[Advaita-l] BrahmaGYAna and jIvanmukti - 5 (Other References)
jagannathan.mahadevan at gmail.com
Tue Feb 6 12:33:47 CST 2007
This is my understanding of your last (#5) post.
I think that the point that you are trying to convey is that the
sAdhana-chatushhTaya is a necessary prerequisite for someone to even
sit and listen to the vEda SAstra and the mahAvAkya.
Since it is not possible for all to satisfy all those requirements,
the lesser qualified are also admitted into instruction but prescribed
with additional practices and deliberation - I am not clear what is
really mean't by "identification with the self" here from your post
GYAte vastunyapi balavatI vAsanA.anAdireshhA .
kartA bhoktApyahamiti dR^iDhA yA.asya sa.nsArahetuH ..
pratyag.h dR^ishhTyA.atmani nivasatA sApaneyA prayatnAn.h .
muktiM prAhustadiha munayo vAsanAtAnavaM yat.h ..267..
"Even after the Truth has been realised, there remains that
strong, beginningless, obstinate impression that one is the
agent and experiencer, which is the cause of one's
transmigration. It has to be carefully removed by living in
a state of constant identification with the Supreme Self.
Sages call that Liberation which is the attenuation of
Vasanas (impressions) here and now."
I think that in a way all of us recognize the self, as Sri Vidyasankar
put it in a previous email in some other context, and this recognition
itself is an automatic process. Are you referring to this recognition
as AtmaGyAna that is unsteady? Is this unsteady GyAna something like
Attention Deficit Disorder wherein a person suffers from a lack of
focus or attention to a single thing at a time?
>From the quote of ramaNa mahariShi you had given, it seems that
bHagavAn refers to the person who has only a glimpse of the self as an
"aGYAni." Would it not be more suitable to call someone with just a
"glimpse of the self" as an "aGYAni" rather than some one with
"unsteady GYAna" ? Of course the key to note is that such a person can
still be seeker due to his mumukSutva or the desire to mukti. Not all
that are "aGYAni" are mumukSu.
Talks with Ramana Maharshi, # 562
Although this is merely an extract from "Talks", which is not exactly
as authoritative as one might like, I've decided to include it since
it is also aligned with the JMV in speaking of vAsanAkshaya to be
practised after a "glimpse" of the Self:
21st October, 1938
There is a statement in the book Vichara Sangraha that though a person
realises the Self once, he cannot, for that simple reason alone,
become a mukta. He continues to remain a victim of vasanas
(latencies). Sri Bhagavan was asked whether the realisation referred
to was the same as the jnani's, and if so why there should be a
difference in their effects.
M: The experience is the same. Every person experiences the Self
consciously or unconsciously. The ajnani's experience is clouded by
his latencies whereas the jnani's is not so. The jnani's experience
of the Self is therefore distinct and permanent. A practiser may by
long practice gain a glimpse of the Reality. This experience may be
vivid for the time being. And yet he will be distracted by the old
vasanas and so his experience will not avail him. Such a man must
continue his manana and nididhyasana so that all the obstacles may be
destroyed. He will then be able to remain permanently in the Real
Nevertheless, how exactly are the latent tendencies removed? I
understand that the deliberations prescribed consist of manana and
nididhyasana with sAdhana such as tyAga and vairAgya. What does this
mean to the seeker (who is now an "aGYAni" and a "mumukSu") ?
Specifically what are the options for such a seeker to gain GYAna and
then mukti. Perhaps you are addressing this in the posting number 6.
Thanks for your postings,
On 2/1/07, savithri devaraj <savithri_devaraj at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- S Jayanarayanan <sjayana at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I was wondering whether or not to write this, but
> > anyway, here goes.
> Well, then you shouldn't have!
> Here we go again...
> Where is the relationship between Satchidanandendra
> Saraswathi Swamiji and this thread? Why not blame him
> for the bad weather also then?
> Just for future information, Satchidanandendra Swamiji
> didn't come up with sadhana catushtaya sampattih
> pre-requisites for jnana marga. I thought people who
> participated here know better than that.
> There is a lot of confusion in advaita terminology,
> and every writer can interpret terms to suit their own
> point of view. I was stating my point of view, just as
> you were stating yours and Vidyashankar was stating
> his. And, I will continue to voice my dissent when I
> see something incongrous and non-intuitive.
> One more thing - writing in all caps on the internet
> is equivalent to yelling. So, I request all to mind
> their e-etiquette. This list is to discuss advaita
> vedanta and learn from each other. How can we do that
> if we are constantly instigating and inflaming each
> This is my last post on this subject.
> > Suppose the distinction between steady and unsteady
> > AtmaGYAna is not
> > advaitic, what would that imply? In the strength of
> > the references
> > I've provided, it would mean that:
> > 1) Apastamba, whose verse on Atma-vichAra is quoted
> > by none other
> > than sureshvara, must be mistaken. Haradatta, the
> > commentator
> > accepted by the tradition as authoritative on
> > Apastamba, has to be
> > wrong.
> > 2) The VivekachUDAmaNi as well as the commentary on
> > it by
> > H.H. Chandrasekhara Bharati Mahaswamigal (H.H.),
> > should be in error.
> > 3) Ramana Maharshi didn't know what he was talking
> > about.
> > 4) Sankara for some strange reason must have spoken
> > of effort to be
> > made after saMyag-GYAna in his commentary on
> > BR^ihadaaraNyaka
> > upanishhad 1.4.7.
> > Last, but certainly not the least (arguably the most
> > important
> > reference of all):
> > 5) The BR^ihadaaraNyaka upanishhad 3.5.1, along with
> > Sankara's
> > commentary on it, both of which speak of
> > renunciation of desires
> > after AtmaGYAna, ought to be interpreted in a
> > twisted manner because
> > the straightforward reading "just doesn't make
> > sense".
> > Instead of the above mind-boggling possibilities,
> > there is a simpler
> > explanation:
> > SWAMI SATCHIDANANDENDRA SARASWATI DID NOT COMPREHEND
> > THE DIFFERENCE
> > BETWEEN STEADY AND UNSTEADY ATMAGYANA.
> > Now, regarding the pa~nchapAdikA:
> > It is quite obvious that both H.H. and Ramana
> > Maharshi had great
> > respect for the VivekachUDAmaNi, as they've both
> > commented on it.
> > Given that two of the greatest jIvanmuktas of the
> > 20th century have
> > held this text in high esteem, we can safely assume
> > that the
> > VivekachUDAmaNi is firmly placed in the
> > advaita-vedAnta tradition. As
> > I've pointed out, the VivekachUDAmaNi actually
> > follows the JMV quite
> > closely, and H.H. even quotes the JMV as an
> > authority in his
> > commentary. It is therefore reasonable to say that
> > the JMV is part
> > and parcel of the advaita-vedAnta tradition. The JMV
> > in turn quotes
> > the pa~nchapAdikA as authority, which implies that
> > the pa~nchapAdikA
> > has to be in line with the advaita-vedAnta
> > tradition. QED.
> > Thanks,
> > Kartik
> > PS: I sincerely apologize if this email offends
> > anyone. My aim is not
> > to offend, but only to point out a blatant
> > inconsistency if one
> > doesn't take the JMV or the pa~nchapAdikA as being
> > in line with
> > Sankara's works.
> > 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
> > with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
> > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
> with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list