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

[Venkata Subramanian]

--- On Wed, 21/4/10, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:



One cannot deny, without rejecting the Bhashya, that the 'samskAra' is
concomitant in a Jivan mukta; that is what makes jivan mukti a possibility.
'jeev prANadhaaraNe' is the dhAtu.  When prANa is there, the mind is  there
and the samskAra is also there.

When the Holenarsipur tradition accepts the concept of jivan mukti and the
jivan mukta, it implies that they also accept the samskAra that is what is
vital to jivanmukti.  When samskAra is accepted, its other name: avidya
lesha also stands accepted.  When I accept 'water' is called 'jalam' in
Sanskrit, I cannot protest 'udakam' is not acceptable to me.

Reply:- Once the Mahavakya shravana produces the valid prama in the seeker, namely the understanding that He is (ever) free, to him all dream is not there and was never there (ever).  That he is a "Jivan Mukta" is always to others who see him in the world; for Him there is no world no seer and seen; but only He.  
 
If one cannot understand this reality, which has been so clealry explained by Bhagawan Gowdapada as explained and pointed out by the Holenarsipur Swamigal; one only has to re-read again the commentaries and pray with devotion again.     This is because it is only TO the "others" in vyavahara that he is a Jivan mukta....from Him, there is ONLY He and there is no bandha no mukti....very clearly said by Bhagawan Gowdapada.  So whose is this avidya lesha - is but an explanation self created by the "others" in the "vyavahara" to explain them selves how "He" happens to be drinking water, eating food etc.    
 
reply ends.
 
 I do not think this goes well with what JnanaprasUnendra Swamigal's
concluding remarks to Martha Doherty's paper implies.  He asserts  - what
SSS has admitted, said and rejected is the final word and anything other
than that is not the correct understanding of Vedanta.  Whatever names,
however popular or revered, are invoked to show a different understanding of
the Vedanta from that of SSS is of no consequence.

I have only restated and not reproduced his words.  Going by this, Jagadguru
Chandrashekhara Bharati Swamigal does not qualify to be a Jivanmukta, why a
mukta at all, as His well-known approval and teaching of the concept of
mUlAvidyA, and by extension, avidyA lesha,  definitely does not come
'within' the SSS order.  Even on that count, it is definitely startling that
Sri Subraya Sharma includes this mahAtma in the book.

Reply:-  I really do not undertand your ulterior motive behind in so clearly saying that "going by this,........does not come 'within' the SSS order."  If this is what YOU want to believe that is your prerogative.  There is however no substance behind your claim.
 
In one of the books authored by Sri Jnanananda Bharati Swamigal, a famous sishya of Jagadguru Srimadhabhinava Vidya Theertha, there is given a dialouge between Jagadguru Sri Chandrashekara Bharathi and another advaita vidwan, wherein, in one of the sadas, the vidwan explains a point from the Shankara Bhashya and in the process, gives Yuktis additionally to drive home the point.  The Jagadguru asks him whether they are in the Bhashya and he says no.  Then the Jagadguru asks him why he felt them necessary there....did the vidwan feel that it was better there that the Bhashyakara must have told; but not; but fits in there to explain the position better; the vidwan becomes embarassed....like the Jagadguru asking him so directly like this...  then the Jagadguru proceeds to analyse those additional yuktis and the vidwan then realises that not only are those yuktis wrong and untenable; but are even creating problems to what the Bhashyakara says.
 
Then the Jagadguru explains the importance of the revered Bhashyakara as Iswara, if we have that faith; and revere and learn, and he is a Sarvagnya.    These words come from not just Holenarsipur Swamigal alone mind it, the Jagadguru also says the same thing.
 
Of course we know this does not mean that the Jagadguru is saying - others are wrong.  But I take it this way - the Bhashyakara is sufficient.  In the Shankara Padavalamba Stotra, Jagadguru Sri Narasimha  Bharathi Swamigal also asks for - being immersed in the works of Shankara.   So there is surely full support of Sringeri Jagadgurus if one were to stay tuned properly on Shankara.  so, tell me is this not done by Sri Holenarsipuram Swamigal ?
 
His view is that what others explain shankara as saying is not what shankara says.  so, he never questions shankara and that aspect is supported by the Sringeri Jagadgurus as well