[Advaita-l] Fwd: A perspective -20

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Sir,

Pl. see my comments appended in between [ ]

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Sri Subramanian,
>
> I did foresee that you would leave everything else and come to the story of
> Ahalya!
>

[ It is because this story that formed the basis for your conviction of a
Jnani not having a mind and this, to my knowledge, is not the way the
Scriptures teach.]

>
> I do not go by the quotation from a website but from personal knowledge.
> Bhagavan did not invent any new story to say that Ahalya as a person was *
> not* turned into a stone.  That would be a repudiation of the ithihaasa
> story.  (There are lot of westerners who twist things a little bit to be in
> line with their thinking and feed their following.  I ignore them.)
>
> Ahalya was a Gnaani and she did not identify herself with a fleshy BMI or
> stone BMI.  Same like Bhagavan Ramana who remained and taught in this world
> with no identification with the BMI.
>
> In the second chapter of Bhagavat Geetha (2.54), Arjuna asked Lord Krishna
> how a Gnaani sits, how he walks etc.  In other words Arjuna as an ignorant
> man wanted to identify a Gnaani.  You should read Bhagavan's (Krishna's)
> reply.
>

[I have read the Lord's reply and they are in perfect accordance with
Arjuna's question. That is how one can identify a shrotriya brahma nishtha.
Sri Ramakrishna said: 'That is the way, Naren, Rakhaal, you should test me
by the day and test me by the night.' ]

>
> Bhagavan Ramana has clearly said the body (which cannot be separated from
> the BMI complex until death of the body) is destined with the praarabha
> karma and exhausts in time.  A person who who has attained Gnaana
> immediately disengages from this BMI complex but the body carries on to its
> termination in time.    For an ignorant onlooker it would be like the Gnani
> is doing it.  This Gnaani is the Jeevanmuktha who is described by Bhagavan
> Krishna in reply to Arjuna. Bhaskarji has already explained this.
>

[ This is Bhagavan's teaching in the 5th chapter and the Acharyal's
bhashyam:

//And besides, this person does not act in the real sense. Hence,


8-9. Remaining absorbed in the Self, the knower of Reality should think, 'I
certainly do not do anything', even while seeing, hearing, touching,
smelling, eating, moving, sleeping, breathing, speaking, releasing, holding,
opening and closing the eyes-remembering that the organs function in
relation to the objects of the organs.

Yuktah, remaining absorbed in the Self; tattva-vit, the knower of
Reality-knower of the real nature of Truth, of the Self, i.e., the seer of
the supreme Reality; manyeta, should think; 'na karomi eva, I certainly do
not do; kincit, anything.'

Having realized the Truth, when or how should he think? This is being
answered; Api, even; pasyan, while seeing; srnvan, hearing; sprsan,
touching; jighran, smelling; asnan, eating; gacchan, moving; svapan,
sleeping; svasan, breathing; pralapan, speaking; visrjan, releasing; grhnan,
holding; unmisan, opening; nimisan, closing the eyes. All these are to be
connected with the above manyeta (should think).//

Note the word: 'manyeta'.  And the Bhashyam:'Having realized the Truth, when
or how should he think?'

How is this possible if there were to be no mind at all?

If Bhagavan and Shankara were of the opinion that 'only the ajnani thinks
that a jnani acts', They would not taken the trouble of answering Arjuna's
question.  They could have easily told him: Arjuna, you are just imagining
that a Jnani acts.  Do not hold such funny ideas.'  Instead, They took the
pains to show Arjuna that it is not the Atman that acts but only the BMI
that acts and this discrimination is at the root of Atman knowledge.]


