References to false jnana

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Does anyone have references to anywhere in the scriptures or in other texts where the student believes he has achieved full knowledge of Brahman, and perhaps parrots the right ideas, but the guru finds otherwise?

 

Akilesh Ayyar

Spiritual guidance - http://www.siftingtothetruth.com/

ᐧ

[Vinodh]

Namaskaram,

In this context, I am reminded of this from the Kena Upanishad (content pasted below): 

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/kena-upanishad-shankara-bhashya/d/doc145050.html

Om tat sat

🙏

यस्यामतं तस्य मतं मतं यस्य न वेद सः । 
अविज्ञातं विजानतां विज्ञातमविजानताम् ॥ ११ ॥ 

yasyāmataṃ tasya mataṃ mataṃ yasya na veda saḥ | 
avijñātaṃ vijānatāṃ vijñātamavijānatām || 11 || 

11. It is Known to him to whom it is Unknown;. he knows it not to whom it is known. (It is) Unknown to those who know, and Known to those who do not know. (11)

 

Shankara’s Commentary:

Com.—Turning from the concurring views of the preceptor and the disciple, the Sruti speaking for itself conveys in this text the view about which there is no disagreement. The purport is that to the knower of the Brahman whose firm conviction is that the Brahman is unknowable, the Brahmanis well known. But he, whose conviction is that the Brahman is known by him, certainly knows not the Brahman. The latter half of the text only states those two distinct conclusions of the wise and ignorant man more emphatically. To those who know well, the Brahman is certainly (a thing) unknown; but to those w ho do not see well, i.e., who confound the Atman with the sensory organs, the mind and the conditioned intelligence [ Buddhi ], Brahman is certainly not known, but not to those who are extremely ignorant; for, in the case of these, the thought ‘Brahman is known by us’ never arises. In the case of those who find the Atman in the conditioned organs of sense, mind and intelligence, the false notion ‘I know Brahman’ is quite possible, because they cannot discriminate between Brahman and these conditions and because the conditions of intelligence, etc., are known to them. It is to show that such knowledge of the Brahman is fallacious that the latter half of the text is introduced. Or, the latter half ‘Avijnatam, etc..’ may be construed as furnishing a reason for the view propounded in the former.

--
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/CAJbmbsFbdmJ8KBjAcqv8h%3DTcKBzqzG4g%3Dysg73RauGN8RPUgcw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Raghav Kumar]

Most of those Rishis who debated Yajnavalkya in brihadAraNyakopaniShat are referred to in the text and bhashya as brahma GYAnIs. They fancied themselves to be brahmajnanis and their choosing to debate with the truly advaitic GYAnam of Yajnavalkya is proof enough. Evidently they (and their respective disciples) wrongly concluded they understood the truth until their ignorance was exposed by Yajnavalkya in those debates.

In hindsight they all had knowledge of brahman with some upAdhi limitation, not of nondual brahman, but had been unaware of the fact. 

This is a common phenomenon even today amongst modern Gurus who do not have sufficient exposure to shAnkara vedAnta.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJLwtXUFeCHZA8kex35mR_54Mwh4sX9_UbwPznsF3w41eg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

PraNAms

Just a comment.

We are certifying who is brahma jnaani and who is not.

 Coming to Yagynavalkya;  later, he expressed his desire to renounce his household duties and take up sanyaasa as Maitreyee Brahmana indicates - In fact his  EXAMPLE (perhaps only one) that is used by Shankara that renunciation is pre-requisite for fully abiding in the knowledge. 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/158065134.387132.1625936475876%40mail.yahoo.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Pranam  Sadaji,

Yes, kandaphalodaka is the only necessity  in life. Mind gets controlled.

Jai Shri Krishna

skb

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/199312603.3214375.1625938033216%40mail.yahoo.com.

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste,

Ideally, a true Advaita jyAni can only remain a silent witness to everything right? 

How can such a non-dual jyAni like yAgyavalkya still engage in debate and find fault in others.

Even if it is said that yAgyavalkya is temporarily using duality (adhyAropa) it still makes

Brahman saguna / shareera vishishta, in the form of yAgyavalkya right? 

Appreciate if anyone can throw more light on the above. 

Regards,

Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2021 5:39 PM
To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] References to false jnana

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB99oHpdZ8UvS9FOgY%3D_WRQtw2YKrMtCgag%2BQn65n4LwRGQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Namaste,

A jnani is precisely the one who does not identify with the body and the mind. The yajnavalkya who debates is only the body-mind seen from the outside. The jnani is Silence irrespective of what the body-mind does. Non-dual Brahman is not really in the end something separate from "Saguna" Brahman; that is only a provisional view.

