[Advaita-l] Fwd: Knowledge of Brahman

[Ravi Kiran]

Sorry, you have not provided any Upanishadic references (Sruti teachings)
to your claims of realization and liberation, as a sequence of events in
time and space with association of Koshas .. How can we base any discussion
or conclude anything without Sruti pramAna ?

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> *If you think the Upanishada is wrong so be it for you. Let us agree to
> disagree. *
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 12, 2015 10:00 AM, Ravi Kiran <
> ravikiranm108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> // a person can be said to be videhamukta when he realized Brahman..
>
> Sorry, in the above context of realization of Brahman (स एष नेति
> नेत्यात्मा....यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत् ...तत्केन कं विजानीयात्? ..एतावदरे
> खल्वमृतत्वमिति), could not relate to this linking to koshas ...
>
> ज्ञानादेव कैवल्यम्
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <
> sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The Koshas are neither my creation nor my imagination. Vedanta does talk
> about the Koshas.
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 12, 2015 4:05 AM, Ravi Kiran <
> ravikiranm108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Namaste
>
> // a person can be said to be videhamukta when he realized Brahman but the
> leaving of all the Koshas may not be instantaneous
>
> when Sruti clearly says - न तस्य प्राणा उत्क्रामन्ति,
>  ब्रह्म विद् ब्रह्मैव भवति - the knower of Brahman is Brahman itself.
> ब्रह्मैव सन्ब्रह्माप्येति - Being but Brahman, he is merged in Brahman
>
> why emphasize on the upAdhis ( Koshas ) and its dropping  and importance
> of videhamukti?
>
> what is the relevance of this Kosha in paramArtha jnAna ( realization ) ?
>
> Are you indicating that realization is not complete by Itself, until body
> drops away?
>
> Any Sruti refs ?
>
> Regards
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <
> sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Namaste,
>
> I will suggest that you read the Vivekachudamani again , if you read it
> long ago. I read it many years ago but  the experience of reading the
> Vivekachudamani is actually unforgettable for most of the readers. . Anyway
> I will give you a hint. If you turn of the switch  the overhead fan would
> not stop immediately and it would take sometime to stop, even though the
> process of stopping started the moment you turned off the switch. So also a
> person can be said to be videhamukta when he realized Brahman but the
> leaving of all the Koshas may not be instantaneous, the way the fan does
> not stop at the very instant you turn off the switch. May be you will like
> to ponder over this.
>
> Regards,
> Sunil KB
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 7:19 PM, Ravi Kiran <
> ravikiranm108 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Sunil Bhattacharjya via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> Namaste,
> The Upanishada does talk about the five Koshas. After the Jiva  leaves
> behind the Sthula sarira, which consists of the Annamaya Kosha and the
> Pranamaya Kosha, it is left with Sukshma sarira, which consists of the
> three finer Koshas. The Jiva will have to leave the Sukshma sarira too, to
> become Videha-mukta, in order to become free from the Maya. It is Maya,
> which creates the false division between the Jiva and Brahman.
>
>
> अथाकामयमानः—योऽकामो
> निष्काम आप्तकाम आत्मकामो न तस्य प्राणा उत्क्रामन्ति,
> ब्रह्मैव सन्ब्रह्माप्येति ॥ ६ ॥
>
> Bri Up - 4.4.6
>
>
> He who sees the Self, as in the state of profound sleep, as
> undifferentiated, one without a second, and as the constant light of Pure
> Intelligence—only this disinterested man has no work and consequently no
> cause for transmigration; therefore his organs such as that of speech do
> not depart. Rather this man of realisation is Brahman in this very life,
> although he seems to have a body. *Being but Brahman, he is merged in
> Brahman.* Because he has no desires that cause the limitation of
> non-Brahmanhood, therefore ‘being but Brahman he is merged in Brahman’ in
> this very life, not after the body falls. A man of realisation, after his
> death, has no change of condition—something different from what he was in
> life, but he is only not connected with another body. This is what is meant
> by his becoming ‘merged in
> <http://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc122058.html#page-721>Brahman’;
> for if liberation was a change of condition, it would contradict the unity
> of the Self that all the Upaniṣads seek to teach. And liberation would be
> the effect of work, not of knowledge—which nobody would desire. Further, it
> would become transitory, for nothing that has been produced by an action is
> seen to be eternal, but liberation is admitted to be eternal, as the Mantra
> says, ‘This is the eternal glory (of a knower of Brahman),’ etc. (IV. iv.
> 23).
>
> ...
>
> for the Supreme Self is the only entity that exists. As the Śruti says,
> ‘One only without a second’ (Ch. VI. ii. 1.). And there is no other entity
> that is bound, whose freedom from bondage, as from fetters, would be
> liberation,  the cessation of ignorance alone is commonly called
> liberation...
>
>
> तदेष श्लोको भवति ।
>     यदा सर्वे प्रमुच्यन्ते कामा येऽस्य हृदि श्रिताः ।
>     अथ मर्त्योऽमृतो भवत्यत्र ब्रह्म समश्नुत ॥ इति ।
> तद्यथाहिनिर्व्लयनी वल्मीके मृता प्रत्यस्ता शयीत, एवमेवेदं शरीरं शेते,
> अथायमशरीरोऽमृतः प्राणो ब्रह्मैव तेज एव; सोऽहं भगवते सहस्रं ददामीति होवाच
> जनको वैदेहः ॥ ७ ॥
> .....
> But how is it that when the organs have been merged, and the body also has
> dissolved in its cause, the liberated sage lives in the body identified
> with all, but does not revert to his former embodied existence, which is
> subject to transmigration? The answer is being given: Here is an
> illustration in point. *Just as *in the world *the lifeless slough of a
> snake is cast off* by it as no more being a part of itself, *and lies in
> the ant* - *hill,* or any other nest of a snake, *so does this body, *discarded
> as non-self by the liberated man, who corresponds to the snake, *lie* like
> dead.
> ....
> आत्मानं चेद्विजानीयादयमस्मीति पूरुषः ।
> किमिच्छन्कस्य कामाय शरीरमनुसंज्वरेत् ॥ १२ ॥
>
> If a man knows the Self as ‘I am this,’ then desiring what and for whose
> sake will he suffer in the wake of the body?
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>