Enlightenment

[Harish L B]

I have a question, however, have not been sure how to ask this. Let me attempt it, and the group members can advise/correct me.

- Anyone here who can kindly confirm that you are enlightened and is a jivanmukta? Or you think you are almost there? For how long have you been enlightened?

- Is there a better way for me to ask the above question more politely? Or do you advise such a question should never be asked?

- Do you know someone in the current/contemporary times whom you think is enlightened and is a jivanmukta? Why do you think so?

Sincere Namaskarams,
Harish

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Hare Krishna Harish ji.

You can never ascertain whether a person, other than you, is jivanmukta or not. There is simply no means to know that.

Hence, even if Mr X says that he is jIvanmukta, that assertion is useless for want of means to verify it. 

Anyone here who can kindly confirm that you are enlightened and is a jivanmukta? Or you think you are almost there? For how long have you been enlightened?

So, my point is -- the answer in yes to this question is useless on account of absence of means to verify its correctness.

Is there a better way for me to ask the above question more politely? Or do you advise such a question should never be asked?

Yes. This question is not necessary. The question should be directed to oneself.

Do you know someone in the current/contemporary times whom you think is enlightened and is a jivanmukta? Why do you think so?

Since I cannot verify my statement of Mr X being jIvanmukta, my statement is belief-based and hence liable to be disputed.

Regards.

Sudhanshu Shekhar.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms
Hare Krishna

- Anyone here who can kindly confirm that you are enlightened and is a jivanmukta?

> Yes, I am Jeevan mukta, if some one says so...how do you evaluate it?? Suppose if I say I am jeevanmukta...how do you authenticate my credentials 😊

Or you think you are almost there?

> Yes, I was on the edge of that exalted state, some one pushed me into it...and now I am proud to say I am enlightened...do you think answers like this would satisfy you!!??

For how long have you been enlightened?

> since 1999, December 28th, 10 PM...I am just wondering what you are going to do with this data !!??

- Is there a better way for me to ask the above question more politely? Or do you advise such a question should never be asked?

> even though you have every right to ask these questions, the answers are definitely not going to help you in anyway nor you would be able to evaluate is accurately.

- Do you know someone in the current/contemporary times whom you think is enlightened and is a jivanmukta? Why do you think so?

> We the advaitins would say there are somany enlightened ones in our sampradaya, and if any one doubts it based on their life events, we have the justification...again don’t you think it is quite subjective thinking about one's own jnAna stature??

> I am sorry for your genuine doubts I am giving hilarious answers...but fact remains that the answers what we are going to get should help us in some way or the other & I don’t think your queries and respective answers from various members would help you to progress in sAdhana mArga.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

[aham brahmaasmi]

मान्य ! नमो नमः ! 

ममाभिप्रायं विलिख्यते अत्र ! कोऽपि यदि स्वयमेव घोषयति ॑ अहं ज्ञानी ॑ इति एतस्य अर्थः सः ज्ञानि न इति ! वस्तुतः यदि कोऽपि ज्ञानी भवेत् चेत् तस्य दृष्टयायाः त्रिपुटिर्नश्यति ! नाम  ॑अहं ब्रह्मास्मि ! सर्वत्र ब्रहम एव ! मदन्यत् नास्ति अत्र किमपि कोऽपि ! ॑ इति सः चिन्तयति  ! तस्य व्यवहारः भगवद्गीतायाः ॑स्थितप्रज्ञस्य लक्षणानुसारं भवति ! 

॑-प्रशनः  - कियत् कालतः सः ज्ञानी अवर्तत ! 

उत्तरम्  -  ब्रह्मज्ञानं अन्यज्ञानापेक्षया विलक्षणम् !  अन्यज्ञानविषये एषः प्रशनः समीचीनम् परं न ब्रह्मज्ञाने ! यस्य कृते त्रिपुटिरनश्यति सः वस्तुतः ॑देश-काल-वस्तु-परिच्छेदशून्यः ॑ भवति ! 

प्रशनः - केऽपि समापनबिन्दोः निकटे सन्ति किम् !

उत्तरम् - पुनः अत्र ॑आरम्भः - समापनम्॑ इति नास्ति ! ॑अहम् आदिकालतः ब्रहम आसम् अस्मि भविष्यामि ॑ इति सः चिन्तयति ! 

