Sunday, January 24, 2010

Reincarnating jnanis?

I have been stirred out of my long blogging silence by a couple of exchanges that took place in the most recent ‘Open Thread’. It began with Losing M. Mind asking:

I’ve wondered if jnanis ever reincarnate, but then it occurred to me, that all jnanis are the same jnani because they are all the Self, so in a sense they are all incarnations of the same sage. Every jnani is Maharshi.
I responded with the following brief comment:

‘There are no jnanis. Jnana alone is.’ A remark of Bhagavan recorded by Narayana Iyer. Jnanis do not reincarnate.
Had I elaborated a bit more I might have also commented that, in my opinion, jnanis are not ‘all incarnations of the same sage’. Jnanis are not ‘incarnations’ at all; they are beings who know by direct experience that incarnations never really happened. Incarnations are a delusion that is sustained by the ‘I’-thought’s habit of associating and identifying with a form. This is what some Guru Vachaka Kovai verses have to say on this subject:

226

Birth and death attach themselves to you solely through the delusion of regarding the alien body as your true being. Therefore, the moment this powerful delusion is destroyed, immortality, your own true nature, is attained.

615

Although, in truth, nothing exists apart from the Self, through inner delusion we imagine that the body alone is the Self. It is this connection [the body with the Self] that is responsible for the way in which we slip from the immortality that is the blissful non-dual state of reality, thus becoming involved in birth and death.

Bhagavan 9

Forgetting the Self, one takes oneself to be the body and then passes through countless births, finally realising the Self and becoming the Self. Know that this is akin to waking up from a dream of wandering all over the world.

94

The Self abides motionless because of its all-pervasive fullness. Because the apparent connection between the Self and the mind-limitation seems to exist on account of ignorance – which is the jiva-perspective, the reflected consciousness that rises as ‘I’ – the Self too appears to have experienced movement through the motion of the mind. But the movement of samsara that comprises birth and death, bondage and liberation, and so on, is only for the jiva and never for the Self, the transcendental reality.
That is to say, if there is a jiva or an ‘I’-thought, illusory births and deaths will come and go, but when the ‘I’-thought is definitively eradicated one will understand that, from the standpoint of the Self, birth and death are not real, and that in fact, they never really happened. As Bhagavan himself commented, summarising the famous ajata (no creation) lines of Gaudapada: Nothing exists except the one reality. There is no birth or death, no projection [of the world] or drawing in [of it], no sadhaka, no mumukshu [seeker of liberation], no mukta [liberated one], no bondage, no liberation. The one unity alone exists ever. (Day by Day with Bhagavan, 15th March, 1946, afternoon)

In a subsequent comment on the ‘Open Thread’ Ravi took exception to my line ‘Jnanis do not reincarnate’ by declaring, ‘“Last birth” for the jnani is an oxymoron’.

He then backed up this assertion by quoting the well-known lines from the Gita which deal with Krishna’s avatars (chapter 4, verses 5-10):

Krishna said: ‘Both you and I have taken many births. I remember them all, O Arjuna, but you do not remember. Though I am eternal, imperishable, and the Lord of all beings; yet I manifest by controlling my own material nature, using My Yoga-Maya. Whenever there is a decline of dharma and the rise of adharma, O Arjuna, then I manifest Myself. I incarnate from time to time for protecting the good, for transforming the wicked, and for establishing dharma, the world order. The one who truly understands My transcendental birth and activities is not born again after leaving this body and attains My abode, O Arjuna. Freed from attachment, fear, and anger; fully absorbed in Me, taking refuge in Me, and purified by the fire of Self-knowledge, many have attained Me.
I suspect that I am going to tread on the toes of some Krishna bhaktas here, but I will do it while hiding behind two other key verses from Guru Vachaka Kovai:

100

Though Guru Ramana, who appeared as God incarnate, expounded numerous doctrines, as befitted the different states and beliefs of the various devotees who sought refuge at his feet, you should know that what we have heard him affirm to intimate devotees in private, as an act of grace, as his own true experience, is only the doctrine of ajata [non-creation].

101

The truth of this pre-eminent state [ajata] was taught to Arjuna by Lord Krishna in the beginning [in chapter two of the Bhagavad Gita]. Krishna spoke of other doctrines in the following chapters because of Arjuna’s bewilderment [that arose from] his inability to assimilate it.
This was Bhagavan’s usual response when he was asked about the avatars of Krishna. He would say that the truth of ‘no birth’ was expounded earlier in the Gita, but since Arjuna could not assimilate it, he later gave out the famous lines which Ravi quoted.

Here is Bhagavan again, telling another devotee the same thing:

Bhagavan: The truth was revealed even at the start [of the Gita]. For the very first sloka of Sri Krishna’s upadesa starts: ‘No birth and no death, no change, etc.’

Question: Sri Krishna also says, ‘We have had many rebirths. I am aware of them; but you are not.’

Bhagavan: That was only because the question arose how Sri Krishna could claim to have taught the eternal truth to Aditya. The truth was stated even at the start. Arjuna did not understand it. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 611)
Though there are many occasions in the Ramana literature where it is said that liberation ends the illusory cycle of births and deaths, the clearest answer I have found which supports my contention that Bhagavan taught that it is impossible for a jnani to reincarnate comes from the following exchange in Guru Ramana, pages 101-2:

The Vision (of Anandashram, Kanhangad) for June contains an article by Sri Bhagavan. It is a Preface to his translation into Tamil of Vivekachudamani of Sri Shankaracharya which has been translated by Mr S. Krishna into English for the Vision. Mr Cohen reads it to himself in the Hall. Struck by the following statement, he reads it aloud to Sri Bhagavan: ‘The liberated man is free indeed to act as he pleases, and when he leaves the mortal coil, he attains absolution, but returns not to this birth which is actually death.

Cohen: This statement gives the impression that although the jnani takes no birth again on this plane, he may continue to work on subtler planes, if he so chooses. Is there any desire left in him to choose?

Bhagavan: No, that was not my intention.

Cohen: Further, an Indian philosopher, in one of his books, interpreting Shankara, says that there is no such thing as videhamukti, for after his death, the mukta takes a body of light in which he remains till the whole humanity becomes liberated.

Bhagavan: That cannot be Shankara’s views (he opens Vivekachudamani and points to verse 566 which reads that after the dissolution of the physical sheath the liberated man becomes like ‘water poured into water and oil into oil’). It is a state wherein there is neither bondage nor liberation. Taking another body means throwing a veil, however subtle, upon reality, which is bondage. Liberation is absolute and irrevocable.
I questioned Papaji on this topic while I was collecting material for Nothing Ever Happened. This is the dialogue we had:

David: It is my understanding that Self-realisation puts an end to the possibility of any future birth. This is the teachings of all the major Hindu scriptures, and it is a teaching which has been confirmed by a long succession of enlightened Masters, including your own. Ramana Maharshi repeatedly said that once a river has discharged itself into the sea, it never takes the form of a river again. Similarly, he said that a mind which has completely dissolved in the Self can never reappear and attach itself to a form again. I presume that this is your view also. Although this is the traditional teaching, many famous teachers of modern times have been saying otherwise. Sathya Sai Baba, for example, says that he has one more life to go, and that in his next life, which will be his last, he will be called 'Prem Baba'.

Papaji: I know that there are other teachers whose views are quite different from my own, and from the teachers of the Upanishads. But the traditional teachings are very clear and they have been verified and expounded by generations of great Masters: if there is an unfulfilled desire, there will be a rebirth in which that desire can be fulfilled. And if there is rebirth, there is no enlightenment. Therefore, any teacher who says that he is going to be reborn has unfulfilled desires and is not enlightened. There are no exceptions to this rule.

‘Prem’ means ‘love’. If Sathya Sai Baba has an unfulfilled desire to give or receive love, he will come back in a form in which that experience can be enjoyed. That is how rebirths take place.