Akilesh Ayyar

Spiritual guidance - http://www.siftingtothetruth.com/

ᐧ

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY2PR06MB278150D4EA0CA3F9B24E2F16A9169%40TY2PR06MB2781.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

Brahman is both Saguna and Nirguna. Those who consider the world as full of miseries and desire to go beyond the cycle of birth  and death, appreciate the Advaitavada of realising the oneness with the Nirguna Brahman (the same as the Advayavada of  Lord Buddha) for getting out of the fetters of the trigunatmaka Prakrti.  For this, one has to have the goal of becoming a Sthitaprajna. Eventually with the proper resolve and efforts, an Advaida Jnani will end up becoming a sthitaprajna, a silent witness, and cross the cycle of birth and death and achieve the oneness with the Nirguna Brahman (in Buddhism would attain the Buddhahood). Lord Krshna himself showed how a no-dual Jnani can give advice to the people to follow the Path of righteousness.

Jai Shri Krishna

My 2 cents

skb

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY2PR06MB278150D4EA0CA3F9B24E2F16A9169%40TY2PR06MB2781.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Suresh - PraNAms

Advaitic understanding involves recognizing everything other than oneself is mithyaa - sat asat vilakshnam. neither real not real.

Hence jnaani lives like everybody - however with the clear understanding that the whole world and the world play is only a play and not really real. As long as one has vesham - or costume of BMI, he is in the drama of life and he has to play roles given by the script called praarabda. Just like an actor playing a role of King in some scenes or a beggar in others. He will play better than a real King or beggar since he is knows he is neither a king nor a beggar but only an actor playing for fun. 

Krishna or Rama all played in the life of drama - suffered as well as enjoyed - ready to kill or bless depending on the play of the others. 

Krishan was a jnaani - But he was vigorously involved in all actions - yet all those actions do not affect him. 

The actor can act without involving personally in the action - karmani akarama yaH pasyate - says Geeta. 

Witnessing does not involve BMI not doing any action. It has to act - na he kaschit kshaNamapi jaatu tuShTasya karamakRit - no one can remain from acting. Witnessing means shifting one's attention to 'I am' part and witnessing 'this' part that includes all the body, mind and intellect (BMI) actively involved in the drama of life - doing mostly loka kalyanam - all that comes under witnessed. 

A jnaani claims with clear understanding that I am akarataa and abhokta while BMI is acting as well as suffering as a consequence of action-result dual.  

That is a-dvaita - that is negation of dvaita as not real. 

Hope it is clear.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY2PR06MB278150D4EA0CA3F9B24E2F16A9169%40TY2PR06MB2781.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Sada-ji,

The world is just a play and all jivas or just actors or nimitta kAraNa is valid in Dvaita/V.Advaita also. 

All actions of jyAnis, as you have mentioned is for lOkakalyANa which in other words means, actions performed for the sake 

of yagya or Ishwara as in B.Gita - yagyArthAt karmanO anyatra lokoyam karma bandhanah, is also valid in all vedAntic views.

But the avatArAs of the Lord as Krishna, rAma and also of jnAnIs like Sri Shankara cannot be based on karma. 

The birth/actions of the Lord / jnAni depends on their sankalpa which makes Brahman/paramAtman saguna / satyasankalpa.

So, the mithyAtva or satyatva of the world depends on how you look at it. Jagat as an object of sense enjoyment is mithya. 

But the same jagat/body as an object of the Lord/jnAni's sankalpa is satya. Only then dharma also becomes sanAtana/eternal.

In the embodied state, there is a need to accept the "reality" of jagat as Brahma shareera in order to give validity to the 

unbroken line of teacher-student parampara and here I see Advaita and V.Advaita coming together, philosophically.

