[Advaita-l] Entities in liberated state
lalitaalaalitah at gmail.com
Mon Oct 24 21:51:43 CDT 2011
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 00:44, Rajaram Venkataramani
<rajaramvenk at gmail.com>wrote:
> Who knows I am Brahman in the case of a Jnani? It cannot be the body
> it is not a knower. It cannot be the mind because any conviction that
> in the mind is temporary and not perceived in deep sleep.
It's aha~NkAra or chit-jaDa-granthi.
> Who knows I am
> Brahman in the case of Ishwara? It cannot be the body or mind because He
He has no veil of mAyA, so he is treated as knower.
> The knowers of Brahman cannot be one unless the knower is Brahman
Here you got the point. This is what we are saying.
Actually brahman alone is knower. Although, he is called jIva, Ishvara, etc.
due to upAdhi-s.
> But Brahman is neither a knower nor otherwise.
This statement is correct for only shuddha-brahman and not for
> So, there arises the
> contingency of there being multiple knowers in the transcendenntal state .
> > *I am not saying but the upanishad - sa yo ha vai tat paramam brahma
> > brahmaiva bhavati (Mu.Up 3.1.9)*
I don't think that shruti can say anything opposed to logic. So, she also
says knowing = becoming.
> > *Does the mortal know?
> The body cannot.
> The mind can think I am Brahman
> > but only until deep sleep which destroys its modifications in the form of
> > thought. *
Thinking is not knowing.
Having no ignorance is called knowing in case of brahman.
It happens in waking state, true.
Knowing destroys aGYAnam and no sleep is possible for mukta.
sleep, etc. are seen in jIvanmukta-s. But, that is because avidyA-lesha is
accepted till prArabdha-xaya.
> *I am talking about the state of jiva because it is said to be bonded (e.g.
> me) or liberated (e.g. janaka). *
No bond is possible for jIva.
Because, mAyA is bond and jIva is creation of mAyA.
So, who is bound ?
mAyA is bond and it's destruction is called liberation and both of them are
You or janaka are said as bound or released because both are brahman.
*But He is different from a jnani, who also knows I am Brahman. Therefore,
> there are two.*
Different from GYAni ?
Are you saying that :
Are there two brahman-s ?
If not, then they are one.
If yes, I'm sorry to say that this problem is not related to
If you want to say that :
there are two upAdhi-s, antaHkaraNa and mAyA ,
then yes unreal difference is accepted. But, remember - unreal difference
can not be said to existing.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list