Then, one by one, I offered him the following claims:

1. Swami Muktananda said that after his death he would go to Siddha Loka to be with Nityananda Swami.

2. Ma Amritananda Mayi says that she was fully enlightened in her last life, but took a conscious decision to reincarnate again for the benefit of her devotees.

3. The Mother of Aurobindo Ashram said that she would reappear on the streets of Pondicherry as a seventeen-year-old girl.

4. Swami Yukteswar, the Guru of Swami Yogananda, reappeared after his death, saying that he had moved to one of the astral worlds and was functioning as a teacher there.

In each case Papaji’s answer was the same: if, after you die, you take form in this or any other world, you are not enlightened. Enlightenment and a desire to reappear in any form cannot co-exist together.

David: So you would say that it is not possible to be born in an enlightened state? Ananda Mayi Ma, for example, claimed that she was born in an enlightened state, and that she never did any sadhana in this life.

Papaji: If you take form, you have desires to fulfill, and while they remain unfulfilled, you are not enlightened. An enlightened man will never have any kind of desire to continue in another form after his death. When you have had all possible incarnations from the worm in the shit of a pig up to a human being, you will have had all the experiences possible. You won’t want any more.

David: There is one further possibility that is not covered by any of the above examples. I have heard it said that if a devotee has an intense love for his Guru, and if he has a great desire to be with his Guru again, then that love and that desire will compel the Guru to take birth again, so that the devotee can be with him. Is this possible? Can the power of a devotee’s love compel even an enlightened Guru to take birth again?

Papaji: I don’t agree with this. It is not possible at all.

The real Guru is the one who shows the light to his devotees. The other so-called gurus are either magic-mongers or spiritual businessmen. The big ashrams that these people build around themselves are just manifestations of the uncontrolled desires that are swirling around inside them. How can such people benefit others?

The power of a devotee’s love compels a Guru to give grace here and now, in this life. If the love is really there, there will be no need to postpone it till a later life. It will happen instantly. (Nothing Ever Happened, pp. 414-7)
Another Guru I have sat with, Lakshmana Swamy, was just as categorical about the impossibility of jnanis taking birth again. I can’t remember who asked the questions in this dialogue, but they were not from me:

Question: If the jnani has so much power why can’t he take a new body when he dies in order to help successive generations of devotees? Why must the birth in which he realises the Self be his last birth?

Swamy: It is the mind which takes birth in a new body. The jnani has no mind, so there is no question of rebirth for him.

Question: Some Gurus say that after they die they will take a subtle body in one of the astral worlds.

Swamy: To take a body, even a subtle body in the higher regions, an ‘I’ is necessary. When the ‘I’ is still present, rebirth is inevitable. When the ‘I’ has died, rebirth is impossible.

Question: But why can’t a jnani choose to be reborn? He makes choices while he is alive, so there must be some mental faculty in him which he can use to bring about a rebirth.

Swamy: The jnani has no mind at all. All his actions are performed through the power of the Self. Other people see him acting and apparently taking decisions, and they assume that he must have a mind because they cannot imagine how this can be done without a mind.

Question: But the mere fact that he is alive means that the jnani has decided to live after Self-realisation. Can’t the jnani use the faculty he uses to stay alive to continue his life after death?

Swamy: The jnani has no mind and no body. He is the formless Self. He only appears to be alive in the sight of those who identify him with a body. There is no question of birth or death for the jnani because he has already transcended them both…

When an advanced devotee dies, his ‘I’-thought may take birth in a subtle body which associates itself with his samadhi shrine. Such a subtle body may have some power which it can use to help devotees who worship at the shrine to fulfil their desires. A jnani cannot assume a subtle body like this after his death because his ‘I’-thought is no longer existing...

Question: You say that when a jnani dies he does not exist in any perceivable form. Some people still see visions of Ramana Maharshi. Does this not prove that his presence still remains even though he is no longer in the body?

Swamy: These visions are only in the mind. Since Ramana Maharshi is not the mind, how can these visions be him? The mind brings them into existence, and apart from the mind they do not exist.

Question: Some people have dreams and visions of Ramana Maharshi without ever having heard of him before. If Ramana Maharshi is not now existing in any way, how can this happen?

Swamy: This is still only a product of the imagination. Whatever you perceive cannot be Ramana Maharshi because Ramana Maharshi is now the formless Self, and the Self cannot be perceived. One’s vasanas [mental habits, inclinations or tendencies] may cause an image of Ramana Maharshi to appear, even if one has never heard of him before, but he is neither the image nor the cause of the image. (No Mind – I am the Self, pp. 76-7)
There are not, so far as I can recollect, any published comments by Mathru Sri Sarada on this subject, but I do remember listening to the following comments sometime in the 1980s:

Saradamma: Some people think that jnanis are omniscient, that they have access to all the information in the world. The jnani doesn’t have all this information, or need it. If someone came up to me and said that Hyderabad is the capital of India, I might believe him if I didn’t already know that it is Delhi. There is nothing in jnana that reveals whether things that people say about the world are correct or not. But if someone tells me something about the Self, then this is something I really know about. If someone says, for example, that he has met a jnani who says he is going to reincarnate, I immediately know that this person is not a jnani. There is something about jnana that contains within itself the absolute certainty that rebirth in any form is not possible. Jnana is the ending of all births. If that knowledge, that jnana, is there, there is also the knowledge that another birth is impossible.
So, Ravi, I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. None of the teachers I have been fortunate to be with has ever claimed that rebirth for jnanis is possible; and all have quite vehemently upheld the opposite view. I know that there are those who believe in avatars – fully enlightened beings who manifest again and again whenever they are needed – but I am not one of them.

In conclusion, and not entirely off-topic, here are some gorgeous verses by Muruganar (from Sri Guru Ramana Prasadam, translated by Robert Butler) on how Bhagavan ended all his births:

53

Sundering the [fusion of] consciousness and the insentient that is the perplexed wandering mind, the acute grace-bestowing gaze of the great jewel, guru Ramana, was consummated in me as the expanse of grace, rare mauna, such that the sorrow of birth that stems from Self-forgetfulness was entirely abolished.

83

Through the grace of my Lord the highest reality unfolded within my devotee’s heart as his holy feet [the Self] flourished in the place of my head [the ego]. And through that grace the irreversible nature of my allegiance to him became manifest as liberation from birth and as inexhaustible bliss.

5

Through the joyous power of the true love that took as its goal the feet of my guru, a life lived in the vast space of the Self that shines fearlessly within the heart burgeoned forth within me, as the unfailing awareness that is mauna grew stronger and stronger. Birth’s suffering was abolished and my eye became fearless as I obtained the vision of grace.

429

The great excellence of his holy feet, which illuminate the hearts of those who have attained equanimity, is that they have brought me to the verdant mountain shore of liberation, and through their grace I have escaped the waves of the ocean of rebirth.

34

The sorrow of birth proliferates due to vasanas, based as they are upon the delusion of ‘I’ and ‘mine’, the very nature of the ego, all its sorrows and apparent limitations. But when I attained the blessed state of grace wherein I was embraced by the supreme bliss of realisation of the Self, that majestic firmament manifested within my heart putting an end to that sorrow.

94

Through the Sadguru who embodies the all-encompassing greatness of dwelling as That, a river of celestial nectar and honey merged with my heart, conferring its riches upon me, and I attained the experience of jnana wherein I dwelt as That. And through that experience the sorrow of vile birth vanished like a dream in sleep.

95

The pure eternal expanse of grace beyond the taint of mind flared up within my heart, so that it became my real nature through and through. The reward I gained was the victorious experience of the Self as Brahman, and in that victory the bitter suffering of birth and death was vanquished.

