Guru-disciple-enlightenment topic

[sadananda]

                        StitahpraJNasya kaa bhaashaa?

Like Vidya, I was reading the postings some with amusement and some with
dismay for the deteriorating tone of the arguments on Gurus and criteria
for Gurus and Disciples and the lineage - and Ramana Maharshi's disciples.


I think Aikya had pointed out Bhagavan Krishna's own teaching from ChII -
the Stitah PraJNya Lakshana - who is realized?

prajahaati yaddaa kaaman sarvan Partha mano gataan |
aatmanyai vaatmanaa tushhTaH stitapraJNyastadOchyate||

The one who has withdrawn all his desires(for enjoyment) that arise in the
mind, and one who in the self by himself fully satisfied, he is called
stitapraJNya.

Here based on the second line, desires that are talked about are the
self-centered or ego-centered desires that  demands  - this, this  and
that, that - for ones fulfillment or happiness -  and Krishna justifies in
the second line why so - since he is fully happy with himself by himself.
Essentially he has discovered that he is full and complete. He is ananda
himself - hence he does not have to after ananda.

First note there is no question of siddhies, proofs, haloes, raising
something etc. in the statement.  They are neither necessary nor sufficient
for being stitapraJNya.

Now let us examine this statement more carefully.  Who will know that one
has with drawn all his desires from the mind, and one is reveling in one
self by oneself, when that one self that one is reveling, pervades the
entire universe!

Other than by one self no one else will know!

One is smoking - or eating fish or some one added masturbating to the list
- does that  disqualifies or qualifies! for one to be realized.

Application of Krishna's statement - if these actions are desire prompted
actions to indulge for getting happiness - obviously he has not realized.
He has not yet discovered that he himself is happiness, sans all these
actions. - conversely if one is not doing all these but doing all the
miracles does not qualify him to be a realized soul.

But if one is doing the actions but not necessarily for self satisfaction,
but dictated by the body's Praarabda - just eating,(including particular
type of food that body has got used to)  sleeping, drinking, urinating and
other physiological actions that the body (here I am including both gross
body  and subtle body - mind and intellect) is used to or capable of doing,
but the individual has realized that he is not a limited ego but the total
consciousness, then by Krishna statement he is a stittapraJNya.

Krishna says in B.G.
Prakrityavacha karmaani kriyamaanaani sarvashaH
yapasyati taddaatmaanam akartaaram sa pasyati||
( I am not sure I quoted the sloka correctly - my memory is fading)
All actions are done by the prakriti it self. One who see that he is a
non-doer (while the actions are being performed appropriately) he alone
sees (the truth) - he alone has realized.

Refer to Nisargadatta Maharaj's answer to a question  in I am that  -- who
is answering these questions that too logically - he says (in essence) the
mind receives the question and answers appropriately but he himself is not
involved.

Hence by actions alone one cannot judge one is realized or not realized -
since it is not the actions but whether " a notion I am the doer is
involved" or not.  Here also one has to separate vyaavaharika vs true
understanding.   A mahaatmaa for purpose of transaction may use I - to
indicate this body and mind etc. as Bhagavaan Ramana himself says
humorously to his disciples - when the robbers punched him too - "I also
received some puja" - with a pun on puja -obviously referring to the body
as I.

By the by no one can give as a boon realization to other - relazation is
knowledge and ignorent has to have a frame of mind to recieve even if
teacher can teach.  This I am making since someone pointed out that
Bhagavaan Ramana gave moksha to a cow.  The cow may be blessed to be in the
presence of bhagavan but as we understand what realization means it cannot
be given to someone.  Of course there is nothing wrong in having a faith or
belief - including that the cow was given realization - since beliefs and
faiths are subjective and no one can question about others beliefs and
faithes.

Hence bottom line no other - other than oneself - can tell that one is
realized or not!
That is why Bhagavaan Sankara says in Bhajagovindam -

yogaratOvaa bhOgaratOvaa sangaratOvaa sangavihiinaH|
yasyabrahmani ramate chittam nandati nandati nadatyeva||

one is sitting like a yogi or enjoying like a bhogi - in the company or
without company, whose mind is reveling in Brahman - (he is the realized
soul)

External activities are not judges for realization.

Obviously Krishna gave the indicators not to judge others - since that
cannot be done - but to judge oneself - since I alone know about my
understanding and misunderstanding. These are litmus tests to oneself.

The discussions that someone else has realized or not borders to ones
beliefs or faiths and nothing more than that.

According to advaita Vedaanta- another realized soul also cannot judge the
second one has realized or not - since if he has realized - he has also
realized that there is not second one!

