[Advaita-l] Physical death of the Jnani and related issues

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste Anbu ji,

You said:

// I wish to tell you that my convictions are *not contrary to the
scriptures*.  No one owns any patent for scriptural understanding.  Please
correct yourself.//

In an early post on this thread you quoted 'AchAryavAn puruSho veda' to
substantiate your theory that only the Guru's role is all that matters in a
person gaining knowledge.  You even said 'the Guru destroys the disciple's
ignorance'.  In a subsequent post I pointed out that this very Chandogya
vaakyam you quoted says, just two words before this quote: 'panDito
medhaavi' where the indispensability of an informed and intelligent
disciple's role is also taught.  Is not your knowingly or unknowingly
quoting this passage partially an instance of your conviction being not in
accordance with the scripture?  In fact your conviction that the Jnani has
no intellect has absolutely no support in the Upanishads, the Gita and the
Acharyal's Bhashyam.  If one says 'Brahman has no mind, intellect, vaak,
etc' that is perfectly supported by all the Upanishads, Gita and the
Bhashyam.

On another thread you asked me to look into Arjuna's question on the
Sthitaprajna and the Lord's reply.  To your dismay, the very first reply of
the Lord contains the word: manogataan.  'He who casts off all desires of
the mind.. is one of steady knowledge'.  For casting off the desires, one
should have a mind in which they arise and to recognize that they have
arisen one should have a mind and to cast them off one should have a
discriminating mind.  In the next verse, again, the word: manaaH occurs.
duhkham, sukham, raaga, bhaya, krodha, all these are attributes of the
mind.  It is definitely not that these will not arise at all in him.  Only
that he will not be overwhelmed by them. That is why 'samatvam' has been
prescribed as a practice even at the karma yoga stage. That is the test of
sthitaprajnatvam.  All the traits of the sthitaprajna taught by the Lord
involve the mind.

You never replied to my referring to the Gita 13.24,25 where the
instrumentality of the mind for gaining Self knowledge is mandated.  When
the canonical scriptures are not referred by you, how can one take your
convictions to be in accordance with the scripture?


// If one concedes that Bhagavan did inquire into the mind and it had got
dissolved then why insist he is like any other agnyaani with BMI?  Why
resurrect His mind?//

On what basis does one 'concede' this?  Is it not on the basis of Bhagavan's
own words to his early disciples? How else could the world ever know this
unless Bhagavan himself told others?  Surely Bhagavan could not have
conveyed this without a mind.  No one else could have 'divined' his
experience of 'his mind having got dissolved'.  Swami Vidyaranya in the
Panchadashi remarks, though in a different context: it is like a man
proclaiming 'I have no tongue'.  The problem here is that Bhagavan informing
that his mind got dissolved upon enquiring is taken literally.  With the
mind 'dissolved' in the literal sense, he could not have heard anyone's
questions and given out sensible answers.

//Actually Bhagavan Ramana employed different
modes of teaching to different people and his vichara method is also
unique.  His teaching included verbal and non-verbal modes.//

How could all this have taken place if his mind had literally 'dissolved'?
Some people quote Bhagavan giving a reply: 'The Jnani never sees the
world'.  Unless the Jnani Ramanar 'saw and heard' the questioner in front of
him, how could he have given this reply?  Instead if it is explained that
'the Jnani never sees the world as real just as ajnanis do' this reply of
Bhagavan would be in accordance with the Scriptures.

Best regards,
subrahmanian.v


On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Sadanandaji,
>
> Pranaams.
>
> I am addressing you because you have written "I felt it was useless to
> discuss any further when people of strong
> convictions contrary to scriptures and advaita. "  I wish to tell you that
> my convictions are *not contrary to the scriptures*.  No one owns any
> patent
> for scriptural understanding.  Please correct yourself.
>
>