Interestingly, Sri Shankara is not opposed to multiplicity based on the Brahma shareera. Here is a quote from Prahnopanishad bhAshya (6-8)

ते तमर्चयन्तस्त्वं हि नः पिता योऽस्माकमविद्यायाः परं पारं तारयसीति । नमः परमऋषिभ्यो नमः परमऋषिभ्यः ॥ ८ ॥

ततः ते शिष्या गुरुणानुशिष्टाः तं गुरुं कृतार्थाः सन्तो विद्यानिष्क्रयमन्यदपश्यन्तः किं कृतवन्त इत्युच्यते — अर्चयन्तः पूजयन्तः पादयोः पुष्पाञ्जलिप्रकिरणेन प्रणिपातेन च शिरसा । किमूचुरित्याह — त्वं हि नः अस्माकं पिता ब्रह्मशरीरस्य विद्यया जनयितृत्वान्नित्यस्याजरामरणस्याभयस्य । यः त्वमेव अस्माकम् अविद्यायाः विपरीतज्ञानाज्जन्मजरामरणरोगदुःखादिग्राहादपारादविद्यामहोदधेर्विद्याप्लवेन परम् अपुनरावृत्तिलक्षणं मोक्षाख्यं महोदधेरिव पारं तारयसि अस्मानित्यतः पितृत्वं तवास्मान्प्रत्युपपन्नमितरस्मात् । इतरोऽपि हि पिता शरीरमात्रं जनयति, तथापि स पूज्यतमो लोके ; किमु वक्तव्यमात्यन्तिकाभयदातुरित्यभिप्रायः । नमः परमऋषिभ्यः ब्रह्मविद्यासम्प्रदायकर्तृभ्यः । नमः परमऋषिभ्य इति द्विर्वचनमादरार्थम् ॥

Regards,
Suresh

---

From: 'Kuntimaddi Sadananda' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2021 6:18 PM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/263846480.3315591.1626027536390%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Sureshji - PraNAms

What I have given is Advaita.

I have studied VishishTaadvaita also. 

Please study what I wrote. From Advaita perspective, everyone is Iswara swaruupam only. Krishna was born with knowledge to fulfil the desire of others. Other jnaanis are born without that knowledge but gained that knowledge by shravana, mamana and nidhidhyaasana. Ultimately there is one sat chit ananda only - ekam eva adviteeyam - aham brahmaamsi - ayam atmaa brahma - sarvam khalu idam brahma - neha naanasit kinchana - please contemplate on the statement - karamani akarma yaH pasyte - and sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam and sarva bhuutanica aatmani - from the Advaita perspective.

With this I stop since you are not really interested in Advaita. 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY2PR06MB2781B147D254345D8981C8CEA9169%40TY2PR06MB2781.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Namaste Sri Sada-ji,

Please don't get me wrong! My intention was only to understand the Advaitic explanation for Sri yAgyavalkya's debate.

I have the "bad" habit if trying to integrate all vedAntic traditions and sometimes it may not be palatable to all.

Your current explanation is good enough. Thanks very much!

Regards,

Suresh

---

From: 'Kuntimaddi Sadananda' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2021 9:37 PM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/932563354.1989134.1626039430311%40mail.yahoo.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Sada-ji,

Some thoughts, referring to some slokas in Aparokshanubhuti.

 From Advaita perspective, everyone is Iswara swaruupam only.

46. "From such declaration as "All this is Atman", it follows that the idea of the pervaded and the pervading is mithya. This supreme truth being realized, where is the room for any distinction between cause and effect?"

This is an amazing statement. Any relational distinction between Brahman and svaruupam (as Brahman vs His body, pervader and pervaded/projected, sesha-seshi) is mithya in advaita. A product of ignorance that is superimposed, or vyavaharika convention. Whereas such distinction is satya in the dvaita schools.

52. Fear is attributed to the ignorant one who rests after making even the slightest distinction between jivatman and paramatman.

The jivatma is always the non-dual Atman except it is thus identified distinctly in the context of namarupa upadhis. When we say "everyone is Ishvara svarupam only", the advaitin is not positing a real distinction between Ishvara and His svarupam but of the total sublation of such 

distinction in the substratum Brahman. 

If we see Ice, liquid and steam and say "All are Water-svarupam only", it is meant to inform us of the higher knowledge of the substratum in which context all such namarupa distinctions are realized as superimpositions on the non-dual Reality. 

Ice-manifestation is mithya; Water is satya. Ice vs Steam dualistic identification has vyavaharika validity; but advaita is telling us to know always: "What you identify as ice liquid steam is only Water, and That thou art". If instead we believe in their distinct identities, the siddhanta says we are in a state of Ignorance: the only Existence identified variously is the Water, naught else is. 

