vivekachudamani

Michael Comans, a well renowned Advaitic scholar, and author of a

doctoral thesis on Adviata moda and many other vedanta books has this

to write about the authorship of the Vivekachoodamani(VC). This may

already be well-known to many of the esteemed and learned members in

this forum but for the benefit of others I am reproducing his exact words

 

The VC is popularly but most probably erroneously considered to be a

work of Adi Sankara

There are a number of reasons why this is not a genuine work of Adi

Sankara. In the ascending order of importance these are as follows

 

a. The style of the verses is highly poetic in contrast to the

vigorous but not especially graceful style of the verses in the

Upadesasahasri, a work universally accepted as the composition of Adi

Sankara.

 

b. The fact that there are very few commentaries on the VC and no old

commentaries by well known Advaita authors would tend to indicate that

the VC not the composition of Adi Shankara and is in fact not a very

old work

 

c. Some aspects of the teaching of the VC are foreign to other works

of Sankara or are contradictory to them. The series of verse extolling

the importance of yogic-type nirvikalpa samadhi (vv 341-342, 353-357,

360-363) sit at variance with the minimal importance Sankara gives to

samadhi in his other works. The statements belittling the importance

of hearing the Upanishads (vv 364) would contradict his teachigs in

his commentary on the Brahmasutras 4.1.2 and thee whole theme of the

lenghty eighteenth chapter of the Upadesasahsri.

 

Thus the VC for all its undoubted merit as a manual explaining vedanta

is not likely a composition of Adi Sankara but a composition of a much

later Sankaracharya likely conected to the Sringeri pitham.

 

Abhinava Nrsimha Bhaarati who adorned the pitham from 1599-1622

founded a branch of the matha in Sivaganga and placed his disciple

Sankara Bharati who took sannyasa in 1615 and was himself an eminent

scholar in charge of the matha. The concluding verse of the VC

contains the verse "esa sankarabharati vijayate" is generally

understood to mean that the "voice of Sankara is victorious" but could

also be referring to the name of the author.

 

In the opening line of his brief introduction to his wonderful book

"Vivekacudamani - talks on 108 selected verses(1997) His Holiness

Swami Dayananda-ji says

"VC is a popular book of Vedanta, traditionally attributed to Sankara.

Even though the modern scholars have difficulty in accepting the

authorship of Sankara for this book, in the teaching tradition of

Sankara the book is used as a text for initial study. I dont think we

lose anything even if the authorship is attributed to any other

Sankaracharya of one of the various Sankara mathas"

 

His Holiness then subsequently steers clear of that entire

controversial section of the VC referred to above (vv341-363) - the

108 most important and relevant verses were selected for his

commentary for the purpose of this book(actually based on his talks)

by Pujya Swami Paramarthananda-ji.

 

 

I hope this clarifies some confusions that may have arisen in some

peoples minds.

 

Shri Gurubhyo namah

Shyam

Hari OM!

 

Dear Advaitins

 

VIVEKACHUDAMNI IS ADISHANKARACHARYA'S WORK, do not make controversies

in this great list. even if it is written by any other Sankaracharya the

knowldege comes

from the Jagadguru that is about it. The source is Adi shankara only. What

do you want

to prove Sharkara is not poetic? like the Shankaracharya after?

 

already Chirstian missionaries are making havocs to convert poeple, why cant

we learn

Vivekachudamani instead of making controversies of authorship, why do we

want to

eat the peel of Banana instead of the fruit itself?

 

With Love & OM!

 

Krishna Prasad

 

 

On 8/30/06, shyam_md <shyam_md > wrote:

>

> Michael Comans, a well renowned Advaitic scholar, and author of a

> doctoral thesis on Adviata moda and many other vedanta books has this

> to write about the authorship of the Vivekachoodamani(VC). This may

> already be well-known to many of the esteemed and learned members in

> this forum but for the benefit of others I am reproducing his exact words

>

> The VC is popularly but most probably erroneously considered to be a

> work of Adi Sankara

> There are a number of reasons why this is not a genuine work of Adi

> Sankara. In the ascending order of importance these are as follows

Namaste:

 

The issue on the authorship of Vivekachudamani is not new to this

list and instead of focusing our attention on the authorship let us

concentrate on the message . This statement from Swami Dayananda

Saraswati summarizes why the message is more relevant than the

authrorship: "Even though the modern scholars have difficulty in

accepting the authorship of Sankara for this book, in the teaching

tradition of Sankara the book is used as a text for initial study. I

don´t think we lose anything even if the authorship is attributed to

any other Sankaracarya of one of the various Sankara-mathas." (Swami

Dayananda, Vivekacudamani: Talks on 108 selected verses, p.1.) Now

let me pose the question – Who is the author of Gita? Some will

answer that it is Vedavyasa and most will agree that it is Lord

Krishna. No research is necessary to investigate the authorship and

authenticity of Gita. What is important is the message of Gita.

Similarly it is irrelevant whether Mahabharat and Ramayana represent

historical events or not.

 

I am of the opinion, that let us not waste our time in discussing

matters that is unimportant for our spiritual progress and focus on

messages from Vivekachudamani, Gita, Ramayana and Mahabharat.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: Those who want to further explore, please go to the archives

and search for `Vivekachudamani' and you can read over 300 postings

dealing with that subject. Also please note that Michael Comans is a

student of Swami Dayananda Saraswati!

 

 

advaitin, "shyam_md" <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Michael Comans, a well renowned Advaitic scholar, and author of a

> doctoral thesis on Adviata moda and many other vedanta books has

this

> to write about the authorship of the Vivekachoodamani(VC). This may

> already be well-known to many of the esteemed and learned members in

> this forum but for the benefit of others I am reproducing his exact

words

Pranams Ramchandran-ji,

 

I could not agree with you more.

 

The focus should only be on the teachings of advaita,

not on authorships, year someone was born, place of

birth or events, and other irrelevant historical

details. That was the reason I included His Holiness

Swami Dayananda-ji's very pointed message as well,

which highlights the importance of this work as an

important, nay indispensable part of traditional

advaitic teaching.

 

The only reason I brought this up was there have been

recently repeated references to a very tiny portion of

this book which, not me, but many advaitic experts

feel is both controversial and at variance with what

Bhagwaan Adi Sankara has taught and written in most of

his well-acknowledged books. It is useful to bear in

mind these facts as we study Vedanta under the Sankara

parampara, and instead of getting caught up in

specific sections of a given book or work, try to

understand the entire teaching as a whole, and to the

best of our ability.

 

I was certain that this is not new knowledge to most

people in this forum and that is exactly what I stated

in my post as well. It was not my aim to rake up any

"new controversy" - my humble and sincere apologies if

such an impression has been conveyed my me in the

process.

 

Pranams to all advaitins.

Shyam

 

 

 

--- Ram Chandran <ramvchandran > wrote:

 

> Namaste:

>

> The issue on the authorship of Vivekachudamani is

> not new to this

> list and instead of focusing our attention on the

> authorship let us

> concentrate on the message . This statement from

> Swami Dayananda

> Saraswati summarizes why the message is more

> relevant than the

> authrorship: "Even though the modern scholars have

> difficulty in

> accepting the authorship of Sankara for this book,

> in the teaching

> tradition of Sankara the book is used as a text for

> initial study. I

> don´t think we lose anything even if the authorship

> is attributed to

> any other Sankaracarya of one of the various

> Sankara-mathas." (Swami

> Dayananda, Vivekacudamani: Talks on 108 selected

> verses, p.1.) Now

> let me pose the question – Who is the author of

> Gita? Some will

> answer that it is Vedavyasa and most will agree that

> it is Lord

> Krishna. No research is necessary to investigate

> the authorship and

> authenticity of Gita. What is important is the

> message of Gita.

> Similarly it is irrelevant whether Mahabharat and

> Ramayana represent

> historical events or not.

