[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Seeking clarification on Bri. Up. Mantra 1-4-2

kuntimaddi sadananda kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Mon Apr 21 16:09:11 CDT 2014

Subhanuji - PraNAms

First my sincere thanks for taking time to address the issue I had raised. 

I have no problem in understanding of the praarabda of a jnaani as long as the BMI which is the product of praarabda remains and the BMI will go through its praarabda, although jnaani has understood that he is not the BMI. There is no problem in that. 

The question I had posed was in relation to Shankara bhaasya, in relation 1-4-2 mantra, as translated by Swami Madhavanandaji. In the discussion of the mantra 1-4-2, an objection was raised by a presumed purvapakshi. 
In the bhaashhya it says -That his fear was removed by the knowledge of unity; was quite proper. 
Implication of the statement was the Viraj was jnaani in the previous life itself  before he took the birth as Viraj since he was not taught after he was born as Viraj, and whatever knowledge he had was from his previous birth. 
Hence it is not the praarabda of Viraj that is being discussed. If he has taken the birth of Viraj even after jnaanam in the last birth, then we have a problem. Jnaani can be reborn but due to his sanchita/aagaami karma only, which should have got destroyed with the jnaanam in his past life.

Hence the objection  was raised in the Shankara bhaashhya itself and the objection was valid. My only comment was that I failed to see in the siddhanta that followed the purvapaksha addresses the central objection that was raised, unless I missed something in that since the explanation is very exhaustive and somewhat round about. If you can clarify the sidhanta that followed the objection and how it address the objection, that is great. 

Since jnaani need not have to take birth other than as avataara, I reconciled the situation as Viraj in his previous life had only partial knowledge – of tvam padartham and not aham brahmaasmi – realization. Then Viraj can have praarabda since he was not a jnaani and he needs the teaching of Vedanta. Hence I mentioned about Hamsa Geeta in the Bhagavatam that addresses his problem. Viraj only knew that He was alone and there is no other being to be afraid of. 

If your feel Shankara’s sidhaanta following the objection addresses the issue or  if you feel that vaartika addresses the objection posed in a different way please let me know. 

The issue may not be important but from the point of overall teaching, just curious in terms of how purva paksha was handled. 

Hari Om!

On Mon, 4/21/14, subhanu <subhanu at hotmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Seeking clarification on Bri. Up. Mantra 1-4-2
 To: "Advaita-l List email" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
 Date: Monday, April 21, 2014, 2:30 PM
 Sri Sadananda wrote "Anyway since the
 issue remains unless I take it that he has no full knowledge
 of the abosolute, I will stop with this".
 Namaste to all
 Though it has mostly been covered, I thought I would add a
 few points to Sri Sadananda’s query re BUB 1.4.2:
 Sri Chandramouli has correctly given BUBV
 1.4.103 as the response to the query. When discussing the
 prārabdha of a jñāni
 one would find it useful to keep the maxim from tattvabodha
 top of mind: prārabdha-karmaṇām
 bhogādeva kṣayah
 In BUBV 1.4.57 Suresvara states that the main
 purpose is just an illustration (pratipatti) to show that
 only true knowledge
 of Brahman brings true fulfilment [ityetat pratipattyartham
 kutsanam]. As such, the question of why or how Viraj became
 a jñānῑ should not
 be brought into this discussion.
 In this context the seeming presence (note the
 word seeming-see below), of prārabdha is tied to their
 remaining duties to be
 exhausted. These are carried out out of compassion and for
 the benefit of
 mankind. In commenting on BUBV 1.4.103, Anandagiri explains
 that the great
 rishi’s such as Vasishtha and Vamadeva, though
 jnānῑ’s, continued until their
 duties to mankind were fulfilled:
 vasishtha-vāmadevādῑnām utpanna-samyajjñānānām
 api svādhikāra samāptir paryantam. As such they may then
 be seen to go throught
 the emotions of anger, fear etc though this is not really
 the case.The footnote
 makes it even clearer: “yāvadadhikāram avasthitir
 adhikāriṇām“ adhikāriṇām
 jagatah paripālane niyuktānām
 adhikārasamāptir paryantam avasthitih abhyupagantavyā
 (this last word is
 important-it qualifies that this is how we should take it
 for the purpose of
 the teaching)
 Swami Vidyaranya brihadāranyaka vārtikāsāra
 1.4.62-66 provides the above in a little more detail. I can
 provide you the
 full verses if you like , but I will just quote
 “virājo’dhikritih sriṣṭau vyāsādeh
 For completeness I mention that the Sanskrit
 commentary on brihadāranyaka vārtikāsāra, the
 laghusangraha, states when
 commenting on the above verse “adhikārah prāabdham
 karma”- the seeming prārabdha
 of the jñānῑ is interwoven with their duties to the
 For those wishing to understand Suresvara’s position on
 Jivanmukta you can consult BUBV 1.4.1528-1557 where this is
 discussed in
 detail. One should always remember that the discussion of
 jivanmukta and the
 karma etc of the jñānῑ is adhyāropa from the ignorant
 bystander’s standpoint
 (cf Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi 383 “In fact his karma
 is seen only from the
 ajnānῑ’s standpoint”. The apavāda by Suresvara
 appears later in BUBV also.
 I hope the above is useful. Sri Sadananda, I would always
 recommend that, whenever one is studying, or wishes to teach
 a passage of the
 BUB or TUB, then it is indispensable to present the
 vārtikā verses alongside
 the bhashyam. Should you at any time require such references
 then please feel
 free to reach out privately to me and I will do my best to
 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