However, from the ice-liquid-steam vyavaharika standpoint (wherein some distinct identity is given to each), if we are told of Water being the substratum, the reference to Water will include a corresponding association of an intrinsic shakti in Water due to which it is manifest in different forms as ice etc. Thus we speak of Ishvara (Brahman+Maya) as projecting the manifold.

50. The Sruti has clearly declared that Brahman alone is the substratum of all varieties of names, forms and actions.

Note here that the knower knows Brahman where we see only self-interested actions. The jnani, the jnani's silence, the jnani's activity are separated from Brahman only by the ajnani, so he thinks the jnani should behave like a log (in order to claim advaita satya) and not talk/debate etc. Whereas the jnani's actions, which are not governed by Ignorance of self, should be understood as always being aligned with Ishvara's Order. Ishvara's Order guides manifestation for the fulfillment of jivas' karmaphala and along the path of Dharma that will lead to their liberation. Whereas the jiva's (ajnani's) iccha based actions are typically willed for the reinforcement of its Ignorance (i.e. his body identifications, and opposed to not-self), thus adding to new karma and bondage. The jnani's actions are always in tune with the natural compass of Dharma because he has unobstructed awareness of and abidance in the knowledge of Brahman.

thollmelukaalkizhu

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Pranam Sadaji,

Would you think the sceptics would be benefitted by trying to understand the  Jivanamuktanandalahari/

Jai Shri Krishna

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/932563354.1989134.1626039430311%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Dilip]

In the Chhandogya Upanishad, plz refer to Indra- Virochan- Brihaspati incident.

Also Swetketu- Uddalaka interaction will be helpful

Dilip

Sent from my iPhone

On 10-Jul-2021, at 22:31, 'Raghav Kumar' via advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Most of those Rishis who debated Yajnavalkya in brihadAraNyakopaniShat are referred to in the text and bhashya as brahma GYAnIs. They fancied themselves to be brahmajnanis and their choosing to debate with the truly advaitic GYAnam of Yajnavalkya is proof enough. Evidently they (and their respective disciples) wrongly concluded they understood the truth until their ignorance was exposed by Yajnavalkya in those debates.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/158065134.387132.1625936475876%40mail.yahoo.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 10:36 PM suresh srinivasamurthy <sure...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Namaste,

Ideally, a true Advaita jyAni can only remain a silent witness to everything right? 

How can such a non-dual jyAni like yAgyavalkya still engage in debate and find fault in others.

Even if it is said that yAgyavalkya is temporarily using duality (adhyAropa) it still makes

Brahman saguna / shareera vishishta, in the form of yAgyavalkya right? 

Dear Suresh ji,

According to Sri Vidyaranya in the Jivanmukti viveka, the case of Yajnavalkya is that of a confirmed aparoksha jnani whose moksha is beyond question, but who is not yet attained the 'shanti' that ideally has to be experienced as a result of Jnanam.  Swami Vidyaranya, by the inputs available in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, establishes his case.  Yajnavalkya, at some time, realizes that he has to enjoy Peace and decides to leave hearth and home, divides the property between his two wives and sets out to take sannyasa. It is then that his wife Maitreyi questions him on the Supreme attainment and a discourse follows on Brahmavidya.  This is an aside.  The crux of your question and its answer is this:  Yajnavalkya felt the need for shanti and withdrew from all debate. The two important aspects of JMV - vasana kshaya and mano nasha come into play.  It is the lack of these that makes one engage in debate, etc. from the author's point of view. 

regards

subbu     

[suresh srinivasamurthy]

Dhanyavadam Sri Subbu-ji,

Your explanation based on Jeevanmukti viveka is very helpful.  IMHO dvaita prapancha/mAya is not a hindrance to a true 

BrahmajyAni. For a true jyAni, dvaita prapancha becomes an object of enjoyment or food. It becomes an oblation in the fire 

of Brahman/Atman and thus glorifies Advaitic Brahman/Truth. So, taking a shareera or coming down as an avatAra still glorifies 

Advaitic Brahman. There is support for this in Sri Shankara bhAshyam and this is how I reconcile DvaitAdvaita within myself 🙂. 

IMHO true Advaita or selflessness can arise only when the self is identified with everything and this view wins without any debates

as it essentially consumes or encompasses all particular views.

My sincere apologies again for my ramblings and thank you very much for the lucid explanation.

