[Advaita-l] Jnana-karma samuccaya.
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Wed Nov 24 20:19:12 CST 2010
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
> Hare Krishna
> > Yes, but unfortunately examples of kashyapa, ramaNa, rAmakrishna,
> shankara bhagavatpAda, rAma, Krishna etc. given to show us jnAni's
> attachment to BMI-s & his kAmAdi dOsha-s...I dont say it is in bad taste,
> I would say it is utter non-sense, better to be nipped in bud.
The examples Kashyapa and Sri Ramakrishna were first given in reply to a
specific question from you on June 25, 2010 :
I'll ask you one simple question since you are
holding jnAni's individual mind, body etc. close to your chest...tell me
how can a body of a jnAni without having the strong feeling of an opposite
sex can indulge in sexual activity?? You take your own example of talking,
seeing, sitting, listening etc. of a jnAni & extend that to this scenario
also, what would be your answer??
Atma sAkShAtkAra or enlightenment will not take away the Jnani's capacity
for maithuna. There are several examples in the scripture and in the world
to show that a Jnani, that is after enlightenment, did engage in maithuna
and sired offspring. The famous case of the birth of Paandu, DhritarAShtra
and Vidura through Veda Vyasa is there. After Vichitraveerya died, the
widows who did not have issues to continue the Kuru clan, gave birth to
those two brothers Pandu and Dhritarashtra through Vyasa as the father.
There is no doubt at all about Veda Vyasa's JnAnitva. One might not say
that he had a 'strong feeling of the opposite sex' but he did indulge, as a
matter of obeying the command of Satyavati, his mother, in the maithuna.
And there is no escape from the feeling the activity brings. When someone
sprinkles water, prokShaNa, on you as asheervachana, if it is cold season,
you will feel the chill. If it is hot season, you will feel pleasant.
Kashyapa PrajApati is spoken of as a Jnani. There is the famous case of how
Diti demanded maithuna in sandhyA kaala and Kashyapa had to oblige, much
against his will. And that is how daityas were born.
In contemporary history, here is an incident reported by Swami Saradananda
in 'Sri Ramakrishna the Great Master':
(Quote) The Master: 'Ah, lust does not vanish till God is realized. *So
long as the body lasts, a little of it continues even after realization but
then it cannot raise its head.* Do you think I myself am altogether free
from it? At one time I thought I had conquered lust. When I was sitting
under PanchavaTi such an onrush of lust came that it seemed to be beyond my
power of control. I then wept rubbing my face against the dust on the
ground and said to Mother, ' I have done a great wrong, Mother. I shall
never again harbour the idea that I have conquered lust.' It was then only
it vanished.' (unquote)
You can never nip in the bud what Shankara has taught as 'brahmabhAva and
dehadhAraNam' all over the prasthAna traya bhashya. This inseparable
twin-concept has been well nurtured in the scripture and is a mammoth tree
that none can destroy.
> 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.
> > But earlier song of the proponents of jnAni's kAma-krOdha was entirely
> in different tune !! There have been statements floating freely in this
> list that in 'vyavahAra' jnAni due to his prArabdha continue to have
> avidyA lesha and as a result he would have kAma, krOdha, coz. of this he
> may sometime weep, shows anger, indulges in questionable activity but with
> a 'detachment' feeling etc. I dont know how people so oblivious to their
> own statement so early!!!
Sri Ramakrishna's incident clearly comes in this category. That he
succeeded in quelling the troublesome lust is also clear in that incident.
There is no mention of any 'questionable activity'. Only you are putting
that label on such maithuna by Veda Vyasa and the Prajapati.
> Thus, in the Shankara sampradaya there is no room for the erroneous
> that the Jnani will indulge in 'questionable activities'.
> > Very true, that is the reason why we are appealing to the 'socalled'
> modern day cybernet saMpradAyavAdins to not to read too much in jnAni's
> mundane day to day activities to paste him the labels of kAma & krOdha.
There is no 'reading too much' in the mundane day to day activities of a
Jnani. Shankaracharya comments for the Gita shloka: shaknoti ihaiva yaH
sODhum .....kAma-krodhodbhavam vegam sa yuktaH sa sukhI naraH (5.23) giving
the lakshaNa-s of someone in the grip of kAma and krodha. And most
significantly this verse is placed in between verses on the jnani lakshaNa,
like sampuTeekaraNam. So, the label of kAma and krodha are not pasted by me
but by Lord Krishna and Shankara.
> 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.
> > yes, but why we are talking particularly about jnAni's prArabdha janita
> BMI's is coz. the subject matter is itself jnAni's BMI & kAma &
> krOdha..And when jnAni realizes that sashareeratvam is kevala avidyaka
> there is no question of his having avidyaka shareera..shankara clarifies
> this jnAni-s ashareeratvaM beautifully in tattusamanvayaat sUtra bhAshya.
> atra ihaiva pradeepanirvANavat sarva bandha upashamAt brahma samashnute,
> brahmaiva bhavati ityarthaH clarifies shankara elsewhere. When the jnAni
> realizes that his svarUpa is 'nitya ashareeratvaM' where can we bring him
> BMI to say he is paricchinna chaitanya in a particular BMI complex!!??
Shankara clarifies in that very Sutrabhashyam that along with brahmabhava
which is nothing but the realization of one's ashareeratvam that there is
the unchallengable dehadhAraNam (jeevato api). You can never discard this
aspect that is surely troublesome to your theory of the jnani not having a
shareera or that it is only ajnanis that posit it for him etc. that have no
basis in Vedanta / Shankara. In your conclusion Shankara and Krishna are
the ajnanis who posit a body and activities for the Jnani.
> This particular apparatus remains till the end of this particular set of
> prArabdha karma.
> > tasmAt mithyApratyaya nimittatvAt sashareeratvasya siddhaM, without
> shareera you cannot think of karma phala..jnAni does not have shareera at
> any point of time coz. he is brahman now here itself
Every one jnani or ajnani is without shareera and is Brahman now here
itself. Shankara has clarified that it is only the sashareeratva abhimana
that is ajnana and only this ajnana is gone for the jnani; not the shareeram
itself that has already begun and continuing. This alone Shankara
challenges anyone to contest in BSB 4.1.15 (dehadhAraNam)
> 'na shareera
> pAtOttarakAlaM' insists shankara..if somebody says jnAni is shareeri it is
> as good as saying brahman is shareeri otherwise they have to separately
> show us ashareeratvam of brahman/Atman somewhere else aloof from jnAni's
> realization or else they have to accept that ashareeratvam is kevala
> theoritical reality:-))
Ashareeratvam of a Jnani cannot be shown without the Jnani himself. That is
why Shankara makes it an inseparable twin concept: brahmabhAva and
> Atma Jnana does not destroy this apparatus.
> > yes, but it shows that jnAni was/is/will always be ashareeri even
> though we, the ajnAni-s seeing the 'living' sashareeri jnAni.
It is not we the ajnanis that see the living sashareeri jnani but the Jnanis
Lord Krishna and Shankara who are not just seeing but teaching about the
Jnani's sasheeram and its various activities in dozens of places. The
ashrutakalpana (theory) 'we ajnanis seeing the living sa shareeri jnani' has
no place in the Vedanta and needs to be nipped in the bud.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list