[Advaita-l] RE: On the parakAyapraveSa legend about Sankara

[Amuthan]

namo nArAyaNAya!

dear shrI rAmakRShNan,

On 3/28/07, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian
<rama.balasubramanian_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> I have been keeping quiet on this thread. But it is a little
> disappointing to me to see the post by Amuthan.

i'm sorry if my mail offended you. though i try my best to align with
the tradition, i have a problem understanding this episode and my
reply was based on whatever i've understood from sha~Nkara's works.

On 3/28/07, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian
<rama.balasubramanian_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> And how do you know this is the case, when the sampradaaya explicitly
> believes otherwise?

fine. if the AchAryAs in the sampradAya have no problems with it, then
there should be a 'right' way of looking at it according to which
there is nothing messy about the whole thing. i don't think the
arguments given so far fit into that 'right' view. i'll give the main
reason why i think so below.

On 3/28/07, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian
<rama.balasubramanian_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> displaying his yogasiddhis for a "trivial" case. The author is trying
> to show shankaras detatchment and not trying to make people in awe of
> "yoga-siddhis". That's just a gross distortion of the mAdhavIyam. BTW,
> the outcome of the "trivial" case would have been for shankara to
> convert to gR^ihasthaashrama anyway.

and how would ubhayabhAratI be able to judge with certainity if
sha~Nkara actually did a parakAyapravesha and learnt kAmashAstra while
being in the body of amaruka? the point i'm trying to make is that
neither can a subjective experience be verified by a third person
objectively nor can a subjective experience **alone** be used to
establish a fact **in a debate**. in a debate, shAstra **alone** is
the pramANa.

i want to stress on this point since sha~Nkara's attitude on the
relation between shAstra and anubhava in deciding the truth is very
clear from the fact that he almost always uses only shAstra or
gurUpadesha as a pramANa for pratyagAtmaj~nAna as against svAnubhava
though it is well known that without svAnubhava, shAstraj~nAna is
incomplete. in other words, it is svAnubhava which is the primary
pramANa as that alone can dispel all doubts. nevertheless, AchArya
gives prime importance to shAstra pramANa in his bhAShyAs in order to
establish what is true for precisely the reason that a "i know this to
be true and hence you need to accept it as true" form of reasoning is
not the right way of establishing a truth objectively.

the point that a j~nAni is totally unaffected by *any* karma is very
valid. i have no problems with that. but trying to fit this within the
context of the debate seems a bit strange. i'll be very interested to
see a proper explanation (= supported by the sampradAya) of this
episode

vAsudevaH sarvaM,
aparyAptAmRtaH.