[Advaita-l] Taittiriya Upanishad question
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Tue Apr 12 04:58:32 CDT 2011
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
> Instead of appreciating the vairAgya of the disciple which is the prakrta
> viShaya of this section of upaniShad, you are taking it to mean jnAni's
> ability to create.....
> Hare Krishna
> I think this is far better an example to prove jnAni's 'power' :-)) We
> have already read the examples of kashyapa brahma who uses his power
> 'indiscriminately and yields to his wife's (she is also another jnAni in
> that given example!!) untimely demand. Kindly dont see any sarcasm
> here...this was the emphasized & insisted example to prove jnAni's kAma &
> krOdha of course due to his prArabdha karma janita dehendriya.
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
Your reaction is full of inaccuracies and an example of your complete
misunderstanding of the Purana episode.
- Where is it said that Kashyapa prajapati used his 'power' *
- What is that 'power'?
- The power that is being discussed in this thread pertains to a Jnani 's
ability to provide another person objects of enjoyment. The specific case
is that of Yama - Nachiketa. If you equate this to the Kashyapa episode you
are gravely erring. While Yama offered to provide legitimate objects and
opportunities of enjoyment, Kashyapa never did anything like this. While
Yama persuaded Nachikta by all means, Kashyapa strongly dissuaded Diti by a
- Where is it said that Diti, his other wife, is a Jnani? Pl. provide
the pramana reference.
- If you have read the entire episode that was presented verse by verse
(translation) on this list some months ago, you would not be making this
completely incorrect remark that the Prajapati 'indiscriminately' indulged
in maithuna. The entire episode highlights Prajapati's discrimination and
not as you have misunderstood. In fact this discourse is a fine example on
discrimination. It contains the Prajapati's own praise of Lord Shiva's
- For your information, this example was solely given to show that a
jnani *can* have maithuna. This was specifically given in reply to your
specific question doubting/questioning this possibility: How can a Jnani who
has no bhAva of 'another' have such feelings with regard to the opposite
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list