427

No sooner had I sought asylum in the protecting embrace of the Self, whose glorious form shines with the noble radiance of the Supreme, than the sorrowful delusion of birth and death receded from me, for I had tasted the nectar of the experience of Sivam.

522

In the state of realisation that shines as pure consciousness, where there is neither birth nor death, separation nor union, thinking nor forgetting, joy nor sorrow, all other associations became meaningless and disappeared.

244 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 244 of 244
herenow said...

hI ANOMOUS -

i THINK THIS IS A very important QUESTION.

It deserves it's own thread.

Would you or David like to start one. I will if no one else wants to.

I would leave Jnani out so as not to become bogged down in defifinitions of whet it is , and who is / was and who isn't/wasn't.

There is a LONG...LONG....LONG... list of gurus - teachers, philosophers etc who appear to try to have hidden or played down ANY SUGGESTION that they were having sex with their FOLLOWERS.

Including the whiter than white -

J. Krishnamurti... who was sleeping with his best friends wife for many years.

I have been pursuing this over the last few days on my facebook page

if interested in my thought and the various responses of others go here

http://www.facebook.com/keith.nightingale?ref=profile

Perhaps i will start a thread and include those comments for those who don't want to join facebook.

Losing M. Mind said...

http://itisnotreal.com/subpage19.html

this link has the audio or Robert Adams giving this talk, it automatically starts.

David Godman said...

R. Subramanian

The letter says, .... Hence the argument that Sad Darsanam is giving scope to drishti-srishti
argument is annulled...(???) Please elaborate your views on this also, in your next blog post.

It's the subject of my next posting. It should be posted in a day or so.

Ravi said...

Friends,
Here is an Excerpt from Sri Aurobindo's Synthesis of Yoga-From the chapter'Four Aids'.

"The Hindu discipline of spirituality provides for this need of the soul by the conceptions of the Ishta Devata, the Avatar and the Gum. By the Ishta Devata, the chosen deity, is meant, -- not some inferior Power, but a name and form of the transcendent and universal Godhead. Almost all religions either have as their base or make use of some such name and form of the Divine. Its necessity for the human soul is evident. God is the All and more than the All. But that which is more than the All, how shall man conceive? And even the All is at first too hard for him; for he himself in his active consciousness is a limited and selective formation and can open himself only to that which is in harmony with his limited nature. There are things in the All which are too hard for his comprehension or seem too terrible to his sensitive emotions and cowering sensations. Or, simply, he cannot conceive as the Divine, cannot approach or cannot recognise something that is too much out of the circle of his ignorant or partial conceptions. It is necessary for him to conceive God in his own image or at some form that is beyond himself but consonant with his highest tendencies and seizable by his feelings or his intelligence. Otherwise it would be difficult for him to come into contact and communion with the Divine.
Even then his nature calls for a human intermediary so that he may feel the Divine in something entirely close to his own humanity and sensible in a human influence and example. This call is satisfied by the Divine manifest in a human appearance, the Incarnation, the Avatar-Krishna, Christ, Buddha. Or if this is too hard for him to conceive, the Divine represents himself through a less marvellous intermediary, -- Prophet or Teacher. For many who cannot conceive or are unwilling to accept the Divine Man, are ready to open themselves to the supreme man, terming him not incarnation but world-teacher or divine representative.
This also is not enough; a living influence, a living example, a present instruction is needed. For it is only the few who can make the past Teacher and his teaching, the past Incarnation and his example and influence a living force in their lives. For this need also the Hindu discipline provides in the relation of the Guru and the disciple. The Guru may sometimes be the Incarnation or World-Teacher; but it is sufficient that he should represent to the disciple the divine wisdom, convey to him something of the divine ideal or make him feel the realised relation of the human soul with the Eternal."
...continued....

Ravi said...

Ramos,
"Ramana or Ramakrishna - would they have gone to court to fight for their words?
It is a natural behaviour for devotees to fight for their masters"

Fight!!!Both Thakur(Sri Ramakrishna)and Sri Bhagavan(Sri Ramana)are Dear to us as also Papa Ramdas,Sri Aurobindo,Shirdi Sai Baba,The Sage of Kanchi,Sri Sankara,Sri Ramanuja,Sri Krishna,....List is endless.
Discussions do not imply 'Fight'-Disagreement does not mean 'quarrel'.
Love admits dissent and freedom to differ.
The Nature of the Topic is not of interest to just one individual-it is of interest to all seekers.What message is more inspirational than this-that The Divine responds and comes to the rescue of seekers;and that it does this by coming down to the Human Level.'Ava' refers to this 'Descent'-The Divine Descends from its unreachable Heights.

The Bhagavad Gita is one of the 'Prasthana Thrayas'-one of the three Prime canons-and is accepted as such by Great Masters.
I have mentioned this when we were discussing 'Swami Dayananda'-I think while addressing Broken Yogi-as to why 'individual Experience',however high is taken as a Reference only in as much as it conforms to the Teachings in these scriptures.This is to eliminate any onesidedness.The 'Collective' aspect is an important element in The Vedas-The Gayathri Mantra which is the Heart of the Vedas expresses itself in Plural-"Diyo Yonah Prachodayat" meaning 'May it Illumine OUR Intellect".

This is the essence behind this discussion.


Namaskar.

Losing M. Mind said...

"We are attached to the idea that we reincarnate, because it seems to affirm the notion we have that we really are "something", that our ego is a real person. We think that jnana is just an attribute of some people, and something that other people don't have an can acquire. But Ramana seems to be saying that this is the very illusion that jnana dissolves. That jnana is the knowledge that there is no ego, no person, no separate self that reincarnates from life to life. So how can a jnani reincarnate when jnana means knowledge that there is no one who has jnana, no jnani in other words? What would reincarnate? What is reincarnating right now as "us"? And how could that illusion of "us" survive the revelation of jnana?"

I get that this is the ultimate truth, and important to keep in mind. However I have noticed another side to this, I believe in the teachings of Maharshi. While ultimately there is only Jnana, not everyone expresses it equally. So in that sense there are jnanis. 'Jnani' seems to me, based on experiences, and what I've read of these teachings to be a valid concept insofar as a jnani is someone to associate with who can make sadhana so much easier. Because everything they say and do resonates with Jnana. In the maybe false, apparent world of multiple individuals. Most of those individuals do not necessarily resonate very clearly with jnana, and are not necessarily I find all that helpful in the striving for, practicing, spiritual practice, grace for Realization. So that is why it seems like a jnani is spoken of as being That itself. even though I am ultimately as much Brahman as the Jnani. When I encounter a jnani in my life, that jnani being the Self, and not seperate from me, can make it clearer that there isn't any duality. That's my experience.

David Godman said...

R. Subramanian quoted the following passage from Osborne:

"When Hindus declare that a certain Master is not a Saint but an Avatar, what they imply doctrinally is that he is not a man struggling upwards on the path of return who has at last, in this lifetime, made the final breakthrough to Deliverence but a
Being who has voluntarily descended into human form to help others on this upward path. Therefore, he should have no sadhana, no struggle towards Enlightenment, in this life time, but should simply awaken in his childhood or at adoloscence into the Enlightenment which he deliberately discarded for his venture into the stormy seas of samsara to rescue those struggling therein." ..... "This is what is indicated in Tibetian concept of a Bodhisattva, ...who may return again and again in human form to continue the same work."

Bhagavan was once asked about the Boddhisattva idea in Tibetan Buddhism. After it had been explained to him, he said, 'That's like saying "I am not going to wake up in the morning until everyone in my dream has woken up first".'

As for the list of incarnations that Ganapati Muni gave for Bhagavan's earlier births, I discussed these in a blog last year, and I seemed to remember we had a brief discussion about them them. Bhagavan never endorsed this list, but he did once say that it couldn't be possible because the chronology was wrong.

Broken Yogi said...

