[Advaita-l] The Advaita Tradition of Shankara
bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Thu Dec 15 03:55:15 CST 2011
praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
> I am afraid, we are rekindling the stalemate issue here :-)) Anyway,
again my take on 'ashareeratvaM' of the jnAni for your consideration.
While what Sri Ramana Maharshi says //If you know your true nature you
understand the state of Brahma-jnana.//
> Yes, that brahma jnAna reveals the fact that jnAni (or chetana for that
matter) was never ever embodied.
is not disputed, the teaching of the scripture, Veda Vyasa, Krishna and
Shankaracharya go against the rest
> So, from your observation, can we say bhagavAn ramaNa was engaged
himself in propagating some asampradAyik teachings !!
In the BGB 2.55 introduction Shankara says:
sarvatraiva hi adhyAtmashAstre kRthArthalakShaNAni yAni tAnyeva
sAdhanAnyupadishyante yatnasAdhyatvAt ...
I/ In all the scriptural works dealing with the Self the marks/behaviour
of the JnAni alone are admitted to be the means to Self-realization* since
this state is something that is possible of attainment by effort. And
these effort-possible means which are also the marks of the Jnani are
delineated by the Lord in the sequel...//
> I am sorry I dont know how this would prove the embodiment of the
jnAni. Yes, there is sthita praja lakshaNa narrated in geeta, yes there
is a verse yadyadAcharati shreshTah in geeta to show the jnAni's
AcharaNa...But for whom these AcharaNa & lakshaNa-s have been narrated??
Whether it is to prove jnAni's deha or for guiding the ajnAni-s in the
right path?? IMHO, for ajnAni-s only these teachings are meant..ajnAni-s
can see the 'body' of themselves & jnAni's and recognizing the jnAni with
his/her body. So, for ajnAni-s, sthita prajna laksha to be explained by
pointing the finger at the body of stita prajna only. But when it comes
to jnAni's deha dhAraNa, its birth, death etc. it is only appearance for
the ajnAni-s who are not able to think beyond BMI. Lord clarifies this in
geeta itself, tAm prakrutiM svAm adhishTAya vasheekrutya saMbhavAmi,
dehavAniva bhavAmi, jAta iva. It is only ajnAni's thinking that jnAni is
born at such & such a place, he did that, he played that etc. But when
you ask jnAni, about his birth & activities, since he is established in
that adviteeya, he would say, ahaM, ajaM, nirvikalpaM, nirAkAraM and ekaM.
The emphatic words of Shankara with the 'eva' kAra come ONLY in the
section dealing with the
> Yes, but it is the lakshaNa that every ajnAni should try to adopt &
Consistently Shankara says again in the BSB 4.1.15:
> I think we have to read this in the light of tattu samavayAt sUtra
bhAshya, where shankara emphatically clarifies jnAni's ashareeratvam.
Anyway, we both have stretched this beyond limit :-))
Even while quoting Sri Ramana Maharshi what we are unconsciously doing is
to follow a Jnani's words alone.
> Yes, me the ajnAni, would definitely see the body of the person who I
consider the 'jnAni', for me, the ajnAni, there is no other way out apart
from 'seeing, talking, interacting' through BMI of jnAni..But this ajnAni,
when specifically asks jnAni about his activities, talks, mind etc. than
jnAni's answer would be the above, which Sri Subhanu prabhuji quoted.
If a Jnani cannot say or behave there is no way Ramana could utter those
words and such words would not have been available for one to read and
> Yes, as said above, we, the ajnAni-s definitely need the words of
shreshTa and the figure of that person as well.
Further it is important for Advaitins to remember that what is not
contradictory alone is to be taken
from non-scriptural sources.
> yes, we have to give second thought to our stand, when
scriptures/acharya-s say 'dehavAniva lakshyate, 'tasmAnmithyApratyaya
nimittatvAt sashareeratvaM siddhaM jeevatOpi vidushO ashareeratvaM' etc.
By doing this, atleast we would come to know, jnAni-s like ramaNa etc.
would not just like that talk in the air while dealing with these
If someone's statements patently differ from the method of Shankara and
the scripture there is not much point in accepting it.
> I appreciate & admire your rigidity on this issue prabhuji..But
addressing bhagavan ramaNa as 'someone' would not freely sink-in...is it
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list