Does the mukta/jnani see the world?

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Does the mukta/jnani see the world?

from: Sri Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati (SSSS), Sugama (SKT - Version); Section 71 (tr. Hishi Ryo ji):

(English tr. follows)

विनष्टत्वात् कथं भेदज्ञानानुवृत्तिः ? तदभावे च कथं शिष्येभ्यस्तत्त्वज्ञानोपदेशः ? तदनुवृत्तौ स्वयमज्ञस्य कथमाचार्यत्वम् ?

बाधितानुवृत्तिस्वीकारेऽपि कथं मिथ्याविषयत्वनिश्चये सत्युपदेशाय प्रवृत्तिः ? कथं च नित्यनिवृत्ताज्ञानस्य भगवतोऽर्जुनं प्रति गीतोपदेशः ? तस्माद्विद्याविद्यास्वरूपविभागोऽयमसमञ्जस एवेति न प्रतिभातिति चेत् । अत्र प्रष्टव्यो भवान् । किं द्वैतसत्यत्वबाधकमद्वैतज्ञानमङ्गीकृत्येदं प्रश्नजालं प्रतायतेऽथवा अनभ्युपगम्येति । तत्र प्रथमे कल्पे तावन्न प्रश्नो नापि चोत्तरम् । न ह्यद्वितीय तत्त्वज्ञाने सति पुनरपि किञ्चित् चोद्यम् भवति । द्वितीये तुकल्पेऽज्ञदृष्ट्या सर्वोऽप्ययं व्यवहारोऽवकल्पत एवेति न कस्यचिदाक्षेपस्यावकाशः ।

न ह्यद्वैतसिद्धान्ते ज्ञानोत्पत्त्यज्ञानबाधगुरुशिष्यभेदोपदेशादिकं परमार्थ इत्यभ्युपगम्यते प्रपञ्चसद्भावतनिवृत्ती वा पारमार्थिके इति । द्वैतज्ञानसन्दूषितचित्तानां तु शिष्याणा क्रमेण बोधनायेदं सर्वं प्रक्रियारचनमिति नात्र किंचिदसामञ्जस्यम् यथाऽऽह भगवान् भाष्यकारः "एकस्मिन्ब्रह्मणि निरुपाधिके नोपदेशः, नोपदेष्टा, न च उपदेशग्रहणफलम्"इति।

Interpretation/Translation:

How can there be a continuance of duality (knowledge of difference, bhedajñānānuvṛttiḥ)) after it has been sublated ('eliminated')? And because it has been sublated (i.e. absence of wrong knowledge), how can there be any instruction of knowledge of reality to students? And in the case (bhedajñānānuvṛttiḥ) continues, how can such an ignorant assume to be a teacher? Even when such a continuation of what has been sublated (bādhitānuvṛtti) is accepted, how can there be an engagement ('activity) of teaching the Truth when the subject matter has been (already) determined to be wrong? And how was the teaching in Bhagavad Gita by the Lord to Arjuna possible who is eternally devoid of it [i.e. ignorance]? Therefore, one should ask if this division of knowledge and ignorance is (itself) proper. (Consequently), are these questions (objections) from the perspective of Non-Duality ('by acceptance of non-reality) that contradicts duality, or is (non-duality) not at all accepted? In the former, there is no need for a question or response, as there is no question or response from the perspective of Non-Duality/Brahman. In the second case, however, all these questions are conceived from the perspective of ignorance, so there is (also) no room for these (valid) questions (or objections).

According to Advaita SiddhAnta, i.e. from the perspective of ultimate reality (paramArtha), [concepts such as] liberation, avidyA gets (really) eliminated, a distinction between teacher and disciple etc. is certainly not accepted. Rather, the cessation (sublation) of understanding the world/duality (as 'real') is considered the ultimate truth.

(However) for disciples whose minds are (still) influenced by dualistic notions (i.e. ignorants), this prakriyA (i.e. adhyAropApavAda) is gradually shaped towards their liberation. There is nothing inappropriate, as the revered bhAShyakAra says:

"(Nevertheless, in case you think that) when the one unconditioned Brahman is realized as the only reality, there is neither instruction nor instructor nor the result of comprehending the instruction (BrUP 2.1.20 Bh. Sw. MADVH)."

[Kalyan]

Namaskaaram Michael-ji 

 

The questions raised are very interesting. I too wondered from a long time, why a jnAni would bother to teach an ajnAni, having come out of notions of duality. Even if we assume that a jnAni has a small trace of avidyA left, this is not true for Bhagawan teaching Arjuna, as we accept that BhagavAn is completely free from avidyA.

However, I did not understand Swami-ji's answer to these questions.

Best Regards

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

While Michael Ji has given the title * Does the mukta/jnani see the world? *, the citation from Sugama of Sri SSS does not appear to address this question directly in my understanding. There is a text in kannada by Sri SSS, titled ** Shankara VedAnta Sara ** which addresses the question explicitly. This text has been translated into English by his follower Sri DB Gangoli titled  ** The essential Adi Shankara ** which can be accessed at the following link

//  https://adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/bookreader/templates/book.php?type=english&book_id=033&pagenum=0203#page/225/mode/1up  //

Section 212 refers.

Relevant portion of the translation/commentary by Gangoli is copied below.

//  Here in this context the true, genuine spiritual teaching is : By virtue of jnaana, Avidya is completely falsified, sublated (Baadhita), – meaning, the seeker gets the conviction that Avidya does not really exist at all ; only this much, and not that jnaana does actually and literally destroy Avidya, like an axe cutting asunder a tree or like fire burning away or consuming firewood. Therefore, even after they become Baadhita by virtue of jnaana, categories like Avidya-Kaama-Karma as also the physical body, which is caused as a result of ‘Praarabdha Karma’ and which is the supporting adjunct (Aashraya) all of them carrying on their respective functions, just as when a potter rotates the wheel fast and allows it to turn on its own momentum (in consonance with the *Law of Inertia*) till its speed of rotation is destroyed – becomes quite but natural. There is no defect or blemish whatsoever in Mithyaa Jnaana (misconception,delusion) etc – to wit, all the three types of Ajnaana, Mithyaa jnAAna (Adhyaasa) and Samshaya – which are falsified by virtue of Jnaana ( Jnaana Baadhita) remaining effective for some time – just like a second moon (Dwiteeya Chandra), the false notion or misconception of sea-shell-silver (Shuktirajataabhaasa) or the confused notion as regards the cardinal directions of east, west, north, and south (Dik Moaha) etc. By virtue of or as a result of this Baadhitaanuvritti (falsified mental concepts) there does not arise any flaw or lapse  whatsoever in so far as a Jnaani’s KritaKrityata (the Realized soul’s fulfillment of life’s goal, its consummation) is concerned  //.

Regards

On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 8:48 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Michael Chandra Cohen ji.
>
> avidyA appears only from the frame of reference of avidyA. From the frame
> of reference of Brahman, there has never been avidyA, never been any
> appearance of avidyA.
>
> The teaching "avidyA is mithyA"is from the frame of reference of avidyA in
> which VedAs or teacher-disciple transaction takes place. From the frame of
> reference of Brahman, it is ajAta.
>
> Whether jnAnI sees the world -- in answered in Advaita as per the model SDV
> or DSV. These being two prakriya with the former ultimately leading one to
> latter.
>
>
> In SDV, avidyAlesha  and jIvanmukti are accepted.
>
> In DSV, neither avidyAlesha nor jIvanmukti are accepted.jIvanmukti
> reference in shAstra is accepted to be arthavAda.
>
> Questions need to be posed in a model, a prakriyA.

> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listm...@advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listm...@advaita-vedanta.org
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org

Virus-free.www.avast.com

[V Subrahmanian]

The question: 'Does a Jnani see the world' has no meaning at all.  This is because once one accepts the concept of a Jnani, then all that is behind it has to be accepted:

The world, bound jivas, aspiring for release, practice for release and release and the released jiva, a Jnani. Since the Jnani is in this package, the world cannot be stated to be out of the range of the Jnani. 

One can say there is no Jnani at all on the lines of the Gaudapada Karika:

न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिर्न बद्धो न च साधकः ।
न मुमुक्षुर्न वै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थता ॥ ३२ ॥ 2.32

Here Gaudapada says: There is no creation, no dissolution, none bound, no aspirant, none seeking release, no released. This is the Supreme Advaita. This cannot be articulated and hence alone Shankara cites an Upanishadic dialogue in the BSB: 3.2.17:

बाष्कलिना च बाध्वः पृष्टः सन् अवचनेनैव ब्रह्म प्रोवाचेति श्रूयते — ‘स होवाचाधीहि भो इति स तूष्णीं बभूव तं ह द्वितीये तृतीये वा वचन उवाच ब्रूमः खलु त्वं तु न विजानासि । उपशान्तोऽयमात्मा’ इति ।

The aspirant approaches the Guru and seeks self-knowledge. The Guru remains silent. The aspirant asks again and again and the Guru opens up: 'I have been replying but you do not comprehend it. The Atman is quiescence.' 

It is only in this scenario there can be neither a Jnani nor a world that is objectified. 

Contrasted to the above, in the scenario of Bhruguvalli, Shvetaketu - Uddalaka, Nachiketa - Yama, etc. there is a Jnani and he is in the world.    

So, if we accept a Jnani, we have to, by default, accept that he is living in the world and interacting with it. There is no way we can deny his contacting the world and still accept him as an entity.  Similarly, the talk of 'no prarabdha for a Jnani' also is valid only and only in the Gaudapada verse scenario and not in any other.

Om Tat Sat

subbu 

 

  

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Namaste Sudhanshu Shekarji -- Jury is still out on drsti-srsti vada. It is a prakriya taught by various schools, texts and teachers with interesting distinctions - a big study. Sthaneshwara Timalsinaji's book, Appearance and Seeing, expounds exhaustively on the topic. However, I only see causal reference to DSV in formal Bhasya. 

Namaste Chandmouli ji -- I think the excerpt I provided clearly depicts that one who has known the Self does not see the world as duality is completely negated including knowership. I'm not sure why you would think it does not address the topic. Regardless, thanks for the link - on point. It's a bit difficult to decipher however I believe it and my selection convey the same conclusion - jnana and duality cannot co-exist no less than light and darkness can co-exist. 

Namaste Subbu ji -- What does it mean when you say, "the released jiva, a Jnani"? Is this jiva now celebrated as Enlightened as a Jnani or is this jiva now "released" from jiva-hood? If the former, duality persists; if the latter, who is to see/know the world or to teach as there is no individuality? 

Thank you all. I am honored to dialogue with your responses. 

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0Hh4h-NaJWHT10T6Mk71prsC490-YJ3w%3D%3D2uzo0FoTRA%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 7:30 PM Michael Chandra Cohen <michaelc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Subbu ji -- What does it mean when you say, "the released jiva, a Jnani"? Is this jiva now celebrated as Enlightened as a Jnani or is this jiva now "released" from jiva-hood? If the former, duality persists; if the latter, who is to see/know the world or to teach as there is no individuality? 

In the Gaudapada verse, he is the one who formerly thought he was a jiva and now, after sadhana, is released. The verse says that there is no such a person since fundamentally creation itself is naught.  If we accept a Jnani whom we surely admit as one who has made the journey, then inevitably we place him in the world and it is he who is spoken of in the Bh.Gita 2nd chapter elaborately.answering Arjuna's question on such a Jnani's traits. So, the world, duality, etc. all are admitted in such a scenario. If we do not want such a scenario, we should not utter the word Jnani. 

regards

subbu    

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

In case of Jivan-Mukta, he or she would, of course, see the world, but he would not be attached to it, as he had already realised what Lord Krishna said about the fleeting nature of the world. For one, who attained Moksha in the advaitic sense,  both the Sthula and Shukshma sareeras diappeared and the question of seeing the Created world does not arise. But, my friends, please don't forget that Lord Ram told us, in the  Upanishads, about the four types of Mukti. The non-advaitins can see the world at all times. Any comment?