> Sri GurubyO Namaha
> Anbu
>
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:18 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Dear Anbu ji,
> >
> > This 'shaapa vimochanam' by Bhagavan abounds in the Puranic and Itahasa
> > lore.  Take for instance young Krishna passing thru the two trees with
> the
> > grinding stone tied to His waist.  The two brothers Manigreeva and
> > NalakUbara emerged from the felled trees.  They were the sons of Kubera
> and
> > had got this tree form due to a curse.  They were not Jnanis before and
> > after. There is another instance of a lizard turning out to be a
> gandharva,
> > being freed from the shaapa.  Even this gandharva was not a Jnani.
> >
> > In Advaita,  Jnanam is complete disidentification from the AnAtma.  If a
> > Jnani is cursed by some Deva/Rishi and starts identifiying with a stone,
> > then the very definition of Jnanam is questionable. Even granting that
> > Ahalya was a Jnani and experienced the effects of the curse, the story
> does
> > not obviate the need for the instrumentality of the mind, even in the
> case
> > of  a Jnani.  For, only with a mind can one identify and disidentify.
> > JaaDyam is also a mode of the (taamasic) mind alone. Atman is beyond the
> > guNa-s. My persistence is on this one aspect.
> >
> > By the way, here is the story, 'as told by Bhagavan' from literature
> > related
> > to Bhagavan Ramana where this Ahalya episode is discussed:
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.messagefrommasters.com/ramana_stories/ramana_maharshi_gautama_ahalya_32.htm
> >
> > // Devotee: “The statement that Ahalya turned into a stone
> > applies only to her mind and not to her body. Is that not so?”
> >
> > Bhagavan: “That is so. If it is not for the mind, could it be for the
> body?
> > It is only ordinary people that say her body turned into a stone and that
> > Rama restored her to her original form by putting his foot on the stone.
> > How
> > is that possible? It only means that the mind lost its awareness of the
> > Self, and unable to think of anything else, she became dull like a stone.
> >
> > That dullness got relieved by the darsan of a great personage.
> > As she herself was a great tapasvini she could immediately become aware
> of
> > the Self. //
> >
> >
> > Warm regards,
> > subrahmanian.v
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Sri Subramanian,
> > >
> > > I suppose I have said all that could be said of my conviction.  There
> is
> > no
> > > such thing as a rule book for advaitha.  At the end of the day one has
> to
> > > understand it intuitively.  It would be the same if you imagine
> yourself
> > to
> > > be Ahalya and Sri Rama placed his holy paadham on your head.  I suppose
> a
> > > bhakthimaan has a different concept than an exegete.
> > >
> > > Actually according to Bhagavan Ramana Ahalya was a gnyaani even when
> she
> > > was
> > > cursed.  This might surprise you and might tempt you to ask more
> > questions.
> > > We are merely treading into how jeevan mukthas behave in this world.
>  Our
> > > AachaaryaaL referred to one such person in Sivaanandalahari namely
> > Kannappa
> > > Nayanaar who also placed his holy foot on Lord Siva.  If you are
> > interested
> > > you can read my 3 part commentary on that in the 63rd Sloka of
> > > Sivaanandhalahari.
> > >
> > > Subhamasthu,
> > > Anbu
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 6:54 AM, V Subrahmanian <
> > v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Anbu ji,
> > > >
> > > > Pl. see my responses in [ ]
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dear Sri Subramanian,
> > > > >
> > > > > In the first post under this thread I wrote: " Advaitha teaches us
> > that
> > > > > giving up the intellect enables one to become one with this
> Reality."
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [ This is not the teaching of traditional Advaita of Shankara's.]
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  *A gnyani is one with the reality and as such he is asangan.*
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [This is true]
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That would be the acquiring of aathmagnyaanam which can be obtained
> > > only
> > > > by
> > > > > the surrender to the Guru.  Such ability to surrender to a Guru
> comes
> > > out
> > > > > of
> > > > > sukrutham in many many births.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [There are no issues on this.]
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Then what happens between him and the Guru is one-on-one and does
> not
> > > > > involve any set pattern and the upadesa may involve words or not
> even
> > > > > words.  Bhagavan Ramana gave nayana dheeksha to many people.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [If Bhagavan Krishna, Himself PUrNa, could have approved such methods