॑- विनम्रतया एषः प्रशनः प्रष्टुं शक्यते किम् ! उत प्रशनः असमीचीनम् अतः मा प्रष्टव्यम् ! 

- उत्तरम् -  ब्रह्मज्ञानविषये न कोऽपि प्रशनः असमीचीनः ! अवश्यं प्रष्टव्यम् ! प्रशतोत्तरत्वेनैव अस्माकं बुद्धिः तीक्ष्णी भविष्यति ! 

- प्रशनः  - ॑सम्प्रतिकाले केऽपि जीवनमुक्ताः सन्ति किम् ! किमर्थं तेषां कृते ॑जीवनमुक्तः॑ इति  पदवी प्रयुज्यते !॑ 

-उत्तरम् -  बहवः सन्ति!  बहवः मठादिपतयः जीवनमुक्ताः ! अन्ये अपि सन्ति उत भवितुमर्हन्ति परं मुख्यत्वेन एतानि नामानि सूचयितुमिच्छामि !  एतस्य कारणं  ॑स्थितप्रज्ञस्य॑ सर्व लक्षणानि तेषां वर्णनार्थे निस्संकोचतया  उपयोगं कर्तुं शक्यते ! 

here is my understanding: 

- A true jnani/ jivanmukta's mind will have 'obliteration of the triputi', His vision will be truly advaitic, ie. seeing and knowing just Brahman everywhere, in everyone. Since there is only one brahman everywhere, there is no one else to declare 'i am a jnani' to. 

-'do you think they are almost there?'  - This is 'objectifying brahmavidya' which is incorrect. With a true understanding of Vedanta, the antah:karana realises that 'I' was , am and will always be Brahman. There never was a journey ! So,with rise of true knowledge this question itself becomes redundant. However, since this is a group comprising largely students of advaita, the qn is perfectly permissible to be asked.  

-'for how long have they been elightened?' - no question of time. The jnani, loses the triputi as well as realising that 'desh -kala-vastu' are just an appearence in brahman,  just like upon waking up, one realises that the dream world was just of my own making. 

-'Is there a better way to ask the question more politely? Do you advise such a qn should never be aksed' 

A- No, In vedanta, the student is allowed to, and even expected to ask his doubts, provided he is doing with a genuine intent of  arriving at the truth. So, in my opinion, it is perfectly fine to ask as and when we have doubts. 

-Do you know someone in the current times who is a jivanmukta, and why so? 

-Yes, there are many. However, compared to ajnanis around, Jivanmuktas are very few in number.  Many of the mathadipatis are jivanmukta. For example, the  Shringeri Jagadgurus. 

The way to say so is to 'compare' their qualities with  the 'sthitaprajna lakshanani' in Bhagavad Gita, and  the characteristics of a Guru as given in the Guru-Gita. One soon realises how much they match, if one looks with an open-mind. There will always be Jivanmuktas around in any day and age. 'तदात्मानं सृजाम्यहम्॑ 

भवदीया! 

साक्षी ! 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB6625B71466CE3D9610F6AA5A84CCA%40AM7PR06MB6625.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Harish L B]

Thank you Sudhanshu ji, Bhaskarji and Sakshi ji for the answers. These are indeed helpful for me.

Blunt answers and hilarious responses, both of them are helping me to get clarity.

I was not exactly looking to understand about any names or individuals in this group (or outside the group) who are jivanmukta. However, i was not able to phrase my questions in a different way, which could invoke an answer from you that can provide me with a satisfying clarity of thought.
Thanks again. I also noted the inference of Shringeri Jagadgurus being jivanmukta. Thank you Sakshi ji.

I will also wait for any other responses.

Pranams. Hari Om.
Harish

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CADKAaHs_pE-A34EXxS7bg1bqmTgq2PSvK2Vn86TtyB8v%3D5GV8A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar:

Here is a mathematical question very similar to your question.
1. Anyone here who asks me to confirm that whether I know or seen infinity?
My answer is know what is infinity but I have no means to show anyone what infinity is.
2.  Or if some asks to me say how close that I can describe infinity; my answer is whatever my answer I give close to infinity then someone can add an extra epsilon and declares that I am not close enough!
3) Or if the question is how long that I knew infinity then my answer is so far no one has agreed that I know the infinity!  