Warmly,

sunil kb

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te2xN1AHJVpBo9zEQBw10oT953tQshDWuyT6KuxvYe6Ojw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Shri Krishna ji,

SDV - Srishti Drishti Vada
DSV - Drishti Srishti Vada

with humble prostrations,

Vikram

On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 10:48 PM Krishna Kashyap via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Please expand the abbreviations SDV and DSV. I have some ideas about these
two. But wanted to be sure.
*Best Regards,*

*Krishna Kashyap*

On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 8:48 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Michael Chandra Cohen ji.
>
> avidyA appears only from the frame of reference of avidyA. From the frame
> of reference of Brahman, there has never been avidyA, never been any
> appearance of avidyA.
>
> The teaching "avidyA is mithyA"is from the frame of reference of avidyA in
> which VedAs or teacher-disciple transaction takes place. From the frame of
> reference of Brahman, it is ajAta.
>
> Whether jnAnI sees the world -- in answered in Advaita as per the model SDV
> or DSV. These being two prakriya with the former ultimately leading one to
> latter.
>
>
> In SDV, avidyAlesha  and jIvanmukti are accepted.
>
> In DSV, neither avidyAlesha nor jIvanmukti are accepted.jIvanmukti
> reference in shAstra is accepted to be arthavAda.
>
> Questions need to be posed in a model, a prakriyA.
>
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023, 19:47 Michael Chandra Cohen via Advaita-l, <
> adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Shri Kalyan Ji,

Your questions echo the arguments provided by Swami Ramanujacharya in SrimadBhagavadGita-2.12 bhashya. The questions are fairly straightforward to answer and, in my humble honest opinion, stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of Advaita philosophy. I will share my understanding in the sequel.

with humble prostrations,

Vikram

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/f5521f6a-ede2-490f-b1ec-f83b8a3f7921n%40googlegroups.com.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Shri Michael Ji,

Sharing some comments to your fundamental question - "Does the mukta / jnani see the world?":

1. Who is referred to as the mukta / jnani? Is it a) the erstwhile individual with a specific antahkarana & body (BMI) conditioning Brahman or b) Brahman itself? If the latter, Brahman, itself, then the answer is no. There is nothing, ever, other than Brahman, for Brahman to see. If the former, the BMI conditioning Brahman, then the next questions come into view:

2. In the vyavaharika realm, there are 2 aspects to every individual - the One Atman/Brahman and the individual BMIs. Between the two, who actually perceives the world? To simplify let's take the case of the ignorant (an ajnani). For an ignorant, is it Brahman who perceives the world or is it the BMI conditioning Brahman that perceives the world? (Note: hereafter BMI refers to BMI conditioning Brahman and not just inert material BMI.) In other words, who is the knower - is it the Brahman or BMI? It is clearly not Brahman since it is well established in Advaita that Brahman is not the knower / agent. Therefore it is functioning BMI alone that is the knower and perceives the world. However, being the ignorant, due to adhyasa, the perception by the BMI and its consequent knowership is superimposed with the ever Conscious Brahman. The result of the superimposition is the sense of being the individual conscious entity - the jiva. However, this adhyasa does not change the fact that it is only the functioning BMI that actually perceives the world!

3. What about a jnani in the vyavaharika realm? For the jnani, is it Brahman who perceives the world or is it still the functioning BMI? As above, it is not Brahman as the knower / agent. It is the functioning BMI alone. Having said so, how is this then different from the perception of an ajnani? It is not that for the ajnani alone the BMI is the knower and for a jnani Brahman is the knower - or the vice-versa!! In both the cases, functioning BMI alone is the knower, with Brahman said to be a mere witness. What then is the difference between the ajnani and the jnani? The difference is the understanding of the nature of perception. An ajnani believes he / she is directly involved & affected by the perception & experiences of the world. A jnani, on the other hand, understands the true nature of consciousness as Brahman and realizes the experiences to be the play of BMI influenced by Karma.

4. Who in a jnani, actually 'understands' and 'realizes' these aspects? Is it again, the Brahman or the functioning BMI? It is not Brahman, for reasons said above; consequently it is the functioning BMI alone that 'understands' or 'realizes' the true nature of consciousness and the experiences! It is thus said that Brahman, ever pure immutable free, transcends even bondage & liberation; whereas these concepts are applicable to the mind alone.

5. This then establishes the fact that for both, jnani and ajnani, it is functioning BMI conditioning Brahman that sees the world. As long as the BMI functions, the person, whether ajnani or jnani, perceives the world; perception being the function of BMI. This answers the fundamental question in affirmative and instead poses another fundamental question - while it is accepted by all that in the vyavaharika realm, an ajnani is associated with an individual BMI, is a jnani associated with an individual BMI as well or not?

6. Advaita's answer to this question is that a jnani too can be associated with the individual BMI. Such a jnani is termed jivanmukta. The epithet 'jivan' is used precisely to denote the association with the individual functioning BMI. 'Mukta' refers to the true knowledge of the state of liberation. This knowledge too, as seen above, is only in the realm of the mind. Being associated with the BMI, as the BMI functions it perceives the world around. But the mind has also realized the true nature of Brahman through aparokshanubhuti (Brahman Sakshatkaram) and is able to discriminate between the nature of Brahman versus other experiences. The BMI of an ajnani is not realized, whereas the BMI of a jnani is said to be realized. Brahman is nitya mukta (ever free).

7. Next question - what causes the continued association of the BMI with a jnani? For an ajnani, it is accepted by all that the association is due to the person's Karma. But for a jnani, with the dawn of knowledge, why isn't the association broken? Scriptures' answer is that the continued association of the BMI with a jnani is due to Karma as well. Particularly it is the prarabdha Karma, which is also termed as the traces of avidya, due to its momentum, that results in the association. As long as this Karma continues, there will be specific vasanas, desires, thoughts, emotions and actions. All these are only in the realm of BMI. It is through this Karma that the guru-sishya parampara is maintained. Brahman has no Karma and no experiences.

8. The realized BMI of the jnani teaches the unrealized BMI of the ajnani. All the while Brahman remains ever the One and same. The very prarabdha Karma of the jnani impels the BMI to impart spiritual instructions to students and guide the world at large purely out of compassion for loka sangraham. There is no conflict / contradiction between the realization of a jnani, functioning of the BMI for loka sangraham and the pure state of Brahman. It is also possible, depending on the influence of Karma, that there are minimal to none thoughts in the BMI and the jnani is observed to be quiet in a secluded place. In that case, there may just be enough Karma to sustain the body for a while. When the Karma is exhausted, the association with BMI is dropped. Neither of this has any bearing on Brahman or even the state of realization at the BMI level for the jnani. This thus establishes the modus operandi of a jnani as a teacher.

9. While it is clear from a jnani's perspective that prarabdha Karma, as traces of avidya, is continuing to fructify, how does this explain the state of Isvara such as Bhagavan Shri Krishna teaching Shri Arjuna? There is clearly no prarabdha Karma for Bhagavan that creates / maintains an association with the BMI!! Is Bhagavan Shri Krisha then an ajnani, per Advaita?? The answer is no, Bhagavan Shri Krishna is not an ajnani. While prarabdha Karma is responsible for the association for a jnani or ajnani, for Bhagavan it is His sankalpa through Maya alone that causes the association with a specific BMI. Bhagavan's sankalpa directly influences the activities of the specific chosen BMI. The physical person seen as Shri Krishna with the specific characteristics of the body, senses, antahkarana etc. is only the functioning BMI conditioning Brahman, created by Maya per Bhagavan's sankalpa. In terms of realization and activities this functioning BMI is not different from the functioning BMI of a jnani. Isvara's chosen BMI, in the form of Bhagavan Shri Krishna, teaches the student Shri Arjuna. This does not impact the realized state of the BMI or even Isvara / Brahman. There is no conflict / contradiction here.

10. As to the leading question, how can Brahman have sankalpa; Brahman being nirguna? - the response is that, as seen in the first point, there is nothing, ever, other than Brahman, for Brahman to see. There is no sankalpa either for pure Brahman. It is only through the lens of Maya (associated with avidya in some form) that Brahman as Isvara is imbued with the quality of sankalpa. This is in vyavaharika alone.

Hoping this communicates clearly my current understanding; and clarifies Shri Kalyan Ji's doubts as well.

with humble prostrations,

Vikram

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvE0X79mV7ETUFT2itUPbQoRxifTcuJXE5MV0HEiHUiBqw%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Michael Ji,

If you still believe that your understanding of Sugama cited by you does not contradict the statement by Sri SSS I had cited, then it is fine. I thought they were contradictory and hence my post.

Regards

Virus-free.www.avast.com

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvEwBy8h_Y5YXhn0wMpLK2j1Aq3o0_a%3DMFygKo1RgjVqMQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

You might have read "na hi Sankhya samam gyanam, na hi yoga samam balam". In the Bhagavad Gita also, Lord Krishna started the 2nd chapter with Sankhya. So why not look at the present issue from the angle of Sankhya, in the Bhagavad Gita, for a short and sweet answer. In the 3rd chapter, the Lord says:

आवृतं ज्ञानमेतेन ज्ञानिनो नित्यवैरिणा ।
कामरूपेण कौन्तेय दुष्पूरेणानलेन च ॥ ३९ ॥

इन्द्रियाणि मनो बुद्धिरस्याधिष्ठानमुच्यते ।
एतैर्विमोहयत्येष ज्ञानमावृत्य देहिनम् ॥ ४० ॥

 

This  means that  the senses, the mind (which commands the senses)  and the intellect are the seat of desire  and this insatiable desire covers the pure consciousness and thusconfuses the living being. But the Jivanmukta fully controls or inactivates the indriyas as well as the atindriya "manas", such that his mind is not at all affected by the desires, in fact the Jivanmukta has  the manah-shunya (inactive mind) state, and he does not see anything in the world.

Jai Bhagavad Gita, Jai Lord Krishna

Warmly,

SunlKB

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdObaHN2UvwMwCZQRxPAY9Y4mdg98AEGNdQ8iEn4r6M8ew%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar:

The question that Michealji has  posed is not knew and the question and similar questions have been posted by others in vedantic discussions.  At Paramarthika level there can’t be any discussions nor the senses such as seeing, touching, tasting, smelling, etc have no roles! Our senses and sense injected notions, theorems, discussions are only possible at the Vyavaharika level.  One has to go beyond the senses to realize and merge with the Brahman! This is what explained through the statement, "(Nevertheless, in case you think that) when the one unconditioned Brahman is realized as the only reality, there is neither instruction nor instructor nor the result of comprehending the instruction (BrUP 2.1.20 Bh. Sw. MADVH)."

 

The saying, “Brahman Only Knows the Brahman!” provides the clue that why we who have not understood the Brahman will not be able to know the Brahman.  The question, “Can the Brahman see the Brahman?” is never a question to the Brahman but question was raised by the one who is not a Brahman! Similarly, the question, “Does the mukta/jnani see the world?” is posed not by Jnani but by an ajnani! All theorems, notions and validation of those theorems and notions do not belong to the Brahman but only to the ajnani who wants to become the Brahman.

The bottom line is that at the Vyavaharika level (our discussions here!) we can ask all questions that are relevant to our level of understanding.  Asking questions beyond our level requires us to go beyond our senses to find the answers!

With my warm regards,

Ram Chandran

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Ram Chandranji,

You wrote: "Asking questions beyond our level requires us to go beyond our senses to find the answers!"

Lord Krishna is not in our level and that is why I have reported what was the answer the Lord has given in his Bhagavad Gita.

Warmly

Sunil KB

My reply

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/a61bc4ad-f690-447d-8204-21bc4837c6c2n%40googlegroups.com.

[Ram Chandran]

Dear Sunilji:

Since we are not at the level of Lord Krishna, then the answers provided by Him through Bhagavad Gita can only be understood by Him!  Braman knows the Brahman is not very helpful except for discussion!! The underlined faith and conviction on our Scriptures alone will help us to find the answers!!

Warm regards,

Ram Chandran

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Ram Chandranji,

The Bhagavad Gita is part of the Mahabharata, Shri Vedavyasa himself was feeling very sad,when he realised that many people couldn't understand Mahabharata well, which includes the Bhagavad Gita. Because of not understanding what is written in the Mahabharata well, many scholars even failed to determine the date of the Mahabharata war.

