[Advaita-l] What is 'aprAkRta' ?
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Tue Aug 2 01:37:13 CDT 2011
All this explanation by Madhusudana boils down to:
1. //My body by virtue of being predominantly made up of the quality of
sattva. // This only means that it is still within the gamut of
Prakruti. Sattva is a mode of prakriti and shuddha sattva is only a refined
sattva that does not bind. I have already given explanation for this. For
example, the gita says that sattva binds through jnana-sanga and
sukha-sanga. This is for the jiva. But Ishwara uses the very same sattva
during his avatar/cosmic management without getting bound. His jnanam is
sarvajnatvam, not caused by the operation of senses. However, during an
avatara, He too, might require the sense organs to do the appropriate acts.
2. Actually what has been said for Ishwara about 'not really having a
body but only appearing to be' applies to the jiva too. The
upanishadic/vedantic position is that the jiva too is in truth consciousness
alone and no body can be there for it. While a body is assumed by it out of
ajnana, Ishwara assumes a body out of full jnana.
3. We have the Bhagavatam say that Devaki was so conspicuously
resplendent while 'carrying' Krishna that Kamsa had some disturbed feelings.
This shows that there was the fetus growing just as any other jiva would be
prior to be delivered.
4. Whatever explanation one gives for the 'body' of Ishwara/avatara, it
cannot be outside the purview of prakRiti. As Madhusudana explains prakriti
can make the impossible possible; this is true in the case of Ishwara as
well as the jiva.
Having said that I think we should not be dwelling too long on this topic
for it does not deserve it. Things within maya/prakriti do evoke a variety
of explanations and all can be defective one way or the other. That is the
reason why Dhanapati suri, the author of the Bhashyotkarsha deepikaa often
picks up Madhusudana for criticism. Nilakantha too comes in for criticism.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:53 AM, V Subrahmanian
> <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:
> RV: If there is a real material body, then why does Sankara say dehavan
> Sri V Subrahmanian: There is the body but the ignorance-based
> with it is absent in the case of Bhagavan and a Jivanmukta. Yet those who
> see and interact with that 'person' Krishna during His life did that taking
> for granted that 'this is a person, with a body.... just as we are'.
> Shankara puts the true state of affairs by that remark 'dehavAn iva'.
> RV: Is this the traditional position or your interpretation?
> Sri V Subrahmanian: This is the traditional position.
> RV: I need direct textual evidence from early acharyas that the traditional
> advaita position is that the Lord's body is made of material elements.
> Sridharacharya, if I remember right, does not think that the Lord's body is
> made of five elements. Madhusudana categorically rejects that notion that
> His body is made of material elements - gross or subtle, limited or cosmic
> or even an acceptance of fresh body. He clearly says Krishna's body is
> nothing like ours or others. He also says that his view is the view of
> Sankara and Anandagiri.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list