The book, "The Man Who Knew Infinity: A Life of the Genius Ramanujan" is a biography of the Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan, written in 1991 by Robert Kanigel. The book gives a detailed account of his upbringing in India, his mathematical achievements and his mathematical collaboration with mathematician G. H. Hardy. I do believe that Ramanujan knows infinity and much more of mathematics.

Swami Chinmayanda during one of his discourses on Vedanta was explaining the role of "Vasanas" in human life and why that needs to be destroyed in order to realize the Brahman.  One attendee got up and asked Swamiji to explain when did "Vasana" begin?  Swamiji asked the attendee to write down the question in a large paper and asked him to multifold the
paper carefully and keep it safely.  Then he suggested that the attendee after his death, take that paper to God and ask him to answer! Swamiji assured the attendee that God will certainly provide the answer!!  The punchline of this incident is to understand, that we are better off to know what to ask and what not to ask!!

Warm regards,
Ram Chandran

[Akilesh Ayyar]

If you ask this question in hopes of knowing how to find a qualified teacher, then Ramana Maharshi suggested you ask whether you feel peace in the presence of that person? (and presence need not be physical -- one can be in satsang with Ramana simply by reading his words, for example)

This is NOT according to him a guarantee of "enlightenment" but is nevertheless the best sign available for someone looking for a guru.

Akilesh Ayyar

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/9DDC7420-50B6-4308-935F-E997E5805C0A%40gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Harish-ji

Whether we call it "being close to enlightenment" or not, it is understandable that people who acquire a fairly clear grasp of what advaita/shastra teaches and do regular mananam/dhyanam on the tattva, will eventually develop/open an inner "third eye" through which they have an "advaitic vision" of life and manifest existence. That is, beyond the "advaita says this" or even that what Advaita says looks like a viable "option" for truth, they are somehow and somewhere and to some aspect or extent realizing the tattva as "obvious" truth and therefore able to shift to its liberating 'perspective' as and when needed. The question of enlightenment and mukti revolves around whether this third eye of knowledge is fully open and whether they see only through it.

Let's look at the movie analogy. There are four kinds of people who see the movie.

1. The truly ignorant. These people believe what is shown in the movie is real. They may even 'know' what advaita teaches about screen and movie but are unable to have an inner connection/shraddha to the teaching, and hence their default is the movie reality.

2. The knowers who are bound by their mind. They lack in vivekam and vairagyam in spite of having some fundamental knowledge that the movie is unreal projection on Screen. It makes inner sense to them that everything is Existence/Sat and that Sat appears, is known as All, etc. But they cannot help being caught up in the movie storyline. 

3. The knowers who have vivekam but not enough vairagyam. These people who have strong lingering vasanas  live as if the third-eye is an option which effectively means they typically choose the ignorant eyes to see through simply because they find the movie experience too tempting or compelling. But when pressed, they have sufficient vivekam to shift to the third eye.

4. The knowers whose knowledge assimilation is so deep that it has resulted in mano-nasha. They are detached and disinterested in the events of the movie, and are ever rooted in the awareness ("Bliss") of the nondual Screen. They truly see the Self in all and all in Self, at all times.

If we consider this delineation, based on the movie analogy, there is a clear distinction between the ajnani of 1) and the categories of knowers who are distinguished not necessarily based on their fundamental knowledge of Reality but based on their chittashuddhi and resultant indulgence in maya-avidya (inspite of knowing it is indulgence in imagination, adhyasa). But I think this is a highly controversial topic within Advaita circle. Some say 2, 3, 4 are all enlightened and only 4 is also jivan-mukta; others say only 4 is enlightened = jivan-mukta. If we accept the first position, then I think there will be many among us who would have some insight/shraddha in advaita-tattva and hence may dare say they are not in 1, and closer to (if not in) 2 or 3. So "close to enlightened" perhaps though most here I expect would be well away from 4.

thollmelukaalkizhu 

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

 

4. The knowers whose knowledge assimilation is so deep that it has resulted in mano-nasha. They are detached and disinterested in the events of the movie, and are ever rooted in the awareness ("Bliss") of the nondual Screen. They truly see the Self in all and all in Self, at all times.