So please don't get disheartened, as you are not the only one, who does not understand the Bhagavad Gita, which is a part of the Mahabharata. Shri Narada Muni advised Vedavyasa to write another book, which the people would understand easily. That is why Vedavyasa wrote the Bhagavatam, which should be understandable to all. But, Shri Madhvacharya thought that  Vedavyasa failed in that too, as Madhvacharya claimed that nobody can understand the Bhagavatam, without his commentary.

The Purna-Brahma Avatara, Lord Krishna spoke the Bhagavad Gita, to guide Arjuna before the Mhabharata war, but many including me, think that Lord Krishna had done a great favour to us, the mortals.  Guided by that view, I even worked towards bringing out the Original Bhagavad Gita of 745 verses, as my humble contribution.

Warmly.

Sunil KB

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/b5700603-10e3-4949-a0cb-08d0385f8e4dn%40googlegroups.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

Any reference to jIvanmukti by Bhagvan Krishna or any of the AchAryAs such as MS Himself in 3.18 etc is to be understood in this manner only. As an arthavAda.

praNAms
Hare Krishna

After reading this I am getting some crazy doubts in my mind 😊 please bear with me.

(a) Is shankara bhagavatpAda mukta (Jeevan mukta) or not?? It is only arthavAda and bhagavatpAda himself a mere object in DSV, how can I believe he is having any 'stuff' in his teaching?? After all 'he', his teaching etc. are just my imagination is it not??
(b) if the realization itself is arthavAda what is the role of sampradaya and sampradaya teaching?? And what is the need of Advaita sAdhana like shravaNAdi sAdhana?? When all these things are mere super imagination of this eka jeeva??
(c) when this eka jeeva knows (intellectually) or realizes literally that he is one and everything else is his imagination, through which means (sAdhana) he would attain this knowledge and how he validates his knowledge and how he would determine his realization is genuine and not his mere stupid imagination??
(d) And finally the author MS and his works (sankshepa shaareerika teeka, vedAntamuktAvali, AS, gUdArtha Deepika etc.) is just there in my ( the alone jeeva) imagination and I am drawing conclusions that in SDV ONLY jeevanmukta possible and DSV is just not accepting this etc.?? Don’t we get the doubt that in imagination we are just doing sub(upa) imagination?? 😊
( e) if sampradaya is a mute thing in EJV and jnAnOtpatti can happen on its own without any sAmpradAyik teaching or guru-shishya paraMpara, why on the earth advaita sampradaya giving undue importance to sampradaya?? OK, if we argue it is from the platform of SDV meant only for nAnA jeeva vAdins, then what is the route map for the EJ to realize that he is ekaM and there is no dviteeyaM when he considers everything apart from him is just his imagination and eulogy (arthavAda)??
(f) And finally is this AS or any other works of MS just there to propagate Advaita siddhAnta, pratipAdana and sAdhana without caring much about sampradaya and sampradaya Acharya-s?? Are these works just an attempt of justifying Advaita and saving it from the objections of dvaitins?? This is my genuine query as I am not familiar with any of the works of MS as I have read Sri Vidya prabhuji's opinion in this list itself that Sri MS deviated from shankara's mUlabhAshya when presenting his prakriya. And incidentally Sri Venkataraghavan prabhuji also confirmed works like AS just polemics and not recommended or not required as a mandatory work in Advaita to study.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

In Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna used the word  "स्थितप्रज्ञ" (Shitaprajna) for Jivanmukta.

As regards Adi Shankara, I consider him to be a sthitaprajna. Any objection?

My 2 cents.

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65810ADE27FB2ED0A8F3B62184B0A%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Bhaskarji - PraNAms

 

First, your arguments are very sound. 

I see a lot of discussions on Jnaani with DSV vs SDV arguments - and the classification of Jnaanis.

 

 

Here is my understanding. 

 

1. When you are in the deep sleep state, there is no world, no other Jeevas, no Iswara, no space and time, also. You are beyond any apparent duality. Granted that you do not know your true nature also. Yet the fact is you are one without a second. From that reference, eka Jeeva Vaada (EJV) sounds correct. 

 

When you get up from the deep sleep state, the mind gets unfolded and you have the waking world with Jeevas and Jagat. In the dream state, the world and the Jeevas of the dream world are all created by your mind. Now what you call the dream world - DSV or SDV? - from the point of the waking mind that created the dream world - sounds like DSV. From the point of the you who is now a Jeeva in the dream world which is the real world for you as a dream subject - it is SDV. Is it DSV or SDV - depends on from what reference the discussion is made. 

 

Now we can extend the same arguments to the waking world. Which is correct DSV or SDV? It depends on the reference state from which the discussion is made. 

 

Now look at the situation - when you get up from your dream -there is no more dream world, dream Jeevas. You are one without a second. You are now Jnaani with reference to the dream world. 

 

Now examine the waking state. In this case, for the realization of the truth, you can do so while being still in the waking state. This you cannot do for the dream world since the discriminative intellect (Viveka) needed for realization is not there when you are dreaming. The reason is if it is there you will not be able to dream. 

 

Hence from the point of waking state, a realized master with his body, mind, and intellect (BMI) understands using his Viveka that he is Brahman - one without a second. (you can call that EJV). 

 

He with local BMI, transacting in the world, now having understood the truth that he is Brahman, can see many Jeevas. 

 

His BMI will remain due to his praarabda as well as due to the desires of the other Jeeves who want a teacher, who is a Jnaani. All our Advaitic masters come under this category. 

 

The Guru-Sishya relation and Guru parampara all are valid with reference to the waking state. For the unrealized Jeevas, the world is real and DSV is valid. The Vedas, the Puranas, and Getta all are real. 

 

From the realized Jnaani - from the point of truth, there are no Jeevas, no disciples, no world - He is Brahman without a second. Yet from the point of the waking world, as long as his BMI is there he plays his role (the world becomes a drama or jagannatakam).

 

Hence Shankara and Guruparampara are all valid from the point of the waking world since all these discussions are taking place from that reference.

 

From the point of realized state - there is only Brahman or paaramarthika view. 

 

Only confusion can happen about having one step in the waking state and one step in the trureeyam. Which is valid SDV or DSV?

 

Such discussions, from my understanding (without offending anybody), will not be of much help in terms of Self-Realization. 

 

In essence, we need to keep in mind from what reference the discussion is relevant. 

 

My 2C.

 

Hari Om!

 

Sadananda

   

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

PraNAms

A small correction - 

It should be

'The Guru-Sishya relation and Guru parampara all are valid with reference to the waking state. For the unrealized Jeevas, the world is real and SDV is valid. The Vedas, the Puranas, and Geeta all are real.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1014470329.2598910.1700191708932%40mail.yahoo.com

.

[Kalyan]

Namaskaaram AchArya Sri Sadananda gaaru

I have one question.

In eka jIva vAda, who is that one jIva? Is it correct, for me, to consider myself as that one jIva? Please clarify.

Thank you

Best Regards

[Bhaskar YR]

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

• I shall come back to Sri Sada prabhuji’s other clarifications.  But now in addition :

 

In eka jIva vAda, who is that one jIva? Is it correct, for me, to consider myself as that one jIva? Please clarify.

 

Ø     Eka jeeva is eka Chaitanya and that Chaitanya is parabrahman itself ( now second Chaitanya accepted in AV), So IMO eka jeeva means eka Chaitanya i.e. brahman only and in SDV also there is no multiple Chaitanya-s but due to association of upAdhi this Chaitanya treated as different that is again due to avidyA.  Now the question is in SDV, multiple jeeva-s (Chaitanya-s) accepted ??  definitely I don’t think so.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

And in SDV this ekAtma is both upAdANa and antaryAmi as well, tat srushtvA tadevAnuprAvishat, so I don’t think in SDV Advaita is diluted.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

From: 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 9:44 AM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world?

 

Warning

This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments. If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook. See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65818A699BE7DF9459DDD49284B7A%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Kalyan]

Sri Bhaskar-ji, Namaskaaram

My understanding is that multiple jIva-s are accepted in SDV. But both SDV and DSV admit only a single chaitanya.

Warm Regards

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

What is jeeva here apart from Chaitanya??  I mean what is the svarUpa of this jeeva apart from Chaitanya in SDV & DSV??

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Kalyan
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 9:52 AM
To: advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world?

 

Warning

This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments. If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook. See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.

Sri Bhaskar-ji, Namaskaaram

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/183f8b9f-b1d8-46dd-ba90-14f105121a11n%40googlegroups.com.

[Kalyan]

Dear Sri Bhaskarji

I sometimes think of the following analogy for SDV.

Brahman = lamp

jiva-s = multiple reflections of the lamp in many mirrors

Best Regards

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Bhaskarji -  PraNAms

Look at it this way. One who sees himself as eka jeeva, he must have understood that the other Jeevas that he sees are not really real but only apparently real.

From this, it follows that a Jnaani who has understood aham brahmaasmi should consider Jeeva-Jagat-Iswara, the triad is only apparent and not real. That is what is implied by Jnaanam, is it not? Hence from his reference, EJV seems to be correct. 

For ajnaani the many Jeevas that he sees are really real. That is what ajnaani means, right? 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--

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 on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65818A699BE7DF9459DDD49284B7A%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com

.

[Swami Raghabananda]

Thank you Sada ji,  we'll explained. Om namo Narayan 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1276473353.2597924.1700196180539%40mail.yahoo.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Pranams Sadananda Ji,

// On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 10:13 AM 'Kuntimaddi Sadananda' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Look at it this way. One who sees himself as eka jeeva, he must have understood that the other Jeevas that he sees are not really real but only apparently real.

From this, it follows that a Jnaani who has understood aham brahmaasmi should consider Jeeva-Jagat-Iswara, the triad is only apparent and not real. That is what is implied by Jnaanam, is it not? Hence from his reference, EJV seems to be correct //

In my understanding a Jnaani does not see himself as eka jIva either. All jIvAs, including himself, are seen as jIva AbhAsAs only.

DSV/EJV is a prakriyA for vichAra for an ajnaani only, though an advanced sAdhaka. The adhikAri for this is one who is at the  nidhidhyAsana stage, after completing shravaNa and manana. DSV/EJV  is recommended  by some at this stage for a sAdhaka as a preferred prakriyA. The adhikAri would correspond to वेदान्तविज्ञानसुनिश्चितार्थाः, ब्रह्मसंस्थ  as  explained in BSB 3—20 etc.

This is my understanding.

Regards

Virus-free.www.avast.com

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1276473353.2597924.1700196180539%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sada prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Hope your eye sight is good now after cataract surgery and nice to see your active participation in list.  If you could permit me I shall share my observations.

 

Look at it this way. One who sees himself as eka jeeva, he must have understood that the other Jeevas that he sees are not really real but only apparently real.

 

Ø     In that sense IMO his eka jeevatva is also ONLY apparently real and not an absolute reality is it not??  The knowledge is not something like OK I am bhAskar, as eka jeeva is the only jeeva all other jeeva-s are mere imagination character, na, I don’t think so, eka jeevatva is also part and parcel of this apparent reality.  Moreover, in bhAshya as you know the eka jeevatva has been attributed to hiraNyagarbha who is having samashti (macrocosm) antaHkaraNa by giving the example of dream state.  In vyAvahArika as you have rightly pointed out this bhAskar is different jeeva from that Sri Sada prabhuji jeeva ( jnAtru, pramAtru, bhOkta, karta etc.)  And these both jeeva-s know there is another noble jeeva called shankara bhagavatpaada who clarifies there is no jeeva as such it is only an imagination just as normal people see the surface of AkAsha and pasting the dirt on it (talamalAdi parikalpitaM). 

 

From this, it follows that a Jnaani who has understood aham brahmaasmi should consider Jeeva-Jagat-Iswara, the triad is only apparent and not real. That is what is implied by Jnaanam, is it not? Hence from his reference, EJV seems to be correct. 

 

• Yes, it is bheda buddhi nivArita bhUma jnana and in this no eka jeeva jnana either it is ekamevAdviteeya Samyak jnana where ONLY brahma jnana (AtmaikatvajnAna) prevails.  So IMHO, EJV jnana is not the result of this Atmaikatva jnana.  From this standpoint (if at all we can say like that) in all the three states (avasthAtraya) one and only Atman exists.  Nothing apart from it exists to assert I am the ONLY jeeva all other jeeva-s, Ishwara, jagat is mere apparent reality.  In this state Atman or the brahman or the Self is the ONLY reality. 