I like this simple formulation, "There is no jnani, there is only jnana". It explains perfectly why there is no reincarnation for jnanis - because in reality there are no jnanis.

We are attached to the idea that we reincarnate, because it seems to affirm the notion we have that we really are "something", that our ego is a real person. We think that jnana is just an attribute of some people, and something that other people don't have an can acquire. But Ramana seems to be saying that this is the very illusion that jnana dissolves. That jnana is the knowledge that there is no ego, no person, no separate self that reincarnates from life to life. So how can a jnani reincarnate when jnana means knowledge that there is no one who has jnana, no jnani in other words? What would reincarnate? What is reincarnating right now as "us"? And how could that illusion of "us" survive the revelation of jnana?

It seems that the objections to this notion are just a way of describing our own clinging to the idea that we really are persons, that we really are individuals who are incarnate right now, and that this is our reality. We really don't want to let go of that. We even interpret spirituality and non-dualism on that basis of that. Ramana's intention seems to be to get us to question this assumption and see through it. Trying to understand the jnani from the perspective of ajnana is like trying to understand light in a pitch-dark room.

Ravi said...

Anonymous/Friends,
Follow the Rabit wanted to know what Sri Ramakrishna had to say on the 'Why' of Creation.I will post this a little later.
We will take up the subject of 'Ego Suicide' as our Friend has called this.The Basic question to be asked is this-Whatever be the 'Rationale'behind this and however desirable this be-Is it within the Realm of Self Effort?Is it a matter of Volition to keep the 'I' or Drop it?
This is What Sri Ramakrishna has to say,in this interesting conversation with 'M':
Hazra left the room, leaving the Master alone with M.
MASTER: "Does what I say in the state of ecstasy attract people?
M: Oh, yes. Very much.
MASTER: What do people think of me? Do they think anything in particular
about me when they see me in that condition?
M: We feel in you a wonderful synthesis of knowledge, love, and renunciation,
and on the surface a natural spontaneity. Many divine experiences have passed, like
huge steamboats, through the deep of your inner consciousness; still you maintain
outwardly this utter simplicity. Many cannot understand it, but a few are attracted
by this state alone.
MASTER: There is a sect of Vaishriavas known as the Ghoshpara, who describe
God as the 'Sahaja', the 'Simple One'. They say further that a man cannot
recognize this 'Simple One' unless he too is simple. (To M.) Have I any ego?
M: Yes, sir. A little. You have kept it to preserve your body, and to enjoy divine
love in the company of the devotees and impart spiritual knowledge to them.
Further, you have kept this trace of ego by praying to the Divine Mother for it.
MASTER: No. I have not kept it. It is God Himself who has left it in me. Can you
tell me how I appear in the state of samadhi?
M: As you said a little while ago, you see the form of God when your mind rises
to the 'sixth plane'. When you speak after that, your mind comes down to the 'fifth
plane'.

MASTER: It is God who does all these things. I do not know anything.
M: That is why you attract people so much.
-----------------------------------
Namaskar.

Ravi said...

Friends,
It is helpful to recapitulate the viewpoints expressed here in David's comments.Essentially it boils down to the need of the 'External' Guru and 'Inner Guru'-The Divine is Both.

1.The Inner Guru-We have Muruganar's saying-
"Feeling that the jivas should not suffer in the least in knowing and reaching Him, God, without remaining different from them, exists and shines as the Atma-swarupa, the reality of every being. This indeed is the greatness of the supreme compassion that God has towards jivas. It has therefore been said: ‘It [reality] … is verily the form of divine grace that dances on high, subduing everything else.’
God is perpetually bestowing His grace on all beings in the form of the illumination that is shining unceasingly as I-I in the Heart."

2.We have Sri Bhagavan's saying-
"This is what Bhagavan had to say about people who thought that jnanis should 'drop dead' at the moment of liberation:

There are various controversies or schools of thought as to whether a Jnani can continue to live in his physical body after realization. Some hold that one who dies cannot be a Jnani, because his body must vanish into air, or some such thing. They put forward all sorts of funny notions. If a man must at once leave his body when he realises the Self, I wonder how any knowledge of the Self or the state of realisation can come down to other men."
It is only reasonable to consider that if the Body can continue after Realization for the benefit of other men,as Sri Bhagavan mentions above,there is nothing impossible about the assuming of future bodies for the same purpose.(To serve the purpose of External Guru).
-----------------------------------
Namaskar

Sri said...

Anonymous said:
And then, again, in the realm of Ajata, there is no reincarnation for the Jnani, nor even for the jiva. There is not even a Jnani or a jiva for that matter, .....

"Buddhas and mortals exist only for mortals. For Buddhas, neither buddhas nor mortals exist." -- Bodhidharma

Ravi said...

Ramos/Friends,
Yes, Truth is one,Sages express in Different ways.Here is an Excerpt from Volume No.8 ,Complete Works of Vivekananda,Where The Master talks about Divine Incarnation:
"The Divine Incarnation Or Avatara

Jesus Christ was God -- the Personal God become man. He has manifested Himself many times in different forms and these alone are what you can worship. God in His absolute nature is not to be worshipped. Worshipping such God would be nonsense. We have to worship Jesus Christ, the human manifestation, as God. You cannot worship anything higher than the manifestation of God. The sooner you give up the worship of God separate from Christ, the better for you. Think of the Jehovah you manufacture and of the beautiful Christ. Any time you attempt to make a God beyond Christ, you murder the whole thing. God alone can worship God. It is not given to man, and any attempt to worship Him beyond His ordinary manifestations will be dangerous to mankind. Keep close to Christ if you want salvation; He is higher than any God you can imagine. If you think that Christ was a man, do not worship Him; but as soon as you can realise that He is God, worship Him. Those who say He was a man and then worship Him commit blasphemy; there is no half - way house for you; you must take the whole strength of it. "He that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father", and without seeing the Son, you cannot see the Father. It would be only tall talk and frothy philosophy and dreams and speculations. But if you want to have a hold on spiritual life, cling close to God as manifest in Christ.

Philosophically speaking, there was no such human being living as Christ or Buddha; we saw God through them. In the Koran, Mohammed again and again repeats that Christ was never crucified, it was a semblance; no one could crucify Christ.

The lowest state of philosophical religion is dualism;
the highest form is the Triune state. Nature and the human soul are interpenetrated by God, and this we see as the Trinity of God, nature, and soul. At the same time you catch a glimpse that all these three are products of the One. Just as this body is the covering of the soul, so this is, as it were, the body of God. As I am the soul of nature, so is God the soul of my soul. You are the centre through which you see all nature in which you are. This nature, soul, and God make one individual being, the universe. Therefore they are a unity; yet at the same time they are separate. Then there is another sort of Trinity which is much like the Christian Trinity. God is absolute. We cannot see God in His absolute nature, we can only speak of that as "not this, not this". Yet we can get certain qualities as the nearest approach to God. First is existence, second is knowledge, third is bliss -- very much corresponding to your Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Father is the existence out of which everything comes; Son is that knowledge. It is in Christ that God will be manifest. God was everywhere, in all beings, before Christ; but in Christ we became conscious of Him. This is God. The third is bliss, the Holy Spirit. As soon as you get this knowledge, you get bliss. As soon as you begin to have Christ within you, you have bliss; and that unifies the three."
-----------------------------------
The Following points are to be noted:
1.The Absolute cannot be Worshipped.
2.If you think Christ was a man,do not worship him(This is why we say that Guru is God)
3."He that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father", and without seeing the Son, you cannot see the Father. It would be only tall talk and frothy philosophy and dreams and speculations.

All that we discussed are there in the above talk of the Master.

Namaskar.

Anonymous said...

