miinalochanii at YAHOO.COM
Fri Jul 19 14:11:39 CDT 2002
--- "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Ashish Chandra wrote:
> > This is a very simplistic view, in my opinion.
> Perhaps, but the question you should be asking is, is it true?
> > A jivanmukta cannot be
> > branded this way or that way. Sri Ramkrishna was a jivanmukta.
> Note I did not address this topic one way or the other but I want to
> you are just making an assertion here. Words have to have agreed
> meanings otherwise we cannot have rational conversations only
> matches. There has to be a standard for what is Jivanmukti. The
> body of
> knowledge, arguments, and speculations that has developed over the
> centuries known as Advaita Vedanta is such a standard. I have no
> animus against Ramakrishna (or for that matter Jesus) but Advaita
> gives me an objective yardstick against which I can measure there
Can you tell me how you will decide whether someone is a jivana mukta
or not? IMO, I don't think there is an objective way to decide that.
For all practical purposes it is only a claim, which is often made by
the followers of that particular teacher.
Safest option is not to accept to someone is a jivana mukta (as a
matter of faith) and critically evaluate whatever she or he says based
on shaastra-s and also common sense. When we do that it is irrelevant
whether that person is jivana mukta or not. After all inflating someone
to jivana mukta status is not going to get us anything.
Sri Ramakrishna himself claims that he is an avatara of Lord Narayana
-- he is emphatic that he is not talking in metaphysical sense, lest
Vivekananda might misinterpret it that way (see Gospel just before he
passes away). There are differences between avatara of iishvara and
Of course whether you accept his claim or not is a matter of faith.
sharaNAgata raxakI nivEyani sadA ninnu nammiti mInAxI
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list