 

 

For ajnaani the many Jeevas that he sees are really real. That is what ajnaani means, right?

 

Ø     Yes prabhuji. And as per siddhAnta it is pure being alone that is spoken of as a individual jeeva due to his association with upAdhi-s.  sUtra 3-2-9 and bhAshya would be relevant here I reckon. 

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Chadramouliji - PraNAms

Yes. You are right. 

What I meant was only a jnaani realizes aham brahmaasmi. Hence when BMI sees the plurality, he recognizes that everything is mithyaa. 

For transactional purposes he operates as a jeeva. When he is hungry, he says I am hungry - does not have to use a fancy language as this body is hungry. I am sleepy, I am tired, etc. 

What you are saying is EKJ is for the seeker in the Nidhidhyaasana. That is fine. It will be propositional for his realization based on Vedanta study - as you mentioned it is for Nidhidhyaasana. 

That is understandable.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdM1YMbK9_mbc-DdJ9P4570TMcj2uvAh_5_MvXeWdMBEYQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Bhaskarji - PraNAms

Chandramouliji has provided some clarifications on what I wrote. All the vaadas are intended for ajnaani to gain jnaanam at the nidhidhyaasana stage. That sounds correct since from Brahman point there are no vaadas!

The points are taken. There should not be any confusion for Self-Realization. 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--

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 on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB658149EB946471C75C0189BD84B7A%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com

.

[sreenivasa murthy]

Respected members,

Who is jnani?

Is the jnani in the world or the universe is in the jnani?

Somewhere I came with a statement. It reads thus:

Quote :There is no jnani, there is no ajnani.

There is only Jnana.Unquote.

With respectful namaskars,

Sreenivasa Murthy

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1372688809.2635191.1700217516278%40mail.yahoo.com

.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Sreenivasa Murthyji,

All such questions arise only because we are in the cycle of birth and death, and we are continuing to suffer the pains and to enjoy the pleasures of life endlessly. Lord Krishna very kindly told us  to realise that what was in the past is not here at present and what is there at present would not be there in the future. Though this appears to be a simple truth, our desires make us forget this most often. Our desires create a sort of covering on the essential "jnana". For example, a male, who is overly attached to feminine beauty in his life, may himself be reborn as a female in the next birth, but a male in his present life may not be able realise the trials and tribulations, faced by a female. All desires have pitfalls and the best solution is to be steady in the essential Jnana, i.e., to become "Sthitaprajna', when the desires are curbed permanently. In other words, make the mind unable to entertain the desires of life  i.e.,  become "Manah-shunya". The Advaitins can follow the conventonal advaitic teachings for the Moksha, Alternatively, follow Lord Krishna's simple advice to pray to Mother Goddess Durga for the Mukti. Towards the end of his life, Adi Shankaracharya also worshipped Mother Lalita, who is one of dasha Maha-Vidyas of Mother Durga. 

Best wishes

Sunil KB

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1288674979.3021919.1700324248364%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Indian Rediff]

Namaskarams to the gyanis of this list. Let me give my brief understanding on this topic (deleting everything else that has been mentioned).

Realization is the root of becoming a gnyani. The process of realization (the lifting the veil of ignorance) is a completely internal process. i.e. it happens within the gnyani-to-be. Early on in BG, Krishna clears a doubt of Aruna - how will I recognise a gnyani. The answer to that is that there is NO external transformation of the individual upon becoming a gnyani.

Point number two is a question to everyone. Is it possible to become a gnyani WHILE STILL ALIVE in this BMI? To me, it is a crucial question that will answer the topic's question. 

On the one hand Krishna clearly says that it is possible to become a gnyani IN THIS LIFETIME. So the question is (potentially) answered here itself. What Krishna does not clearly say is if this 'becoming a gnyani' will happen while still alive, or post mortem of this BMI. If it will only happen after this BMI has exhausted its Prarabhda karma that it has been born with, then the BMI will have to await death of the BMI to become a gnyani.In this case, the topic's answer is clear - the 'gnyani-to-be' sees the world exactly as anyone with BMI sees it (because the 'becoming-a-gnyani' can only happen after the BMI ceases to exist).

HOWEVER, if we take Krishna's word literally, that it is possible to become a gnyani WHILE STILL IN THIS BMI, then the question is still open.

I think we can take the example of gnyanis like Shri Ramana Maharishi - who would be incommunicado most of the time, and give words of wisdom only on occasion. Or Shri Ramakrishna - who used to go into ecstasy at a moment's notice, and wouldn't come back to this world for hours on end.

IF WE ASSUME that people like these were gnyanis, WHILE IN THEIR respective BMIs, then we can look at their interactions with those around them. I think it would be logical to say that based on their interactions, they were seeing the world in much the same way that we see it.

Long story short (or tl;dr in internet-speak), a Gnyani sees the world exactly the same as all of us.

Thank you for reading. And my humble pranams to everyone again.

Sai

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar:

Your statement, “Gnyani sees the world exactly the same as all of us” is quite true and there is very little to dispute.  The question is how we and Gnyani differs after seeing the world?  I believe that the Gnyani accepts the world as it is where as we do not agree on everything that we see!  One of the classical example often used is seeing a movie on the movie screen.  Though everyone sees the movie, some perceive that they are integral part of the movie and get emotionally involved.  One of the point that we need to recognize is the status of ‘Gnyani’ is evolved over time and the growth depends on one’s background and mind setup!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and they are quite insightful,

Ram Chandran

[sreenivasa murthy]

Dear Sri Sunil Bhattachariyaji,

Does your posting give answers to my questions?

Do you know the answers? Yes or No?

With pranams,

Sreenivasa Murthy

     

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB9-Tr57o4uWPKbJER%3DxgApEBvc_D8ZRkedudj0CHZ8E%2BLA%40mail.gmail.com.

[S Ganesh]

panchadasi kara beautifully simplifies the topic as 1.iswara srshty and 2. jeeva srshty. there are infinite jeeva srshtys based on each ones set of likes and dislikes, whereas iswara srshty is one common to all. The gnanis by transcending their raga dveshas see the iswara srhty alone and are thus objective. So even though the gnani lives in the same world and sees the same objects, he is able to remove the extra mental projections by his mano nasha! 

humble pranams to all!

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/629ef244-177f-49e2-955a-d395b1493c7dn%40googlegroups.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Ganesh prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

panchadasi kara beautifully simplifies the topic as 1.iswara srshty and 2. jeeva srshty. there are infinite jeeva srshtys based on each ones set of likes and dislikes, whereas iswara srshty is one common to all.

 

• This is very important point I reckon please elaborate what is Ishwara srushti and what is jeeva srushti as per this prakaraNa.  Anyway, based on bhAshya, I too brought this point to reconcile this point and how Ishwara srushti (if at all we consider there srushti) is different from jeeva srushti.  Sri Sada prabhuji also talks about this very often in this group.  For the Ishwara srushti (jagat) brahman is the abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa and this effect is trishu kAleshu Not different from its cause clarifies shankara.  Though vyakta-avyakta (avyAkruta-vyAkruta) vikAra accepted prior and after creation, bhAshyakAra insists that that which prior to creation recognized as Atman ONLY the same thing recognized as Atman and this ‘after’ creation.  (itareya shruti bhAshya).  But some big guns in advaita tradition argue that all these theories meant for maNda and Madhyama adhikAri-s who cannot go beyond the perceiving jagat etc. But fact remains that bhAshyakAra himself emphasizes that ‘even after’ Samyak jnana, the paramArtha jnAni too would continue to get ‘goat’ jnana/vrutti after seeing the object called ‘goat’ and the jnAni drushti /understanding of goat is different from ajnAni’s understanding of the same ‘goat’, the later would see ‘goat’ is different from him whereas former (the jnAni) would see/realize the goat is not different from him.  So, here Ishwara srushti would continue to exist even for the paramArtha jnAni and in that srushti the bedha buddhi would be eradicated by the paramArtha jnana and this jnana would not eradicte / annihilate the existing ‘bedhAkAra’.  Hence bhAshyakAra clarifies Advaita jnana is all about bedha buddhi nivruttimeva and not bedhAkAra nivrutti.  And this bedhAkAra nivrutti can happen only at the time of mahApralaya.  Now, again, some advaitins would argue this model is suited ONLY to SD vAdins and model is workable only at the initial stages of brahma jignAsa and mumukshu subsequently elevate himself from SDV to DSV and finally ends up in ajAta vAda etc.  They simply fail to understand that jnana is not there to do any nAsha to any existing this but to fetch us the knowledge of real nature of what is there.  And to know this real nature of brahman ( that he is prajnAna ghana, nirvikAra, nirvishesha) Ishwara with all compassion showing/creating us the nAma rUpa :  yadi hi nAma rUpa na vyAkreeyate tadA asyAtmanO nirupAdhikaM rUpaM, prajnAnaghanAkhyaM na pratikhyAyeta.  Considering, accepting and adoring Ishwara hetuka eva srushti is ‘vedAnta maryAda’ is the clarification bhAshyakAra gives!!  For this purpose shruti gives examples like : mud-pot, survarNa-AbharaNa etc. (example chAndOgya) And brahman in itself is nirvikAra but to know/realize this nirvikAratva and nirvisheshatva we need the ‘upAdhi’, upAdhi is required to know upAdhi rahita brahman!! For this purpose bhAshyakAra gives example like shukti-rajata, rajju-sarpa, crystal-flower etc.   Without the red flower or blue flower how can you recognize the ‘existence and transparency of crystal clear ‘crystal’ 😊 As Sri Sada prabhuji often quotes from BG : matsthAni sarvabhUtAni ……na cha matsthAni bhUtAni pashya me yOgamaishwaraM.  On this existing thing jeeva’s builds his own assumptions due to his conditioning / avidyAtmaka buddhi and that which appears to this buddhi vrutti is called jeeva srushti which is entirely different from case to case basis of individuals.  Rope has to be there to see snake by one, crack on ground by someone else, gOmUtra dhaara by yet another one.  Giri, nadi, vana etc. is Ishwara srushti, boundaries, naming, possessiveness of these things is jeeva srushti due to his own avidyA/misconception.    

 

The gnanis by transcending their raga dveshas see the iswara srhty alone and are thus objective. So even though the gnani lives in the same world and sees the same objects, he is able to remove the extra mental projections by his mano nasha! 

 

• Yes very well said ( frankly I did not know all these are there in vidyAraNya’s panchadashi).  What jnAni sees is brahman and brahman alone, he is karaNam, kAraNam and karta ( he is anna, annaada and shlokakarta explains taittireeya). 

[Bhaskar YR]

Your statement, “Gnyani sees the world exactly the same as all of us” is quite true and there is very little to dispute.  The question is how we and Gnyani differs after seeing the world? 

praNAms Sri Ramachandra prabhuji

Hare Krishna

How ajnAni sees the world??  bhAshykAra replies for the ajnAni jagat is asarvaM, abrahmam, parichinnam and existing aloof from him

How jnAni sees / realizes the nature of the world ??  again bhAshyakAra clarifies for the jnAni jagat is sarvaM, brahmam, pUrNam and the jagat is brahmamayaM, AtmaivedaM vishvaM, brahmaivedaM vishvaM,

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Raghava prabhuji
Hare Krishna

In EJV, the experience of Guru and sAmpradAya are regarded as necessary but they are given pratibhasika status like the dream tiger example.

> I am sorry I failed to understand this prAtibhAsika satyatvaM in EJV and role of intellectual conviction of this eka jeeva in the 'practical' Advaita jnana sAdhana. Can we approach shankara's PTB with utmost reverence when we are having the dubious opinion that after all this shankara, shruti and all jnana bOdhaka vAkya-s are just my own dream's tiger?? Don’t we tempted to have some sort of complacency when doing traditionally prescribed sAdhana?? What is that so special in EJV and DSV and what's its significance in the Advaita sAdhana?? How this theory and intellectual conviction of this theory would help me to do my sAdhana effectively with utmost reverence to my guru-Acharya-saMpradAya and veda prescribed rituals?? If this knowledge is a complete zero in my Advaita sAdhana and a hindrance to me to have shraddha, bhakti in guru-shishya sampradaya, importance of sampradaya and sAmpradAyik teaching, why at all I should entertain it?? How can I develop Ishwara bhakti, sharaNaagati pray for Ishwara kAruNya when I have the notion that these things are just bla..bla..bla..holds water ONLY in DSV and when I elevate myself are qualified myself to DSV these things are just bhrAnti...Can any sane person run after water to quench his thrust even after realizing it is mere mirage?? I don’t think so.

