[Advaita-l] Kutchu and his glasses - realising Brahman

[Siva Senani Nori]

lakshminaaraayaNaaya namah.
Sir
You are absolutely right. I am not qualified to know whether a person is self-realised or not. I fully acknowledge that and to the extent I am capable of, tried to reflect that by such things as referring to Brahma Sri Marko as Brahma Sri Marko, stating explicitly that he realised his Brahman-hood and so from his point of view, perception is Brahman. However, if you and others capture the dhvani of my response, which betrays that I am deeply sceptical of Brahma Sri Marko's status of being self-realised, I must admit that I am indeed deeply sceptical. 
Regarding Krishna Paramatma, whereas he did declare his Isvaratva (at birth, showing the entire universe in his mouth of Yasoda, showing his viSvarupa to Bhishma and others during pre-war negotiations, most famously in Bhagavadgita, during uttaragita and so on), he play-acted more times. If he were never to demonstrate it, how would the ignorant know the right path? He descended to establish dharma, "dharma-samsthaapana-arthaaya", did he not?
I am also in agreement with you regarding the manassaakshi. And being aware of it, I only said what I could not do, namely, transfer my money or disown my people, and not what other self-realised people do not. Yes, by that, I hoped to draw Brahma Sir Marko to respond explaining how he treats similar instances as I indeed wanted to know how he reconciles his knowledge with his myriad daily acts. He chose to sidestep that. 
So now I have to either understand that I am not fully qualified to understand Isvara's leela, or that Brahma Sri Marko is not self-realised.

The second does not benefit me in any way; whereas the first alternative, if followed upon properly, would improve me and someday, hopefully, make me eligible. So let me try that. And may the sangati of members of this list keep me on that path.
Senani


----- Original Message ----
> From: Lakshminarayana <narayana_kl_71 at yahoo.com>
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Sent: Saturday, August 9, 2008 10:59:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Kutchu and his glasses - realising Brahman
> 
> Dear Senani,
> 
> Without going into the subject of whether or not any member of
> this forum is self-realized, I want to say a few things about 
> jIvanmukta:"Traditionally, the self-realised do not declare so, and verynicely 
> play-act as if they are subject to maayaa, for the benefit of poor souls who are 
> still subject to maayaa."
> When Ishwara incarnated as Krishna, he declared himself as brahman. If the 
> traditional rule
> does not apply to Ishwara, why should it apply to a self-realized person?
> "Even the most reverred achaarya, bhagavatpaada, Sri Sankara,in hundreds of 
> pages of tight philosophical exposition..."
> 
> Sankara's personal self-realization is not relevant to the subject of his 
> bhAshyas. So there
> was no need for him to talk about his self-realization. One must also not 
> overlook the fact that only a realized person is fully competent to discern the 
> meaning of upanishads. Sankara himself says that the guru must be self-realized. 
> By writing the bhAshyas and by being a guru to his disciples, he was implicitly 
> acknowledging his status as a realized person.
> "the inability to treat my bank balance as yours and transfer 
> all my money to you - one ought to acknowledge that one's
> realisation is not sound, that one is still under the influence
> of avidyaa and thinks that there is something called mine,
> his, hers and so on."There are two different aspects of this inability. The 
> first is a genuine inability in which case
> only the person knows whether or not he is genuinely unable to transfer his 
> balance. In this case the person is not self-realized. But only he will know it 
> because he cannot cheat himself.
> 
> The second is purely apparent inability - from the reference frame of others. 
> Especially, if as you said, a realized person might also play by the rules of 
> the mAya, he can also express this apparent inability. However, there is no 
> reason why this should make others infer that he is not self-realized.
> 
> In both cases, only the person knows. One can cheat others but one cannot cheat 
> oneself.
> 
> Best Regards
> -Lakshminarayana
>