There is so much talk about Jnanis from the 'unenlightened.' It's like putting the cart before the horse. We cannot understand this exalted 'state'. We can just stand with our noses pressed up against the window pane... discussing. ,thinking and wondering about it.
Ramana maharshi said " Only one consciousness, equally distributed everywhere. You through delusion give it unequal distribution. No distribution, no everywhere."

Ravi said...

David/Friends,
....Sri Aurobindo Continued...
"I don’t think I have written, but I said once that souls which
have passed into Nirvana may (not “must”) return to complete
the larger upward curve. I have written somewhere, I think, that
for this yoga (it might also be added, in the natural complete
order of the manifestation) the experience of Nirvana can only
be a stage or passage to the complete realisation. I have said
also that there are many doors by which one can pass into the
realisation of the Absolute (Parabrahman), and Nirvana is one
of them, but by no means the only one. You may remember Ramakrishna’s
saying that the Jivakoti can ascend the stairs, but
not return, while the Ishwarakoti can ascend and descend at
will. If that is so, the Jivakoti might be those who describe only
the curve from Matter through Mind into the silent Brahman
and the Ishwarakoti those who get to the integral Reality and can
therefore combine the Ascent with the Descent and contain
the «two ends» of existence in their single being."
-----------------------------------
Sri Ramakrishna has indeed acknowledged 'Avatarhood' and has said what Sri Aurobindo is reiterating here.
Those of us who may not accept this,may atleast get an idea that The Gita has some expressed something worth noting.I understand That Sri Sankara has simply commented on this sloka(The One I have quoted) without adding or subtracting or 'Interpreting' or qualifying in any manner.
.......continued.....

Ravi said...

David/Friends,
...Sri Aurobindo...Continued
"Now to reach Nirvana was the first radical result of my own
yoga. It threw me suddenly into a condition above and without
thought, unstained by any mental or vital movement; there was
no ego, no real world – only when one looked through the
immobile senses, something perceived or bore upon its sheer
silence a world of empty forms, materialised shadows without
true substance. There was no One or many even, only just absolutely
That, featureless, relationless, sheer, indescribable,
unthinkable, absolute, yet supremely real and solely real. This was
no mental realisation nor something glimpsed somewhere above,
– no abstraction, – it was positive, the only positive reality, –
although not a spatial physical world, pervading, occupying or
rather flooding and drowning this semblance of a physical world,
leaving no room or space for any reality but itself, allowing nothing
else to seem at all actual, positive or substantial. I cannot
say there was anything exhilarating or rapturous in the expe5
0 Letters on Yoga
rience, as it then came to me, – (the ineffable Ananda I had years
afterwards), – but what it brought was an inexpressible Peace,
a stupendous silence, an infinity of release and freedom. I lived
in that Nirvana day and night before it began to admit other
things into itself or modify itself at all, and the inner heart of
experience, a constant memory of it and its power to return remained
until in the end it began to disappear into a greater Superconsciousness
from above. But meanwhile realisation added
itself to realisation and fused itself with this original experience.
At an early stage the aspect of an illusionary world gave
place to one in which illusion1 is only a small surface phenomenon
with an immense Divine Reality behind it and a supreme
Divine Reality above it and an intense Divine Reality in the
heart of everything that had seemed at first only a cinematic
shape or shadow. And this was no reimprisonment in the senses,
no diminution or fall from supreme experience, it came
rather as a constant heightening and widening of the Truth; it
was the spirit that saw objects, not the senses, and the Peace,
the Silence, the freedom in Infinity remained always, with the
world or all worlds only as a continuous incident in the timeless
eternity of the Divine."
....Continued....

Ravi said...

David/Friends,
Here is an excerpt from Sri Aurobindo;I do know that Sri Bhagavan did not agree with this.Yet,it does point out out that there are other points of view also founded not on first hand ,direct experience of Other Masters.
Here Sri Aurobindo Questions the use of the term 'Highest'.

"The Absolute is an absolute
Truth free from Maya, otherwise liberation would not be
possible. Has then the supreme and absolute Truth no other
active Power than a power of falsehood and with it, no doubt,
for the two go together, a power of dissolving or disowning the
falsehood,– which is yet there for ever? I suggested that this
sounded a little queer. But queer or not, if it is so, it is so –
for, as you point out, the Ineffable cannot be subjected to the laws
of logic. But who is to decide whether it is so? You will say,
those who get there. But get where? To the Perfect and the Highest,
poornam param. Is the Mayavadin’s featureless Brahman
that Perfect, that Complete – is it the very Highest? Is there not
or can there not be a higher than that highest, parÀtparam? That
is not a question of logic, it is a question of spiritual fact, of a
supreme and complete experience. The solution of the matter
must rest not upon logic, but upon a growing, ever heightening,
widening spiritual experience – an experience which must
of course include or have passed through that of Nirvana and
Maya, otherwise it would not be complete and would have no
decisive value."
.....Continued....

Ravi said...

David,
David,I have nothing against Papaji.I have only taken a critical view of what he has said.Please excuse if that has sounded offensive;it is not intended.

Namaskar.

Nandu Narasimhan said...

Ravi,

Till about 18 months ago, my views on Papaji were pretty close to what you have articulated.
It changed over a few videos on youtube that I decided to watch, purely on a whim. I think I posted what happened somewhere on this blog.

Having read 'Nothing Ever Happened' and 'Interviews', I am pretty much convinced that he is a Guru.

Yes, there are many statements of his which seem to be rather flamboyant. That is his personality. He was aggressive and argumentative. But like bhagavan, he gave of himself to anyone who asked him for guidance.

There are several moments in both books where Grace flows.

I for one have begun to understand Bhagavan a lot more only via Papaji.

Nandu Narasimhan

David Godman said...

Anonymous said...

'Are psychic powers sine qua non for all realised masters? It is another matter whether they are used or not!!'

Guru Vachaka Kovai, verse 153 states:

What is the reason that the two – supreme Atma-jnana and the eight great siddhis, beginning with anima – do not unfailingly co-exist in the way that people desire? The reason is that the nature of prarabdha is twofold for people of the world. Hence attaining jnana and possessing the wealth of siddhis are different from each other.

Muruganar elaborates on this point in his own comments to the verse.

Muruganar: As the cause of one is not the cause of the other, the two attainments [jnana and siddhis] are independent of each other. Know that there is no basis for believing, as some do, that all jnanis should be siddhas and all siddhas should be jnanis, or as some others believe, that they should not be so.

Bhagavan has made the following additional comments on this topic:

Self-realisation may be accompanied by occult powers or it may not be. If the person has sought such powers before realisation, he may get the powers after realisation. There are others who had not sought such powers and had attempted only Self-realisation. They do not manifest such powers. (Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, talk no. 597)

Nandu Narasimhan said...

David,

You had mentioned that Maurice Frydman was the consultant on an old Hindi film.

Would you know the name? I am a bit of a follower of those old Hindi films from the '50s and '60s.

Would be nice if a copy can be obtained.

Nandu Narasimhan

Losing M. Mind said...

O.K, it's settled on Jnanis, but what about a-jnanis? Do they reincarnate? How to know?

David Godman said...

Kandhan

Apologies for implying that you alone should stay on topic. The reminder that this thread should be used to comment on this post alone was intended for all the readers, but I didn't word it as well as I could have done.

I have been out all day. I will respond tomorrow to some of the many comments and questions posted.

Nandu Narasimhan said...

Murali,

Bhagavan's Samadhi faces East. Bhagavan sits underground, facing Arunachala, which is to his North.

Anonymous said...

The blessed Crow that died in Ramanas hand. Did that just happen? Or was the Crow a Siddha, a divine bird that sought out Ramana? The Maharshi did not seem to think it was an ordinary bird and subsequently a small Samadhi was built for it.

Clemens Vargas Ramos said...

.

Basically it is impossible for the ajnani to make sense of the words of the jnani. Therefore the nondualistic Zen patriarch Huang Po said: "When listening to the words of the dharma try to understand this as the wind caressing your ears."

