[Advaita-l] Jnana-karma samuccaya.

[S Jayanarayanan]

Although you have asked Vidya for his opinion, he has not yet replied - I guess it may not be worth his time to point out trivial mistakes.

--- On Tue, 12/7/10, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> sAshtAnga praNAms Sri Vidya prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
> 
> Sri Vidya prabhuji :
> 
> Bhaskar, just because I characterize your statement as
> "general"
> and agree that any reader may apply it to any "particular"
> does
> NOT mean that I accept the truth value or the tastefulness
> of
> your general statement at all. 
> 
> bhaskar :
> 
> I have not expected that acceptance either from your
> goodself or from any 
> member prabhuji.  As you know, I was making that
> statement after Sri 
> Srikanta prabhuji's observation (already said this twice!!)
> and at the end 
> there was another general statement from me that these are
> all not the 
> helpful criteria to evaluate jnAni's jnAna.  Despite
> clarifying this if 
> somebody ( I am surprised that you too took it in negative
> sense!!) 
> tasting the bitterness of that observation, is it my fault
> prabhuji??  And 
> on the other note, if my general observation is NOT true,
> please clarify 
> which is that 'truth value' you are attributing to the 
> 'particulars'...Atleast that would help me to know the 'bad
> taste' in my 
> statement. 
> 
> Sri Vidya prabhuji :
> 
> I did find your comments in bad taste myself and as a
> matter of fact, I 
> don't agree that what
> you meant as a "general" statement is quite valid.
> 
> bhaskar :
> 
> What is that not valid in my observation, kindly clarify
> prabhuji.  I said 
> that nowadays most of the acharya-s would travel in cars,
> stay in well 
> furnished cottages, would have good food for bhiksha
> etc.  if these 
> observations not true and valid what is the truth &
> which is valid 
> observation you educate me prabhuji.  Atleast I should
> know where I am 
> erring in my observation..is it not prabhuji?? 
> 

You say above, "nowadays MOST of the acharya-s", implying that there may be exceptions.

But in your previous email, you had actually claimed that not "most" but ALL of the Acharyas behaved this way: "I dont see ANY of our present day Acharya-s/ swamiji-s/ vedAnta guruji-s using their 'pAda-s' to travel from one place to another and preferring 'kuteera' to stay...They have ALWAYS posh cars...".

I hope you see the difference.

Problem # 1:

Your had alleged, "And with regard to luxurious life of swamiji's...I dont see any of our present day Acharya-s/ swamiji-s/ vedAnta guruji-s using their 'pAda-s' to travel from one place to another and preferring 'kuteera' to stay...They have always posh cars (their own and devotees as well :-))  at their disposal and have well furnished cottages to stay and sumptuous food for the 'bhiksha':-))"

NOTHING of what you have said above concerning the actions of the Acharyas actually violates the rules of dharma, which the Acharyas of the four primary Sankara Maths scrupulously follow. If they drive around in so-called "posh" cars (as you describe it), that is the car that was offered to the Acharyas by the devotees so that the Acharyas can fulfill their busy schedule of blessing devotees one day in Sringeri and another day in Bengaluru and the next day in Chennai. And there is absolutely nothing in our dharma that PROHIBITS Acharyas from traveling in such cars if it is to fulfill the needs of the devotees who yearn for the blessings of their masters. So your characterization of the Acharyas' busy life involving extensive traveling through inhospitable roads and harsh schedules for the sake of blessing the devotees as "luxurious" was in bad taste indeed!

Problem # 2:

Another quote from you, "Due to his prArabdha janita dehendriya manObuddhi ahaMkAra, he may  'sometime' involve in 'questionable' activities by getting 'vipareeta pratyaya-s!! When the  brahma jnAni's  fate itself is like this then what to speak about 'holymen' ??  So, at least with this excuse the holymen can justify their activities. No pun intended here please, this is the theory which got acceptance from the 'official' flag holders of advaita."

I don't know whom you have referred to by "'official' flag holders of advaita", but certainly this is not the view held by the Acharyas of the four main Sankara Maths. I'm particularly highlighting your claim, "So, at least with this excuse the holymen can justify their activities...this is the theory which got acceptance from the 'official' flag holders of advaita.", that is FACTUALLY INCORRECT, besides being in extraordinary bad taste.

Firstly, the GYAnI himself, if he is at the level of jIvanmukti, will not attribute any "activities" to himself, so there is no question of his "justifying his activities" to anyone, because in his view there is no "my" involved in the activity.

Secondly, if there is a body that engages in Adharma saying, "I am a GYAnI, so I can do whatever I want", then punishment can be meted out to the same body, saying, "You are a GYAnI, so you can take this punishment for the Adharma done by the body"! So in this case also there is no "justification" of the Adharmic activity. Hence your statement that the "holymen" can "justify" an Adharmic activity is incorrect, because "justification" can be done only when that the activity is in line with Dharma (which the "holymen" ought not to violate).