Regards,
Suresh

---

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2021 4:48 AM

To: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] References to false jnana

--
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/CAKk0Te1ch2fGMRRX-naxnwbKyqs%2Bp6EibwWvJxMkn6LsTGbdng%40mail.gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

When the dvaitins talk sensible it sounds nice, but the dvaitins this way really seems to condemn the abusives used in the past by the Dvaitins, starting with the Maha-dvaitin Shri Madhvacharya, who called Adi Shankara to be a demon incarnate.

Sincerely,

skb

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/TY2PR06MB2781098019733D890A040DE6A9159%40TY2PR06MB2781.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare krishna

 

Some statements from prakaraNa-s like JMV do more harm than understanding Advaita jnana/sAdhana/sAdhana phala!!  Perhaps this would be the reason Acharya from AVG ( Sri Dayananda Saraswati) categorically said one who is a sincere student of advaita should avoid studying this prakaraNa.  The upasiddhAnta one could arrive from JMV’s declarations would be :

 

1. The peace of mind ( shanti) is not guaranteed for even aparOksha jnAni though mOksha is the result. 
2. An aparOksha jnAni yet to achieve manOnAsha and vAsanakshaya otherwise he will engage in debate and will be out of peace of mind. 
3. Shankara bhagavatpAda though an aparOksha jnAni on his own went to maNdana mishra and invited him for the debate, so as per observation of JMV shankara though aparOskha jnAni yet to achieve manOnAsha and vAsanakshaya. 
4. aparOksha jnana itself not mOksha ( paramArtha jnana itself mOksha the ONLY hindrance for realizing our svarUpa is avidyA -bhAshyakAra) and there is further steps need to be climbed after aparOksha jnana i.e. vAsanakshaya and manOnAsha. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Bhaskarji - PraNAms

In all these things logic or yukti should prevail. Hence shaastram, yukti and anubhavam in that order are emphasized for a seeker. 

Scripture suggests that 'tat vinjaanaartham gurum eva abhigacchet, samit paaNiH, strotriyam, brahmanishTam.

Krishna also says - tat viddhi praNipaatena, pariprashnena, sevayaa. Approach only a teacher for this knowledge, the one who has listened to scriptures from his teacher and therefore understood and also learned how to teach. In addition the one who is firmly established in Brahman. One cannot evaluate (as some members are freely certifying if one is jnaani or not) if other person is jnaani or not. However one can determine if the person knows shaastras or not (shotriyam). 

Hence it is important for a disciple to have a faith that my teacher is realized so that he has full faith in the teaching - faith as Shankara defines as - shaastrasya guruvaakyasya satya budhyaavadhaarana, saa shraddhaa - shaastras come first, and as interpreted by the teacher are indeed true. 

When the instructions are given to go and study under a teacher - obviously using the mind only. For madhyama saadhakaries like most of us, it will be become first paroxa jnaanam only unless the seeker is student like Nachiketas. 

The reason is most of us the minds are not fully prepared by four-fold qualifications that Shankara has discussed. 

Hence for everybody the teaching becomes first a paroxa jnaanam only.

 

Mother scripture understand this problem and hence suggests - shrotavyaH, mantavyaH, and nidhidhyaasitavyaH - tavyaH means one has to do it. Hence after learning from the teacher one has to contemplate on the teaching - nidhidhyaasitavyaH - for paroxa jnaanam to become aparoxajnaanam. Contemplation or meditation comes after shortavyaH and mantavyaH - meaning contemplation on the teaching gained as paroxa jnaanam - contemplation on the teaching or the truth that is now understood by seeker's mind as paroxa jnaanam.

Sureshvara mentioned these in his texts.  Goudapaada discusses the obstacles in the self-realization in his Mandukya Kaarika; mostly involving the mind not adequately prepared.  

Hence discussion of gradations in the jnaanis by Shree Vidyaaranya is mostly based on the purification of the mind - It is not meant for evaluating others but for self evaluation so that one can progress considering the problem. 

Even for Swetaketu - Uddaalaka has to repeat nine times taking several examples the 'tat tvam asi' statement - mostly to clear out his doubts in the mind. 

We should take guidance from the teachings of the Acharyas to the best we can; depending on our mental maturity. The teachings of Acharyas are intended to cover varieties of seekers and their mental status. One has to determine to what extent it applies to us for our evolution. 

Hence the teachings of dvaita, vishiShTaadvaita to Advaita are important depending on the student. Hence respect all acharyas but follow your teacher - is the best approach.

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/VI1PR06MB65924A88E68CF08880E1EBA4BF149%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com

.