Personally I am comfortable with DSV as a nididhyAsana-predominant approach rather than as something to assert in public.

> Yes it is not there to assert in public (infact not worthy to assert within the tradition when mumukshu trying to engage himself in jnana sAdhana by considering his guru as sAkshAt brahman). IMHO, theories like this when serving no substantial purpose in practical sAdhana better to be ignored because of the simple fact that our minds are tuned in a such a way that it always tries to find exceptions / excuses not to take anything seriously or in its own stride. I reckon theories like DSV would tempt us to have that type of leniency. In short, in sAdhana mArga, SDV is more feasible or a realistic practical approach for our AtmOnnati and I firmly believe most of the sAdhana /means are based on SDV only and DSV is just a theory.

[sreenivasa murthy]

Dear Sri Ganesh,

You write :"So even though the gnani lives in the same world and sees the same objects, he is able to remove the extra mental projections by his mano nasha!"

And afterwards he(gnani) will live like a vegetable, is it not so? Will he exist after manonasha? Who is the entity that will do the manonasha? Can anyone sit on his own shoulder?

With respectful pranams,

Sreenivasa Murthy

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CADH7a1M_Bf4dxceyEeD1UK6pdRD7_LESyUyA2oQfA99RTtHwwg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Now, this framework is certainly present in bhAshya everywhere in addition to the common default framework wherein waking is given more reality to dream. Therefore, in the default framework, waking Shruti is more reliable than dream Shruti and waking Shankara is more authentic than dream Shankara. Is it not? The waking sampradAya is much more required for liberation than dream sampradAya.

 

• Yes prabhuji, that is the reason why bhAshyakAra somewhere says there is not even an iota of paramArtha in Svapna prapancha but vyavahAra yOgya jaagrat prapancha is having paramArtha vastu as its adhishtAnam.  But he also warns us not to jump to the conclusion that everything is mere bhranti until you are waking to the higher truth than what you are experiencing now.  It is on the evidence or want of evidence of some valid means of knowledge that we have to determine the conceivability or the inconceivability of the existence of a thing and not vice versa.  It is from this point of view only bhAshyakAra does not deny the validity of pramANa-s.  So as long as you are there in this world, as long as you are there as jnAtru / pramAtru / bhOktru, the ‘socalled’ waking sampradaya holds its own significance as against Svapna sampradaya and Svapna guru.  No sincere mumukshu would dare to conclude that OK since waking and dream states are one and the same I shall do my adhyAtma sAdhana in my dream state, knowingly or unknowingly he wants to do the sAdhana in the state where he is and considering that it is the reality.  For that matter when he is seeing the dream tiger he is in that state don’t think it is mere dream tiger but it is real tiger.  Waking to the higher reality only sublates the previously held state as reality.  So till that time, let us all pray for guru / Ishwara  kAruNya as he is our mOksha dAta. 

This whole approach of putting more reality to waking is a default position. ShAstra uses this and postulates shrishTi, Ishwara who does this srishTi, Ishwara whom we should pray for kArUNyam etc etc. This is a distinct framework. This is called SDV.

 

• And for all practical purposes this is how our adhyAtma sAdhana would go forward and in this frame work, though one talks a lot about shAstra if he is asampradAyin needs to be ignored as idiot because for the brahma jnana we need the guidance of shrOtriya-brahmanishta saMpradAyavida Acharya.  And we have to prostrate before him and he is tattva darshi (tadviddhi praNipAtena pari prashneya sevaya).  Guru Ashraya is indispensable in brahma jignAsa, tadeva cha vishesheN jijnAsitavyaM gurvAshraya shavaNAdyupaayairarnishya cha sAkshAtkaraNeeyaM ityarthaH.  And I am sorry to say this more authentic way of jnana sAdhana will be highly diluted when we have the preconceived notion that this guru-sampradaaya-upadesha-sAdhana etc. are mere puppets dancing in my dream. 
•  And if you think that this sAmpradAyik way of jignAsa is just for maNda and Madhyama adhikAri-s and every thing is just dream is for uttama adhikAri-s, I would like to be mandAdhikAri 😊

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 05:22:09 PM GMT+5:30, 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

• And for all practical purposes this is how our adhyAtma sAdhana would go forward and in this frame work, though one talks a lot about shAstra if he is asampradAyin needs to be ignored as idiot because for the brahma jnana we need the guidance of shrOtriya-brahmanishta saMpradAyavida Acharya.  And we have to prostrate before him and he is tattva darshi (tadviddhi praNipAtena pari prashneya sevaya).  Guru Ashraya is indispensable in brahma jignAsa, tadeva cha vishesheN jijnAsitavyaM gurvAshraya shavaNAdyupaayairarnishya cha sAkshAtkaraNeeyaM ityarthaH.  And I am sorry to say this more authentic way of jnana sAdhana will be highly diluted when we have the preconceived notion that this guru-sampradaaya-upadesha-sAdhana etc. are mere puppets dancing in my dream. 
•  And if you think that this sAmpradAyik way of jignAsa is just for maNda and Madhyama adhikAri-s and every thing is just dream is for uttama adhikAri-s, I would like to be mandAdhikAri 😊

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

Bhaskarji - PraNAms

I agree with you. The analogy with dream world is provided to show that the waking world is also not real. 

Dream is not a dream for a dreamer who is in the dream. That dream world is real for him. 

He realizes that it is not real only when he wakes up.

The dream example is used to show that waking world is not absolutely real. Goudapaada negation of the waking world is only from the point of absolute truth - with the statement - adou antecha yat naasti, vartamaanepi tatttadaa. 

But there is difference between the two states. In the dream world, a dreamer cannot realize it as a dream while he is in the dream - for realization viveka or discriminative intellect is needed which he does not have. If has, he will not able to dream.

In contrast, in the waking state, the seeker can develop the required Viveka to recognize the unreality of the waking world while still remaining in the waking world. Hence all the nine yards that you mentioned are important to develop the needed qualifications to discriminate what is real and what is apparently real. Study of Vedanta under a competent teacher, sampradaayic teaching, and required sadhana for the mind to develop the necessary qualifications - all are important. 

DSV vs SDV all intended to help in the sadhana only. 

In the final analysis there is shrushti and no vadas too when one realizes aham brahmaasmi. 

Seeker should follow what is best approach for his realization under the advise of his guru. 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[S Ganesh]

Dear Srinivasamurthy,

The word Manonasha was popularised by Ramana maharshi. He used this beautiful expression in Saddarshanam or 'ulladu narpadu' to express himself, and also lived a life by setting an example. when you say I, there appears to be 3 components rolled up in 1, the Chith, chidabasa and the mind. The mind being jadam cannot say I, The chith or awareness being all pervasive cannot say I, being avyavaharyam, no transaction possible. It is the ahamkara, identifying itself with chidabasa which does all the vyavaharam. The text 'drk drshya viveka' is a concise prakarana grantha where the relationship between ahamkara and chidabasa, bodymind complex, and chith is beautifully described as sahajam, karmajam and branthijam respectively. 

It is like your morning walk on the beach where you enjoy the beautiful sunrise daily, the whole day's vyavahara for the whole world starts with sunrise even though you know that the sun never rises or sets. So the general rule is that the experience of anything does not prove a fact, like our regular experience of a blue sky. Our experience of kartrtvam and bogtrtvam is similar, the agnani takes it as real and therefore samsara, the gnani having sublated the mind has mithyatva nishchaya, hence a lifestyle of lokasamgraha. Remember Krishna's words 'na budhi bedam janayeth'. gnani experiences everything but is able to falsify, his focus is on the adishtanam, or he abides in it. his ahankara       

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/142426016.3301144.1700468155959%40mail.yahoo.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

For those who are interested, here is an excerpt from the article ** THE PLACE OF REASON IN ADVAITA  ** by Prof Hiriyanna which is relevant to the topic under discussion.

// There are two types of reasoning generally recognized in Indian philosophy. The first of them is what is familiarly known as syllogistic inference, and is illustrated by the example of inferring the presence of fire from observing smoke. We shall have an instance of the second type of reasoning if, fromthe observed fact that an effect like a jar requires for its production a competent agent like the potter, it is concluded that the world, as an effect, should also have been brought into existence by a competent Being, God. It is called sAmAnyato-drstAnumAna and corresponds to what in modem logic is known as analogicalreasoning. There are important differences between the twotypes of inference in their logical character; but it will suffice, for the present, to state that while the first is applicable only to cases falling within the sphere of common experience, the second applies to those that lie beyond it.

Since Brahman, the chief theme of the Vedanta, as so oftenstated by Samkara ,  transcends the sensuous, it is only the second type of reasoning that can have a bearing upon it. But the view that it is a pramANa for establishing extra-empirical truths is only of some Indian thinkers; and the advaitin, like the other Vedantins, does not share it. The reason why he excludes it from the category of pramANa will be seen by examining one of the stock examples by which it is illustrated : Qualities like odour and colour are found to inhere in substances like earth and fire; and it is said that we may deduce from it that the quality of touch or temperature (sparsha) also implies as its ground a substance, viz., air (vAyu) . Here the qualities of odour, colour, etc., and the substances which they respectively characterize, viz., earth, fire, etc., are all perceivable; but air is not so, although the qualityof touch may be. That is, we are extending here a principle verified in experience to something beyond it; and such an extension according to Advaita, is not legitimate for in it we virtual jump from one particular to another, without passing through general truth based upon actual observation, as we do in ordinary inference. It is, as the name given to it indicates, an inference which is based not on perception but on what is ‘seen from likeness’ (sAmAnyato-drashsta). Adapting the words which Samkara uses in a similar context, we may say: If air also were perceivable like earth or fire, we might discover that touch was a quality of it. But, as a matter of fact, it is only touch that is perceived; and we cannot therefore decide whether it is. connected with air as its quality, or with something else. Hence this variety of reasoning, the advaitin says, cannot be a pramANa in the strict sense of the term.

The outcome of such a view, it may appear, is to exclude reasoning altogether so far as the truth of Advaita is concerned But it would be wrong to think so, for the advaitin does assign a definite place to the second variety of inference, if not to the first For, although he denies to it the rank of pramANa or means to valid knowledge, he admits that it may indicate the probability of a conclusion which has been otherwise reached; and where sufficient care has been exercised, the degree of probability indicated by it may, indeed, be quite high. That is, it may support the truth, though it may not establish it. For this reason, he designates it as yukti or tarka which has no independent logical value, but is only a help to a pramANa. It is in this form, i.e., as ancillary to scriptural testimony that the advaitin utilises reason. Thus as regards the question, already mentioned, of the existence of God as the author of the universe, this kind of reasoning may be used, provided it is not forgotten that the belief in it is primarily based upon Shruti or revelation //.

The full article is available in the following link

//  https://archive.org/details/IndianPhilosophicalStudies/page/n5/mode/2up //

Regards

On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 2:25 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Namaste Acharya Sada ji.

//Dream is not a dream for a dreamer who is in the dream. That dream world

is real for him.

He realizes that it is not real only when he wakes up.

The dream example is used to show that waking world is not absolutely real.
Goudapaada negation of the waking world is only from the point of absolute
truth - with the statement - adou antecha yat naasti, vartamaanepi

tatttadaa. //

From the point of view of absolute truth, there is no world, there is no
dream, there is no waking, there is no deep sleep. Absolute truth negates
everything which is seen.

The identity of dream and waking is derived from logic which is pretty much
within the domain of dream/waking.