.

Ravi said...

Ramos,
I find that i did not respond to this response of yours.
"Reality is doing all this - the mutts of Sankara, the Meru Chakra, the legal grounds and anything else. Please remove in all your questions simply the "i" - nothing else is needed."

It is not clear whether I have given the 'premise' behind these questions.The Point is not whether it is Sankara or the 'Reality' that is behind this activity.

The Key point is FOR WHOM all this Required?If Reality alone exists,none of this is called for-unless the 'Reality' had a Fancy to build a few ashrams and mutts!

The Point is that even the Jnanis(or TRUTH or REALITY if you prefer to call it so) who denied the very Presence of the 'World',or atleast viewed it as Transitory,Temporal Reflection of Truth,did their utmost to ensure that the KNOWLEDGE and TEACHINGS are preserved for 'Others'.

THEY DID NOT NEGLECT EMPIRICAL REALITY.THEY DID NOT DISMISS IT.This is one theme that 'i' have tried to express in various ways.

Great Sages have taught to 'Reject' the 'World' to seek Truth;they have again taught to 'Accept' the 'World' to seek Truth!

This 'Rejection' as well as 'Acceptance' have gone hand in hand!

Namaskar.

Subramanian. R said...

On the morning of 9th March 1946,
Dr. Masalavala, inter-alia, asked the following:

Q: Bhagavan says 'The influence of
the Jnani stels into the devotee
in silence.' Bhagavan also says:
'Contact with great men, exalted souls, is one efficacious means of realizing one's true being.'

B: Yes. What is the contradiction?

Q: No.

B: Contact with them is good. They will work through silence. By speaking, their power is reduced.
Silence is most powerful. Speech
is always less powerful than silence. So mental contact is the best.

Q: Does this hold good even after the dissolution of the physical body of the Jnani or is it true only so long as he is in flesh and blood?

B: Guru is not the physical form. So the contact will remain even after physical form of the Guru vanishes.

Q: Similarly, does the contact of a devotee with his Guru continues after the passing of the Guru or does it stop?....

B: As already explained, Guru not being physical form, his contact will continue after his form vanishes. If one Jnani exists in the world, his influence will be felt by or benefit all people in the world and not simply his immeidate disciples, bhaktas, those who are indifferent to him and those who are even hostile and it is said in the following verse that all these classes will be benefited by the existence of a Jnani. (Then, Vedanta Chudamani
verse is quoted.) Meaning: Four
classes of people are benefited by Jivanmuktas, by his faith in the Jivanmuktas, the disciples attain mukti, the bhakta who worships his Guru attains merit, the indifferent who have seen the sacred life of the Jivanmukta acquire desire for righteousness and even the sinners (ie. the hostile in the first verse) get rid of their sins by the mere fact of their having had darshan of such saints.

(From Day by Day)

sfauthor said...

Nice posting. Do you know about this edition of the Gita?

http://www.YogaVidya.com/gita.html

Clemens Vargas Ramos said...

.

... WHY do they come back into the dream ...

They don't come back into the dream because all this is a dream - the awakened, the jnani, the unawakend and anyone and anything else you can see and think of.

You believe that there is something like "reality" and "unreality", and now you try to differentiate between reality and unreality, but it isn't so. All this are simply ideas.

When you awake you awake to this fact - that all is like a dream including your "awakening".

You awake as a dreamer in a dream dreaming to be awakened.

Reality is what remains after the understanding of this.

Reality is the only existing thing - all else are ideas of the projecting mind.

The jnanis use words to explain things being by nature undescribable - and they know that. They know that the ajnanis cannot understand this. They utter their words like the wind which goes here and there (but it doesn't mean nonsense for them). They know that there is no owner of their bodies, speeches and deeds. They have thrown away the myth of being a person having personal experiences because they now know the true difference between an individual experience and a personal experience.

For the jnani all is an endless streams of pictures and experiences having no owner. Listen to them - they talk endless about that.

.

David Godman said...

Losing M Mind said...

I want to learn more about Maurice Frydman. He sounds as brilliant and interesting as all of the one's that David Godman has already edited books about.

I have been doing research on him intermittently for the last few months. I have found people who knew him and who are willing to speak to me about his life and achievements. I have also discovered many interesting and little known facts about him. If I manage to assemble enough material, I will probably make him the subject of a new book.

The project started as a potential blog post last year. I gave up on it as a blog post when I had assembled about fifty pages of notes. It is now turning into something much longer. I have no idea how long it will take, or how big the final presentation will be, but I will probably include advance excerpts here if I find anything that is particularly interesting.

David Godman said...

Kandhan again

Sorry, but I forgot to address your main query:

If so, can any benefit be derived from samadhis of Gnanis. Someone please answer this as I am torn between surrender to samadhis of Guru and self-enquiry.

It is my belief and experience that there is a power in the samadhi of Bhagavan that is spiritually beneficial for those who feel it and choose to focus on it. I could extend that statement to the whole of Ramanasramam, and not just restrict it to the immediate vicinity of the samadhi. There is a power there that I am sure has come from Bhagavan's long association with the place. That particular location is soaked and imbued with his presence. Even Lakshmana Swamy, who occasionally says that samadhi shrines do not contain the power of the living Guru, once said that there is a strong residual power in Ramanasramam that comes from Bhagavan having been there for so long. He said that he noticed it every time he came to visit.

Oddly enough, different people feel it in different places and at different times. Some people find the old hall more powerful than the samadhi hall, and some people feel the power more strongly at a particular time of day.

I once asked Papaji if spending all my time editing Bhagavan's words and stories was a distraction from what I should be really doing.

He replied, 'Any association with Bhagavan is a blessing. You have been drawn to think about his words all the time. That is a good satsang because those words have power, and while you are thinking about them, you are in contact with Bhagavan.'

Something similar could be said to anyone who feels drawn to the samadhi as a focus for his or her devotion to Bhagavan: if it keeps your attention on Bhagavan, it is both satsang and a blessing.

Murali said...

Kandhan,

"...Someone please answer this as I am torn between surrender to samadhis of Guru and self-enquiry."

I too am with you on the same page and this doubt haunts me even today.

But, practically, I found that it somehow works. If I go and pray earnestly at the samadhi of a Jnani, something happens. There is this "Automatic Divine Action" explanation but I am at a loss to understand how it can happen when the Jnani is not alive.

However, the explanation I myself am content in giving myself is a saying from Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. He says that while God exists everywhere, He is particularly manifest in Holy places. He says that while water exits everywhere, it is easy to get it in a Well and holy places are like Wells. A place where a Jnani lives/lived is definetely a Holy place and hence the Well-theory should work.

Now, beyond all logical explanations, I find that if I sit on the ground of the Old Hall in Ashram OR on the ground having the couch of Sri Ramakrishna in small hall where he lived, my mind definetely feels holy and purified. There is something definetely going on in the atmosphere there.

Regards Murali

Zee said...

