[Advaita-l] Taittiriya Upanishad question

Bhaskar YR bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Tue Apr 12 06:17:47 CDT 2011


Hare Krishna

Your reaction is full of inaccuracies and an example of your complete
misunderstanding of the Purana episode.

>  I would rather try to understand these episodes with more esoteric 
meaning than to literally interpreting these episodes to prove jnAni's 
'maithuna' at the wrong time !!

   - Where is it said that Kashyapa prajapati used his 'power' *

>  succmbing to the untimely demand of his wife and 'fulfilling' that 
demand (intentionally or unintentionally does not matter here) with 'his' 
involvement shows the lack discrimination. 

   - What is that 'power'?

>  A 'power' that every gruhastha have to do his 'vaMshOddhAra' :-)) It 
may not be materializing things from thin air. 

   - The power that is being discussed in this thread pertains to a Jnani 
   ability to provide another person objects of enjoyment.  The specific 
   is that of Yama - Nachiketa. 

>  And in kashyapa-diti case you are talking about the jnAni's power of 
'maithuna' is it not??  dont you think there strikes a similarity in these 
two examples to prove the theory of jnAni's kAma & krOdha. 

If you equate this to the Kashyapa episode you are gravely erring. 

>  I am not equating these episodes, but your purpose of narrating these 
two episodes is one and the same i.e. jnAni's kAma, krOdha & his 

While Yama offered to provide legitimate objects and opportunities of 
enjoyment, Kashyapa never did anything like this. 

>  according to your understanding of these episodes, one jnAni tried to 
tempt a genuine sAdhaka & another jnAni '(in)discriminately' exposed 
himself to the illegitimate demand of his wife...right??

While Yama persuaded Nachikta by all means, Kashyapa strongly dissuaded 
Diti by a
   great sermon.

>  yama, one jnAni did the right think ultimately (after testing his 
pupil) by revealing the 'mruthyu rahasya' whereas another jnAni, kashyapa 
brahma after all that great lecture to dissuade his wife, finally 'agreed' 
and 'involved' himself to fulfill the illegitimate demand of his wife 
through (in)discrimination..

  - Where is it said that Diti, his other wife, is a Jnani?  Pl. provide
   the pramana reference.

>  when you first narrated this episode to prove your point, I think you 
had said this...I remember that you mentioned in that post : diti (another 
jnAni), wife of kashyapa brahma..pls. check it out as I donot have that 
mail with me. 

   - 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 
   completely incorrect remark that the Prajapati 'indiscriminately' 
   in maithuna.  The entire episode highlights Prajapati's discrimination 
   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

>  If you interpret this episode literally, it shows that prajapati has 
done only 'lip' service to the vairAgya & finally yielded to his wife to 
meet the demand. 

   - For your information, this example was solely given to show that a
   jnani *can* have maithuna. 

>  I never said jnAni become impotent after realization to prompt you to 
give this example...BTW, not only this example,  you have taken somany 
instances out of context from rAma, ramaNa maharshi, rAmakrishna parama 
haMsa, shankara bhagavadpAda lives to prove jnAni's ahaMkAra, mamakAra, 
kAma, krOdha etc. 

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 sex.

>  My doubt has firm base in shruti & shankara siddhAnta..because shruti 
says: kena kim pashyet etc. ??  and shankara repeatedly insists avidyA 
nivrutti is ahaMkAra nivrutti & result is atyantika abhAva of 
saMsAra..Whereas you are comfortably telling us jnAni too has 
maithunecche, capable enough to do maithuna that too at the wrong time, he 
shows krOdha sometime, he weeps sometime due to mamakAra etc.  I think you 
have extended your examples by giving one person's example who after 
'realization' got two children in saMsAra.  From this you are floating a 
'upa siddhAnta' that 'saMnyAsa' is not the must (contrary to your own 
argument in favour of saMnyAsa)to attain brahma jnAna.


Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list