What exactly is this "waking up"? A pramAtA can get anumiti pramA that
waking world is dream. He is not bound to bear the burden of truth-ness of
waking world despite having the anumiti pramA from the faultless anumAna of
bhAshyakAra - जाग्रद्दृश्यानां भावानां वैतथ्यमिति प्रतिज्ञा । दृश्यत्वादिति
हेतुः । स्वप्नदृश्यभाववदिति दृष्टान्तः । यथा तत्र स्वप्ने दृश्यानां भावानां
वैतथ्यम् , तथा जागरितेऽपि दृश्यत्वमविशिष्टमिति हेतूपनयः । तस्माज्जागरितेऽपि
वैतथ्यं स्मृतमिति निगमनम् ।

Where is the need to hold the requirement of "waking up". anumiti pramA
happens to pramAtA and not to shuddha Brahman. The anumAna of bhAshyakAra
is capable of giving pramA to pramAtA, which is very much within waking,
that waking is identical to dream. Where is the need to "wake up".

//But there is difference between the two states. In the dream world, a

dreamer cannot realize it as a dream while he is in the dream - for
realization viveka or discriminative intellect is needed which he does not

have. If has, he will not able to dream.//

Waker alleges this to the dreamer disregarding the fact that dreamer had
done so to the dreamer within his dream. When identity of waking and logic
is established by anumAna, giving rise to pramA to pramAtA, how can such a
statement be made.

//In contrast, in the waking state, the seeker can develop the required

Viveka to recognize the unreality of the waking world while still
remaining in the waking world. Hence all the nine yards that you mentioned
are important to develop the needed qualifications to discriminate what is
real and what is apparently real. Study of Vedanta under a competent
teacher, sampradaayic teaching, and required sadhana for the mind to

develop the necessary qualifications - all are important. //

Untenable in view of the anumAna presented. The waking-guru,
waking-samrpadAya are identical to dream-guru and dream-sampradAya. Any
preference given to either is violative of anumAna.

//DSV vs SDV all intended to help in the sadhana only.//

Sequentially to the same sAdhaka. One graduates from SDV to DSV.

//In the final analysis there is shrushti and no vadas too when one
realizes aham brahmaasmi.//

I think, in the final analysis, there is no srishTi and no vAda. DSV and
SDV are both before that.

Regards.
Sudhanshu Shekhar.

--
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org

Virus-free.www.avast.com

[Viswanath O K]

> why a jnAni would bother to teach an ajnAni, having come out of notions of duality. Even if we assume that a jnAni has a small trace of avidyA left, this is not true for Bhagawan teaching Arjuna, as we accept that BhagavAn is completely free from avidyA.

For Bodies to be experienced in this subtle dream, no Avidya/trace of it is necessary. Jnani does not bother to teach ajnani, as for a jnani/Bhagavan there is only One entity/Atman in all forms experienced. Even in the heart of form of Arjuna, only Bhagavan resides as a Sole Entity and no Ajnani entity/Atma. So, Bhagavan/Jnani don't bother to teach, nor have any interest to stop/change any action in this dream. Just let the appearance of Form of jnani talk with Appearance of form of Ajnani. All the actions of this subtle dream only Predestined (or to exactly say - always present notions) are experienced. Like playing the movie with All it's characters/forms in the way it is present always. No director, Editor, etc., as the movie was not created/directed at any time but present always - just projecting the always present reel. Nothing can be changed by Atman/Brahman, nor there is any desire/ignorance for the one only Atman to do any.

On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 23:14:36 UTC+5:30 Kalyan wrote:

Namaskaaram Michael-ji 

 

The questions raised are very interesting. I too wondered from a long time, why a jnAni would bother to teach an ajnAni, having come out of notions of duality. Even if we assume that a jnAni has a small trace of avidyA left, this is not true for Bhagawan teaching Arjuna, as we accept that BhagavAn is completely free from avidyA.

However, I did not understand Swami-ji's answer to these questions.

Best Regards

On Sunday, 12 November, 2023 at 7:47:38 pm UTC+5:30 michaelc...@gmail.com wrote:

Does the mukta/jnani see the world?

from: Sri Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati (SSSS), Sugama (SKT - Version); Section 71 (tr. Hishi Ryo ji):

(English tr. follows)

विनष्टत्वात् कथं भेदज्ञानानुवृत्तिः ? तदभावे च कथं शिष्येभ्यस्तत्त्वज्ञानोपदेशः ? तदनुवृत्तौ स्वयमज्ञस्य कथमाचार्यत्वम् ?

बाधितानुवृत्तिस्वीकारेऽपि कथं मिथ्याविषयत्वनिश्चये सत्युपदेशाय प्रवृत्तिः ? कथं च नित्यनिवृत्ताज्ञानस्य भगवतोऽर्जुनं प्रति गीतोपदेशः ? तस्माद्विद्याविद्यास्वरूपविभागोऽयमसमञ्जस एवेति न प्रतिभातिति चेत् । अत्र प्रष्टव्यो भवान् । किं द्वैतसत्यत्वबाधकमद्वैतज्ञानमङ्गीकृत्येदं प्रश्नजालं प्रतायतेऽथवा अनभ्युपगम्येति । तत्र प्रथमे कल्पे तावन्न प्रश्नो नापि चोत्तरम् । न ह्यद्वितीय तत्त्वज्ञाने सति पुनरपि किञ्चित् चोद्यम् भवति । द्वितीये तुकल्पेऽज्ञदृष्ट्या सर्वोऽप्ययं व्यवहारोऽवकल्पत एवेति न कस्यचिदाक्षेपस्यावकाशः ।

न ह्यद्वैतसिद्धान्ते ज्ञानोत्पत्त्यज्ञानबाधगुरुशिष्यभेदोपदेशादिकं परमार्थ इत्यभ्युपगम्यते प्रपञ्चसद्भावतनिवृत्ती वा पारमार्थिके इति । द्वैतज्ञानसन्दूषितचित्तानां तु शिष्याणा क्रमेण बोधनायेदं सर्वं प्रक्रियारचनमिति नात्र किंचिदसामञ्जस्यम् यथाऽऽह भगवान् भाष्यकारः "एकस्मिन्ब्रह्मणि निरुपाधिके नोपदेशः, नोपदेष्टा, न च उपदेशग्रहणफलम्"इति।

Interpretation/Translation:

How can there be a continuance of duality (knowledge of difference, bhedajñānānuvṛttiḥ)) after it has been sublated ('eliminated')? And because it has been sublated (i.e. absence of wrong knowledge), how can there be any instruction of knowledge of reality to students? And in the case (bhedajñānānuvṛttiḥ) continues, how can such an ignorant assume to be a teacher? Even when such a continuation of what has been sublated (bādhitānuvṛtti) is accepted, how can there be an engagement ('activity) of teaching the Truth when the subject matter has been (already) determined to be wrong? And how was the teaching in Bhagavad Gita by the Lord to Arjuna possible who is eternally devoid of it [i.e. ignorance]? Therefore, one should ask if this division of knowledge and ignorance is (itself) proper. (Consequently), are these questions (objections) from the perspective of Non-Duality ('by acceptance of non-reality) that contradicts duality, or is (non-duality) not at all accepted? In the former, there is no need for a question or response, as there is no question or response from the perspective of Non-Duality/Brahman. In the second case, however, all these questions are conceived from the perspective of ignorance, so there is (also) no room for these (valid) questions (or objections).

According to Advaita SiddhAnta, i.e. from the perspective of ultimate reality (paramArtha), [concepts such as] liberation, avidyA gets (really) eliminated, a distinction between teacher and disciple etc. is certainly not accepted. Rather, the cessation (sublation) of understanding the world/duality (as 'real') is considered the ultimate truth.

(However) for disciples whose minds are (still) influenced by dualistic notions (i.e. ignorants), this prakriyA (i.e. adhyAropApavAda) is gradually shaped towards their liberation. There is nothing inappropriate, as the revered bhAShyakAra says:

"(Nevertheless, in case you think that) when the one unconditioned Brahman is realized as the only reality, there is neither instruction nor instructor nor the result of comprehending the instruction (BrUP 2.1.20 Bh. Sw. MADVH)."

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Chandramouliji - PraNams

Thanks for your post. 

The cause of creation is defined in the Upanishads - yatova imaani bhuutani jaayante .... and Brahmasutra uses to articulate Sutra 2 - Janmaadyasya yataH.

Brahman being infinite cannot be established by any pramaana. 

Hence the Upanishad declares - naishaa tarkena matiraapaneya.. It is beyond any logic. More importantly as per logic as to be supported by a pratyaksha pramaana -  using drushtanta, as in the smoke and the fire. 

How logic can be used for the mind to contemplate in the direction (lakshyaartha) provided by the scriptures. 

The Self that 'I am' also cannot be (or should I say need not be) established by logic as it is Self-evident!

Upanishad makes a daring declaration by equating the Self and the Braham with the statement 'tat tvam asi'. 

Hence mantra 7 of Mandukya Up. provides the needed definition as .. prapachopashamam, shantam, shivam, advaitam, chatrutam manyanet - sa aatma - sa vjneyaH -

That which is .... auspicious, non-dual, conveniently called the fourth, the Self that you are - need to be realized or using your mind. 

My 2c

Hari Om!

Sadanada

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAEs%2B%2BdN-fk4J%3DvntTs9dnLL6vJHfusBu_tAwUyiC%2BBmrF909GQ%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Viswanath O K]

PranAms.

> Does the mukta/jnani see the world?

This world/Jagat is True and subtle as Brahman.

Dream happens not out of Avidya, but out of svabhava of consciousness/Chit.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Srinath Vedagarbha prabhuji ( just typing your name ‘vedagarbha’ gives me goosebumps, I don’t know why!!)

Hare Krishna

 

avasthAtraya mithyatva or adhyArOpitatva is drive home the point that Atman / brahman is neither antaHprajna nor bahirprajna etc. and he is avasthAteeta.  It is in this sense there is similarity between jaagrat prapancha and Svapna prapancha and both are adhyArOpita on brahman as he is ultimately nirguNam, shAntaM, advaitam and prapanchOpashamanaM.   It is in this sense again the dream world too presents an exact replica of waking world.  Anyway queries with regard to this is countered by asking : you are asking this question in dream or waking??  You may / will do same things in dream also without doubting that you are in dream!!  KathOpanishad  mantra :  svapnAntaM jAgaritAntaM chObhaU yenAnupashyati etc. supports this view point.  But it is not at all there to belittle the Ishwara srushti which we experience in jAgrat Avastha.  To experience the mithyatva of jagrat Avastha and relevant prapacha we have to ‘wake up’ to the higher reality insists bhAshyakAra.  It is in this sense only bhAshyakAra explains there is paramArtha in Ishwara srushti whereas jeeva mAnasa Kalpita Svapna prapancha there is not even an iota of paramArtha!!...But some pundits are of the opinion that these things have been said maNdAdhikAri-s keeping in mind SDV and they have to elevate themselves to next level i.e. DSV and finally ajAtavAda etc.  So each and every  quotes/siddhAnta in bhAshya according to them is ranked and anything that said in SDV is not good for mOksha 😊

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

I am just wondering after reading all these (ku) tarka about similarity between jAgrat & svapna, why on the earth bhAshyakAra considers vijnAnavAdins as pUrvapaxi and taken all the troubles to prove him wrong in abhAvadhikaraNa, especially in sutra bhAshya-s like in nAbhAva upalabdeH & vaidharmyAccha na svapnAdhivat etc.  (2-2-28 & 29) !!  If at all he himself saying all is just mind game in kArika bhAshya!!  Has bhAshyakAra contradicted himself in sUtra bhAshya and kArikaa bhAshya!!??  Or we ourselves deluded and quoting both bhAshya-s out of context??  If at all bhAshyakAra-s perception about bAhya jagat is in complete agreement with  that of vijnAnavAdins’ vAda why on the earth bhAshyakAra attacked them and passionately proved them wrong (infact he attacks them personally and warns them that they don’t have control on their tongue and speak whatever they want !! And again, to our surprise,  in kArika bhAshya all of a sudden advocated the same vijnAnavAdins’ vAda  ‘mind all’ theory!!??  Perhaps pundits here would say when bhAshyakAra writing sUtra bhAshya,  he was writing so keeping SDV module and mandAdhikAri-s in mind and while writing kArikAbhAshya he was addressing the applicants in DSV, the mumukshu-s in super league 😊

[Simha Hnln]

_*"न तु अदर्शनं लयः ; किन्तु "मिथ्यात्वनिश्चयः"*_

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB6592CDEEF3A147AF481426E08494A%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

PraNAms to all.

