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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Venkata Subramanian <
venkat_advaita at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- 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.
>

This is his tattva jnaana pratipattiH, understanding, conviction, of the
Tattva, Truth. This is expressed by the Acharya in the 4.1.15 bhAShyam as :
स्वहृदयप्रत्ययं ब्रह्मवेदनम्.

>
> 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 reality has been understood by me.

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.


No one is positing bandha-mukti in absolute terms.  The verse: न निरोधो न
चोत्पत्तिः...of the KArikA 2.32 is quite popular in Advaita.


> So whose is this avidya lesha - is but an explanation self created by the
> "others" in the "vyavahara" to explain themselves how "He" happens to be
> drinking water, eating food etc.
>
reply ends.
>

The Acharya says: देहधारणं च (The Jnani has the conviction of his
non-difference from Brahman AND about his continuing to be in the body.
(नवद्वारे पुरे देही नैव कुर्वन्न कारयन् of the Gita). He explains the
drinking water, eating food, etc. of the Jnani by the words: बाधितमपि
मिथ्याज्ञानं किञ्चित्कालं *संस्कारवशात्* द्विचन्द्रज्ञानवत् अनुवर्तते .
Nowhere He says it is ' but an explanation self created by the "others" in
the "vyavahara" to explain themselves..'  Far from saying that it is
self-created by 'others in vyavahaara', the Acharya Himself explains it in
the most logical terms, giving a hetu: *संस्कारवशात्* and a dRShTaanta:
द्विचन्द्रज्ञानवत् .  This possibility is further elucidated and upheld by
SSS in his footnote.

>
>  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.
>

Pl. note that I have no ulterior motive.  I want to know the truth.  I
contested your claim contrasting the Christian practice from the SSS
tradition.  In this process, I stated the implication of the remarks in the
rebuttal of the Martha Doherty paper.  To see no substance in this is your
prerogative;  I certainly have not made a claim by stating a fact.

>
> 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.
>

I genuinely feel the above incident has no bearing on the present
discussion.  I have myself quoted this incident in other fora before.  No
one, at least among Advaitins, has questioned the Sarvajnatva of
Bhagavatpada.

>
> 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.


Yes.  The BhAShyakAra is definitely sufficient, if His words ' *संस्कारवशात्'
*etc. are not simply glossed over to give an impression that they are
redundant in the BhAshya or that they are detrimental to any attempt to
oppose avidya lesha. *

*

> 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 ?
>

Every post-Shankara Advaita Acharya and all Advaitins have pledged complete
allegiance to Bhagavatpada.  There is no need to mention anyone by name.  It
goes without saying.

>
> 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.
>

It is this view of SSS that is questioned.  Where is that unquestioning
fervour displayed in the treatment of the word: *संस्कारवशात् *?

I think we are not moving an inch forward in the discussion. We seem to have
reached a stalemate.  If no new input is coming forth on this crucial word,
I do not see any point in continuing this thread.

Best regards,
subrahmanian.v


>
>