[Advaita-l] APerspective 17-2

[Anbu sivam2]

Quote: "Self-realization is therefore recognition that I am pure
existence-consciousness-limitless, satyam, jnaanam, anantam Brahma."

Could we say that the Self-Realization is the abandonment of the false
identification rather than a recognition?

Just crossed my mind.

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:49 AM, Kuntimaddi Sadananda <
ksadananda108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> tat tvam asi – VIII-2
>
>
>
> Self-realization is therefore recognition that I am pure
> existence-consciousness-limitless, satyam, jnaanam, anantam Brahma. In that
> realization, I recognize I am ever free or I am nitya mukta swaruupam. It
> is
> a clean recognition of the truth, and not becoming something, which means I
> am all the time nitya mukta or eternally liberated even when I was thinking
> I am bound. Once I recognize that I am nitya mukta swaruupa – eternally
> liberated soul then any differences in the mukti becomes superfluous. There
> cannot be jiivan mukta liberation while living with BMI and videha mukta
> liberation after dropping the BMI or krama mukta or progressive liberation,
> once I recognize that I am nitya mukta swaruupaH, eternally liberated.
>  There
> cannot be any gradations in jiivan mukta once I have realized that I am
> pure
> sat chit ananda swaruupa. That means I am ever liberated, not just after
> gaining jnaanam but even when I have ajnaanam about myself.  Any gradations
> in liberation are like making dvaita in advaita. Then what are the
> gradations mean? The gradations are not in mukti itself, but in the degree
> to which I am fully abiding in that knowledge – that is in jnaana niShTaa.
> Again, it is not gradations in the knowledge itself. I cannot have half
> rope
> and half snake situation.  Understanding that I am Brahman is full and
> complete, if I am able to use the proper means of knowledge or pramaaNa.
>  Where
> the gradations can occur is only in the internalization of that knowledge
> or
> where due to habitual notions arising from the pressure of the
> ignorance-generated lingering vaasanaas, which make me forget my true
> identity. Hence the scriptures say that Nidhidhyaasana is required.
> Nidhidhyaasana is not a means of knowledge or pramaaNa.  That is, no new
> knowledge will take place by that process. It eliminates the habitual
> notions due to the past karmas so that knowledge can become firm and
> abiding. We are reminded of Mr. Jones story wherein Mr. Jones got the
> feeling that he is a rat than a man. After several sittings with his
> psychologist he understood that he is a man and not a rat. After that
> knowledge he went back home and to his horror he saw his cat waiting for
> him. He ran back to the doctor saying that he understood he is a man and
> not
> a rat, but he is not sure if the cat knows that he is a man and not a rat.
> That I am nitya mukta swaruupaH does not depend on others certifying it. It
> is a fact and not a belief. Like any other fact as in the statement – light
> travels at the speed of 186,000 miles per sec. One, who knows, knows it. In
> contract self-knowledge is a subjective understanding, no one else can know
> whether other person is jiivan mukta or not. We have posts claiming that
> this saint is realized therefore what he says is true, etc.  This is not a
> disrespect of anybody but the fact of the matter is no one else can declare
> that other has realized or not realized. A realized soul normally does not
> declare he has realized, only because it is useless to declare or noone
> will
> believe it anyway – because everybody has some concept what realization
> means and others do not appear to meet those notions. We listen to all
> saints as long as what they say agrees with sRiti, yukti and anubhava,
> scriptures, logic and ones own experience – in that order.  Hence Shankara
> says discriminative intellect is essential in the field of Vedanta, since
> we
> have several darShaNaas or philosophies, all given by saints and sages of
> the yore.  Many of them are based on Vedas. Every daarShanika or
> philosopher
> is convinced that he is right and others are wrong. Everyone of them is
> considered as avataara purusha or Lord incarnate, by those who believe in
> that. We can not have truths that contradict each other (interestingly this
> question is addressed by Sureswara in his Naiskarmya siddhi). Hence aham
> brahmaasmi has to be understood as a fact not as a philosophical position,
> subject to various interpretations. That I am Brahman has to be understood
> as a fact, notwithstanding any objections or counter objections or beliefs.
> Hence JK says it is an understanding as an understanding as a fact and not
> as understanding as understanding as a thought. I cannot tell if others are
> realized or not, but how about myself?
>
>
>
> Is there a litmus test to test myself, whether I have realized or not?
>  Cha.
> Up 6th chapter provides a test, if someone wants to take it.  A suspected
> thief was brought in before a king with an accusation that he stole the
> money, but the person denied it. Since there are no other witness to prove
> the innocence of the accused, King orders a red hot iron plate and asks the
> accused to touch it. If he gets burned, then he is not telling the truth.
> That means he is a real thief. In addition to getting burned, he will be
> punished by the King.  If he does not get burned it implies that the truth
> is protecting him (like an insulating gloves).  He will be immediately
> released and will be sent back with honors. If any body wants he can take
> this test to see if he is realized or not. Shankara provides an
> interpretation of this.  If one has realized that means he understood that
