaita texts or the arguments contained in them in order to attain an intellectual understanding of Advaita. That is the reason I had averred in one of my earlier posts that a sadhaka needs only that much from these texts as would help him in removing his doubts and the rest may be ignored.
I think the various Advaita texts that have sprung up after Shankara serve a different purpose than addressing just individual needs. This is because of the nature of the Vedic tradition itself. A Siddhanta, by definition, is an established tenet, so it becomes the responsibility of the tradition to ensure that its truths and principles are always maintained in a state of being an 'established' Siddhanta thereby ensuring that the authority of its utterances as valid Verbal Testimony is not destroyed. Unfortunately, as pointed out by you, pursuing such a goal has resulted in a plethora of technical terms and compex arguments which can deter ordinary aspirants from approacing Advaita and can cause confusion in the mind of a seeker who doesn't know how to navigate its complex terrain.
Having said all this, I think the distinction between mediate knowledge and immediate knowledge cannot be set aside so easily because it serves an important purpose in understanding Advaita itself inasmuch as it points to the fact that an intellectual understanding of Advaita does not constitute a complete understanding of Advaita. The realization of the Advaitic Truth is not merely a realization of an intellectual understanding of its truth but a culmination of the process of knowing of that truth that goes beyond the intellect to its consummation in direct cognition. Let me elaborate a bit on this...
In the case of the acquisition of other mediate knowledge, such as the knowledge of the presence of fire obtained from inferring it from the observation of smoke, it is to be noted that fire is an object that we are familiar with on account of it having been known beforehand through perception. Indeed, the vyapti of the inferential scheme does not operate unless both the fire (sadya) and the smoke (hetu) have been known beforehand through perception. So, a vaild mediate knowledge of an object is obtained only when it has been preceded by an immediate knowledge of that object through perception. But in the case of an intellectual understanding of Brahman, it is a kind of mediate knowledge that has never been preceded by any mode of cognition by which it could have been known immediately. Hence that mediate intellectual knowledge of Brahman cannot be considered as a complete or a fully genuine knowledge of Brahman. This is what is meant by saints like Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa when they point out that you may argue endlessly about the taste of a mango but unless you have tasted it yourself, you will never know really what its taste is. So, while on the one hand the words of a mere Brahmanishta cannot be taken as fully reliable, on the other hand the words of a mere Shrotriya may end up straightjacking Advaita, not being sufficiently mindful of the fact that any articulation of Advaita is constrained to be inherently paradoxical.
Warm regards,
Chittaranjan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/001d01dc5ead%24a513e590%24ef3bb0b0%24%40advaita.org.uk.
Bhaskar YR
praNAms
Hare krishna
I never suggested that there is ‘lack of knowledge in the Self’. Indeed, ‘knowledge’ does not really apply to the Self at all, since there is nothing else to know!
- Very much true and appreciated 😊
The ‘lack of knowledge’ belongs to the intellect of the jIva.
- This again comes to the notorious topic : locus of avidyA 😊 shankara very clearly says it is antaHkaraNa dOsha and it is through antaHkaraNa only we have to get rid of this avidyA / adhyAsa. But some smart people who want to find the avidyA in brahman (brahmAshrita avidyA) would ask : what is this antaHkaraNa!!?? It is mUlAvidyA which is the mother of tUlAvidyA (an individual specific avidyA).
The wrong ideas and confusion have to be resolved by a qualified teacher so that the intellect realizes that ‘I am Brahman’. We call these wrong ideas and confusion ‘ignorance’ for the sake of talking about them. That the input of the ‘right ideas’ brings enlightenment shows that they were initially lacking.
Ø Yes there is no vidyA-avidyA transaction in pure brahman, it is at the jeeva level these things entertained and suggested for the teaching purpose. When this jeeva realizes that he is verily Ishwara / brahman then to NO ONE there avidyA / ajnAna whatsoever. jnAna abhAva (lack of knowledge) anyathAgrahaNa ( adhyAsa / misconception) saMshaya (doubt) are just antaHkaraNa dOsha as per bhAshyakAra.
Chittaranjan Naik
Sudhanshu Shekhar
The ‘lack of knowledge’ belongs to the intellect of the jIva.
This again comes to the notorious topic : locus of avidyA shankara very clearly says it is antaHkaraNa dOsha and it is through antaHkaraNa only we have to get rid of this avidyA / adhyAsa. But some smart people who want to find the avidyA in brahman (brahmAshrita avidyA) would ask : what is this antaHkaraNa!!?? It is mUlAvidyA which is the mother of tUlAvidyA (an individual specific avidyA).