>

> I am of the opinion, that let us not waste our time

> in discussing

> matters that is unimportant for our spiritual

> progress and focus on

> messages from Vivekachudamani, Gita, Ramayana and

> Mahabharat.

>

> Warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

> Note: Those who want to further explore, please go

> to the archives

> and search for `Vivekachudamani' and you can read

> over 300 postings

> dealing with that subject. Also please note that

> Michael Comans is a

> student of Swami Dayananda Saraswati!

>

>

> advaitin, "shyam_md"

> <shyam_md wrote:

> >

> > Michael Comans, a well renowned Advaitic scholar,

> and author of a

> > doctoral thesis on Adviata moda and many other

> vedanta books has

> this

> > to write about the authorship of the

> Vivekachoodamani(VC). This may

> > already be well-known to many of the esteemed and

> learned members in

> > this forum but for the benefit of others I am

> reproducing his exact

> words

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

Namaste dear Sri Shyam:

 

In earlier discussions on the 'authorship of Vivekachudamani' there

were some heated discussions and I just want to avoid a repetiion of

a smilar kind. This is a delicate (sometimes even emotional)issue and

I just want to warn the members not to engage in the authorship

issue. The authorship issue is quite important when we read a book or

writings where we have doubts on the message. But for well-known

works such as Gita, Vivekachudamani, etc., authorship is of less

importance. There is a famous Sanskrit saying - 'Rishi moolam, Nadi

moolam....' (I don't remember the complete quotation) with the

following interpretation: The purity of water is determined by how it

tastes rather than where it came from; the greatness of a Rishi is

also determined by his/her scholarship/behavior etc., and not

necessarily by his/her birth origin.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Pranams Ramchandran-ji,

>

> I could not agree with you more.

>

 

>

> The only reason I brought this up was there have been

> recently repeated references to a very tiny portion of

> this book which, not me, but many advaitic experts

> feel is both controversial and at variance with what

> Bhagwaan Adi Sankara has taught and written in most of

> his well-acknowledged books. It is useful to bear in

> mind these facts as we study Vedanta under the Sankara

> parampara, and instead of getting caught up in

> specific sections of a given book or work, try to

> understand the entire teaching as a whole, and to the

> best of our ability.

advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Pranams Ramchandran-ji,

>

> I could not agree with you more.

>

> The focus should only be on the teachings of advaita,

> not on authorships, year someone was born, place of

> birth or events, and other irrelevant historical

> details.

 

Srigurubhyo NamaH

Namaste Sri Shyam ji,

 

It is good to see what you have said about concentrating on the

message of Advaita. I have a question. Is advaita to be handled as

a vague shastra? The more we dwell into the bhashya of the Acharya

and his works we cannot but appreciate the exactitude that it abounds

in. It is not the Acharya's invention or introduction to the Vedanta

Shastra. It is the very essence of the Upanishads. The Upanishads

teach a clear spritual path with true, verifiable landmarks and a

specific goal. One reason why the upanishads and the Gita have

insisted on a personal Guru for an adhyatma sadhaka is to have a one-

to-one rapport where the sadhaka is able to report his progress, his

state, his difficulties in advancing and a Self-Realized Guru who can

guide him, monitor his progress and take him to the goal. In all the

Upanishads we see the teachers have been Jnanis and the disciples,

sometimes their sons, approaching them with devotion and securing

guidance and attaining the goal. The Uddalaka-Shvetaketu, Yama-

Nachiketas, Yajnavalkya-Janaka, just to name a few, are all perfect

examples of the Jnani Guru and sishya who attains the experiential

knowledge. These upanishads themselves testify to this.

 

As we recently saw, the Acharya even in the start of the Brahmasutra

bhashya says that Brahma jnanam culminates in anubhava, experience.

We saw some more places where the Acharya stresses the anubhava

aspect. He does not use this loosely. Where the progess is on, he

does not say it is the ultimate anubhava. In the Gita, for example,

we have clear, explicit mention of time, 'yadaa' 'tadaa'. The verse

52 and 53 are classic examples. The latter is as follows:

 

Shrutivipratipanna te yadaa sthaasyati nischalaa

samaadhau achalaa buddhiH tadaa yogam avaapsyasi

 

When thy mind, perplexed by what thou hast heard, shall stand firm

and steady in the Self, then wilt thou attain Yoga.

 

The Acharya writes: yadaa= yasmin kaale sthaasyati=sthiriibhuutaa

bhavishyati nishchalaa=vikshepachalana-varjitaa satii

samaadhau....tadaa=tasmin kaale yogam avaapsyasi, viveka=prajnaam

samaadhim praapsyasi. (kindly see a good translation for English

rendering)Kindly note also that this is not some vague time. It is

the specific time when he is intensely focusing on the ATman that

this takes place.

 

Immediately upon hearing this, Arjuna asks about the sthitaprajna

lakshana. The Acharya introduces this verse: ...labdha-samaadhi-

prajnasya lakshana....

 

I showed this one among several instances just to show that sadhana

is not some vague proposition. For a sadhaka it is a question of

life and death. In the shastra for mumukshutvam various expressions

are given. One such is: Somehow or the other i shall strive to

attain realization in this life itself. Another is: A man whose hair

has caught fire would rush to a water source to extinguish the fire.

The 'sattvOdreka' of a sadhaka has been depicted by Sri Narasimha

Bharati SwaminaH of Sringeri in this manner: mokshe tvaraa na

sahate...Such an advanced adhikaari does not brook delay in attaining

moksha. If no specific path and a specific goal are there, the

Upanishads will have no end in the teaching. In all the examples we

saw above, then and there itself the goal is attained. Quite

characteristically, in all those cases the adhikaari was an uttama-

adhikari.

 

In the absence of a person who has attained the Goal, what indeed is

the meaning of the upanishadic teaching of 'shrotriya brahmanishtha'?

The Vivekachudamani Guru assures to the disciple who has come to take

refuge: Do not be afraid, i shall show you that path by which those

Sages have crossed this samsara.. In the absence of such definite,

identifiable cases, how can this assurance be given? The Acharya says

in the Bhashya, 'Shuko muktaH, Vamadevo MuktaH'..

 

I have come across a Jnani, Sri Venkatasubba Rao, a house-holder who

was initiated and blessed by a Jnani, Para Brahma. Sri Rao has

recorded his acquaintance, the teaching received and the place where

the 'shakti-paata' blessing took place in Sringeri and the date and

time of the experience he had. I have a copy of his experiences

typewritten by himself and which was given to me by his daughter

living in Chickmagalur since he is no more in body:

 

(quote)

I came in contact with him at Sringeri during 1956 and our late

Holiness Sri Sri Jagadguru Abhinava Vidyateertha Mahaswamigal

confirmed that he was a Raja Yogi and a practical Vedantin. He was

in a Sadhu or Avadhuta form. He was blessed by Sri Sri

Chandrashekhara Bharati Mahaswamigal as was disclosed by Sri

Abhinava Vidyateertha Mahaswamigal.

 

Parabrahma initiated me at Harihareshwara Temple, Sringeri with

Pranava sometime in 1956. On 15.8.1956 I had Shakti-paata deeksha at

the residence of late Sri Ebrahim at a Muslim locality in Sringeri

Town at 8.30 PM. I was brought back to present state on 16.8.1956 at

8.30 AM. He said, 'You have no doubts, weak people carry religion,

be bold, tell your friends also'. (Unquote)( I am reminded of Sage

Yajnavalkya saying to Janaka: Abhayam vai Janaka praaptosi. O janaka,

thou hast attained the Fearless.

 

Sri Abhinava Vidyateertha Mahaswamigal, much earlier to this had

taught him just the first verse of Sridakshinamurtistotram upon Sri

Rao's request for formal Vedantic classes. The Acharyal had told

him, 'this one verse is enough for you' and suspended the class for

him thereafter. He has told me personally on one of my interactions

with him that he did not have the intellect for the Acharya's

bhashyams. He relied on some prakarana granthas for mananam.

