[Advaita-l] Dayanand Saraswathi interview - Very interesting stand taken by Swami
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Sat Jan 14 11:09:01 CST 2017
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Kripa Shankar <kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com
> Ok, let's assume so. Still he said - he may not have been a jiivanmuukta.
> Does that mean inspite of brahmatma saakshatkara, Jivanmukti is doubtful?
You have not studied Advaita properly. That is what your above observation
reveals. First do your homework properly and then venture to pass judgments
> This is why your arguments are far fetched. Because you already arrive at
> the conclusion first, then you try to reconcile with/justify it.
> If we cannot determine if a person is jivanmukta or not, is Jivanmukti a
> mere abstract idea? Is Moksha a speculation? Because otherwise, there is no
> proof if the jnani is reborn or not.
> AchArya ghAtinAm lokA na santi kulapAmsana ~
> There is NO region, O wretch of your race, for those who seek to slay an
> Original Message
> From: V Subrahmanian
> Sent: Saturday 14 January 2017 10:55 AM
> To: Kripa Shankar; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Dayanand Saraswathi interview - Very interesting
> stand taken by Swami
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Kripa Shankar <
> kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com> wrote:
> It is not me who is twisting anyone's words, but unfortunately, you are
> the one who is viewing this with lot of bias. Vidyasankar said something
> contrary to what Rama originally said. In all earnestness, I immediately
> requested for the verbatim, which Rama has so kindly provided.
> "while RM may not have been a jiivanmuukta, he was a mahant."
> This clearly means one thing, because it cannot be inferred in any other
> way. It means, it is possible to determine whether someone is jivanmukta or
> not. Would you agree with this or not?
> Because you go one step further and say - HH Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha
> swamigal has said RM was a jnAni!
> By this stand of yours, two things come to light : it disproves the view
> that - no one can judge if a person is jivanmukta or not.
> Another thing is that Mahasannidhanam as stated above, is at best,
> speculative of him being a Jnani. Because otherwise, he would have said
> with the same confidence that - RM was a jnAni!
> You are again wrong! The word 'mahān' (and not 'mahant' which only means
> //A chief priest of a temple or the head of a monastery.//
> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mahant ) is commented upon
> by HH Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati Swaminah in the Vivekachudamani verse:
> शान्ता महान्तो निवसन्ति सन्तो वसन्तवल्लोकहितं चरन्तः। तीर्णाः स्वयं
> भीमभवार्णवं जनान् अहेतुनान् यानपि तारयन्तः॥ ३७॥
> शान्ताः निर्विकारमनस्काः, अत एव महान्तः (this is the plural of the word
> 'mahān' used by the Jagadguru) अपरिच्छिन्नब्रह्मात्मसाक्षात्कारवन्तः, अत
> एव तादृशसद्ब्रह्माभेदेन सन्तः ’ब्रह्मवित् ब्रह्मैव भवतीति’ श्रुतेः...
> So, the word 'mahān' that HH Sri Bharati Tirtha used means an aparokṣa
> There are some parameters on which the jivanmukti gradation is made. Hence
> it may not be possible for another, even if he is a jnani, to place another
> on a certain pedestal of jivanmukti. But for a jnani it will be possible to
> say that another is a jnani with a certain amount of input or intuition.
> Even about Shankaracharya no one can be certain that he was a Jnani if it
> is insisted that he should be someone who must be mentioned in the shruti
> as one. It is on the parampara that one bases his convictions.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list