All these statements are from the reference of a realized soul or teacher.

Now from the disciple reference.

In the Mundaka Upanishad - it is clearly stated that:

pariisha lokaaN karma chitaan brahmano
nirvedamaayanaascha krita kritena.|.......................................
tat viJNaanaartham sa gurumeevaabhi gachchhet
samit paaniH sotriyam brahma NishTam||

One, who has realized by examining, that by full filling desires by actions
one cannot achieve that permanent happiness, let him approach a teacher for
that knowledge - that teachers who is saastraJNya and who is fully
established himself in Brahman.

If I cannot judge others whether one is realized or not -how  am I to know
that my teacher is brahma nishTa -

There is where shradda comes into picture.  It is  only by the grace of God
(or indirectly ones own punya) that one is directed to an appropriate
teacher.  f - In fact, an appropriate teacher may come to one own life by
circumstances to teach  that highest philosophy if one is ready.  That is
the Lord's responsibility.

For Ramakrishna paramahamsa - I heard that Totapuri himself went to him to
teach him the advaita.

Hence in the very first sloka on avadhuuta giita - Bhagavaan dattatreya says ;

Eswaraanugrameva pumsam advaita vaasana|

only by the grace of God that individual acquires the desire for advaita.

In VivEkachuuDaamaNi - Bhagavaan Sankara says:

manushyatvam, mumushutvam and mahaapurusha samsrayam - daivaanugraha meva -

It is the only by the blessing of the gods that one acquires the human
life, the desire for liberation and the acquaintance of a grate soul (
realized soul)

If the student feels, that one is my teacher and he has realized and I am
getting benefit from his teaching - so be it - The student can get the
knowledge - it does not matter whether the teacher has truly realized or
not. Who are we to judge - even if we want.

Also, the student may not realize even if the teacher has realized.  We
cannot blame the teacher nor judge the teacher based on his disciples.  If
the disciples behave such a way beautifying the whole society, obviously
the teacher need to be congratulated since he was able to inspire such a
shraddaa in his disciples.

Bhagavaan Ramana maharshi's teaching is straight forward and simple - but
only to those who have acquired that advaita vaasana.  You go and teach
that to Hari Krishna disciples, they will through unimaginable abuses
against you and even at Bhagavaan too.

Obviously people who talk ill about great souls are only contributing their
own suffering.

Many names of people, particularly, Bhagavaan Ramana Maharshi disciples,
even Nisargadatta Maharaj  are thrown some with derogatory comments -

Sitting here we cannot pass on certificates one is realized or not.  If
their disciples are getting benefit form them with the shraddaa or faith
that they have realized - glory to those disciples and glory to the teacher
who could establish that faith in them so that they can pursue their
sadhana with unagitated mind.  Who are we to say they are not realized nor
they have realized.  You are not going to be their disciple any way to
worry about!

Another question came that Bhavaan Ramana himself did not declare about any
of his disciples are realized.  This statement is ridiculous - How can
Bhagavan say that some one has realized when there is no someone!

His disciples did not come to his level - is another comment - These
degrees and gradations in realization violates the fundamental
understanding of advaita. All one is saying he did not become as famous as
Bhagavaan Raman.  But remember - that is neither a criteria nor a
non-criteria.  - yadyat brahamani ramate chittam nandati nandati nadatyeva.


These individual did not come to us and declare that we have to follow them
since they have realized!  If their disciples feels - that is good - that
is what is required according to the mundakopanishad statement and they
will be benefited and not us who have some reservations about them.
Remember there are several who went to  even Bhagavaan Ramana and did not
think that he was realized and came back with empty hands.  No one has
declared that they are the true lineage of Ramana - Ramana himself would
not appoint any body - One can appoint someone for administration of a matt
or ashram some manager like a person - that does not mean he is realized
nor not-realized.

Bottom line all these discussions about other peoples gurus and disciples
caliber is in my opinion is meaningless.

Valid Question  is only- how much we have grown in our mind and how far
away we are - in terms of mental agitations etc. that we need to judge and
the sastras discussion about the Jivan mukta and stitapraJNaa is only to
help us to judge ourselves and grow in the process.

I am bad in typing and proof reading - my apologies for all errors.

Hari Om!
Sadananda

>From  Thu Oct 31 02:29:37 1996
Message-Id: <THU.31.OCT.1996.022937.1100.>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 02:29:37 +1100
Reply-To: cjreilly at ozemail.com.au
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Cameron Reilly <cjreilly at OZEMAIL.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: Guru-disciple-enlightenment topic
Comments: To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Natha Bhaktyananda wrote:


> Cameron has written:
> > You appear to suffer from the common delusion that sentient beings have
> > some sort of 'free will' or volition.
> >
> > I can assure you that this is not the case. They act according to
> > genetic and environmental factors.--------------------------------
>
>
> This opinion of yours comes against the opinion of all the great masters
> of the Tradition (reading some Shivananda will be enough to convince
> you that it is so).

