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

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste Bhaskar ji,

Pl. read my comments in [ ]

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> Here is my observations in '>'
>
> In the foregoing we have seen the *Scriptural evidence for the existence
> of
> the Mind for the Jnani and Shankaracharya's confirmatory comments for the
> fact of the mind existing for the Jnani till the death.
>
> >  Out of context quote from chAndOgya..


[Can you pl. tell me how the Chandogya quote is 'out of context'?  Is not
the context being discussed pertaining to the 'presence/absence of a mind to
a Jnani'?  It is the most appropriate quote that can be given to prove the
presence of a mind and other organs to a Jnani till death.  It is
unfortunate that you pooh pooh the explicit Shruti passages and the patently
jivanmukti-proving bhashyam of the Acharya.  If this is your attitude to
Bhagavatpada's bhashya that is clearly not favouring your line of thinking,
there is no point in continuing the discussion between us.]


> If we want to really know how jnAni is really amanaska though he appears
> doing all the activities, we have to study the kArika's 'asparsha yOga'(3-30
> to 39) and relevant
> shankara bhAshya on it.


[ No one has disputed that the jnani is really amanaska.  I have quoted the
Gita 5th chapter verses that say this most explicitly.]


> I dont know, you may continue your argument even after reading this and say
> no this can happen only in pAtanjala's asaMprajnAta samAdhi or nirvikalpa
> samAdhi and when we see jnAni in action he must be having the mortal mind &
> identification with it.
>

[Just one sentence of Anandagiri's clarification is enough to explain the
purport of the entire set of the verses quoted from the kArikaa:   For 3.36
he says at the end:

अविद्यादशायामेव सर्वो व्यवहारः, विद्यादशायां च अविद्याया असत्त्वात् न कोऽपि
व्यवहारः ।  बाधितानुवृत्त्या तु व्यवहाराभाससिद्धिरित्यर्थः  ।

//All vyavarhAra is in the state of avidyaa alone, in the state of
realization, as avidyaa is no longer there, there is no vyavahara at all.
However, owing to the continuance of the 'samskaara vega', called
bAdhitAnuvRutti, there is a semblance of vyavahAra.//

And, this bAdhitAnuvRtti is admitted by Shankara in the SutrabhAshya:

What Shankara says in His commentary  on the Brahma sutra 4.1.15 is worth
quoting here: ‘’The knowledge of the Self being essentially non-active
destroys all works by sublating wrong knowledge; but wrong knowledge –
comparable to the appearance of a double moon – lasts for some time even
after it has been sublated, owing to the impression it has made.  Moreover,
it is not a matter for dispute at all whether the body of the Knower of
Brahman continues to exist for sometime or not. For how can one contest the
fact of another possessing the knowledge of Brahman – vouched for by his
heart’s conviction – and at the same time continuing with the body?’’]


>
> It is in these sample instances that we can find the unmistakable evidence
> for the concept of 'avidyaa lesha' for a Jnani, in Shankara Bhashya.
>
> >  It is really surprising to see your undue linking of prArabda karma
> with avidyA lesha!! So, according to you, shankara who is jnAni and
> 'unfortunately' written bhAshya has the avidyA lesha in him!!, ramaNa
> maharshi, who taught lot of people has the traces of avidya, our advaita
> paramparaa Acharya-s who have been spreading the knowledge of advaya jnAna
> were the patients of avidyA lesha!!??  what a tragedy prabhuji!! Now, how
> can we believe in the teachings of these mahAtma-s when they themselves
> were suffering from avidyA lesha??  how can we prove that their upadesha
> to us is devoid of that 'avidya lesha' ?? I think, Sri Vidya prabhuji's
> objections to Sri Anbu shivam is equally applicable here also... It is
> really regrettable to note that even though shankara insisting without any
> ambiguity that Atma vidya/brahma completely destroys avidyA, you are
> comfortably pasting the traces of avidyA to brahma jnAni also!!  This is
> as good as saying : 'I've the knowledge of the rope but tail of the snake
> is still troubling me :-))  This reminds me Sri Sadananda prabhuji's
> mouse-man's story to me.  Anyway, you are under the impression that you
> have already justified the 'avidyA lesha' in a brahma jnAni, there is no
> use in continuing this discussion.
>
> > By the way prabhuji, when do you think this avidyA lesha also completely
> erazed in a jnAni?? is it 'after' the physical death of that jnAni??
> please clarify.
>

[What all you have said above shows how offending you have been towards the
Bhashyakara.  The above Sutra bhashya quote has been completely disregarded
by you and resulted in the deriding comments you have made on the
Bhashyakara's words:
//comparable to the appearance of a double moon – lasts for some time even
after it has been sublated, owing to the impression it has made.//Your
'snake tail' is a caricature, an अपहास्य of the BhashyakAra's द्विचन्द्र
example.  It is left to you to seek the Acharya's kshamA for the gross
disregard you have shown to His upadesha on 'avidya lesha'.  ]

>
> Shri Bhaskar ji, pl. note this is what I had said regarding the 'kombu'.
> It
> is the 'akhanDAkAra vritti'  that is likened to the kombu. That is the
> dArShTantika and NOT the mind itself, as you have mis-comprehended from my
> post:
>
> >  what exactly the mind you are talking here without 'any' vrutti-s?? can
> a mind exists without any vrutti??  We say in sushupti there is no BMI
> assosiation to the Atman... why coz. there is no vrutti jnAna in
> sushupti..Hence there is no mind...Moreover, when an ' akhandAkAra vrutti'
> itself dissolves like 'kombu', what mundane vrutti would be there to say
> jnAni has the mind with vrutti-s?? That is the reason why shankara gives
> the kAtaka powder example to prove the non-existence of 'individual' mind
> in a jnAni.  When jnAni realizes he is nothing but that :aprANo hymanaH
> shubra nirvikAri brahman, how can we still dare to attribute avidyA lesha
> to him??  how can we still see a separate individual mind identity from a
> jnAni??  For him mana is not mana it is Atman only nothing else (Atmanneva
> pashyati, sarvamAtmAnam pashyati)..Kindly dont build your arguments on
> 'pashyati' to prove the individual mind of a jnAni.
>

[All the above tirade of yours is simply brushed aside by the Acharya by His
one sentence giving the double-moon example.  Now you will have to eat your
words, seeking His excuse for your misconduct.]

>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>