Acharyal has tolk about this person to others: He has finished

everything in the earlier lives and has come just for the finality.

A strange thing that still puzzles me is: Acharyal Himself a

Jivanmukta could have initiated this person. But He chose to direct

him to Parabrahma, a Punjabi. Maybe a person's JnanaGuru is

predestined.

 

It is news for many that vedanta saakshatkara is an anubhava and that

it is a definite event. That is the reason i brought this up to the

notice of the List so that such of those who might not know about

this could become aware of this.

 

AT one time it was news to me as well, unbelievable. But the Grace

of the Guru made this acceptance possible without any difficulty. In

my humble opinion this is an act of grace no doubt. A record of such

events, historical, is indeed an assurance that the Vedanta sadhana

has a definite, verifiable culmination. It is in very rare cases

that it is maintained or recorded at all. The Mandukya Bhshya that

Sri Sundar Rajan ji just quoted is enough evidence for this 'event'

nature of the culmination of the sadhana. What more we want? We may

not have faith in the Acharyals of this or that peetham. But

Bhagavatpaadaa's words have no higher authority to dismiss. AT the

end of the bhashyam for the second chapter Gita, the Acharya writes:

The foregoing state, to renounce all and to dwell in Brahman, is the

Divine state, the state of Brahman. It pertains to and has its being

in Brahman. On reaching this state, one is no longer deluded.

Remaining in this state even at the last period of life, one attains

Moksha, the felicity of Brahman. And it needs no saying that he who

renounces while yet a brahmachari and dwells in Brahman throughout

life attains the felicity of Brahnam, the Brahma Nirvana.(unquote)

 

Just earlier he writes: such a man of steady knowledge, that man who

knows Brahman, attains peace, nirvana, the end of all the misery of

samsara. In short, he becomes the very Brahman.

 

With humble pranams to you,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v

wrote:

mokshe tvaraa na sahate...Such an advanced adhikaari does not brook

delay in attaining moksha.

 

Namaste,

In the above, the word 'tvaraa' has to be replaced by and read

as 'vilambam'. Instead of using a word to convey 'delay'i used the

opposite, in a 'hurry' to go to bed. The error is regretted.

 

 

With humble pranams,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

Michael Comans, a well renowned Advaitic scholar, and author of a

doctoral thesis on Adviata moda and many other vedanta books has this

to write about the authorship of the Vivekachoodamani(VC).

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Michael Comans, a direct desciple of Swamy Dayananda Saraswati, Arsha Vidya

Gurukulam has also written a scholarly article on role of nirvikalpa

samAdhi in advaita realization & clearly proved in that article that NS

experience is NOT indispensable for advaitic realization....sometime back

Sri Sundar rajan (or Sri Kathirasan prabhuji) had forwarded that link...but

right now I dont have that linK...Sri Sundar prabhuji, may I trouble you

once again??

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

Namaste Bhaskarji,

 

You can find the full article here:

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/comans.htm

 

On 8/31/06, bhaskar.yr (AT) in (DOT) abb.com <bhaskar.yr (AT) in (DOT) abb.com> wrote:

>

> Michael Comans, a well renowned Advaitic scholar, and author of a

> doctoral thesis on Adviata moda and many other vedanta books has this

> to write about the authorship of the Vivekachoodamani(VC).

>

> praNAms

> Hare Krishna

>

> Michael Comans, a direct desciple of Swamy Dayananda Saraswati, Arsha Vidya

> Gurukulam has also written a scholarly article on role of nirvikalpa

> samAdhi in advaita realization & clearly proved in that article that NS

> experience is NOT indispensable for advaitic realization....sometime back

> Sri Sundar rajan (or Sri Kathirasan prabhuji) had forwarded that link...but

> right now I dont have that linK...Sri Sundar prabhuji, may I trouble you

> once again??

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

>

>

>

>

Namaste dear all,

 

advaitin/message/32880

On 8/31/06, bhaskar.yr <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> Michael Comans, a well renowned Advaitic scholar,

> and author of a

> doctoral thesis on Adviata moda and many other

> vedanta books has this

> to write about the authorship of the

Vivekachoodamani(VC).

 

The author of this article quoted various references

as per the following strategy:-

 

A) Set of references (A) which convey that NS cannot

be the cause of liberation.

B) Set of references (B) which convey that, "By the

Nirvikalpaka Samadhi the truth of Brahman is

clearly and definitely realized, but not

otherwise".

C) Refuting (B), it was stated that the references

used in (B) were not possibly authored by Sankara

thereby refuting NS.

 

 

In the beginning of the article, other than quoting

symptoms such as,

"The hair on the head and body stood erect;

The half-closed eyes became fixed", the author does

not convey anything worthwhile to describe Samadhi and

rightfully conveys that 'they tell us nothing' ending

the paragraph with a '?', thus showing an utter lack

of understanding as to what is more relevant in

describing Samadhi.

 

It is only further down the line that the author

quotes from Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan,

"In samadhi we have a

sense of immediate contact with ultimate reality.."

 

In my opinion, this is certainly more important than

hair standing erect and must be mentioned first.

 

In contrast, we may recall how nicely the

brahma-sutras start...

 

Although the article is a good complilation of

references for (A) and (B),

one has to carefully read such articles where an

author discredits something thru unimporatant aspects

such as 'hair', etc.

 

 

The author states,

'The first point to be noted is that the word

samadhi does not occur in the ten major Upanisads

upon which Sankara has commented'.

 

The author himself admitted that NS was known as

Asamprajnatasamadhi

in earlier times. Asamprajnatasamadhi would be known

by a different name in the upanishads. Besides, in

Upanishad times, people did not find a need to

explicitly state what is obvious to all in those days

and implicitly contained in all mantras neverthless.

For eg., in the mahavakya, "tat vam asi", 'tat' itself

may contain reference to samadhi, which

the author, dwelling on externals, could not show for

the existence of such a possibility thru diving deep

into the upanishads.

 

At best, the author quotes references about Samadhi

from upanishads as,

"concentrated, collected, brought together, or

composed."

The author yet again conveyed only external symptoms

in the name of samadhi.

 

The list goes on... i am stopping here...with the

wonderful mantra,

 

'om poornamadah poornamidam...'

 

Kind regards,

Raghava

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________

India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new

http://in.answers./

I, for one, would like to thank Shyam-ji for pointing out the

Vivekachudamani authorship issue.

 

I certainly agree with Ram-ji that this should not be a topic for the list

but in this case it is clearly very relevant when the views of Shankara

(which after all are essentially the subject of these discussion) seem to be

in question. I was certainly of the opinion that nirvikalpa samAdhi was not

a sine qua non for realization so that I found the quotes from VC somewhat

strange. Members may also recall I raised a question on the VC statement

regarding the attitude to shruti a few months back. If someone then had

reminded me of the authorship issue, I would have been much less confused! I

agree entirely that VC is a superb introduction to Advaita (and I second the

view that Swami Dayananda's 'Talks on 108 verses' is excellent) but I feel

that one should be aware of the queries over these two issues so as not to

give too much credence to them when considering the teaching of Shankara.

Accordingly I am very grateful for the extract from the Coman's article.

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

Namaste all

 

This issue of the authorship of Vivekachudamani about which so much

is written on the web puzzles me about the ego of man in the

following sense.

 

We quote a lot of modern poets and writers. We enjoy recognising the

great permanent truths of mankind in their writings. We revel in the

excitement of exchanging their writings, quotes, etc. among

ourselves. And at the same time when somebody quotes

Vivekachudamani, instead of dwelling on the subject of the quote, a

question is raised; "Did Shankara write it? Can you tell me from the

Prasthana-traya?"

 

What a partiality!

Where hast thou gone?! Oh Rig Vedic Quote!

"A no bhadrAH kratavo yantu vishvataH"

Let noble thoughts come to us from every side!

