[Advaita-l] The Human aspect of Jnanis - 1

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Mon Jul 12 20:30:05 CDT 2010

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Br. Pranipata <pranipata at hotmail.com>wrote:

> I am sorry.
>  The 'impossible' in my above-quoted paragraph is not the ability-dependent
>> ones that you quote from the 12th chapter.  What I mean is:  Such an event
>> itself is an impossibility for any human being.
> 1. Your example as an event is not impossible. rAhu could eat up moon.
> 2. If impossible for human being, which was not stated in the message, it
> is wrong to treat jnAni as an ordinary human being.

I think you did not follow what I am driving at.  In any case, you have
quoted my sentence from my original message in your earlier post:

//To explain, no one can prohibit me from 'eating the moon' for
 the very possibility of eating the moon is not there. //

Here, note the word 'me.'  I have used that word with reference to me,
thinking that I am a human.  I am aware of the rAhu - moon phenomenon which
is not a fact.  It is only a belief.  Even taking that a possibility I have
excluded that case and applied the injunction, or rather a prohibition, to

Swami Vidyaranya in the Panchadashi has said that anything  extraordinary to
anyone can happen only because of certain tapas and other sadhana.  It comes
under siddhi-s. The abiliity to bless someone or curse someone also comes
under this category.  A jnani who does not have any siddhis is not an
impossibility.  A non-jnani can also have siddhis which a Jnani cannot
have.  So, there is nothing wrong in treating a Jnani as an ordinary human
being for practical purposes.   The Sthitaparajna verses of the Gita are
directed at a Jnani who is a human being.  All the sadhana-s, precautions,
mentioned there are related to humans. And that is why it becomes relevant
to us.

> 3. If you want to mean an injunction is unnecessary for an event impossible
> by human beings, the injunction to refrain from telling lies to the human
> being who feels he can somehow make untruth as truth can be cited as
> example.

Pl. note that the word injunction is not appropriate here.  It aught to be
'prohibition'.  Injunction is a vidhi and prohibition is a nishedha

Since my example is valid as I have explained above, I do not see any need
to cite any other example.

>  And I think you have taken my word 'aprsaktasya' to some other word
>> 'aprashaktasya'.  'prasakti' is different from 'prashakti'.  The former
>> means:  an occasion, room for something to happen, a possibility.  I do
>> not
>> see any meaning for the second word in the context I have used the term.
> 3. VS Apte dictionary gives the meaning thus:
> aprasakta - not attached or connected, moderate, temperate, unconnected.
> if you take the meaning of 'occurance of possibility' of prasaktiH and add
> negative participle then it will be 'non-occurance of possibility' and not
> 'occurance of impossibility'.

I think you are confused with the word here.  All I mean is:  a possibility
of an event occurring.  It is not '  'occurance of possibility' as you have
stated, for which I do not see any meaning.  So, taking the meaning Ithat
have given, aprasaktaH means:  'the impossibility of the occurrence of an
event'.   Since my eating the moon is an impossibility, where is the meaning
in the prohibition: 'do not eat the moon'?

The Acharya, in the context of the Aparokshanubhuti, is giving an advice to
the Jnani/aspirant not to give room for udvega in the course of his working
out the praarabdha.  If the possibility of udvega is not at all there for
the Jnani, why would the Acharya say that?  That is my point.

>  [The craving for food, sleep, fear of enemy and the craving for copulation
>> is the same for the animals as well as humans.  What distinguishes the
>> human
>> from the animals is that in all these four Dharma is the guide for the
>> human.  If dharma is given a go by, man is no different from an animal.]
> If there is a distinguishing feature between man and animal, won't there be
> any between jnAni and ajnAni.

Yes.  That feature is most importantly this: When the ajnani gives room for
various kinds of emotions, he does not know that it is the property of the
mind, kshetram, anAtma.  He erroneously thinks it is he who is having these
emotions.  Whereas the Jnani, when such emotions arise in the mind, is
clearly able to discriminate between the Atman and the mind and know that it
is only the mind that has entertained these emotions. That makes all the
difference between bandha and moksha.  Swami Vidyaranya has explained these
in very great detail in the Jivanmukti viveka which was quoted by me
extensively while discussing with Karthik ji .  In the Panchadashi too he
says:  Let desires exist in millions in the mind.  As long as the Jnani
knows that they belong to the mind, what harm would come to him?

The Gita 13th chapter bhashyam also brings this to the fore while showing
how the kshetra dharma-s are taken due to ignorance as the dharmas of the

That is the feature that distinguishes a jnani from an ajnani.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list