If you have books, scriptures, etc by any of the 'great masters of the
Tradition' in which they claim that sentient beings have free will, may
I suggest you use them as kindling for your fireplace! At least that way
you'll get some good out of them!

Let me start this message by suggesting that quoting masters is a waste
of time if you do not look within and seek your own answers. Of course,
whether or not you do this is out of your hands.

I normally abstain from quoting scriptures or "great masters" because I
prefer to urge people reach their own conclusions. However, as I see the
"great masters'" words are important to you, let the quoting begin!

First, Ramana Maharshi:

        I asked him "Are only the important events in a man's life, such as his
main    occupation or profession predetermined, or are trifling acts also,
such as         taking a cup of water or moving from one part of the room to
another?"

        Bhagavan replied "Everything is predetermined. So long as the concept
of      individuality exists, the concept of free will exists also. In truth
the ego         has no free will because there is no ego."

Again, Maharshi:

        One summer afternoon I was sitting opposite Bhagavan in the old hall,
with
        a fan in my hand and said to him: "I can understand that the
outstanding
        events in a man's life, such as his country, nationality, family,
career or
        rofession, marriage, death, etc., are all predestined by his karma, but
        can it be that all the details of his life, down to the minutest, have
        already been determined? Now, for instance, I put this fan that is in
my
        hand down on the floor here. Can it be that it was already decided that
on
        such and such a day, at such and a such an hour, I shall move the fan
like
        this and put it down here?"

        Bhagavan replied,   "Certainly." He continued: "Whatever this body is
to do
        and whatever experiences it is to pass through was already decided when
it
        came into existence.

        This may not be acceptable to many learned people or philosophers. I
recall  in this connection the following lines that Bhagavan once quoted
to me           fromThayumanavar on another occasion: "This is not to be taught
to all. Even
        if we tell them, it will only lead to endless discussion."

        (my thanks to Giri for this quote)

>Only the animals have no free will, Cameron. I can
> also assure *you* that human beings do have a free will (although they
> seldom seem to use it :-) The fact that you have a sense of I-ness
> (which the animals don't have) is the very foundation of this free will.
> Which would be the pedagogic role of karma, if you would be a helpless
> tool of environmental factors? Karma would then be just a sadistic
> force. One couldn't be deemed as guilty of anything (very modern idea
> :-), and there wouldn't be anything to compensate! The "burning of sins
> from hundreds of previous lives" (as the Yogic texts often write it)
> would also appear as preposterous.

When the seer and the seen are understood to be the same, who is there
left to take ownership of the see-ing? This is non-duality. Who is there
left to be reborn?

> Cameron has also written:
> > In Maharaj's case, there never *was*
> > an entity to choose to do bhajan, to tickle himself, or
> > whatever,--------------------------------
> Or masturbate, fornicate, kill, etc. I think Aleister Crowley would like
> a lot the way you think, but not Ramakrishna or Shankara.

Allow me to quote Ramakrishna:

"The knowers of God sometimes live and appear like lunatics, drunkards,
or children."

and Ramakrishna again:

"Give up everything to Him, resign yourself to Him ,and your troubles
and sorrows will be at an end. Then you will come to know that
everything is done by His will alone.

If one acquires the conviction that everything is done by God's will,
then one becomes only an instrument in the hands of God, one is free
even in this life. "Thou dost Thy work, O Lord, but people say 'I do
it.'"

He who can resign himself to the will of the Almighty with simple faith
and guileless love, realises God very quickly."

And yet again:

Says the wise man, "O Lord, Thou alone dost act in all the universe. I
am but the smallest tools in Thine hand. Nothing is mine. All is Thine."


> Cameron has finally written:
>  before
> > or after his 'enlightenment'. The same can be said of all sentient
> > beings.--------------------------------
>
> I can agree with none of these; they contradict both Tradition and
> personal experience.

See through the illusion of the self and you will understand that free
will is, and always has been, an illusion created by the dualistic mind.

The above quotes I have picked up with a random flick through some old
books. I don't really read a lot of Marharshi or Ramakrishna, prefering
Nisargadatta Maharaj and Ramesh Balsekar who both, time and time again,
assure the questioner that the concept of free will is most definitely
an illusion.

Best regards,

Cameron.