He further says while proving as to how AtmA is the Ashraya of ajnAna - आत्मनोऽज्ञानाश्रयत्वोपपत्तिः ..... न केवलं गत्यन्तराभावात् परिशिष्ट आत्मैवाश्रयत्वेन विषयत्वेन चाश्रीयते किं तूपष्टम्भकहेतुसद्भावाच्चेत्येतद्दर्शयितुमारभते तस्येत्यादिना ।
Bhaskar YR
praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji
Hare Krishna
Unfortunately I cannot open any of the external links in my office laptop. Anyway, it is not so difficult to understand in which manner Sri SSS implies Atman is the Vishaya and Ashraya of avidyA especially when bhAshyakAra himself categorically stated avidyA is in day to day transaction is karaNa dOsha. Anyway let me try to explain this with an example : If I say Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji is master in logic and very intelligent logician and no one can beat him logically…what does it mean?? I am pointing my finger to the person called sudhAnshu (particularly his physical body and knowing his academics) and explaining he is intelligent. Does it mean you intelligence have ashraya and Vishaya in yourself or in your intellect?? Sudhanshu as Chaitanya is always one and the same when he is toddler or what he is now..So your karaNa trained in a specialized way resulting in gaining some special intelligence and forcing us to call you as a scholar, is it not?? Like jewelry filled box called as jewelry itself or visha mishrita anna as visha. So these Atma Ashrita avidyA and subject matter of avidyA etc. need to be understood in this way. If you don’t do that then you are striving to realize Atman who himself giving the shelter to avidyA who himself the subject matter of that same avidyA…this is simply ridiculous conclusion considering Atman was / is / always will be nirlipta and Nirmala. So you can be rest assured whenever it is said Atman it is said in this sense that sOpAdhika Atma in jeeva svarUpa having these problem in the karaNa / upAdhi.
Sri SSS elsewhere observes that to whom is avidyA about which matter or things is there avidyA etc. do not arise in the Advaita Vedanta. For the queries to whom, about which matter have to arise only in dvaita where duality having the sway and the whole gamut of dvaita is within the sphere of adhyAsa and adhyasta (adhyArOpita or misconceived). If someone asked to whom is avidyA about which thing there is avidyA definitely he/she not understood the profound truth of this ekatva siddhAnta. And these people are under the impression and assumed that due to avidyA dvaita / duality has come into existence by means of vidyA we have to eliminate this avidyA then only Advaita gets established etc. And for these “avivekins” bhAshyakAra given the answers like : avidyA to YOU who is asking this question, avidyA is karaNa dOsha and it is not the problem of Chaitanya, and jeeva as the Chaitanya is the custodian of avidyA due to his association with upAdhi etc.
Hope I don’t have to give the sutra bhAshya, geeta bhAshya, taitireeya bhAshya quotes to prove this. In short all these issues like avidyA the Vishaya of avidyA the adhishtAnaM of avidyA etc. are in truth conjured up or protected by avidyA itself holds water only when jeeva is encompassed by upAdhi-s and in the absolute truth there is no Ashraya whatsoever for avidyA, for the purpose of carrying out the AtmAnAtmaviveka bhAshyakAra has expressed his opinion that : since avidyA is a pratyaya it is just antaHkaraNa dharma. ( see geeta bhAshya 13-2 where bhAshyakAra gives the example of cataract).
Chittaranjan Naik
In my understanding, there is something 'to be done'. For Brahman gets to be tasted through the akhandakaravritti. As to what is to be done to bring it about, if the intellectual understanding is correct, it is nidhidhyasana. But nidhidhyasana is strictly not some thing to be done for it is not a kind of meditation or contemplation; it is more a kind of renunciation in which one abides as Brahman and renounces everything else so that everything extraneous to It drops off just water falls off the petals of a lotus flower. This is my understanding.
Chittaranjan Naik
Sudhanshu Shekhar
Unfortunately I cannot open any of the external links in my office laptop. Anyway, it is not so difficult to understand in which manner Sri SSS implies Atman is the Vishaya and Ashraya of avidyA especially when bhAshyakAra himself categorically stated avidyA is in day to day transaction is karaNa dOsha.