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

Namaste,

 

Two jivanmukta-s within the lifetimes of many of us wrote on

Vivekachudamani:

 

http://www.srisharada.com/vivekachudamani.htm

 

Sri Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati Mahaswamigal ( the 34th pontiff) of the

Sri Sharada Peetam wrote a sanskrit commentary on Vivekachudamani. You

can read here the english translation of this great work, translated

by Sri. P. Sanakaranarayanan.

 

http://www.ramana-maharshi.org/m_path/2006/jan_2006/jan_2006_frameset.htm

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi translated into Tamil Sankara's Dakshinamurti

Stotra, Vivekachudamani and Atma Bodha and in talks with devotees

elaborated on the subtle points of the tradition using Sankara's

viewpoint as a reference.

 

Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati's disciple and successor, Sw. Abhihnava

Bharati Tirtha, also a jivanmukta, has written on Nirvikalpa Samadhi

(ref. to Sri Subbuji's recent messages).

 

If we counter these thoughts only by 'shAstrArtha-pANDityam' the

loss would only be ours.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote:

>

> Namaste all

>

> This issue of the authorship of Vivekachudamani about which so much

> is written on the web puzzles me about the ego of man in the

> following sense.

>

> We quote a lot of modern poets and writers. We enjoy recognising the

> great permanent truths of mankind in their writings. We revel in the

> excitement of exchanging their writings, quotes, etc. among

> ourselves. And at the same time when somebody quotes

> Vivekachudamani, instead of dwelling on the subject of the quote, a

> question is raised; "Did Shankara write it? Can you tell me from the

> Prasthana-traya?"

>

> What a partiality!

> Where hast thou gone?! Oh Rig Vedic Quote!

> "A no bhadrAH kratavo yantu vishvataH"

> Let noble thoughts come to us from every side!

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh

wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> Two jivanmukta-s within the lifetimes of many of us wrote on

> Vivekachudamani:

>

> http://www.srisharada.com/vivekachudamani.htm

>

> Sri Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati Mahaswamigal ( the 34th pontiff) of

the

> Sri Sharada Peetam wrote a sanskrit commentary on Vivekachudamani.

You

> can read here the english translation of this great work, translated

> by Sri. P. Sanakaranarayanan.

>

> http://www.ramana-

maharshi.org/m_path/2006/jan_2006/jan_2006_frameset.htm

>

> Sri Ramana Maharshi translated into Tamil Sankara's Dakshinamurti

> Stotra, Vivekachudamani and Atma Bodha and in talks with devotees

> elaborated on the subtle points of the tradition using Sankara's

> viewpoint as a reference.

>

> Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati's disciple and successor, Sw. Abhihnava

> Bharati Tirtha, also a jivanmukta, has written on Nirvikalpa Samadhi

> (ref. to Sri Subbuji's recent messages).

>

> If we counter these thoughts only by 'shAstrArtha-pANDityam' the

> loss would only be ours.

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

 

Srigurubhyo NamaH

Namaste,

 

While not raking up the authorship controversy, i would like to say a

few things on this matter. It is noteworthy that in the excellent

commentary in Sanskrit written by the above Jagadguru, all the verses

that the others feel unconfortable with and therefore 'censored' or

chopped off from the original text, were happily commented upon.

Only after the 516th verse onwards, i have reliably learnt, that the

Acharya ceased to proceed with the commentary as he felt very indrawn

on the message of these verses and said that these have to be

experienced only inwardly and not to be written upon.

 

I would like to draw the attention of members to the Bhagavad Gita

13th chapter verse: Dhyanena Atmani pashyanti kechit aatmaanam

atmanaa, anye saankhyena yogena....

 

This verse, from the Lord, clearly says that these two paths are

there for securing liberation, direct realization. We have seen from

other texts like Yogavaasishtha that Shri Sunder Rajan ji, recently

posted, that there are these two paths, based on the temperament of

the sadhaka. Some are temperamentally prone to dhyana and some

others naturally take to vichara. Yet, upon studying the various

commentaries of the Gita verse cited above, it became clear that the

path of Dhyana that the Lord first enumerated in the verse, is the

one taken by uttama adhikaris and the vichara is by madhyama

adhikaris. Even here, the commentators point out that the final

realization is secured only by dhyana (at that moment). Without

jumping to furious debate over this, let us see some reason behind

this categorisation. I recently quoted from the Jivanmukti viveka

about those who having practiced meditation from the beginning, to

the stage of obtaining 'upaasya devataa saakshAtkara' and tread the

path of Vedanta, the result is that their obtaining the Atman

Realization and the establishment in Jivanmukti is simultaneous. For

the others whom the revered author of the Jivanmukti viveka termed

those who have not done the prior preparations and embark upon

Vedanta, no doubt the realization is secured, by stint of enthusiasm

and sincere application to shravana, etc., but the jivanmukti is not

as easily secured.

 

What is jivanmukti that is referred to here? It is the continuous

feeling of supreme peace and joy of Atman being reflected in the

mukta's mind. Due to prarabdha various things come to a person but

these are likely to affect the mind even of a jnani, being 'drishta

duHkha'. While a yogi-Jnanin will easily manage these problems, the

other jnani will definitely have problems with these. The reason is

this: While the former, due to his constant practice of withdrawing

his mind from the external world, undertaken earlier and continued

even after obtaining Jivanmukti, as a result of habit, the

afflictions are easily withstood. The Panchadashi has the last five

chapters as 'Ananda'. The 11 chapter gives a detailed account of how

for a sadhaka of the dhyana type, the 'smriti', memory of the joy

experienced during meditation is available always on tap. A friend

who is a sadhaka of this type residing in Chennai, eventhough working

in a very responsible position of having to manage a garment export

unit with a lot of labourers, purchase of material, seeking orders,

executing the orders, etc. reported that the supreme peace of the

morning meditation lingers in him always. This is a real-life

example.

 

In the other type, since the mind is not given to withdraw from

outside, eventhough not seeking the 'objectionable', still, being

naturally exposed to the 'bahir-mukhataa', does not enjoy this

peace. That is the reason why the Jivanmukti viveka, a whole book

dedicated to the attainment of jivanmukti prescribes various means

for the one who has problems to tackle them.

 

There are Jnanis who have become so from either of these paths. For

example, i had mentioned in this List earlier that Sri

Chandrashekhara Bharati SwaminaH was of the vichara type which none

other than his successor Acharya has said. Yet, i heard from a

reliable source that the commentary of the Vivekachudamani on the

verses dealing with Nirvikalpa Samadhi are immaculately written by

the Acharya. The 'constant peace' question is accounted for in this

manner. What takes away peace is 'bahirmukhata'. What gives that

is 'antarmukhata', inward-turned nature. This Acharya was ever one

such. I have heard that even with respect to the Mutt's material

wealth, he was totally indifferent. When asked to come and view the

exquisite array of ornaments of Sharadambal accumulated over the

centuries as gifts from various Kings, the Acharya refused even to

look at them. He remarked, 'there are designated officers for the

purpose, let them take care'. I mentioned this just to show that,

as the Jivanmukti viveka says, renunciation is the key to peace. We

have also witnessed the Paramacharya of Kanchi who lived such a life

of great renunciation.

 

Now coming to a particular verse of the Vivekachudamani which says

that Nirvikalpa Samadhi is the only means to securing realization, i

would like to say this:

 

The dhyana of nididhyasanam of Brihadaranyaka upanishad is of several

degrees of intensity. Even with the last three limbs of Yoga, namely

dharana, dhyana and samadhi, it is said that they are all only

different degrees of absorption in meditation. Now, in Vedanta

sadhana, this dhyana, at a particular level of intensity is capable

of producing Atman Knowledge and liberating the person. But when

such realization is had by even an increased intensity of dhyana,

which perhaps could take the name of samadhi, nirvikalpa samadhi,

etc., produces Atma jnana of a strength much more than what is

obtained in the earlier level of intensity. The reason for my saying

this is this: We have seen from the account of Sri Ramana Maharshi's

life where although the realization was secured in the 'death

experience' in Madurai, soon after coming to Arunachala, he went

into, or rather was drawn into, severe deep samadhi extending several

weeks or days in the paataala lingam, cellar shrine. The people who

chanced to see him there had a tough time retrieving him from there.