[Akilesh Ayyar]

Namaste Bhaskarji,

Beautifully put. Fully agreed. And strangely, it seems to me that, from what I have read of it (which is not all of it),  Panchadasi is in a very different spirit and has no such distinctions.

Akilesh Ayyar

Spiritual guidance - http://www.siftingtothetruth.com/

ᐧ

--

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/VI1PR06MB65924A88E68CF08880E1EBA4BF149%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Sada prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Thanks for sharing your observation.  Yes we should use yukti and this yukti should be within the boundaries of shruti and shrutyukta pUrNAnubhava in other words shrutyukta yukti.  Dry logic would not going to help us anyway, likewise any vaiyuktika anubhava (individual’s esoteric experiences) too. 

 

And when we read the gradations in jnAni-s and that gradations are based on their means of return to normal state from samAdhi etc. in some prakaraNa-s, we have to ascertain these things with the help of shruti, Acharya upadesha, guru who insist us to stick to shankara’s Advaita sampradaya. 

 

Anyway those things we can put aside, let us come back to the observations in JMV.  Do you agree aparOksha jnana (not parOksha jnana which you defined below) is imperfect and partial and even after one is aparOksha jnAni he has to undergo further refinement to achieve manOnAsha and vAsanAkshaya??  By the way I am not aware how the aparOksha jnana has been defined in JMV and how this is different from aparOksha anubhUti.  Will wait for your clarification with regard JMV observations to get the pointed clarity.  Ofcourse, this request you can consider only if you think prakaraNa-s like this needs evaluation in the light of shankara’s prasthAna traya bhAshya 😊

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Bhaskarji - PraNAms

Here is my understanding

paroxa jnanam becomes a basis for the aparoxa jnanam. First mind has to understand and becomes doubt free before it can internalize the teaching - faith in the teaching comes firm as one abides in that knowledge as Krishna emphasizes in the 4th Ch. Shraddhaavan labhate jnaanam and ajnaascha, ashraddha dhaanaScha shamshayaatmaa vinaSyati.

Shaastras and the teachings are meant for understanding the truth as pointed by the mahavaakayas. The rest is only for the mind to become doubt-free and assimilate.

 The knowledge does not become abiding until the mind becomes pure. While Shankara's life is different from Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi's or even J. Krishnamurthy - We do not have to follow their exact life paths - what we need to understand the essential truth that is being pointed out by Shastras as confirmed by your teacher.

 

I have studied Sri Vidyaranya's Panchadashi and have given talks on it but have not studied JMV nor intend to study it as it is not needed for understanding the truth, from my point. 

I have studied Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi's Upadesha saara and Sat Darshanma - and have given talks on them, available online. 'Who am I' inquiry with the support of Scriptural understanding will help. Trying to get into the same Samadhi state of Ramana Maharshi - can become futile attempts - that is not necessary also for understanding the truth which is self-evident and all pervading. As Ramana Maharshi says about bhoutika sanyaasa - it is not necessary but can be helpful. 

I have studied Bhagavan Ramanuja, his Sree bhasyas on brahma sutra and Geeta - to understand why and where he differs - particularly his mahapurva paksha. It all helped to have clear understanding of the truth as pointed by scriptures as I understood also particularly coming from very strong Science background - This is also reflected in all my talks - 

aparoxa jnanam is direct visualization of the truth as Krishana points as sthita prajnaa. paroxa jnanam helps since it is the ajnaanam that is root cause for the samsaara. 

If this is understood, scriptures have done their part. The rest is swaadhyaayanam. 

With this I stop.

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/VI1PR06MB659268BD378B876172EA9C73BF149%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com

.

[Bhaskar YR]

aparoxa jnanam is direct visualization of the truth

 

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes, the genuine intuition of Atman through shAstra vAkya janita jnana is aparOksha jnana.  The adhyavasAya the final, direct and ultimate understanding of our svarUpa reveals the fact that we are ever free, blissful and ever existent.  If this aparOksha jnana does not do the manOnAsha (!!??) and vAsanAkshaya of the jnAni I don’t know what else would ??  Shankara explains something about manOnAsha, vAsanAkshaya, sakashAya in kArikA bhAshya which is obviously different from what has been said in this prakaraNa. 

 

Anyway, I donot want to go deep into the JMV’s declarations and its alignment with shruti and shankara since it is accepted prakaraNa and saMpradAyavAdins donot want to raise their voice against it. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

.

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Bhaskarji - PraNAms.