Clarification on how I meant "disinterested". For the ajnani, the jnani may very well appear "interested" in the events of the world; but because He knows only Brahman in all, the "interest" he appears to show in specific outcomes is only an appearance - a part of the ajnani's movie. There is no clouding of his knowledge that Brahman alone is; therefore the specifics of the appearance does not really matter to him. His apparent participation is simply part of the lila that the ajnani sees as for his sake and guidance.

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

If we consider this delineation, based on the movie analogy, there is a clear distinction between the ajnani of 1) and the categories of knowers who are distinguished not necessarily based on their fundamental knowledge of Reality but based on their chittashuddhi and resultant indulgence in maya-avidya (inspite of knowing it is indulgence in imagination, adhyasa). But I think this is a highly controversial topic within Advaita circle. Some say 2, 3, 4 are all enlightened and only 4 is also jivan-mukta; others say only 4 is enlightened = jivan-mukta. If we accept the first position, then I think there will be many among us who would have some insight/shraddha in advaita-tattva and hence may dare say they are not in 1, and closer to (if not in) 2 or 3. So "close to enlightened" perhaps though most here I expect would be well away from 4.

thollmelukaalkizhu 

.

[Harish L B]

Thank you Purtan ji, Ram Chandran ji and Akilesh ji. 

Your responses (and the earlier responses from Sudhanshu ji, Bhaskar ji and Sakshi ji) is very much appreciated, and your messages in many other threads in this group have been providing helpful verbosity and clarity.

For the past few years, I have been trying my best listening to the reflections shared in this group for some of these topics, and i have been quietly contemplating many of them within myself. I'm not an advanced student of Sanskrit myself, and therefore may have also missed a few inner meanings of those.

Coming back to the specific context in this email thread,

May i humbly ask whether it is accurate to say that the discussions that primarily illuminate the functional knowledge found in the scriptures regarding the attainment of enlightenment (and then leading to jivanmukta) is completely different from embarking on a simple life journey that can lead to becoming a jīvanmukta?
To me, these appear to be two subtly distinct orientations, and hence the question.
My apologies if my question seems elementary, but I am attempting to understand this distinction more clearly from the expert members of this group.

Kindly allow me to elaborate a little further on what I am trying to ask.
As i understand, the path towards enlightenment and the possibility of becoming a jīvanmukta is open to every human being.
If an individual has lived a life rooted in dharma because of his/her upbringing, has remained free from greed, has endured sufferings long enough to see the futility of emotional entanglement in it, has tasted enough small successes, yet no longer seeks to celebrate those successes anymore; And therefore the individual is detached and disinterested on the worldly pleasures and pains; then for such a person, what necessity remains for books or scriptures as prerequisites for enlightenment?
This is my doubt, and your guidance may be helpful. 

Of course, such an individual has nothing to offer as a mentor to anyone, he/she may not be even a good communicator itself in the first place, the individual may not even know that something called advaitam and upanishad scriptures exist. His daily life itself maybe an example, and no one probably notices that.

I have listened to karmayoga vs jnanayoga. However, isn't that the purification process itself is leading to jivanmulkta in the example that i was citing? why does one need to learn the nuances in the scriptures and attain the knowledge to become one? 

Since this realization (of enlightenment and jivanmukta) is a personal one, is it mandatory to follow the vedantic pursuit? unless there is a mandatory dharma for a jivanmukta to also explain and help others in an organized way to achieve that?

please excuse me for this lengthy email.

Hari Om, Namaskarams,

Harish

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-qFFxNsMFf9qMNxiTrnKw_ZpPO7yjsFrLbVcfTn4vTWUQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar:

The question that you have in your mind may get refined more and more as time goes by with greater experience,  right knowledge, faith with focus and determination and most importantly the grace of the Almighty. In a deterministic science like mathematics certain rules are developed for everyone to follow but there are exceptions.  For example, for one to be become an expert in mathematics, the rule says that one has to undertake studies with mathematics from school, college and universities, etc.  But some may undergo all such training but at the end may not become a great mathematician.  On the other hand, we do have exceptions with the appearance of great prodigies such as Ramanujan to be exceptionally talented!   To understand the essence of Vedanta, a good starter is the simple composition of Shankaracharya, the well known “Bhaja Govindam.”  The essence of Bhaja Govindam is that intellectual and worldly pursuits are ultimately empty, and true peace and liberation come from one’s devotion to Govinda! The emphasis of this work is the need for spiritual awakening. It also advises us to  surrender to God because material accomplishments, wealth, and desire will not help one at the time of death. The work illustrates that understanding the transient nature of life leads to ever-lasting happiness. 