> He is nitya mukta swaruupaH. With that understanding when he makes a
> contact
> with the burning hot-world, he will never get burned.  Not only he will
> enjoy the world as a sport as long as he lives but he will not be reborn.
> If
> I have not realized, then I will get not only burned by the contact with
> the
> burning world, but also I will be born again and again to get burned.
> Essentially,
> once I have understood my real nature, I understand the world is mithyaa
> only and understood that it has no validity of its own. Hence the ups and
> down in the world are only play of maayaa and a realized master  never gets
> affected by world or by the praarabda that comes as ups and down affecting
> his BMI. If I have not realized and when I make a contact with the hot
> world, I will be constantly burning and karma will propel me to be born
> again and again.  Essentially the attitude with which a realized master
> operates in the world is different since he does not depend on anything for
> his happiness. He is full and complete all by himself, yet enjoys the world
> as a play. Whatever he does will not be for his benefit, but will be for
> the
> benefit of the totality – essentially called loka kalyaanam.  Those who
> follow him will get the benefit of his good company (sat sangh).  After
> glorifying jnaanam, Krishna describes in Ch. 4 the state of the jannani and
> his attitude towards all. 1. moha nivRittiH – he has no more delusion.
> Illusion is the appearance of plurality during vyavahaara or during
> transactions. Delusion is taking the illusory plurality as reality and
> interacting with the world with that notional reality. Nature of the world
> is to change continuously. Samsaara or human suffering arises by
> attachments
> to the changing plurality. I suffer consequence of the changes since I take
> them as real due to delusion. Jnaani has understood that change is the
> inherent nature of the world and he is the changeless substantive of the
> changing world; and therefore he is not affected by the superficial
> changes.
> 2. bheda nivrittH – negation of all differences – here we are referring to
> fundamental differences that philosophers ascribe – a) difference between
> one jiiva and the other jiiva, b) difference between jiiva and Iswara c)
> difference between jiiva and jagat d) difference between jagat and Iswara.
> All differences are understood as mithyaa or only apparent and not real.
> Apparent difference can appear but jnaani will not get affected by those
> appearances. They become his vibhuuti only. Shankara interprets the sloka
> (B.G 4-35) as jnaani sees himself in all and all in himself. Furthermore,
> he
> sees the Lord in all and all in the Lord – essentially indicating the jiiva
> Iswara aikyamm or recognition of the unity between himself and the Lord.
>
> yat jnaatvaa na punar moham yevam yaasyasi paaDava|
>
> yena bhuutanyasheSheNa drakshyasyaatmanyatho mayi|| 4-35
>
> Thus all differences are resolved into one or reduced to only apparent and
> not real differences, therefore no more delusion. Krishna continues that
> jnaani will not have any more sins (and Shankara says merits as well) since
> he has realized he is akarathaa or not a doer – that is there is no more
> notion of doer-ship as he realized that all actions are done by the
> prakRiti
> itself supported by him. He may be worst sinner before, but all is wiped
> out
> as if one wakes from a dream where as a dreamer he might have committed the
> worst sins. They do not affect the waker. Similarly jnaani realizes he was
> never a doer to have any sin of any kind. Finally all karmas (sancita and
> aagaami) are reduced to ashes with the awakening of knowledge that I am
> pure
> existent-conscious entity without any spec of division of any kind. Thus
> Krishna provides the ultimate litmus test to evaluate oneself if he is
> realized or not. This involves intense recognition that all are in me and I
> am in all – sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutanica aatmani or from the
> point of Iswara – yo mam pasyati sarvatra sarvanca mayi pasyati – who sees
> Me everywhere and everything in Me. – (B.G. 6: 29 & 30). The same statement
> is made in Kai. Up.  Both statements can be true only when jnaani
> recognizes
> that there is no distinction between him and Iswara. Bhagavan Ramana says
> the same thing as –IshajiivayoH viShadhiibidaa satva bhaavato vastu
> kevalam,
> the difference between Iswara and jiiva is only in veSha or external
> costume
> but the essence is the same – existence-consciousness, one without a
> second.
> Scriptures glorify such a sage:
>
> kulam pavitram jananii kRitaarthaa vishvambharaa puNyavatii ca tena|
>
> apaara sat chit sukha saare2smin liinam pare brahmaNi yasya cetaH| (quated
> by H.H. Shree Chandrasekhara Bhaarati Swamiji in his commentary on
> VivekachuuDaamaNi).
>
> His lineage and his mother who gave birth to him, nay the whole universe is
> blessed by the presence of such a sage whose mind is reveling in that sat
> chit ananda swaruupa of Brahman as his own self. Hence we revere our
> teacher
> as personified god incarnate.
>
> gururbrahmaa gururvishNuH gururdevo maheswaraH|
>
> gurusaakshaat parabrahmaa tasmai shree gurave namaH|
>
>
>
> With this,  I prostrate to all my teachers, starting from My Gurudev, H.H.
> Swami Chinmayanadaji, whose knowledge only I have reflected in these posts.
> As we understood, the lack of clarity in the reflection belongs to the
> medium of reflection and not to the illuminating light.
>
> ----------------
>
>
>
> In the next, I will provide my perspective about some questions that were
> raised either privately or in the list.
>
>
>
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>