> > of
> > > > 'nayana deeksha' why did He not do that for Arjuna?  Why did He ask
> him
> > > to
> > > > acquire Jnanam by 'tad viddhi praNipaatena pariprashnena sevayaa?' ]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >  My examples from Ramayana and Bhagavatha are in these lines.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [I do not think Ahalya became a Jnani after the shaapa vimochanam.]
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Who can assert that the intellect was involved in all these?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Since Ahalya's case is out of this, it could well be said in the
> case
> > of
> > > > Gopis that the intellect had become pari pakvam to intuit only the
> > > > antaraatma dRk, sAkshi, to the exclusion of every thing else.  This
> is
> > > what
> > > > Krishna advises in the 6th chapter: na kinchidapi chintayet.  The
> > Gopi-s
> > > > could be said to have had this ability.  Constant, one pointed,
> Krishna
> > > > chintanam can take place only in the intellect.  So, where is the
> > > > destruction or giving up of the intellect?  In the Panchadashi
> > Vidyaranya
> > > > gives the example of a woman constantly thinking of her paramour even
> > > when
> > > > engaged in her daily routine.]
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What I am saying is that it is preposterous to say that a gnyaani
> > needs
> > > > the
> > > > > mind to carry on in this world.  He is there exhausting his
> > praarabhdha
> > > > > karma but he is asangan.  What he seems to be doing is a destiny
> that
> > > he
> > > > > knows unlike the agnyaani but may not care for he is asangan.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Sir, pl. note that for carrying on in this world the Jnani
> definitely
> > > > needs
> > > > the mind.  Supposing he is writing a book.  Will he not consult
> several
> > > > other books and select and reject material?  How is this possible
> > without
> > > a
> > > > mind?  How will he distinguish between what is required for him from
> > what
> > > > is
> > > > not?  If he has to show compassion, care, etc. to others, how will
> this
> > > be
> > > > possible without the mind?  Bhagavan has taught in the Gita that
> these
> > > are
> > > > all faculties of the mind. If he  is an Acharya, a shortriya
> > > brahmanishtha,
> > > > how can he teach various students of various levels unless he
> > > > distinguishes,
> > > > discriminates, etc.  It is a wrong notion that the jnani would have
> no
> > > > mind.
> > > >
> > > > According to the Vedanta, prarabdha karma is the one where the
> present
> > > > body-mind complex that has begun will run its destined course and
> only
> > > then
> > > > cease.  How can we admit that only the physical body of the Jnani
> > without
> > > > the mind will continue? ]
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Why so?  Because the world is a product of karma and Easwara as
> > > > Karmaphala
> > > > > Dhaatha has to ensure that the phala that he has dispensed is not
> > > > overcome
> > > > > by any means.  He ensures this by being the space, time and
> causality
> > > and
> > > > > the jeeva too!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [ When He is the jeeva, will He be just the jiva's body and not the
> > >  mind,
> > > > intellect, ahankara also?  If he is not always in samadhi, he will
> have
> > > to
> > > > interact with the world.  If someone calls him by name, how will he
> > > respond
> > > > if he has no mind, ahankara? The notion of 'mind is lost with
> > > > self-realization' is a concept that is not acceptable to Vedanta.]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Now tell me how can anyone with only a useless weapon as an
> > > > > intellect can challenge his will?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [The intellect is required to go along with the prarabdha even if not
> > for
> > > > challenging Iswara's will.  Let me also tell you that there are some
> > > videos
> > > > available on the Paramacharya of Kanchi.  One can see, over the
> years,
> > > the
> > > > Acharya had to be prompted by those around Him for suitable words,
> > names,
> > > > dates, etc.  This was not required when He was young in His thirties
> > and
> > > > forties. I have seen those videos too.  That shows that the intellect
> > > takes
> > > > the beating of ageing. This is the natural course of Prakriti to
> which
> > > even
> > > > a jnani is subject. Of course it is needless to say that his
> AtmajnAnam
> > > > will
> > > > not be affected by these.  The Panchadashi Chapter 2 last few shlokas
> > are
> > > > specifically on this. ]
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > subbu
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > >
> > > For assistance, contact:
> > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>