[Advaita-l] BrahmaGYAna and jIvanmukti - 5 (Other References)

S Jayanarayanan sjayana at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 13 20:27:07 CST 2007

--- jagannathan mahadevan <jagannathan.mahadevan at gmail.com> wrote:

> Kartik,
> > >
> >
> > It is interesting that VidyAraNya likens the sthitapraGYa's state
> to
> > that of a woman who, although outwardly involved in housework, is
> > completely absorbed in thinking about her lover. Whereas a
> GYAnimAtra
> > is likened to one who sometimes thinks of her lover, sometimes
> the
> > housework. The aGYAnI, of course, would be someone who is only
> > involved in the housework, and is not in love at all.
> >
> How about someone who is an aGYAni and mumukSu? I do not want to be
> seen as extending the nice example, but the aGYAni who is a mumukSu
> will not fit anywhere in the above analogy will he/she? Obviously
> an
> aGYAni who is mumukSu has some interest in knowing the self. So,
> such
> a person will not always be involved in "housework." I take it that
> in
> your example you would say that housework is a parallel to
> materialistic pursuits as opposed to spiritual quests.

It may not be possible to stretch an analogy meant for illustrating a
particular point beyond its limits. It's going to be difficult to fit
all cases (such as Mumukshus) into the framework of this analogy.

> > In Bhagavan's usage, he uses a terminology that is different from
> > VidyAraNya:
> >
> > Bhagavan <--> ViydAraNya
> >
> > jnani  <--> sthitapraGYa
> > ajnani <--> aGYAnI
> > One who has a glimpse of the ultimate reality <--> GYAnimAtra
> >
> In the quote provided there is not adequate information to know
> whether bhagavAn actually calls a person with a glimpse of the self
> as
> anything other than aGYAni. May be you have other quotes from
> bhagavAn
> that shows the above terminology.
> In the quote from Talks, you went as far as:
> <quote>
>  Brahman shines forth once and forever).
>  (Note: Above quote is from Chandogya 8.4.2)
>  M.: They refer to the permanent realisation and not to the
> glimpse.
>  D.: How is it possible that a man forgets his very experience and
>  falls back into ignorance?
>  Sri Bhagavan illustrated it with the following story: ...
> <unquote>
> Can you please provide the rest of the quote; especially the
> illustration by bhagavAn?

The rest of the story follows.

Sri Bhagavan illustrated it with the following story:
There was a king who treated his subjects well. One of his ministers
gained his confidence and misused the influence. All the other
ministers and officers were adversely affected and they hit upon a
plan to get rid of him. They instructed the guards not to let the man
enter the palace. The king noted his absence and enquired after
him. He was informed that the man was taken ill and could not
therefore come to the palace. The king deputed his physician to
attend on the minister. False reports were conveyed to the king that
the minister was sometimes improving and at other times collapsing.
The king desired to see the patient. But the pandits said that such
an action was against dharma. Later the minister was reported to
have died. The king was very sorry when he heard the news.
The arrogant minister was kept informed of all the happenings by
spies of his own. He tried to foil the other ministers. He waited for
the king to come out of the palace so that he might report himself
to the king. On one occasion he climbed up a tree, hid himself
among the branches and awaited the king. The king came out that
night in the palanquin and the man in hiding jumped down in front
of the palanquin and shouted his identity. The companion of the
king was equally resourceful. He at once took out a handful of
sacred ashes (vibhuti) from his pocket and scattered it in the air so
that the king was obliged to close his eyes. The companion shouted
victory (‘jai’) to the king and ordered the band to play so that the
other man’s shout was drowned in the noise. He also ordered the
palanquin-bearers to move fast and he himself sang incantations to
keep off evil spirits. The king was thus left under the impression
that the dead man’s ghost was playing pranks with him.
The disappointed man became desperate and retired into the forest
for tapasya (austerities). After a long time the king happened to go
hunting. He came across the former minister seated in deep
contemplation. But he hastened away from the spot lest the ghost
should molest him.
The moral of the story is that even though the man was seen in flesh
and blood, yet the wrong notion that he was a ghost prevented right
values being taken. So it is with a forced realisation of the Self.

Bhagavan talks about a "forced realization of the self" in the above
instance, which I've not encountered elsewhere.

> regards,
> Jagan.


TV dinner still cooling? 
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list