He had to be virtually 'pulled off' the floor to which his bottoms

had stuck owing to puss, blood, etc. caused by insect bite. For a

sage to have remained in that state unmindful of the physical pain

caused, is something unimaginable. However, as he has himself said

later, an account of which was posted here by Peter, i think, there

is a need for stabilizing the secured realization for initially it

will be somewhat weak.

 

This we saw even in the case of Sri Abhinava Vidyateertha SwaminaH

where he said that repeated resorting to NS results in stabilizing

the realization and securing jivanmukti.

 

Reverting to the Vivekachudamani verse in question, i think it has to

be seen in this way. The emphasis 'only' is to signify that if, and

only if, the realization is had through NS, the resultant jivanmukti

is strong. If not, it will not be so. The Acharya writes in the

commentary: the reason for this is said: Because, otherwise, the

realization cannot be had with a mind given to movement. ' Now,

every upanishad says that the realization occurs when the mind is

kept without movement. There is a need for intense focusing of the

mind on the Atman alone and in one such moment, the realization

occurs. There is this vaakyam: drishyate tu agryayaa buddhyaa,

suukshmayaa sookshma-darshibhiH'. The Atman is apprehended with a

trained, sharpened buddhi. The Vivekachudamani verse says: atiiva

suukshmam paramaartha tattvam, na sthoola buddhya pratipattum arhati.

samaadhinaa atyanta suukshma vrittya jnaatvyam aaryaiH ati-shuddha

buddhibhiH'. The Atman is extremely subtle and cannot be grasped by

a gross intellect. By samadhi which is an extremely subtle

modification of the mind, it has to be apprehended by those of pure

mind. What is the problem here? How is this 'alien' to the

Upanishad teaching for the need for an extremely subtle intellect?

Does not the upanishad make the requirement of an extremely subtle

intellect a sine qua non for realization? Why frown by the sight of

the word nirvikalpa/samadhi which also does not mean anything

different from the upanishadic specification?

 

Again, the objection about 'belittling the scripture' in the

verse 'shruteH shatagunam', i do not see any problem. It says NS is

infinitely great even than nididhyasanam. What is wrong with this?

In the background of what has been said in the foregoing paras, what

is meant here is only another degree in the intensity of meditation,

absorption. When the nididhyasanam, for argument's sake, produces

realization, the NS produces establishment in Brahman Knoewledge and

Jivanmukti. Where is the problem in this?

 

I shall conclude with another real-life case, for the understanding

of the scriptures is enhanced only and only by looking into real-life

cases. A renowned Jnani who had attained sAkshAtkAram through the

vichara marga was once 'advised' by Sri Abhinava Vidyateertha

Swamigal to take up a mode of dhyana. It would surprise many. But

these are some facts obtaining in real-life.

 

Finally, the authorship problem is not intrinsic to those who have

come or who are following a sampradaya. The Acharyas of traditional

Mutts have held certain works as that of Adishankara. When a work

like vivekachudamani is taken up for exposition by a teacher coming

under the sampradaya, there is absolutely no question on its

authorship arising in the student's mind. It is in our sampradaya

and that is the end of it. There is no more questioning on this.

What right do others who have no training in any such sampradaya have

to comment on these things? Why do they interfere in these things?

Did the Renowned Jivanmukta Acharya who wrote such a beautiful,

instructive, sadhana-oriented commentary, do it for the sake of a

doctorate? With the Pandityam he had he could have raised and

answered any number of questions. But this is not an area for such

gymnastics. Let others, please, keep off this sacred field.

 

My humble pranams to all,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

Pranams Bhaskar-ji and Kathirasan-ji

Many thanks for taking the trouble of providing that

wonderful link.

I had not had the pleasure of reading that exposition

before, and was struck by its scholarship and lack of

bias. It has certainly added a lot of value to the

discussions that we are having.

 

Humble pranams

Hari OM

Shyam

 

--- K Kathirasan <brahmasatyam > wrote:

 

> Namaste Bhaskarji,

>

> You can find the full article here:

> http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/comans.htm

>

> On 8/31/06, bhaskar.yr (AT) in (DOT) abb.com

> <bhaskar.yr (AT) in (DOT) abb.com> wrote:

> >

> > Michael Comans, a well renowned Advaitic scholar,

> and author of a

> > doctoral thesis on Adviata moda and many other

> vedanta books has this

> > to write about the authorship of the

> Vivekachoodamani(VC).

> >

> > praNAms

> > Hare Krishna

> >

> > Michael Comans, a direct desciple of Swamy

> Dayananda Saraswati, Arsha Vidya

> > Gurukulam has also written a scholarly article on

> role of nirvikalpa

> > samAdhi in advaita realization & clearly proved in

> that article that NS

> > experience is NOT indispensable for advaitic

> realization....sometime back

> > Sri Sundar rajan (or Sri Kathirasan prabhuji) had

> forwarded that link...but

> > right now I dont have that linK...Sri Sundar

> prabhuji, may I trouble you

> > once again??

> >

> > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> > bhaskar

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk

wrote:

>And at the same time when somebody quotes

> Vivekachudamani, instead of dwelling on the subject of the quote, a

> question is raised; "Did Shankara write it? Can you tell me from

the

> Prasthana-traya?"

>

> What a partiality!

> Where hast thou gone?! Oh Rig Vedic Quote!

> "A no bhadrAH kratavo yantu vishvataH"

> Let noble thoughts come to us from every side!

 

Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

Vivekachudamani is a great book, a very popular text, no doubt

about it. The authorship is attributed to Sri Shankara.Sri Shankara

has written commentaries to Prasthanatraya, and it has been taken to

be authoratitive. The unique feature of the commentaries is that

nowhere in them the reader will come across with anything which

contradicts the thought positions which have been established as the

genuine Adwaitic doctrine by Sri Shankara.

So many ideas about the vedanta doctine and Sadhana which

appear in Vivekachudamani do not confirm with the ones which have

been stated in prasthanatraya commentaries. Then how can one accept

such ideas of Vivekachudamani as the ones taught by Sri Sankara? So

many Vedantins who devoted their life time for a study in depth of

the commentaries have seen clearly of these anomalies and pointed out

the same. So one who is familiar with the commentaries will question

when something is passed on as the teaching of Sri Shankara, which is

contrary to what has been stated in the commentaries.He will ask for

the proof from the commentaries.

The Mantra from Rigveda, quoted by you, is a marvellous one. It

states "Let noble thoughts come to us from every side". Let those

thoughts be CORRECT ONES , but not, WRONG AND FALSE ONES. That is

what Sri Gaudapada and Sri Shankara have done. They have accepted the

right ones from every darshana and they have refuted and rejected

the wrong ones, however great may be the founders of those darshanas.

We should also follow the same principle and should not accept

blindly everything from texts which purport to teach Advaitha

doctrine.Let us accept whatever is true and reject the incorrect ones.

I have shared some of my thoughts.

With warm and respectful regards

Sreenivasa Murthy

advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v

wrote:

"What is jivanmukti that is referred to here? It is the continuous

feeling of supreme peace and joy of Atman being reflected in the

mukta's mind. Due to prarabdha various things come to a person but

these are likely to affect the mind even of a jnani, being 'drishta

duHkha'. While a yogi-Jnanin will easily manage these problems, the

other jnani will definitely have problems with these. The reason is

this: While the former, due to his constant practice of withdrawing

his mind from the external world, undertaken earlier and continued

even after obtaining Jivanmukti, as a result of habit, the

afflictions are easily withstood."