So much discussion on the topic. 

Here is what I understand.

1. Nature has provided dream and deep sleep experiences to show all the three states are not real even though I experience these. 

2. A Dream is not a dream for a dreamer who is in the dream. 

3. Goudapada in Vaitatya prakarana establishes that perceptibility, transactability, etc., are not criteria for absolute reality. What is absolutely real is that which never undergoes a change - trikaala abhaditam satyam.

3. The dream is realized as false only after waking up. One cannot realize this while in the dream.

4. Waking is also not absolutely real by the above definition.

5. Deep sleep experience shows that one who is sleeping alone is really real while the worlds - waking and dream worlds are dismissed along with time and space. 

6. In contrast to a dream, one can realize that the waking state is not real by developing the required discriminative intellect (nithya anitya vastu viveka). That intellect cannot be developed in the dream state since intellect has to be at a minimum for one to go into a dream state.

7. Drishti Srishti vas Srishti Drishti perspectives depend on the mind. Deep sleep experience indicates that other than the self in that state, there is no world or time - no other jeevas also - showing DSV. Also, perceptual analysis (Vedanta Paribhasha) shows that the 'existence of an object (including other jeeva) is established by the knowledge of its existence. In essence, I, the subject has to ascertain - an object, the other Bodies, and the world exist by perceiving them. From the point of perceiver who is in the world of objects, SDV is valid. 

8. Realization can take place only in the waking state with the mind that has sadhana chutushtaya sampatti or needed qualifications. 

Just could not resist.

Just my 2c - for those interested.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sudhanshu prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

You need to acquaint yourself of the difference between vijnAnavAda and mukhya-vedAnta-siddhAnta namely DSV.

 

• For the time being let us ignore your different modules and its hierarchy etc.  First, educate us what is being refuted here by bhAshyakAra and what is that ‘supports’ your claim (mukhya vedAnta siddhAnta) here in bhAshya explanation.  If you want to argue that what is being refuted here is ‘entirely’ different from your superior DSV module you have to be clear in your assertion before giving higher rank to DSV and contrasting the same from vijnAnavAda, is it not!!??  I doubt I have seen anything of this order in your mails,  OTOH elsewhere in one of your statements, you said ( I may be wrong) in this particular issue (mind is all)  shankara is in agreement with vijnAnavAdins…

 

 

Perhaps, you can then appreciate that the tarka adduced are not ku-tarka rather heart and soul of VedAnta.

 

Ø     If the heart and soul of vedAnta is mere DSV and SDV is inferior to DSV not fit for mOksha, again you have to prove DSV is entirely different from Advaita pUrvapaxi vijnAnavAdi who endorses the view upalabdhi itself Vishaya (both jnana and Artha) and this upalabdhi itself comes and goes (kshaNika) etc.  Till that time you don’t have any valid point to defend your stand as shrutyanugraheeta tarka/yukti. 

 

In any case, labelling the argument as ku-tarka without any counterargument is worthy of being ignored. 

 

Ø     That is what is expected from you as usual, hence I ignored your mails 😊

 

Before running to BhAshyakAra, we need to understand our own experience. That there was a BhAshyakAra who wrote PTB, said this and that in MANDukya and BSB -- are not sufficient to indicate non-dream-hood of waking -- on the solitary ground that you told exactly same thing in dream also. There was a dream-Shankara and dream-BSB saying these things and yet it was only a dream.

 

Ø     This is where the traces of kutarka I can find!! with the same logical inference why don’t I say even dream world also as real as waking world and both are capable of giving me mOksha and right place of doing sAdhana!!  Why on the earth I should ignore and tag it as illusory instead using the same logic I can treat both states are  as reality only.  Anyway in kArika itself kArikAgaara agreed that the worlds of Vishwa, taijasa and prAjna’s world are real!!  And again, to assert and prove the oneness of Atman why should I reject the existence of world ( for which Ishwara is abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa) as non existent for me it is clear sign of immaturity and illogical coz. Knowingly or unknowingly you are attributing some existence to ‘something’ apart from Atman and asking us to negate it as illusory.  Oneness is not at the cost of duality but it is the very essence of duality, the jnAni-s realization is I am myself in many forms but they are not in me (see Lord’s declaration in geeta) and  is the bhUma drushti or Samyak drushti of jnAni-s as well and please note they are not the poor students in the module of SDV as you reckon.  Even an idiot (dehAtmavAna) does feel his ‘oneness’ despite the existence of his different body parts!!  You should first realize in shankara’s Advaita vedAnta : perception of dvaita is not opposed to Advaita jnana, coz. Of the simple fact dvaita perception is pratyaksha pramANita and Advaita darshana is shAstra pramANita and shAstra janita vyavahAra bAdhita jnana and NOT vyavahAra abhAva jnana both pramANa-s are not mutually contradicting and advocating what is valid in its own sphere of pramANa.   

 

• Anyway, all these things said umpteen times just to hear the concluding illogical statements like : ‘to be ignored or just stepping stone and good only in some initial stages / module etc.’’. 

[V Subrahmanian]

Even if the object, person and events seen in a dream seem real at the time, on waking up it is known that they are not real. Vedanta takes this experience as an example and concludes that the samsara/bandha experienced in the waking is not real.

In the Bhagavatam and Brahmasutras, Veda Vyasa has called dream as Mayika, illusory. The meaning of 'maayaa' as God's will, Ishwarecchaa, does not hold good here.

Dream creation is by the jiva - Srimad Bhagavatam

In this chapter of the Bhagavata, as an analogy for the Supreme Lord creating the world and entering into it, is said to be akin to the creation of the Jiva creating the dream by his mind out of his Avidya shakti:

श्रीमद्भागवतपुराणम्/स्कन्धः १०/उत्तरार्धः/अध्यायः ८६
https://sa.wikisource.org/s/v4e

श्रुतदेव उवाच -
नाद्य नो दर्शनं प्राप्तः परं परमपूरुषः ।
यर्हीदं शक्तिभिः सृष्ट्वा प्रविष्टो ह्यात्मसत्तया ॥ ४४ ॥
यथा शयानः पुरुषो मनसैवात्ममायया ।
सृष्ट्वा लोकं परं स्वाप्नं अनुविश्यावभासते ॥ ४५ ॥

Just as a sleeping man appears to have created the world with his own illusion (ignorance) and entered it, so the Supreme Lord dwells as if he has created this world with his magical power and entered it. From this illustration, the Srimad Bhagavatam reveals that the creation of the world and the entry of the Supreme Being into it is also illusory and not real.

This premise is accepted only in Advaita.  .

The Brahmasutra also says the same:

मायामात्रं तु कार्त्स्न्येनानभिव्यक्तस्वरूपत्वात् ॥ ३ ॥ 3.2.3

Shankara's commentary for the fact that the creation in a dream is illusory; not real:

तुशब्दः पक्षं व्यावर्तयति । नैतदस्ति — यदुक्तम् , सन्ध्ये सृष्टिः पारमार्थिकीति ; मायैव सन्ध्ये सृष्टिः, न परमार्थगन्धोऽप्यस्ति ।

सूचकश्च हि श्रुतेराचक्षते च तद्विदः ॥ ४ ॥ 3.2.4

Upanishad and Shankara Bhasya passages on the creation of dream is by the jiva himself:

श्रुत्यन्तरे ‘स्वयं विहत्य स्वयं निर्माय स्वेन भासा स्वेन ज्योतिषा प्रस्वपिति’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ३ । ९) इति जीवव्यापारश्रवणात् । इहापि ‘य एष सुप्तेषु जागर्ति’ (क. उ. २ । २ । ८) इति प्रसिद्धानुवादाज्जीव एवायं कामानां निर्माता सङ्कीर्त्यते । तस्य तु वाक्यशेषेण ‘तदेव शुक्रं तद्ब्रह्म’ इति जीवभावं व्यावर्त्य ब्रह्मभाव उपदिश्यते — ‘तत्त्वमसि’ (छा. उ. ६ । ९ । ४) इत्यादिवत् — इति न ब्रह्मप्रकरणं विरुध्यते ।
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: 4.3.9:

स्वयं विहत्य स्वयं निर्माय स्वेन भासा स्वेन ज्योतिषा प्रस्वपित्यत्रायं पुरुषः स्वयं ज्योतिर्भवति ॥ ९ ॥
Dhruva says:

श्रीमद्भागवतपुराणम्/स्कन्धः ४/अध्यायः १२
https://sa.wikisource.org/s/aw4

मन्यमान इदं विश्वं मायारचितमात्मनि ।
अविद्यारचितस्वप्नगन्धर्वनगरोपमम् ॥ १५ ॥

Dhruva realizes that this world is imagined in him by the Maya power of Ishwara. He gives an illustration for this: Just as a dream, Gandharva nagara (a phantom city) is created by ignorance, so the world is created by the maya power of Ishwara.
From this statement we know incidentally: The dream-creation is by the jiva, endowed with avidya.

Even in the Garuda Purana, Veda Vyasa elaborately says that dream is illusory and unreal, the waking world is also the same. For this the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad gives the well-known illustration 'Chariot, horse, road - all imagined in a dream':

यथा रथादयः स्वप्ने सन्तो नैव च सत्यतः ॥ १,२३६.३६ ॥
तथा जाग्रदवस्थायां भूतानि न तु सन्निधौ ।

Chariots, etc. seen in dreams are not real. Thus the objects of consciousness are not real ones. (Bru. Upa. न तत्र रथा, न रथयोगा, न पन्थानो भवन्त्यथ रथानरथयोगानप्तः सृजते ..the Advaita meaning of this famous mantra can be seen here in this Puranic verse.)

द्वैरूप्यं मायया याति जाग्रत्स्वप्नपदज्ञ (क्ष) योः ॥ १,२३६.३७ ॥

Objects take different forms in waking and dream (vasanamaya).

एवमेतत्परं ब्रह्म स्वप्नजाग्रत्पदद्वये ।
सुषुप्तमचलं रूपमद्वयं पदमुच्यते ॥ १,२३६.३८ ॥

Similarly, Para Brahman takes different forms in the waking state.

मायाविचारसिद्धैव विचारेण विलीयते ।
आपातरहिता सापि कल्पनाकालवर्तिनी ॥ १,२३६.३९ ॥

We believe things to be real without questioning that they are made of maya. By reflection it is evident that they are false: vicharena viparyeti. They exist only in our imagination.

In the Srimad Bhagavatam, Yashoda marvels at the sight of the entire universe in the child Krishna's mouth and muses:

ŚB 10.8.40
किं स्वप्न एतदुत देवमाया
किं वा मदीयो बत बुद्धिमोह: ।
अथो अमुष्यैव ममार्भकस्य
य: कश्चनौत्पत्तिक आत्मयोग: ॥ ४० ॥

'Is it a dream, God's Maayaa or my own imagination?' From this too we know that dreams are not real. Because as an analogy for impossible happenings in the world we say 'What, are you dreaming ?' There is very popular.

The Upanishads themselves call the three states including sleep as the 'three dreams':
Aitareya Upanishad:

1.3.12 त्रय आवसथाः त्रयः स्वप्नाः

Thus in many places the Upanishads and the Puranas say that dreams are not real and by that example, the waking world is also not real.

A short video in Kannada by the Puthige Mutt (Madhwa) Seer on dreams: 
 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kVxgL_63KUuGMpMHJrWaEpM5d88hCNVS/view?usp=sharing

Om

On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 1:23 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Namaste Bhaskar ji.

I will answer all your questions. First you explain what is the difference
between vijnAnavAda and drishTi-srishTi-vAda.

//If you want to argue that what is being refuted here is ‘entirely’

different from your superior DSV module you have to be clear in your
assertion before giving higher rank to DSV and contrasting the same from
vijnAnavAda, is it not!!??  I doubt I have seen anything of this order in
your mails,  OTOH elsewhere in one of your statements, you said ( I may be
wrong) in this particular issue (mind is all)  shankara is in agreement

with vijnAnavAdins//

Sir, there are agreements between SDV and DSV also. So? Does it mean that
DSV and SDV are same? VijnAnavAda has got nothing to do with VedAnta or
DSV. In some respect, there may be identity of conclusion in both. That
does not prove that they are same.

