[Advaita-l] Can a jnAni engage himself in a prohibited act??

[V Subrahmanian]

Let me further clarify:

Ajnana is the cause of anyone taking janma.  In the case of Vyasa, this
mUla-ajnana is gone; he is a Jnani even in the earlier janma  where he was
called  ApAntaratamas.  Owing to his very special punya, his praarabdha is
go great, positively, that it did not get exhausted in that earlier janma.
Such exceptional persons are chosen by the Lord as 'AdhikArika puruShas' and
they live out that life.  At the end of this life they, having exhausted all
the praarabdha, get videha mukti and are no longer made to be embodied.  It
is owing to the samskara that he got this role as VyAsa.

It is believed that this is the 'BAdarAyaNa VyAsa', called Krishna
Dvaipaayana.  He is eulogised as 'VishnurUpa' as he is a Jnani plus an
AdhikArika puruSha with a very special role in Jnana dissemination.  He is
the one who wrote the Brahma Sutras, the Mahabharata and all the Puranas.
'JnAnee tu Atmaiva' is the Gita teaching of the Lord which has so nicely
become applicable to Vyasa that he is seen as verily VishNurUpa.

Thus, it is not the Adya janma; it could very well be the antya janma for
that jiva now called  VyAsa. His mother was Satyavati and father Sage
Parashara.

It is the 'vikShepaka avidyA-lesha' that continued, samskAra vashAt, as
taught by ShankarachArya in the BSB 4.1.15 and several other places, that
has resulted in this VyAsatva for that exalted jIva.  The BSB cited by me
earlier also says that he was a Veda Acharya in that janma as ApAntaratamas.


There is no problem of the 'vandhya putra' example here.

Here is an interesting account of Veda Vyasa's roles:

http://www.citehr.com/33464-krishna-dvaipayana-legends-our-land.html

Best regards,
subbu




On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Br. Pranipata Chaitanya <
pranipata at hotmail.com> wrote:

> From: "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
>
>  It is not avatara, if you are in that impression.
>>
>
> I repeat do not be judgemental.
>
> You quoted the example, you provided explanation for your example, now you
> are issuing a clarification for your explanation.
>
>
>
>  Vyasa's case is no different in as much as another
>> body is taken and lived out.  The only difference is that in this case
>> avidya / ajnana is not the cause of the new incarnation; it is the command
>> of Ishwara.
>>
>>
> One just cant stop but wonder how nicely you state non-difference and bring
> out difference.
>
> If vandhyA can have putra, I mean cause of the effect, non existing avidya
> can be the cause of the effect prarabdha, in your above cited case.
>
>