 

Dear Subbu-ji,

 

Pranams

 

A jnani or jivanmukta is a Perfected Seer, A rare Man at the pinnacle

of wisdom. A jnani is Brahman. Avidya is mithya.

 

If a jnani has problems - and a "Yogi-jnani" has less problems than a

"other jnani" (these are new terminologies for someone not as

well-read like me) then where is moksha??

Mount Kailash will need to expend more effort to be still in the face

of a slight breeze than a jnani in the face of these so-called

afflictions you refer to, which belong to the realm of the vyavaharic

world - the very world the jnani has long transcended by destruction

(final and complete) of avidya.

Where is the question of a jnani having to "manage problems"?

The life of a jnani(there is only one jnani, just as there is only one

nondual brahman in my humble opinion - no subtypes here!!) is a

SPONTANEOUS abidance in peace and fullness. There is no question of

any previous practice - all in the realm of avidya- that he had

undertaken being of any benefit to him anymore - be it yoga or

scriptural study.

 

 

One more small note..

 

"This verse, from the Lord, clearly says that these two paths are

there for securing liberation, direct realization. We have seen from

other texts like Yogavaasishtha that Shri Sunder Rajan ji, recently

posted, that there are these two paths, based on the temperament of

the sadhaka. Some are temperamentally prone to dhyana and some

others naturally take to vichara. Yet, upon studying the various

commentaries of the Gita verse cited above, it became clear that the

path of Dhyana that the Lord first enumerated in the verse, is the

one taken by uttama adhikaris and the vichara is by madhyama

adhikaris."

 

Bhagwaan Krishna has himself indicated that there is nothing more

sanctifying than Jnanam - a person as wonderfully scholarly as you

would be the foremost to assert that the entire teacing of the Gita

extolls jnanam - to read into this line that atmavichara is for

madhyama adhikaris goes against the very spirit underlying the Gita.

 

"tad viddhi pranipatena

pariprasnena sevaya

upadeksyanti te jnanam

jnaninas tattva-darsinah

yathaidhamsi samiddho 'gnir

bhasmasat kurute 'rjuna

jnanagnih sarva-karmani

bhasmasat kurute tatha

sraddhaval labhate jnanam

tat-parah samyatendriyah

jnanam labdhva param santim

acirenadhigacchati"

 

Again not being very wellread, it is news to me that this process of

atmavichara for attaining jnanam is being interpreted by some to mean

that it is considered suitable for people unqualified for dhyana??

Nowhere in his commentary in the Gita (or anywhere) does Shankara make

this (mis)classification either directly or indirectly about yoga

being more suitable for uttama adhikaris and atmavichara being more

suitable for madhyama adhikaris. There is NEVER any atmavichara

without dhyana - to think otherwise is childish. Anyone who believes

in such a classification would do well to focus their attention on a

different line, from the same 13th chapter which begins with the (most

important) words "amanitvam, adambhitvam.." that define who a uttama

adhikari really is.

 

Humble pranams once again,

 

Hari OM

Shyam

advaitin, "shyam_md" <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Dear Subbu-ji,

>

> Pranams

>just as there is only one

> nondual brahman in my humble opinion - no subtypes here!!) is a

> SPONTANEOUS abidance in peace and fullness. There is no question of

> any previous practice - all in the realm of avidya- that he had

> undertaken being of any benefit to him anymore - be it yoga or

> scriptural study.

>

 

Dear Shyam ji,

So did i think for long until i was 'introduced' to that wonderful

book titled 'Jivanmukti-viveka' by Swami Vidyaranya. As it is

impossible to give the whole of it on posts, i am just referring to

the name. It is available in English in the Advaitin List

resources. Still the original or the English translation by Adayar

Library is very good. If possible pl. read it. A only one of its

kind marvel.

 

Many Many pranams,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

Subbu said:

 

> Dear Shyam ji,

> So did i think for long until i was 'introduced' to that wonderful

> book titled 'Jivanmukti-viveka' by Swami Vidyaranya. As it is

> impossible to give the whole of it on posts, i am just referring to

> the name. It is available in English in the Advaitin List

> resources. Still the original or the English translation by Adayar

> Library is very good. If possible pl. read it. A only one of its

> kind marvel.

>

> Many Many pranams,

> subbu

> Om Tat Sat

 

I read only some articles on the net about the interesting work of

Swami Vidyaranya.

One can say, only the mind makes distinctions and divides stages and

people ad infinitum, yet as a practitioner when the first stages of

permanent joy have settled, as described by Patanjali and commented by

Purohit swami:

http://paroissien.free.fr/ref/purohitpatanjali.htm

 

... it means the whole world to who has left the realm of permanent

worries and stress; we have known death so often that it has left a

permanent stain on our soul, left us life-shy, this is why we are so

reluctant to give up our precious comfort and worldly pleasures and

dedicate ourselves to the death issue.

Sri Ramana proposed different stages of jivanmukta and Buddha spoke of

nirvana with residues and without residues.

When Sri Ramana was in pain he was shouting so that people in the

Ashram could not sleep, his immediate entourage explained it in the

morning saying it was yoga exercises, but he himself said:

"There is pain, but there is no suffering".

His entourage had a stricter view of his realization, he should have

felt nothing at all as other masters did when dying.

Realization being, by implication, the only 'personal business' in

this world, views about its outward expression are, by implication,

second hand.

 

Link: http://www.factbites.com/topics/Jivanmukta

 

Thank you.

 

 

Eric

And at the same time when somebody quotes

Vivekachudamani, instead of dwelling on the subject of the quote, a

question is raised; "Did Shankara write it? Can you tell me from the

Prasthana-traya?"

What a partiality!

Where hast thou gone?! Oh Rig Vedic Quote!

"A no bhadrAH kratavo yantu vishvataH"

Let noble thoughts come to us from every side!

 

Humble praNAms respected Professor prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I beg your goodself to differ from your above view point. When the

question here is about *shankara siddhAnta nirNaya* & his stand on certain

concepts, the referential documents/basic premise (pramANa grantha) is

bhagavadpAda-s prasthAna trayi bhAshya ONLY & we cannot quote some

prakaraNa grantha-s for which authorship is in question...Traditionally,

whenever there is a conflict in determining the doctrinal issues within

traditional circle, the first premise that traditionalists use is nyAya

prasthAna (sUtra bhAshya) with appropriate support from shruti & smruti

prasthAna. Hence, post shankara Acharyas from bhAmati & vivaraNa schools

first written sub-commentaries (vyAkhyAna) on shankara's sUtra bhAshya to

prove their point....I dont think, they have quoted from prakaraNa

granthA-s (which are in shankara's name) to prove their siddhAnta....

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

Hello Eric,

 

Can I have the source or web link from which

the following incident is quoted?

 

Regards

ramasamy

 

 

> When Sri Ramana was in pain he was shouting so that people in the

> Ashram could not sleep, his immediate entourage explained it in the

> morning saying it was yoga exercises,

>

>

> Eric

>

Namaste Eric,

 

I'm not sure that Sri Ramana "proposed", as such, there were different

stages of Jivanmukti. He did answer questions put to him based on the

existing classifications. Here is an extract from "Talks". The passage

that is most valuable, imho, is, "There is no difference in the samadhi

state or the jnana of the jnanis. The classification is only from the

standpoint of the observer."

 

----------------

"A question was asked regarding the position of one whose jnana is weak in

the scheme of things. The doubt was if that manda Jnani had stopped short of

kevala nirvikalpa.

 

M.: Kevala nirvikalpa happens even in the tanumanasi stage (of attenuated

mind).

 

D.: The middling and superior jnanis are said to be jivanmuktas. Kevala

nirvikalpa is in tanumanasa. Where does one whose jnana is weak fit in?