Mano naasha occurs only when the realized soul leaves the body. Body joins with the Virat, the mind with the total Tejas and intellect with the Iswara - while the jnaani has understood that I am all in all - pure sat chit ananda swaruupa.  

The jnaani's mano naasha only means the misunderstanding mind is gone. The mind with understanding is now available for loka kalyanam or I should say whatever he does also will be for loka kalyaanam only. 

Mind is just an instrument - mana eva manushyaanaam kaaraNam bandha moksha yoH. Mind with ignorance generated misunderstanding is samsaara and mind with correct understanding is the realized mind. Mind has to be destroyed for realization means we are giving more reality to the mithyaa instrument. Abiding with understanding in the mind that it is also mithyaa - using that mind only - is realization by the originally confused mind. That identity 'I am = this' notion is also in the mind only. Now that is replaced by I am Brahman while this mind is mithyaa. 

aparoxa jnanam is immediate and direct understanding that 'I am' in the I am this part is pure sat chit ananda swaruupam - that understanding has to arise constantly akhandam in the mind only - the more it becomes akhandam the more the jnaani abides in that knowledge. 

My 2c 

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/VI1PR06MB659214933E956102C9203947BF149%40VI1PR06MB6592.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com

.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste Sadaji,

I think the urge to involve oneself in some work as a societal need, may come automatically to some people, under some circumstances. Adi Shankara, encouraged by his Guru and Param-Guru,  made super-human efforts to bring back the lofty Upanishadic teachings. The great teacher, Lord Buddha (19th century BCE) was very keen to find a way to end the miseries of life, due to illness, old age and death, apart from the birth itself. His own mother lost her life, during his birth. The tenets of his teachings were basically from the Upanishads (In the Dhammpada he said  Esha Dharma SanatanaH). Lord Buddha's highest teachings of the Mahayana were based on the  Upanishads, that in the world everything is Anatman-based, and the Atman being in the background. Lord Buddha desired that after one thousand years from his  time, someone from a Brahmin family should restore the highest Upanishadic teachings of the Sanatana dharma. Fortunately, Adi Shankara appeared 13 centuries after Lord Buddha. Lord Buddha's Mahayana teachings were not for the liberation from the miseries for one's own self, but for the end of the miseries of the other's too. So also Adi Shankara wanted to propagate the highest upnishadic teachings and he too did not think for  his own Liberation or Mukti, but he was concerned with the Mukti for all. The is why he did onfront the Purva - Mimasha school, who were ruling the roost, in his time..

What many of us do is for the societal needs, according to our  own feeling  and assessment. Permit me to give an example from my own experience, though I am a small fry. Once, in the year 2006, I had been to Bhadravati, and could go to the Kudali Shringeri math, near Shimoga in Karnataka. There I could see the wooden statue of the Mother Sharada, in the standing position, as was installed from the time of Adi Shankara in the 5th century BCE (Adi Shankara was born towards the end of the 6th century BCE, and passed away in the first quarter of the 5th century BCE). Probably the original wooden statue was broken during the Muslim attack in Karnataka. I also learnt that the Swamiji had to go away from the math during the Muslim attack and he did not come back, but the math had the guru parampara from the time of Adi Shankara. I have read the  Guru-parampara of the Kudali Shringeri math, which was published from Tirupati in the year 1935.   On having darshana of Mother Sharada, I felt, though in my advanced age, I should try to let people know the truth about the time of Adi Shankara.

Similarly it pained me when I discovered that according to the Mahabharata, the Original Bhagavad Gita had 745 verses, whereas  the commonly available Bhagavad Gita has only 700 verses. I found that manuscripts of the Original Bhagavad Gita were available in Varanadi, Gondal as well as in Kashmir. The German scholar, Schrader, also drew the attention of the world to the fact that Kashmiri Bhagavadv Gita had 745 verses.  Even in the commentary on the Bhagavad Gita by Keshava Kashmiri Bhattacharya of the Bhedabheda (Dvaitadvaita) school of Nimbarka, there is mention that the original Bhagavad Gita has 745 verses. Keshava Kashmiri Bhattacharya (mentioned as Kesaba Bharati in the Chaitanya school)  was the spiritual guru of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. I could bring out the original Bhagavad Gita in the year 2014.

The purport of writing above is to show that involvement in various acivities of public interest need not be considered to be drifting from one's spiritual goal.

Regards

Sunil K B

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/506742786.3079166.1626180504348%40mail.yahoo.com.