Here are some key observations:

Bhaja Govindam argues that material possessions, and achievements are temporary.

It cautions against lust and the sorrows that arise from desire.

It advocates for devotion to God for salvation and to avoid  the cycle of birth and death.

The hymn urges one to question their true identity beyond the material world.

It reminds us once more that that must seek the eternal truth before it is too late. 

My conclusion to your question is that we need to prepare ourself for an ultimate goal with a single focused mind instead of allowing our mind to wander without a focus!

Warm regards,

Ram Chandran

[Harish L B]

Kindly allow me to correct the spelling of Putran ji in my previous response. My apologies, observed my typo only now.

Thank you. Hari Om.

On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 5:59 PM Harish L B <hari...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you Putran ji, Ram Chandran ji and Akilesh ji. 

[khaaksaar]

Namaste, Harish ji.

A story is told about Lao Tzu, who was once asked the same question: Are you enlightened?

His reply with wit winged with wisdom:

"If I say, 'yes,' then certainly I am not. If I say, 'no,' then probably I will not be telling the truth."

Perhaps, रहीमदास said it best:  

'रहिमन' बात अगम्य की, कहनि-सुननि की नाहिं। 

जे जानत ते कहत नहिं, कहत ते जानत नाहिं॥

Srigurucharansarojrajratah,

🙏🙏

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/9DDC7420-50B6-4308-935F-E997E5805C0A%40gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Harish-ji,

My thoughts on this:

If we can maintain full awareness of unchanging nondual Self, even while the body-mind apparently interacts with world at the level of cognition, then we are unaffected and detached from the happenings of body-mind-world which do not afflict the Self and are mere appearance.

Such a detachment, based in Knowledge, is different from the semblance that an ajnani may experience in favourable circumstance, that will vanish if the body-mind-world is suitably manipulated.

Our scriptures show how great sages like Vishwamitra and Narada became deluded in a moment's notice to the Lord's lila - to "kamini-kanchana". They became quite “interested” when Ishvara flipped the script. So, we should not underestimate the extent to which we are identified to the body-mind, and become complacent when riding a smooth phase of life. 

If we are not established in the knowledge of the Self (and hence already jivanmuktas), then we are very much within the sway of Maya. 

That said, you can ask yourself: During the course of a day, what period, % of time are you seeing the world through the eyes of ajnana (I am this jiva, human) and what period through the eyes of jnana (aham brahmaasmi, sarvam kalu idam brahma)? If you find yourself repeatedly switching back to the jiva-setting, upon the smallest life-triggers, as if that is your default standpoint and it is normal to retreat to it forgetting our real nature, then something has not settled right in our jnana-assimilation that our attention gets distracted easily from Self knowledge and becomes lost in duality.

If that is our living predicament, then the shastra has a simple utility of redirecting our attention back to the Goal and Truth. It is singularly focused on Brahman, and when we turn our outward mind to the external shastra pramana, it redirects us back to the Self. Almost all other inputs from the world are used in the mind to reinforce ajnana, but the shastra acts as the antidote; when we study it, we are reminding, recommitting, refocusing on Sat and how to make life a sadhana for its realization.

It is Self-knowledge that will liberate, will result in jivan-mukti. And Vedanta is the external pramana that teaches us this knowledge; that is of course the primary utility of the shastra. Without Vedanta, the knowledge will either be hidden to us or will be just another speculation that is beyond our conviction. By accepting the pramana and following the path shown, we can unentangle from Maya and realize our true nature - and that is Moksha.

Other things like following dharma, being good, ethical, etc. are preliminary but not sufficient; even if they obtain a certain satisfactory state of detachment, chitta-shuddhi, etc., if it is not rooted in Self-knowledge, it is unstable and a delusion to think otherwise (as I explained above).

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAD3Kb_koOArUKCMkyirUy-CqT0w2VMHcYgvWt3k4t4%3D_s2YOCA%40mail.gmail.com.