 

M.: He comes in sattvapatti (realisation) - whereas the middling and the

superior ones come in asamsakti and padarthabhavini respectively. This

division as dull, middling, and superior is according to the momentum of

prarabdha. If it is strong he is weak; if it is middling he is middling too;

if prarabdha is weak he is superior; if it is very weak he is in turyaga.

There is no difference in the samadhi state or the jnana of the jnanis. The

classification is only from the standpoint of the observer.

 

D.: Is tanumanasi the same as mumukshutva?

 

M.: No. The six qualities, discrimination, dispassion and mumukshutva, etc.,

precede subhechcha. The first stage follows mumukshutva, then comes

vicharana (search), then the tenuous mind. Direct perception is in

sattvapatti (realisation). There is no need to discuss similar points.

Jivanmukti and Videhamukti are differently described by different

authorities; Videhamukti is sometimes said to occur even when the man is

seen with a body. The fact is that mukti is another name for Aham ('I'). The

Seven Jnana bhumikas (stages of knowledge) are:

 

(1) Subhechcha (desire for enlightenment);

(2) Vicharana (hearing and reflection);

(3) Tanumanasi (tenuous mind);

(4) Sattvapatti (Self-Realisation);

(5) Asamsakti (non-attachment);

(6) Padarthabhavani (absolute non-perception of objects);

(7) Turyaga (beyond words).

 

Those who have attained the last four Bhumikas are respectively called

Brahmavit, Brahmavidvara, Brahmavidvarya and Brahmavidvarishtha."

(Talks 256)

------------------------

 

On the subject of pain and Sri Ramana, you may be interested in the

following - posted on

http://acalayoga.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_acalayoga_archive.html

 

QUOTE:

 

Ramana Maharshi and pain:

 

An excerpt from a new book - The Extraordinary Healing Power of Ordinary

Things by Larry Dossey:

 

"An example comes from the life of Sri Ramana Maharishi, perhaps the

most beloved saint of modern India. Maharishi was afflicted with cancer at

the end of his life, and he would cry out in pain at night. His screams

often prevented those who had come to study at his ashram from sleeping.

Some of his devotees, wanting to put the best possible face on things,

insisted that their teacher was not really in pain, but was using "yogic

control." On hearing this rationale, Maharishi objected. "There is pain," he

explained, "but there is no suffering" - a reminder that pain and serenity

can coexist, and are not required to annihilate each other."

 

The above is interesting but one might ponder Mahadevan's version of events

in "Bhagavan Ramana" [available as free PDF download from Ramana Maharshi

web site <http://ramana-maharshi.org/> ]:

 

"Towards the end of 1948 a small nodule appeared below the elbow of

his left arm. As it grew in size, the doctor in charge of the Asrama

dispensary cut it out. But in a month's time it reappeared. Surgeons from

Madras were called, and they operated. The wound did not heal, and the

tumour came again. On further examination it was diagnosed that the

affection was a case of sarcoma. The doctors suggested amputating the arm

above the affected part. Ramana replied with a smile : "There is no need for

alarm. The body is itself a disease. Let it have its natural end. Why

mutilate it? Simple dressing of the affected part will do." Two more

operations had to be performed, but the tumour appeared again. Indigenous

systems of medicine were tried; and homeopathy too. The disease did not

yield itself to treatment. The sage was quite unconcerned, and was supremely

indifferent to suffering. He sat as a spectator watching the disease waste

the body. But his eyes shone as bright as ever; and his grace flowed towards

all beings. Crowds came in large numbers. Ramana insisted that they should

be allowed to have his darsana. Devotees profoundly wished that the sage

should cure his body through an exercise of supernormal powers. Some of them

imagined that they themselves had had the benefit of these powers which they

attributed to Ramana. Ramana had compassion for those who grieved over the

suffering, and he sought to comfort them by reminding them of the truth that

Bhagavan was not the body : "They take this body for Bhagavan and attribute

suffering to him. What a pity! They are despondent the Bhagavan is going to

leave them and go away - where can he go, and how?"

 

UNQOUTE

 

Kind regards to all advaitins,

 

Peter

--- subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote:

> Dear Shyam ji,

> So did i think for long until i was 'introduced' to

> that wonderful

> book titled 'Jivanmukti-viveka' by Swami Vidyaranya.

 

Dear Subbu-ji

 

Pranams.

 

Many thanks - I have not read that book yet - perhaps

on account of the fact that none of the contemporary

acharyas such as Swami Chinmayananda-ji and others

have written any books or lectured on it that I know

of, I had perhaps erroneously not attached much

importance to that work.

 

Your word is enough to assure me about its utility and

importance, and I have already located an online

source where it is downloadable for my subsequent

study!

 

However, if indeed His Holiness Vidyaranya-ji talks

about problems for a jnani, I would very humbly have

serious reservations on that score.

 

In all your reading have you come across Bhagwan

Sankara saying a jnani has problems??

 

Bhagwan Krishna goes overboard in his descriptions of

a jnani(jivanmukta) as being unaffected by the

happenings to his body/mind.

 

duhkhesv anudvigna-manah

sukhesu vigata-sprhah

vita-raga-bhaya-krodhah

sthita-dhir munir ucyate

 

yah sarvatranabhisnehas

tat tat prapya subhasubham

nabhinandati na dvesti

tasya prajna pratisthita

 

visaya vinivartante

niraharasya dehinah

rasa-varjam raso 'py asya

param drstva nivartate

 

prakasam ca pravrttim ca

moham eva ca pandava

na dvesti sampravrttani

na nivrttani kanksati

 

udasina-vad asino

gunair yo na vicalyate

guna vartanta ity evam

yo 'vatisthati nengate

 

sama-duhkha-sukhah sva-sthah

sama-lostasma-kancanah

tulya-priyapriyo dhiras

tulya-nindatma-samstutih

 

manapamanayos tulyas

tulyo mitrari-paksayoh

sarvarambha-parityagi

gunatitah sa ucyate

 

yatha sarva-gatam sauksmyad

akasam nopalipyate

sarvatravasthito dehe

tathatma nopalipyate

 

That it is a point of no return is also affirmed by

Bhagwaan at many places.

 

tad-buddhayas tad-atmanas

tan-nisthas tat-parayanah

gacchanty apunar-avrttim

jnana-nirdhuta-kalmasah

 

There is no denying that the previously unfructified

prarabdha, like a arrow that has already been

released, will continue to act on a jnanis body - and

will subject him to experiences good and bad - pain

and pleasure, happiness and sorrowful situations will

present themselves.

 

BUT when Bhagawan asserts that the jivanmukta is

indifferent to these - he is not saying that he is

indifferent to these situations WITH effort (howsoever

minute) - in that case the jnani is not too different

from a jiva. If a jnani also requires effort to remain

equanimous, and some jnanis require less effort than

others, then where is moksha or mukti (freedom)??.

Freedom or moksha refers not just to freedom from

rebirth which is simply an unimportant effect, but

more importantly to freedom from self-mis-identity -

freedom from kartrtvam and bhoktrtvam.

 

A jnani with "problems" which he has to take "efforts

to solve" means a jnani who has not understood his

a-kartrtvam and his a-bhoktrtvam. This person is not a

jnani - period, much less a jivanmukta.

 

If we say a jnani has problems and some jnanis have

less problems than others - then we open the door to

three classes of people - ajnani of course with

problems, jnani(jr.) with problems and jnani(sr.)

without problems. In this case a jnani with problems

will of course be envious of a jnani without problems,

may regret not having the prarabdha of another jnani

with less problems, will be worried about the next set

of problems even if the current problem has been

solved, etc - sounds very much like samsara to me.

 

This is absurd. If these questions are answered with

the assertion that the jnani is established in Brahman

and hence does not have regrets, envy, worries, etc

then it must equally be admitted that the jnani does

not have these problems to begin with, much less have

to rely on prior practices to overcome them!

 

Will a jnani's body have sukha-dukha and afflictions

from similair pairs of opposities - of course.