 //If the heart and soul of vedAnta is mere DSV and SDV is inferior to DSV

not fit for mOksha, again you have to prove DSV is entirely different from
Advaita pUrvapaxi vijnAnavAdi who endorses the view upalabdhi itself
Vishaya (both jnana and Artha) and this upalabdhi itself comes and goes
(kshaNika) etc.  Till that time you don’t have any valid point to defend

your stand as shrutyanugraheeta tarka/yukti.//

You learn about the difference of DSV and vijnAvAda from texts if you feel
like. If you think they are same, carry on with the idea.


//with the same logical inference why don’t I say even dream world also as

real as waking world and both are capable of giving me mOksha and right
place of doing sAdhana!!  Why on the earth I should ignore and tag it as
illusory instead using the same logic I can treat both states are  as

reality only.//

Sir ji. The illusoriness of dream is well-accepted to both parties. Hence,
it is eligible to become an example in logic to deduce inference. The
reality of waking world is not acceptable to both parties. Hence, you
cannot take that as an example. This is Logic101.

//Anyway in kArika itself kArikAgaara agreed that the worlds of Vishwa,
taijasa and prAjna’s world are real!! //

News!!

//And again, to assert and prove the oneness of Atman why should I reject

the existence of world ( for which Ishwara is abhinna nimittOpadAna kAraNa)

as non existent for me it is clear sign of immaturity and illogical coz.//

Your dream world was created by abhinna-nimitta-upadan-kAraNa Ishwara? Test
your conclusion on the litmus test of identity of waking and dream.

//Knowingly or unknowingly you are attributing some existence to
‘something’ apart from Atman and asking us to negate it as illusory.//

There is no existence to anything except Atman. Illusion ka definition hi
hai -- traikAlika-nishedha-pratiyogitvam.

//Oneness is not at the cost of duality but it is the very essence of

duality, the jnAni-s realization is I am myself in many forms but they are
not in me (see Lord’s declaration in geeta) and  is the bhUma drushti or
Samyak drushti of jnAni-s as well and please note they are not the poor
students in the module of SDV as you reckon.  Even an idiot (dehAtmavAna)
does feel his ‘oneness’ despite the existence of his different body
parts!!  You should first realize in shankara’s Advaita vedAnta :
perception of dvaita is not opposed to Advaita jnana, coz. Of the simple
fact dvaita perception is pratyaksha pramANita and Advaita darshana is
shAstra pramANita and shAstra janita vyavahAra bAdhita jnana and NOT
vyavahAra abhAva jnana both pramANa-s are not mutually contradicting and

advocating what is valid in its own sphere of pramANa.//

Pehle aap ye prove kijiye ki you are not in a dream, then we can see what
Gita says and what shAstra says. Your reliance on Shruti and Gita is same
as your reliance on dream-Shruti and dream-Gita.

//Anway, all these things said umpteen times just to hear the concluding

illogical statements like : ‘to be ignored or just stepping stone and good

only in some initial stages / module etc.’’.//

You try your level best to distinguish dream and waking. If you cannot
distinguish, then appreciate the implication of their identity.

[V Subrahmanian]

Sri Vidyaranya in his Anubhutiprakasha, on Aitareya Upanishad, says:

स्वप्नः स्वकाल एवास्ति नान्यदा सुप्तिजागरौं । 

तथैवेति स्वप्नसाम्यात् त्रयः स्वप्ना उदीरिताः || 17

Dream is present only during its existence; not during sleep and waking. In the same way, being of the nature of dream, all the three states are stated by the Upanishad as three dreams.

स्थूलसूक्ष्मबीजप्रपञ्चाः त्रयः स्वप्नाः - The gross, subtle and causal worlds are three dreams - explains Upanishad Brahma Yogin for the Aitareya mantra. 

Also since there is ignorance about the Truth, which persists in all three states, the svapnatvam of all three are admissible. We get this reasoning from the Mandukya Karika: 

अनादिमायया सुप्तो यदा जीवः प्रबुध्यते ।
अजमनिद्रमस्वप्नमद्वैतं बुध्यते तदा ॥ १६ ॥

[H S Chandramouli]

Reg  //  Also since there is ignorance about the Truth, which persists in all three states, the svapnatvam of all three are admissible. We get this reasoning from the Mandukya Karika //,

Since  the words ** all three ** are mentioned, it automatically implies that there are some differences between them, though **  svapnatvam ** may be common to them. 

Regards

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te09DVaQx3bd2NtST%2BkpYxMLCuvpnoK3RBi5V5LJbBTDfw%40mail.gmail.com.

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

It is difficult to understand the discussion. Avoiding the words waking/dream, if in any state one is able to recollect that there are other states different from the one he is in at that time, it certainly means different states of awareness are admitted by the person. It is quite another matter as to which is more real or less real, or which is dream/waking. There cannot be any controversy about the existence of different states themselves.

Regards

On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 3:08 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Namaste V Subramanian ji.

Sent the screenshot of reference along with Sridhari TIkA.

On Fri, 22 Dec 2023, 15:06 V Subrahmanian, <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 3:01 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <
> sudhans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste V Subramanian ji.
>>
>> Nice references.
>>
>> In fact BhAgavAta PurANa 6.16.53-54 takes the example of dream within
>> dream and avers complete identity of waking, dream and deep sleep.
>>
>
> Nice, could you pl. produce the Bhagavata verses?  Thanks
>
> subbu
>
>>
>> Regards.

[dwa...@advaita.org.uk]

Dear Sada,

 

I’m not really ‘joining in’ with this discussion but, like you, ‘could not resist’ commenting on a few of your points. (Great that you have now recovered sufficiently to participate, incidentally!)

 

Point 1: Nature has provided??

 

Second Point 3 and 6: This is not true. With lucid dreams, one IS aware that one is dreaming whilst the dream continues. I know this from personal experience as well as books on the subject. It is possible then to direct the content and development of the dream. You can’t really say that it is the ‘waker’ who is now directing because the dreaming continues. I don’t know of an Advaitic explanation for the mechanism. I think we actually have to concede that these are only teaching prakriyA-s and drop them when they start to fall apart. Also, since one is able to recognize that one is dreaming and take action, the intellect cannot be ‘at a minimum’. Indeed, it is possible to train the mind to be able to dream lucidly so that means the intellect must be very much present.

 

Points 5 and 7: When I hear this argument, I always suggest that, if someone truly believes that the world disappears when they are in deep sleep, how about if I place a bomb under their bed before they go to sleep? (A slightly less provocative comment is to ask how they explain the effectiveness of an alarm clock.)

 

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.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1431474474.2507620.1703223699438%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

svapnatvaM ( for example trayee svapnaaH) is to convey the sAdrushyam not to strike the absolute similarity.  Svapna being internal and confined to individual and waking world being wide and outside but the sAdrushyaM is both are seen and changing, bhAshyakAra clarifies somewhere in kArikA bhAshya itself.

[V Subrahmanian]

The Bhagavatam says:  6.16,53,54:  

यथा सुषुप्त: पुरुषो विश्वं पश्यति चात्मनि ।
आत्मानमेकदेशस्थं मन्यते स्वप्न उत्थित: ॥ ५३ ॥
एवं जागरणादीनि जीवस्थानानि चात्मन: ।
मायामात्राणि विज्ञाय तद् द्रष्टारं परं स्मरेत् ॥ ५४ ॥

When a person is in deep sleep, he dreams and sees in himself many other objects, such as great mountains and rivers or perhaps even the entire universe, although they are far away. Sometimes when one awakens from a dream he sees that he is in a human form, lying in his bed in one place. Then he sees himself, in terms of various conditions, as belonging to a particular nationality, family and so on. All the conditions of deep sleep, dreaming and wakefulness are but energies of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. One should always remember the original creator of these conditions, the Supreme Lord, who is unaffected by them.

The term 'MAyAmAtrAni'  rings with the Gaudapada Karika, Agama PrakaraNa:

प्रपञ्चो यदि विद्येत निवर्तेत न संशयः । मायामात्रमिदं द्वैतमद्वैतं परमार्थतः ॥ १७ ॥

This is Karika for Shankara and Shruti for Madhwa.

The Vaithathya prakarana of the Karika makes an observation that the waking and dream are different on these grounds:

अन्तःस्थानात्तु भेदानां तस्माज्जागरिते स्मृतम् ।
यथा तत्र तथा स्वप्ने संवृतत्वेन भिद्यते ॥ ४ ॥

जाग्रद्दृश्यानां भावानां वैतथ्यमिति प्रतिज्ञा । दृश्यत्वादिति हेतुः । स्वप्नदृश्यभाववदिति दृष्टान्तः । यथा तत्र स्वप्ने दृश्यानां भावानां वैतथ्यम् , तथा जागरितेऽपि दृश्यत्वमविशिष्टमिति हेतूपनयः । तस्माज्जागरितेऽपि वैतथ्यं स्मृतमिति निगमनम् । अन्तःस्थानात्संवृतत्वेन च स्वप्नदृश्यानां भावानां जाग्रद्दृश्येभ्यो भेदः । दृश्यत्वमसत्यत्वं चाविशिष्टमुभयत्र ॥

The sameness of the dream and waking is stated with an anumAna prayoga. The only difference is that: The objects of the dream are 'inside' the dreamer's body and also compressed. However, the sameness is on the ground of both the dream and waking being drshya and asatya.  

स्वप्नजागरिते स्थाने ह्येकमाहुर्मनीषिणः ।
भेदानां हि समत्वेन प्रसिद्धेनैव हेतुना ॥ ५ ॥

प्रसिद्धेनैव भेदानां ग्राह्यत्वेन हेतुना समत्वेन स्वप्नजागरितस्थानयोरेकत्वमाहुर्विवेकिन इति पूर्वप्रमाणसिद्धस्यैव फलम् ॥ 

That they are observed, objectified, is common to both dream and waking. 

One can read the next few verses for a kind of an argument on the above concept.  

The

regards

subbu

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/VI1PR06MB6592F7C063FFFD0C115946688494A%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Yes the supreme personality is the original creator of these conditions.  Sri SSS somewhere says Atmanu tanna vishesha shaktiyondige tOrikoLLUvude vividhAvastagaLu haageye avanu avasthegaLannu meeridavanu aagiddaane.  The waking world is karma bhUmi though changing not illusory.  And subsequent lOka-s obtained through karma phala (taught by the veda-s karma kAnda) too not illusory but satyam clarifies bhAshyakAra elsewhere.  Hence it is not called as bhrAnti but satya ( a transactional reality) the stage of reality provided by parabrahman for the sake of karmi-s to experience their karma phala. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

 

When a person is in deep sleep, he dreams and sees in himself many other objects, such as great mountains and rivers or perhaps even the entire universe, although they are far away. Sometimes when one awakens from a dream he sees that he is in a human form, lying in his bed in one place. Then he sees himself, in terms of various conditions, as belonging to a particular nationality, family and so on. All the conditions of deep sleep, dreaming and wakefulness are but energies of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. One should always remember the original creator of these conditions, the Supreme Lord, who is unaffected by them.

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Dennis - Greetings. Thanks for your concerns. 

About your comments on 5 and 7.

As long as you are not placing the bomb under my bed, it may be OK. 

The fact if I know you have placed a bomb, I may not be able to sleep on that bed, let alone the deep sleep state.

If I do not know, it would not matter, as long as the bed is comfortable to sleep. Ignorance is bliss!

I can put this another way, if I am conscious of anything in my deep sleep - then I am not in the deep sleep state. There is complete subject-object duality - which is expressed when mind is available - 'I must have slept very well, and I did not know anything - ignorance of all subject-object duality. 

There are intermediate states as given in the mantra 7 of Mandukya. 

Glad to know that you are awake for the list!

Now busy trying to edit my answers to the variety of questions on Philosophy posed on Quora by people of different backgrounds- 750 questions.

Nowadays Lord wants me only to talk and not listen to people!

Hari Om!

Sada

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/001801da34bb%2409019bc0%241b04d340%24%40advaita.org.uk.

[sreenivasa murthy]

Dear friends,

Is it not much better if some of you become jnanis/ muktas

and then  give authentic first hand answers?

With rspectful namaskars,

Sreenivasa Murthy