Chittaranjan Naik
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Dear Chitta-ji,
Obviously I am aware of these sort of arguments, and I concede that it is the view probably held by most seekers. However, no one has ever explained what is meant by being ‘in immediate cognition of Brahman’, as opposed to ‘appreciating what it means intellectually’. Since the reality is Brahman and is non-dual, reason tells me that we can NEVER cognize Brahman. As jIva-s, the best we can hope for is the intellectual conviction. As Brahman, there is no need (or possibility) to do anything. Śaṅkara’s commentaries make it clear (to me) that knowledge alone is all that is required; there is no need for any subsequent ‘action’. The akhaṇḍākāra vṛtti takes place with the final realization of the truth of the teaching.
The format/practice/purpose of nididhyAsana is another topic.
Best wishes,
Dennis
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Chittaranjan Naik
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 10:45 AM
To: advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: Enlightenment - the simple explanation
Dear Sri Dennis-ji,
dwa...@advaita.org.uk
Happy with that definition. (Although I would avoid confusing idea of ‘knots of the heart’! 😉)
From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Chittaranjan Naik
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 10:54 AM
To: advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: Enlightenment - the simple explanation
Dear Sri Dennis-ji,
Chittaranjan Naik
Ram Chandran
Brahman cannot be fully understood or described due to its transcendental nature. It is often referred to as the ultimate reality that lies beyond all forms and concepts, and it is described as being eternal, infinite, and unchanging.
- Many scholars emphasize that Brahman is beyond dualistic attributes, existing as pure consciousness and awareness.
In essence, Brahman represents a profound and elusive reality that transcends human comprehension and language.
Ram Chandran
The Video presentations of Swamiji SarvaPriyananda is worth listening for all!
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=bdfe0e8e57c750543fc1282ccb66ff3247a359a79b656f676471f5989b74aaeaJmltdHM9MTc2NDExNTIwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=30c03c70-6f9b-6a12-2c7b-29876eea6b6a&u=a1L3ZpZGVvcy9yaXZlcnZpZXcvcmVsYXRlZHZpZGVvP3E9YnJhaG1hbitjYW4rbmV2ZXIrYmUrY29uZ25pemVkJm1pZD0wRThFQkVENjRCMzA4OEM2NTFCMDBFOEVCRUQ2NEIzMDg4QzY1MUIwJkZPUk09VklSRQ
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=879368e4f7b45708729eaa17d293f9b5951a5a23be4bb334ff0c09d8fca7265cJmltdHM9MTc2NDExNTIwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=30c03c70-6f9b-6a12-2c7b-29876eea6b6a&u=a1L3ZpZGVvcy9yaXZlcnZpZXcvcmVsYXRlZHZpZGVvP3E9YnJhaG1hbitjYW4rbmV2ZXIrYmUrY29uZ25pemVkJm1pZD02OUFDQTY5MDk2OTUyQkM1QjEyMjY5QUNBNjkwOTY5NTJCQzVCMTIyJkZPUk09VklSRQ
Harish L B
I captured some notes for myself from the discussion so far; Have intentionally left out the Sanskrit words and jargon, and have also omitted your individual names, kindly bear with that.
- There was a distinction made between intellectual grasp and the direct cognition in the premises of the assertion “I am Brahman” as the ultimate truth.
- The discussion also questioned whether this realization is purely intellectual or requires something beyond reasoning.
- The goal is to transcend “I am Brahman” - not as a concept but as the sole reality.
- Ignorance is best understood as lack of correct knowledge, and not a substantive entity.
- Knowledge does not arise anew; it only removes misconceptions and reveals the ever-present Self.
- The ONLY process that works is SMN, and the realization is non-dual which is beyond intellectual constructs.
- The world is NOT negated but understood as mithya - an appearance in nondual Brahman.
- Intellectual clarity and direct cognition are complementary stages, not mutually exclusive.
- Brahman can never be cognized or understood.
Harish
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/239f3847-96ce-4e64-bd29-bb411b1fa560n%40googlegroups.com.
putran M
I never suggested that there is ‘lack of knowledge in the Self’. Indeed, ‘knowledge’ does not really apply to the Self at all, since there is nothing else to know!
The ‘lack of knowledge’ belongs to the intellect of the jIva.
The wrong ideas and confusion have to be resolved by a qualified teacher so that the intellect realizes that ‘I am Brahman’.
Ram Chandran
I am providing a link to a post by me on the Pitfalls of Intellectual Debates on Advaita Vedanta which is quite relevant why we need to stop debating and focusing more on self-enquiry!
https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/21JDmoxkTUE/m/MFOG9nJQAQAJ
Warm regards,
Ram Chandran