Life of the Buddha by Nanamoli
*************************
NARRATOR Two. The Buddha told the bhikkhus of a visit made to
the high heavens of the Brahma-world.
FIRST VOICE. "Bhikkhus, on one occasion when I was living at
Ukkattha in the Subhaga Grove at the root of a royal sala tree, there
had arisen in the Brahma Baka a pernicious view (of his own permanence
and absoluteness). I became aware in mind of the thought in
the Brahma's mind, and ... I appeared in that world. The Brahma
Baka saw me coming, and he said: 'Come, good sir! Welcome, good
sir! It is long, good sir, since you made an occasion to come here.
Now, good sir, this is permanent, this is everlasting, this is eternal,
this is totality, this is not subject to passing away; for this neither is
born nor ages nor dies nor passes away nor reappears, and beyond this
there is no escape.'"Then Mara the Evil One entered into a member of the Brahma's
assembly, and he told me: 'Bhikkhu, bhikkhu, do not disbelieve
him, do not disbelieve him; for this Brahma is the Great Brahma,
Transcendent Being untranscended, Sure-sighted Wielder of Mastery,
Lord Maker and Creator, Most High Providence, Master and
Father of those that are and ever can be. Before your time, bhikkhu,
144 THE LIFE OF THE BUDDHA
there were monks and brahmans in the world who condemned earth
through disgust with earth, who condemned water ... fire ... air ...
beings ... gods ... Pajapati, Lord of the Race ... who condemned
Brahma through disgust with Brahma; now on the dissolution of the
body, when their breath was cut off, they became established in an
inferior body. Before your time, bhikkhu, there were monks and brahmans
in the world who lauded all these through love of them; now
on the dissolution of the body, when their breath was cut off, they
became established in a superior body. So, bhikkhu, I tell you this: Be
sure, good sir, to do only as Brahma says. Never overstep Brahma's
word; for if you do that, bhikkhu, then you will be like a man who
tries to deflect a beam of light with a stick when it comes upon him,
or like a man who loses his hold of the earth with his hands and feet as
he slips into a deep abyss. Be sure, good sir, to do only as Brahma says.
Never overstep Brahma's word. Do you not see the Divine Assembly
seated here, bhikkhu?' And Mara the Evil One thus called the Divine
Assembly to witness."When this was said, I told Mara the Evil One: 'I know you, Evil
One; do not fancy 'He does not know me.' You are Mara the Evil
One, and Brahma and the Divine Assembly with all its members have
all fallen into your hands, they have all fallen into your power. You,
Evil One, think that I have fallen into your power too; but that is not
so.'"When this was said, Brahma Baka told me: 'Good sir, I say of
the permanent that it is permanent, of the everlasting that it is everlasting,
of the eternal that it is eternal, of totality that it is totality, of
what is not subject to passing away that it is not subject to passing
away, of what neither is born nor ages nor dies nor passes away nor
reappears, that it neither is born nor ages nor dies nor passes away
nor reappears, and of that beyond which there is no escape, that
there is no escape beyond it. Before your time, bhikkhu, there were
monks and brahmans in the world whose asceticism lasted as long
as your whole life. They knew, when there was an escape beyond,
that there was an escape beyond, and, when there was no escape
beyond, that there was no escape beyond. So, bhikkhu, I tell you
this: Beyond this you will find no escape, and in trying to do so
you will eventually reap weariness and disappointment. If you will
believe in6 earth ... in water ... in fire ... in air ... in beings ...
in gods ... in Pajapati ... If you will believe in Brahma you will
THE END OF THE FIRST TWENTY YEARS 145
be one to lie near me, to lie within my province, as you will be for me
to work my will upon and punish.'
"

[contd...]

Zee said...

[...cont]
'I know that too, Brahma. But I understand your reach and your
sway thus: Brahma Baka's power, his might, his following, extend
thus far and no further.'
'Now, good sir, how far do you understand my reach and my
sway to extend?'" 'As far as moon and sun do circulate
Shining and lighting up the four directions,
Over a thousand times as wide a world
Your power can exert its influence.
And there you know the high and low as well,
And those governed by lust and free from lust,
The state of what is thus and otherwise,
And creatures' provenance and destination.
'Thus far do I understand your reach and sway to extend. Yet
there are three other main bodies of Brahma gods which you neither
know nor see, and which I know and see. There is the body called
Abhassara (of Streaming Radiance) whence you passed away and reappeared
here. But with long dwelling here your memory of it has
lapsed, and so you no more know or see it, but I know and see it.
Standing thus, as I do, not on the same level of direct knowledge as
you, it is not less that I know, but more. And likewise with the still
higher bodies of the Subhakinna (of Refulgent Glory) and the Vehapphala
(of Great Fruit).'Now, Brahma, having had direct knowledge of earth as earth,
and having had direct knowledge of what is not co-essential with the
earthness of earth, I did not claim to be earth,7 did not claim to
be in earth, I did not claim to be apart from earth, I did not claim
earth to be mine, I made no affirmation about earth. Having had
direct knowledge of water as water ... of fire ... air ... beings ... gods
.... Pajapati ... Brahma ... the Abhassara ... the Subhakinna ... the
Vehapphala ... the Transcendent Being (Abhibhu) ... Having had
direct knowledge of all as all, and having had direct knowledge of
what is not co-essential with the allness of all, I did not claim to be
all, I did not claim to be in all, I did not claim to be apart from
all, I did not claim all to be mine, I made no affirmation about all.
Standing thus, too, as I do, it is not less that I know, but more.'
146 THE LIFE OF THE BUDDHA
'Good sir, if you claim to have access to what is not coessential
with the allness of all, may you not be proved vain and empty!'
" 'The consciousness that makes no showing
Nor has to do with finiteness,
Claiming no being apart from all:
that is not co-essential with the earthness of earth, with the waterness
of water ... with the allness of all.'
" 'Then, good sir, I will vanish from you.'
" 'Then, Brahma, vanish from me if you can.'
"Then Brahma Baka, thinking 'I will vanish from the monk
Gotama; I will vanish from the monk Gotama,' was unable to do so.
I said: 'Then, Brahma, I will vanish from you.'
'Then, good sir, vanish from me if you can.'
"I made a determination of supernormal power thus: 'Just to the
extent of Brahma and the Assembly, let them hear the sound of my
voice without seeing me,' and after I had vanished, I uttered this
stanza:
" 'I have seen fear in every mode of being
Including being seeking for non-being;
There is no mode of being I affirm,
No relish whatsoever whereto I cling.'

Zee said...

[...contd]

"Then Brahma and the Assembly and all its members wondered
and marvelled at that, and they said: 'It is wonderful, sirs, it is marvellous!
This monk Gotama who went forth from a Sakyan clan has
such great power and might as we have never before seen in any other
monk or brahman! Sirs, though living in a generation that delights
in being, loves being, finds gladness in being, he has extirpated being
together with its root!'
"Then Mara the Evil One entered into a member of the Assembly,
and he said: 'Good sir, if that is what you know, if that is
what you have discovered, do not lead your lay disciples to it or
those gone forth, do not teach them your Dhamma or create in
them a yearning for it. Before your time, bhikkhu, there were
monks and brahmans in the world claiming to be accomplished and
fully enlightened, and they did that; but on the dissolution of the
body when their breath was cut off, they became established in an
inferior body. Before your time, bhikkhu, there were also such monks
and brahmans in the world, and they did not do that; and on the
dissolution of the body, when their breath was cut off, they became
established in a superior body. So, bhikkhu, I tell you this: Be sure,
good sir, to abide inactive; devote yourself to a pleasant abiding here
and now. This is better left undeclared, good sir, and so inform no
one else of it at all.'
"When this was said, I replied: 'I know you, Evil One. It is not
out of compassion or desire for my welfare that you speak thus.
You are thinking that those to whom I teach this Dhamma will
go beyond your reach. Those monks and brahmans of yours who
claimed to be accomplished and fully enlightened were not really so;
but I am, as I claim to be, accomplished and fully enlightened. A
Perfect One is such whether he teaches his Dhamma to disciples or
not, whether he leads his disciples to it or not. Why is that? Because
such taints as defile, as renew being, as bring anxiety, as ripen in
suffering, as produce future birth, ageing and death, are in him cut
off at the root, made like palm tree stumps, done away with, so that
they are no more subject to future arising, just as a palm tree is incapable
of further growth when its crown is cut off.' So, since Mara
had nothing more to say, and on account of Brahma's invitation (to
me to vanish), this discourse may be termed 'On the Invitation of
a Brahma."
M. 49

hey jude said...

Dear friends, Does anyone know how to obtain Ma Souris's book A memory? Is it available in the ashram?

shankara said...