Last but not the least, here are some stories/quotes from memory to refute the claim that a person (i.e. a body) can go about doing anything (adharmic including) and still claim to be a "GYAnI":

1) H.H. Abhinava Vidya Teertha MahaswamigaL narrated this story about a Sannyasin who went about saying he was a GYAnI and can do anything. A householder called this Sannyasi home for food. When the Sannyasi sat down to eat, he was offered an empty leaf with no food. When the sannyasi asked for food, the householder replied that since the man claimed to be a GYAnI, he wouldn't have any problem going without food!

H.H. then said that Sannyasis who imagine themselves to be GYAnI's and violate the rules of Dharma don't have to be fed - after all, they don't need food if they are really "above dharma"! :)

Moral of story: there is NO JUSTIFICATION for Adharmic activities.

2) Regarding the recent legal situation of the Kanchi Math, the Dwaraka Math Acharya said, "If the Kanchi Acharya has actually done these evil deeds, then he must be hanged thrice".

Point: If someone has engaged in an Adharmic deed, he or she or it must be punished according to the rules of dharma. There is NO "justification" whatsoever for an evil deed.

3) Given the above stories and examples, someone keen on mischievously "throwing a spanner into the works" may ask why we don't apply the same rules of Dharma to Krishna, who may have "deviated" from the rules of Dharma repeatedly. The reply is that Krishna certainly engaged in Dharma when he gave protection to Sudama, Draupadi, etc. and in the rare cases where he appered to engage in so-called "Adharma" (such as in the case of playing with the Gopis), it must be seen as the activities of a YogIshvara who is unattached to mundane activities, and Krishna proves his Brahmacharya by reviving Pareekshit.

Regards,
Kartik

> Sri Vidya prabhuji :
>  
> It has become fashionable nowadays for anybody and
> everybody to
> criticize anybody and everybody else. 
> 
> bhaskar :
> 
> Yes, you are right prabhuji...unfortunately this list also
> not an 
> exception to your observation prabhuji.
> 
> Sri Vidya prabhuji :
> 
> Those who have renounced the world have become special
> targets of such 
> criticism. 
> 
> bhaskar :
> 
> IMHO, a constructive criticism is just a critical &
> healthy observation of 
> current scenario.  And a constructive criticism would
> help us to mend our 
> ways effectively. 
> 
> Sri Vidya prabhuji:
> 
> 
> Those who make blanket statements about our Sannyasins
> often have no
> reference point to distinguish between the genuine article
> and
> the fake. 
> 
> bhaskar :
> 
> Yes prabhuji, the reference point is very difficult to
> determine through 
> the external behavior & life styles!! Often this
> reference point is based 
> on individual shraddha...Ofcourse, this shraddha is what is
> important, not 
> the 'external' life style of genuines as well as fakes.
> 
> Sri Vidya prabhuji :
> 
> I have no wish to list who I think is genuine and who I
> think is fake. It 
> is up to each person to make such a decision
> independently.
> 
> bhaskar :
> 
> Yes, it would be a difficult & very sensitive task
> prabhuji.  As you 
> rightly observed, each &  every individual has
> his/her own list of 
> genuines & fakes :-)) and one may have to face the
> consequence from the 
> other end if he/she tries to broadcast his own genuine list
> & fake list.
> 
> 
> Sri Vidya prabhuji :
> 
> Enough said. I stick by my administrative request to all
> members,
> to limit the number of posts per day. We all have our
> constraints
> in how and when we can read and respond to list emails. I
> also
> stick by my general request to all list members to read
> other
> people's posts carefully, not to wilfully misrepresent
> other
> people's views and to be as courteous as possible in
> response.
> I have always held that once heat enters a discussion,
> light
> gets sidelined.
> 
> bhaskar :
> 
> Thanks for your clarification & observation
> prabhuji.  I would stick to 2 
> mails per day rule prabhuji.  IMO, sometimes, some
> members unneccarily try 
> to find ONLY heat when actually it is meant for
> light,  in those cases I 
> think  it may require both heat & light to keep
> the discussion warm !! 
> 
> Sri Vidya prabhuji :
> 
> Such requests may arise from discussions between a few
> specific
> people, but are always meant for all list members. There is
> no
> reason to cry foul or think that some nepotism holds sway.
> 
> 
> bhaskar :
> 
> prabhuji, I already clarified to you that that was ONLY my
> rush of blood 
> first thought & vanished subsequently !! Do you think
> it is a crime that I 
> shared it with you?? If not then, I dont know why you are
> still 
> highlighting it & bringing it again to the front??
> 
> Sri Vidya prabhuji :
> 
> The moderators of this list (Ravi, Jaldhar and I) have
> always been
> hesitant to interfere actively in terms of regulating the
> conduct
> of the list. Our sincere hope is that we can continue this
> trend
> for a long time to come.
> 
> bhaskar :
> 
> Yes, prabhuji, I too hope that with all sincerity. 
> 
> Vidyasankar
> 
> Your humble servant
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar