[Advaita-l] A study of a chapter of the book `BhAmatI-samAlochanam'.

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste.


//Isn't it ironic, in a way, that vedAnta is SArIraka mImAMsA?!!//

These words of Sri Vidyashankar ji prompt me to bring to the notice of the
members a new book in Kannada, 'jIvanmukta-chatuShTaya'.  This book features
four 'Jivanmuktas', as the author Vidwan Sri K.G.Subraya Sharma, presents
them: Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, *Sri Sachidanandendra Saraswati (SSS)*, HH
Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati SwaminaH of Sringeri and Pujya Kanchi
MahaperiyavaaL.

The author is one of the foremost student-disciples of SSS.  The book is of
very few pages and is priced Rs.30/-  It carries, at the very beginning, a
photo of SSS and the author, a young brahmacharin, pictured in 1963.  One
page contains a number of commendations of the author from many persons,
including Sri Subhanu Saxena.

Warm regards,
subrahmanian.v

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <
svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:

  //As I understand from even your own quotation of the Bhashya in the PDF
> file, the Jiva is NEVER ever i bondage; the very understanding that I am
> bound is a misapprehension.  That is why the Holenarsipur Swamigal,
> following the footsteps of the Revered Commentator, holds that this
> mis-apprehension is a facility assumed for explanation purpose, by Tradition
> and is what called "Adhyasa" or "Avidya" or "Ajnana" or "Jnana Abhava" all
> these terms used by the Revered Commentator himself as synonyms.
> >
>
>
> I think, at this point, it would make sense to step back a little and
> answer some
> basic points for ourselves. It may help to use standard English
> philosophical terms
> for this purpose.
>
>
> Does avidyA have an ontological status or only an epistemological one? It
> seems
> to me that for the Holenarsipur Swami and followers, avidyA has no
> ontological
> status whatsoever, whereas for almost every traditional post-Sankaran
> author in
> the tradition, avidyA has both ontological and epistemological aspects.
>
>
> And because avidyA has an ontological aspect to it, for the
> sub-commentators
> in the tradition, avidyA also has a causal role in the materiality of the
> universe.
> For those who grant avidyA only an epistemological status, it has no
> connection
> whatsoever with materiality. This goes to the crux of the problematic
> discourse
> on jIvanmukti. Everything boils down to the "problem" of the physical,
> material
> body of the jnAnI.
>
>
> Of course, it is granted by all that a jnAnI does not care for the body and
> does
> not identify with it. However, that does not take away the philosophical
> problem
> of its status post-jnAna. For most of the traditional sub-commentators,
> since
> avidyA has a role in causing material embodiment, it is natural enough to
> say
> "avidyA-leSa" with respect to the continued presence of the material body.
> For
> those who view avidyA as purely an epistemological device, that doesn't
> make
> sense. It is this fundamental disagreement about the SarIra that causes the
> major dispute here. Isn't it ironic, in a way, that vedAnta is SArIraka
> mImAMsA?!!
>
> Regards,
>
> Vidyasankar
>
> ps. Epistemology is that branch of philosophy that studies how we know what
> we
> know, whereas ontology is about the nature of being.
>
> ______________________________
>