Sir,

Sri Sankaracharya in his commentary on Brahmasutra mentions many instances of Jnanis taking birth again for lokasangraha. In fact this is the topic of discussion in the "Yavad Adhikara Adhikaranam" (Brahmasutra 3.3.32). He quotes Chandogya Upanishad 7.26.2 and Taittiriya Upanishad 3.1.1 and says that Sanatkumara and Bhrugu took birth again even after attaining Jnana.

I would like to hear from you on this.

David Godman said...

From Guru Ramana, by S. S. Cohen

15th June, 1938
HIS VIDEHAMUKTI (after death):

The “Vision” (of Anandashram, Kanhangad) for June contains an article by Sri Bhagavan. It is a Preface to his translation into Tamil of Vivekachudamani of Sri Shankaracharya which has been translated by Mr. S. Krishna into English for the “Vision”. Mr. C. reads it to himself in the Hall. Struck by the following statement, he reads it aloud to Sri Bhagavan: “The liberated man is free indeed to act as he pleases, and when he leaves the mortal coil, he attains absolution, but returns not to this birth which is actually death.”

C.This statement gives the impression that although the Jnani takes no birth again on this plane, he may continue to work on subtler planes, if he so chooses. Is there any desire left in him to choose?

Bh. No, that was not my intention.
C. Further, an Indian philosopher [Radhakrishnan], in one of his books, interpreting Shankara, says that there is no such thing as videhamukti, for after his death, the Mukta takes a body of light in which he remains till the whole humanity becomes liberated.

Bh. That cannot be Shankara’s views (he opens Vivekachudamani and points to verse 566 which reads that after the dissolution of the physical sheath the liberated man becomes like “water poured into water and oil into oil”). It is a state wherein there is neither bondage nor liberation. Taking another body means throwing a veil, however subtle, upon Reality, which is bondage. Liberation is absolute and irrevocable.

Cohen then added a note of his own: In his Atma-Bodha, stanza 53, Shankara says the same thing as in verse 566 of Vivekachudamani.

Ravi said...

Shankara/David,
I continue to agree as well as disagree with David!
Here is an excerpt from The Letters of Sri Ramanasramam that I have posted earlier in this thread:
(11) A GARLAND OF UPADESAS
Once a devotee asked, “What is the import of the upadesa
(communication of an initiatory mantra or formula) of Lord
Krishna contained in the following verse of the Gita?”
paritranaya sadhunam vinasayacha dushkrutam
dharmasamstapanarthaya sambhavami yuge yuge
Bhagavan: (with a smile on his face) “What is the
difficulty about it? It means for the protection of the virtuous,
for the destruction of evildoers and for establishing dharma,
I am born from age to age. This is easily understandable.”
Devotee: “That is not my point, Bhagavan. Lord
Krishna says, ‘I will be born; I will protect’. Does it mean
that He will be born again and again?”
Bhagavan: “Oho, is that your doubt? When Mahatmas
talk of ‘I’ they do not speak of the body
. That ‘I’ means I along
with ahamkarana which becomes ahankara (ahamkarana means
mind, buddhi, chitta and ahankara). That which is freed from
the ahamkarana is Atma. When that I becomes bahirmukha, i.e.,
outer-directed it becomes worldly and when it is inner-directed
antarmukha, it becomes aham-sphurana, all-pervading.”
Devotee: “If that is so, sastras say that without prarabdha
no one is born into this world. Where is the question of
prarabdha for Paramatma?”
Bhagavan: “There is no need to doubt the sastras.
Paramatma is nishkriya (without action). How can he have
prarabdha, you say. The reply to your doubt is in that verse
itself
. The verse says, ‘When the evil-doers hurt the virtuous,
the latter pray to God by doing puja, japa, tapas, yagna and
other good deeds to relieve them of the tortures inflicted on
them by the evildoers. The bad deeds of the evildoers and the
good deeds of the virtuous result in prarabdha and God comes
down to the earth assuming a form — an avatar — that is known
as pareccha prarabdha
.”

This is an emphatic,unequivocal view of Sri Bhagavan on the particular verse-'paritrAnAya sAdhunAm,vinAsAyacha dushkritAm'.
I have also posted what Sri Ramakrishna has said regarding 'ishwara kotis' who are not born of any prArabda but grace the terra firma for lOka sangraha.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We may understand this in a simple fashion as follows:
Let us say that we are a student studying in school.Unless we study well and pass the examination, we will not be allowed to Graduate from schooling.Once we graduate from School,we do not return to school;schooling is finished for us.yet,a few may return to school as Teachers,not out of any compulsion to learn and Graduate,but to teach others.
Whether they are in the school or out of it does not make a weebit of difference as far as their Learning is concerned.
Likewise,whether the Body is there or not,whether another body is assumed or not,a jnAni remains a jnAni or jnAnaswarupa all the time.It is only in the Eyes of others that he is born or reborn-as far as he is concerned he is ever the same.

Namaskar.

Ravi said...

Friends,
Talking in a lighter vein on this subject:
In a Geometry class where the subject of the day was the study of the Properties of a triangle-the sum of two sides of a triangle is greater than the third side:
Teacher said:"Let us assume,that the third side is equal or longer than the sum of the other two sides"

Student(to another fellow student):I suspected this right when this fellow walked into the class.He does not know,he is also assuming.Had he known the proof of the Truth,he should have proved it straight away without assuming."

Arvind Lal said...

Hi Shankara, folks,

Re Brahmasutra 3.3.32 & Sri Shankara’s Bhasya thereof:

The Sutra itself only mentions, “Those who have a mission to fulfill continue in the corporeal state as long as the mission demands it.”

Sri Sankara brings in the instances of Sanatkumara and Bhrigu being reborn as “purvapaksin” (opponents) views in the commentary. They are not his own views. To lay down doctrine Sri Sankara first presents the “opponents” arguments. It is the “opponents” who quote from Purana and Itihasa giving the stories of Sanatkumara & Bhrigu for instance, in favour of the reincarnating Jnanis argument. There are no quotes from “core” scripture to support this view. Sri Sankara then counters the same by quoting from Chandogya, Mundaka, the Bhagavad Gita & others. Though the sage Bhrigu is indeed mentioned in the first sutra of the Taittiriya, that is only coincidental as the context therein is quite different. In fact, Taittiriya 3.1.1. is not quoted at all in the commentary for this sutra.

Not gonna present Sri Sankara’s whole argument here to explain the taking up of new bodies by Sanatkumara & Bhrigu as mentioned in Smriti, it is long and complex. In my humble opinion, he distinguishes between “reincarnation” for an ordinary Jiva who achieves Liberation via practice, and the “taking up of several bodies” by Avatars and “Born-Realised-Souls” for the larger good. Again, as he is laying down doctrine he has to explain the Smriti texts somehow even tho’ they may sometimes have multifarious ideas intended for the not so mature seekers. Suffice to say that he clearly states, like Sri Bhagavan did, that Jnana burns-off all the seeds of Karma for a Jiva leaving nothing behind to sprout afresh, and that constitutes final and ultimate release with no births to follow.

Best wishes

shankara said...

Arvind,

Thanks a lot for correcting me and giving a lucid explanation of the sutra quoted be me.

I agree with you that the case of Sanatkumara and Bhrigu are quoted by the opponents. Still Sankaracharya also accepts these examples and he makes it clear that a class of Jnanis who are authorised to complete a mission do take re-birth.

I understand that Bhagavan's & Papaji's statement that "a Jnani has no re-birth" is a general principle. At the same time, can we say that a Saint who takes re-birth has not yet attained Jnanam? I think there are exceptions to this rule as explained in the above-mentioned sutra of Badarayana.

Subramanian. R said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jordan Loder said...

Liberation is absolute and irrevocable.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 244 of 244   Newer› Newest»