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

Br. Pranipata pranipata at hotmail.com
Tue Jul 13 06:57:07 CDT 2010

Dear friend,

It is open to all who makes much-ado about nothing.

1. I do not deny you quoted  the word 'me'.  But the entire topic of 
discussion is about use of I/me.  I do not want to draw my own conclusion 
under what stand point with what validity you used the word 'me'.

2. Please read the following part of your message:

>There is a rule showing a defect, doSha:
> aprasaktasya pratiShedhaH
    which means:  It is incorrect to ....

The word 'rule' is used by you which simply mean injunction(vidhi).  I have 
never heard rule means only prohibition at all times.

3. 'occurance of possibility' is not  coined by me as 'aprasaktasya 
pratiShedhaH' by you. It is the dictionary meaning of prasaktiH(f) as per VS 

4. I do not change my stand quite often that all puranic characters are real 
personalities, false imaginations etc. etc. in every post to suit 

5. No discussion can proceed on what you mean but only based on what you 
have written on the message board.

6. It may be your style to decide the other person is utterly confused, not 
following where you are driving at but branding is not exclusive right of 
you alone.

7. Straight starting all your posts stating all doubts have been set at 
rest, it is made ample clear, no question could ever arise in this matter 
etc. etc., in a discussion forum what you mean is anybody's guess only.

From: "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 7:00 AM
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" 
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] The Human aspect of Jnanis - 1

> 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
> 'me'.
> 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
> (pratiShedha).
> 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
> kshetrajna.
> That is the feature that distinguishes a jnani from an ajnani.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list