[Advaita-l] Jnana-karma samuccaya.
brahmasatyam at gmail.com
Tue Nov 23 19:34:12 CST 2010
I believe Shankara makes another note in Chandogya Upanishad Bhashya 2.23.1
as to why a Jnani would not commit adharma. Unfortunately, I don't have the
bhashya with me right now.
On 23 November 2010 19:54, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
> > Due to his prArabdha janita dehendriya manObuddhi ahaMkAra, he
> > may 'sometime' involve in 'questionable' activities by getting
> > pratyaya-s!! When the brahma jnAni's fate itself is like this then what
> > to speak about 'holymen' ?? So, at least with this excuse the holymen
> > justify their activities. No pun intended here please, this is the theory
> > which got acceptance from the 'official' flag holders of advaita.
> > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> > bhaskar
> The above observation does not portray the view of Shankaracharya and
> Sureshwaracharya. In fact the stated observation, undoubtedly in bad
> is aimed at mocking the Acharyas of Advaita Sampradaya like Shankara and
> Sureshwara. No 'questionable' activity of a Brahmajnanai has been granted
> 'acceptance' by Shankaracharya or Sureshwaracharya.
> Shankaracharya nowhere grants acceptance to any 'questionable activities'
> a Jnani when he writes in the Briharadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10 thus:
> //In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad bhashya, while delineating on the mantra
> 1.4.10 where occurs the teaching 'aham brahma asmi', the Acharya says the
> Jnani will have vipareeta pratyaya and raagaadi doSha: // yena karmaNA
> sharIramArabdham tat *vipareeta-pratyaya doSha *nimittatvaat tasya
> tathAbhUtasyaiva vipareetapratyaya doShasamyuktasya phaladaane
> yaavat shareera paataH taavat phalopabhoga angatayaa* vipareeta
> pratyayam raagaadi
> doSham *ca taavanmaatram aakShipatyeva. //
> [Translation by Swami Madhavananda, Advaita Ashrama, p.115 - 116 :
> // In other words, that resultant of past work which led to the formation
> of the present body (PrArabdha), being the outcome of false notions and the
> evils (of attachment, etc.), is able to bear fruit ONLY as such, i.e. as
> coupled with those (false) notions of and evils; hence until the body
> IT CANNOT BUT PRODUCE, AS PART OF ONE'S EXPERIENCE OF THE RESULTS OF PAST
> WORK, JUST SO MUCH OF FALSE NOTIONS AND THE EVILS OF ATTACHMENT, ETC., for
> the past work that made this body has already begun to bear fruit and MUST
> RUN ITS COURSE like an arrow that has been shot. *Therefore knowledge
> stop that, for they are not contradictory.*//
> Sri Sureshwaracharya has said in the Naishkarmyasiddhi 4.62:
> Now, in order to refute the view that the knower of Brahman is free from
> [even if he performs a sinful act], the following:
> [Sureshwara wants to say that the Jnani will not at all indulge in a
> sinful/reprehensible act in the first instance. When such is the case,
> where is the question of his 'not being touched by any sinful act'? This
> the idea behind this verse that follows]
> If a person who has realized the non-dual reality could behave as he
> then what is the difference between a dog and the seer of Truth in respect
> of eating what is prohibited?
> It may be asked: Why is it not possible? It is for the following reason:
> From adharma, demerit, arises ignorance; and from the latter, unrestrained
> conduct. How is unrestrained conduct possible in the state which is the
> result of dharma, merit, wherein even righteousness is not desired? (4.63)
> [Sureshwara argues that the Jnani is in a state where even puNya is not
> deliberately desired by him and worked for. In such a state how can there
> be any room for adhArmic activity that he might indulge in? ]
> So, the omniscient Hari who has repudiated unrestrained conduct has said:
> 'He whose all works are devoid of desires and purposes, and whose actions
> have been burnt by the fire of wisdom,him the wise call a sage'. (B.G.4.19)
> Also, 'He (jivanmukta) does not hate the presence of light,activity and
> delusion. Nor does he long for them, if absent.' (B.G.14.22)
> Shankara has also explicitly said while commenting on a Br.Up.mantra that
> the Jnani, who has the firm conviction that giving room for desire etc. is
> the cause of samsara and all the evils thereof, will never give room for
> these in his vyvahara.
> Thus, in the Shankara sampradaya there is no room for the erroneous
> that the Jnani will indulge in 'questionable activities'. Also, the phrase
> 'prArabdha janita dehendriya manObuddhi ahaMkAra' is a product of wrong
> understanding of the Vedanta system. In Vedanta, for every jiva, whether
> jnani or ajnani, the body-mind-intellect-ahankara-apparatus is a result of
> prarabadha only. This particular apparatus remains till the end of this
> particular set of prArabdha karma. Atma Jnana does not destroy this
> apparatus. And most importantly, prarabdha will not bring about any 'new'
> body-mind apparatus so as to qualify it by the term 'prArabdha janita'.
> Thus there is no room in Vedanta shastra for the adjective
> to be used in the case of the Jnani in particular. Shankara makes this
> point clear through the words: ' *Therefore knowledge cannot stop that, for
> they are not contradictory' (as quoted above)*
> What this portion of the commentary means is this: Atma jnana is the
> virodhi of mUlAvidyA alone and not of the already begun body-mind
> Nor should it be wrongly concluded that the cases of Veda Vyasa fathering
> the sons of Vichitraveerya's widows or Kashyapa Prajapati uniting with his
> wife Diti in the sandhyAkAla, etc. are 'violations' of dharma on their
> part. Nor is it a case of their behaving that way a result of kAma. This
> observation: //.As an example : we call kashyapa brahma's acceptance to his
> wife's untimely demands as an occassional vipareeta pratyaya of the
> jnAni// does not find approval in Vedanta. Nobody in the sampradaya
> 'calls Kashyapa Prajapati's case as 'occasional vipareeta pratyaya'.
> This term 'vipareeta pratyaya' that Shankara has used in the Br.Up.Bhashya
> 1.4.10 quoted above has an altogether different meaning. If a Jnani is
> required to teach a disciple, the disciple has to be seen as 'different'
> from another disciple or from the Jnani himself. This 'bheda-darshanam' is
> inevitable form him and will last as long as he lives. This has been
> explicitly stated by Shankara in BSB 4.1.19. It is this requirement of
> bheda-darshana in each and every vyavahara of the Jnani that is referred by
> Shankara as 'vipareeta pratyaya' in the above 1.4.10 bhashya. It never
> any 'lapse' on the part of a Jnani. Those who do not know what those words
> of Shankara mean attribute their own meanings to these terms and end up
> bringing a bad name to Veda Vyasa and the Prajapati.
> These are never held to be 'questionable activities' in the sampradaya. No
> authority has questioned these instances and adjudged them as immoral.
> These instances have been picked out and shown ONLY with a view to
> that the body-mind apparatus of a Jnani will not disappear upon Atmajnana
> those outside the sampradaya have concluded.
> Best regards,
> 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