But these are always at the level of the body-mind,

not at the level of his self!

 

A jnani has firm and abiding knowledge that he is

Brahman. He is forever in (what you would call) the

Supreme Bliss of Brahman. How can this status be

challenged by situations he can clearly see are in the

realm of avidya. Will a man long awake be tormented by

his dream thirst from last night, and then will he

need the dream water to quench that thirst??!!

 

I think part of the problem is when we start regarding

avidya as something real. If it is real and can rear

its ugly head at anytime then yes - even a jnani could

be in trouble at some point. Only when we regard

avidya as real do we perhaps need a forced complete

stoppage of the mind and its activity with some peace

obtained in a state of nirvikalpa samadhi.

When avidya itself is unreal, and this is

crystalclearly ascertained to be so by a jnani, how

can he be affected, and that too to the extent that he

perceives a problem??

Practices like nirvikalpa samadhi, and that too to

help the jnani tackle his "problems" AFTER the

attainment of jnanam, are as meaningless as exorcism

to drive away the ghost that seemingly reappers in the

post!!

 

A Jnani has vanquished ignorance. He knows He is the

light of all lights, He is the very substratum of the

Universe, He is ..Shiva!

 

Hence, to ascribe subdivisions to a jnani (to my

ignorant mind) seem as ridiculous as assigning

subdivisions to Brahman!

 

My humble pranams

Shyam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Peter" <not_2 wrote:

>

>

>>

> ----------------

> "A question was asked regarding the position of one whose jnana is

weak in

> the scheme of things. The doubt was if that manda Jnani had

stopped short of

> kevala nirvikalpa.

>

> M.: Kevala nirvikalpa happens even in the tanumanasi stage (of

attenuated

> mind).

>

> D.: The middling and superior jnanis are said to be jivanmuktas.

Kevala

> nirvikalpa is in tanumanasa. Where does one whose jnana is weak

fit in?

>

> M.: He comes in sattvapatti (realisation) - whereas the middling

and the

> superior ones come in asamsakti and padarthabhavini respectively.

This

> division as dull, middling, and superior is according to the

momentum of

> prarabdha. If it is strong he is weak; if it is middling he is

middling too;

> if prarabdha is weak he is superior; if it is very weak he is in

turyaga.

> There is no difference in the samadhi state or the jnana of the

jnanis. The

> classification is only from the standpoint of the observer.

>

> D.: Is tanumanasi the same as mumukshutva?

>

> M.: No. The six qualities, discrimination, dispassion and

mumukshutva, etc.,

> precede subhechcha. The first stage follows mumukshutva, then comes

> vicharana (search), then the tenuous mind. Direct perception is in

> sattvapatti (realisation). There is no need to discuss similar

points.

> Jivanmukti and Videhamukti are differently described by different

> authorities; Videhamukti is sometimes said to occur even when the

man is

> seen with a body. The fact is that mukti is another name for Aham

('I'). The

> Seven Jnana bhumikas (stages of knowledge) are:

>

> (1) Subhechcha (desire for enlightenment);

> (2) Vicharana (hearing and reflection);

> (3) Tanumanasi (tenuous mind);

> (4) Sattvapatti (Self-Realisation);

> (5) Asamsakti (non-attachment);

> (6) Padarthabhavani (absolute non-perception of objects);

> (7) Turyaga (beyond words).

>

> Those who have attained the last four Bhumikas are respectively

called

> Brahmavit, Brahmavidvara, Brahmavidvarya and Brahmavidvarishtha."

> (Talks 256)

> ------------------------

>

Namaste, Peter-ji and all

 

Thanks for bringing to light this portion of Ramana's talks. These

seven BhUmikas were being discussed in detail by my father in his

YogAmRtam which I was translating on this list in 2005. I discovered

that his source was the famous Mahopanishad. I am glad you have

quoted Ramana's explanations of the same. Readers may want to go

back to the following posts on this list in this connection for the

explanations by the author of YogAmRtam::

 

YogAmRtam 10: advaitin/message/26323

YogAmRtam 11: advaitin/message/26364

YogAmRtam 12: advaitin/message/26403

YogAmRtam 13: advaitin/message/26432

 

and further messages Nos.26511, 26530 and 26541.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

> Dear Subbu-ji

>

> Pranams.

>

> Many thanks - I have not read that book yet - perhaps

> on account of the fact that none of the contemporary

> acharyas such as Swami Chinmayananda-ji and others

> have written any books or lectured on it that I know

> of, I had perhaps erroneously not attached much

> importance to that work.

>

> Your word is enough to assure me about its utility and

> importance, and I have already located an online

> source where it is downloadable for my subsequent

> study!

>

> However, if indeed His Holiness Vidyaranya-ji talks

> about problems for a jnani, I would very humbly have

> serious reservations on that score.

 

 

Namaste Dear Shyam ji,

 

Thanks for your response. The mind is such a complex thing that it

shares the same 'epithet' with Brahman, not available for

description by words, anirvachaniya. Without taking away the 'thrill'

out of your journey through the Jivanmukti viveka, let me state one

case that Sri Vidyaranya takes up in that work:

 

The scriptures can never be properly understood and appreciated

unless case studies are taken up. Ground reality bears a number of

lessons that supplements the true understanding of the Upanishadic

teaching. The spiritual sadhana and its attainment is a very

comprehensive one involving inputs both explicitly AND implicitly

mentioned in the Upanishads. Just as Brahman cannot be accurately

spoken of even by the Upanishads, so too the world = none other than

the mind.

 

Sage Yajnavalkya (of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad) decides to take up

sannyasa and before actually embarking upon it, he divides the family

property into two and gives one each to each of his wives. You know

the story of Maitreyi asking him some penetrating questions on Atman

and his replies. Now, Swami Vidyaranya sees that a Jnani that is

Yajnavalkya feels a need for sannyasa. From the earlier episodes

available in the Upanishads, Vidyaranya concludes that even though

Yajnavalkya was undoubtedly a Jnani (for, otherwise the Upanishad

that teaches his words on Atman would not be pramana), had engaged in

vociferous fierce debates (a stern warning to me), at all occasions

eyed the gold, cattle, etc. that came as prize-money in debates,

cursed Shakalya to death, etc. He found no peace of mind and decided

that unimpeded peace of mind is possible only when one withdraws from

these worldly engagements, hence the decision to renounce, despite

being a Jnani.

 

I do not want to say more. All the sthitaprajna lakshanas of the

Gita that you have quoted are, as we already saw several times, that

of a 'perfected' stage. The very attaining of realization was said

to be at the moment of the deep one-pointed concentration of the mind

on the ATman. Subsequently, the Lord starts describing the traits of

an established Jnani. In the course of this, he teaches the verses

II.60,61. on the 'practice' that one has to undertake for firmness in

prajnaa, enlightenment, obtained by the method we saw earlier. The

Acharya introduces these verses: He who would acquire steadiness of

right knowledge (prajnaa-sthairyam) should first bring the senses

under control. For, if not controlled, they will do harm. In the

verse the word 'vipashchitah' is extremely significant. It is not an

ignorant man. It refers to a 'mind possessed of discriminative

knowledge' as the Acharya puts it. What does this convey?

Enlightenment is had at a particular moment of deep concentration.

For it to become steady there are practices to be undertaken. Not

that the person did not control his senses earlier during sadhana

stage. He did. But now, after enlightenment, for the steadiness to

take roots, this control is even more essential. It is such a one

who has successfully undergone this 'course' that is spoken of as a

sthira-prajna, whose traits the Lord spoke and you quoted

elaborately. It is ONLY for such a person, those traits apply

truly. For all others, those traits are a model to work for.

 

I think i have said enough. Pl. also recall the two types of people

who strive for knowledge that i quoted from the Jivanmukti viveka.

That has a strong bearing on your question and this reply above. The

whole of JV is about this mind-management (trouble-shooting)

programme.

 

Pranams and warm regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat