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

[Anbu sivam2]

And by the way do you consider the mind to be a body as in kaayam, vaak and
manas for sthoola, sookshma and kaaraNa sareeram?

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Quote: "We also have to ask ourselves - where does this saMskAra abide and
> what does
>
> it control? Obviously, this residual saMskAra does not abide in the Atman.
> Nor can
> it abide merely in the physical body devoid of a mind. There HAS to be a
> mind for
> the jnAnI in which this residual impression of prior mithyAjnAna stays for
> some time."
>
> The question, Vidyasankarji, is if the gnyaani is attached to this body or
> detached from this body.  Also if the gnyaani is the same as Brahman.
>
> If the answer is that the gnyaani is detached and that he is same as
> Brahman then it would occur to me to ask the question if there is any
> difference in jadathwam of the body of one who attained jeevan mukthi and
> the jadathwam of a piece of rock.
>
> Because Bhagavan Ramana has said that 'dhEhaathma buddhE gnyajadou
> samaanou', we would have to assume that anyone who says that the jeevan
> muktha has dhEhaathma buddhi would have to conclude that he the jeevan
> muktha is a jadam! Or that Bhagavan Ramana is dead wrong in his contention!
>
> Anbu
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <
> svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> I would suggest that this entire debate can be resolved by carefully
>> reading
>> the wording in the bhAshya.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bhaskar quotes -
>>
>>
>> > > By the way, even after realizing one moon, seeing double moon does not
>> mean
>> > > it is due to remnants of avidya...shankara clearly says vidyA & avidyA
>> > > cannot have co-existence in a same person. ekasmin purushe ete
>> ekadaiva
>> > > na saha saMbadhyEyAtAmityarthaH, yathA shuktikAyAM rajata shukti jnAne
>> > > ekasya purushasya.....tasmAnna vidyAyAm satyAm
>> avidyAsaMbhavOsti...this
>> > > clear cut clarification from shankara is more than enough to blow away
>> > > your avidyA lesha theory...
>>
>>
>> I want to draw attention to the phrase "ekasmin purushe" and the sentence
>> "tasmAn na vidyAyAM satyAm avidya-saMbhavo'sti", in particular the word
>> saMbhava. This means that there is no *fresh* arising of avidyA *in one
>> purusha* after the rise of vidyA. The locus being talked about here is
>> *one
>> purusha*, i.e. the jnAnI. Please note that this does not say anything
>> about
>> the remaining effects of the past state of avidyA for that *one purusha*.
>>
>>
>>
>> The only objection to this would be that saMbhava should be translated not
>> as "arising" but as "possibility", i.e. there is no possibility of any
>> more avidyA
>>
>> after the rise of vidyA. This can be easily decided as below.
>>
>>
>>
>> Subrahmanian quotes:
>>
>>
>>
>> > This is quite understandable. But what Shankara says in the following
>> Sutra
>> > bhashya 4.1.15 is:
>> >
>> > उच्यते - न तावदनाश्रित्य आरब्धकार्यं कर्माशयं ज्ञानोत्पत्तिरुपपद्यते ।
>> > आश्रिते च तस्मिन् कुलालचक्रवत्प्रवृत्तवेगस्यान्तराले प्रतिबन्धासम्भवात्
>> भवति
>> > *वेगक्षयप्रतिपालनम् *। अकर्त्रात्मबोधोऽपि हि मिथ्याज्ञानबाधनेन
>> > कर्माण्युच्छिनत्ति । *बाधितमपि तु मिथ्याज्ञानं* द्विचन्द्रज्ञानवत्
>> > *संस्कारवशात्
>> > कंचित्कालमनुवर्तते एव* । अपि च नैवात्र विवदितव्यं ब्रह्मविदा कंचित्कालं
>> > शरीरं ध्रियते न वा ध्रियत इति ।
>> > कथं ह्येकस्य स्वहृदयप्रत्ययं *ब्रह्मवेदनं देहधारणं *च अपरेण
>> प्रतिक्षेप्तुं
>> > शक्त्यते । श्रुतिस्मृतिषु स्थितप्रज्ञलक्षणनिर्देशेनैतदेव निरुच्यते ।
>> >
>>
>>
>> For those who can't see/read/understand the Sanskrit fonts above, I
>> reproduce
>> one key sentence below in a transliterated form -
>>
>>
>> bAdhitam api tu mithyAjnAnaM dvicandra-jnAna-vat saMskAra-vaSAt
>> kaMcitkAlam
>> anuvartata eva.
>>
>>
>>
>> Again the context of discussion is *one purusha*, the one in whom
>> jnAnotpatti,
>> an arising of jnAna, has occurred. Note that it is Sankara bhagavatpAda
>> himself
>> who says that the previous state of mithyAjnAna, although it has already
>> been
>> sublated (bAdhitam api), it still leaves an impression (samskAra), which
>> continues
>> to control (vaSa) the continued appearance (anuvartanaM) of that
>> mithyAjnAna
>> for some time (kaMcit kAla).
>>
>>
>>
>> For the purposes of this discussion, I would like to  keep away from
>> translating
>> mithyAjnAna in the above sentence and debating whether or not it is
>> avidyA. I
>> have no wish to get into bhAmati vs. vivaraNa or bhAmati vs. bhAshya or
>> vivaraNa
>> vs. bhAshya at this juncture. I will leave that to those who find that
>> debate to be
>> fruitful.
>>
>>
>> However, granting that Sankara bhagavatpAda's brahmasUtra bhAshya is
>> entirely
>> self-consistent, we can clearly see that his statement on the continued
>> effect of
>> saMskAra rules out the translation of avidya-saMbhava as "possibility of
>> avidyA"
>> in the other quotation from the same text.
>>
>>
>> We also have to ask ourselves - where does this saMskAra abide and what
>> does
>> it control? Obviously, this residual saMskAra does not abide in the Atman.
>> Nor can
>> it abide merely in the physical body devoid of a mind. There HAS to be a
>> mind for
>> the jnAnI in which this residual impression of prior mithyAjnAna stays for
>> some time.
>>
>>
>>
>> In other words, in my view, the bhagavatpAda has clearly indicated to us
>> the
>>
>> correct state of things in this issue.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Vidyasankar
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
>> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>