[Advaita-l] Physical death of the Jnani and related issues
anbesivam2 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 4 13:56:37 CST 2010
Quote: "We also have to ask ourselves - where does this saMskAra abide and
it control? Obviously, this residual saMskAra does not abide in the Atman.
it abide merely in the physical body devoid of a mind. There HAS to be a
the jnAnI in which this residual impression of prior mithyAjnAna stays for
The question, Vidyasankarji, is if the gnyaani is attached to this body or
detached from this body. Also if the gnyaani is the same as Brahman.
If the answer is that the gnyaani is detached and that he is same as Brahman
then it would occur to me to ask the question if there is any difference in
jadathwam of the body of one who attained jeevan mukthi and the jadathwam of
a piece of rock.
Because Bhagavan Ramana has said that 'dhEhaathma buddhE gnyajadou
samaanou', we would have to assume that anyone who says that the jeevan
muktha has dhEhaathma buddhi would have to conclude that he the jeevan
muktha is a jadam! Or that Bhagavan Ramana is dead wrong in his contention!
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <
svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I would suggest that this entire debate can be resolved by carefully
> the wording in the bhAshya.
> Bhaskar quotes -
> > > By the way, even after realizing one moon, seeing double moon does not
> > > it is due to remnants of avidya...shankara clearly says vidyA & avidyA
> > > cannot have co-existence in a same person. ekasmin purushe ete ekadaiva
> > > na saha saMbadhyEyAtAmityarthaH, yathA shuktikAyAM rajata shukti jnAne
> > > ekasya purushasya.....tasmAnna vidyAyAm satyAm avidyAsaMbhavOsti...this
> > > clear cut clarification from shankara is more than enough to blow away
> > > your avidyA lesha theory...
> I want to draw attention to the phrase "ekasmin purushe" and the sentence
> "tasmAn na vidyAyAM satyAm avidya-saMbhavo'sti", in particular the word
> saMbhava. This means that there is no *fresh* arising of avidyA *in one
> purusha* after the rise of vidyA. The locus being talked about here is *one
> purusha*, i.e. the jnAnI. Please note that this does not say anything about
> the remaining effects of the past state of avidyA for that *one purusha*.
> The only objection to this would be that saMbhava should be translated not
> as "arising" but as "possibility", i.e. there is no possibility of any more
> after the rise of vidyA. This can be easily decided as below.
> Subrahmanian quotes:
> > This is quite understandable. But what Shankara says in the following
> > bhashya 4.1.15 is:
> > उच्यते - न तावदनाश्रित्य आरब्धकार्यं कर्माशयं ज्ञानोत्पत्तिरुपपद्यते ।
> > आश्रिते च तस्मिन् कुलालचक्रवत्प्रवृत्तवेगस्यान्तराले प्रतिबन्धासम्भवात्
> > *वेगक्षयप्रतिपालनम् *। अकर्त्रात्मबोधोऽपि हि मिथ्याज्ञानबाधनेन
> > कर्माण्युच्छिनत्ति । *बाधितमपि तु मिथ्याज्ञानं* द्विचन्द्रज्ञानवत्
> > *संस्कारवशात्
> > कंचित्कालमनुवर्तते एव* । अपि च नैवात्र विवदितव्यं ब्रह्मविदा कंचित्कालं
> > शरीरं ध्रियते न वा ध्रियत इति ।
> > कथं ह्येकस्य स्वहृदयप्रत्ययं *ब्रह्मवेदनं देहधारणं *च अपरेण
> > शक्त्यते । श्रुतिस्मृतिषु स्थितप्रज्ञलक्षणनिर्देशेनैतदेव निरुच्यते ।
> For those who can't see/read/understand the Sanskrit fonts above, I
> one key sentence below in a transliterated form -
> bAdhitam api tu mithyAjnAnaM dvicandra-jnAna-vat saMskAra-vaSAt kaMcitkAlam
> anuvartata eva.
> Again the context of discussion is *one purusha*, the one in whom
> an arising of jnAna, has occurred. Note that it is Sankara bhagavatpAda
> who says that the previous state of mithyAjnAna, although it has already
> sublated (bAdhitam api), it still leaves an impression (samskAra), which
> to control (vaSa) the continued appearance (anuvartanaM) of that
> for some time (kaMcit kAla).
> For the purposes of this discussion, I would like to keep away from
> mithyAjnAna in the above sentence and debating whether or not it is avidyA.
> have no wish to get into bhAmati vs. vivaraNa or bhAmati vs. bhAshya or
> vs. bhAshya at this juncture. I will leave that to those who find that
> debate to be
> However, granting that Sankara bhagavatpAda's brahmasUtra bhAshya is
> self-consistent, we can clearly see that his statement on the continued
> effect of
> saMskAra rules out the translation of avidya-saMbhava as "possibility of
> in the other quotation from the same text.
> We also have to ask ourselves - where does this saMskAra abide and what
> it control? Obviously, this residual saMskAra does not abide in the Atman.
> Nor can
> it abide merely in the physical body devoid of a mind. There HAS to be a
> mind for
> the jnAnI in which this residual impression of prior mithyAjnAna stays for
> some time.
> In other words, in my view, the bhagavatpAda has clearly indicated to us
> correct state of things in this issue.
> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list