[Advaita-l] Bhagavan Ramana and the pain of cancer

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste Anbu ji,

Pl. see my responses within [  ]

On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Subramianji,
>
> Namasthe.
>
> You wrote:
> [It is not a suffering for the Jnani; it is a fact that he cannot do away
> with.  Brahma sutra bhashya 4.1.15 is proof for this.]
>
> BS Bhashya 1.1.4 is related to this.  You cannot talk ignoring this.
>

[ I have not ignored this.  What I have said is in spite of this.]

>
> In Brahma Sootra Bhashya Sankara says:  "Tadetat asareerithvam
> mokshaakhyam"
> (1.1.4). The word 'Asareeri' only means being without a body. The loss of
> awareness that  'I am the body' is Asareerithvam - the state of being
> without a body.


[ The above bhashya passage appears in the Bhashyam in the context of
explaining the Upanishadic concept of MOksha as not something that is to be
attained by traveling to some other lokam.  Please note that this statement
of the Acharya is NOT in conflict with what He has said in 1.1.4.  Did you
not notice my quoting this vaakyam where He affirms:

// 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?  This very fact is elaborated in the Upanishads and the SmRtis in the
course of determining the characteristics of 'the man of steady wisdom'. //

This passage has been much discussed already.  Surely, the Acharya is
not contradicting
Himself when He says this.  So, the correct understanding of the two
passages is:
the 1.1.4 talks about the concept of MOksha, where the deha-abhimAna
is given up. Not the
deha itself.  In 4.1.15 this is confirmed.  Otherwise, Shankaracharya
could not have
lived to write the bhashyam.  I have even shown specific instances
where He uses the
first person I with reference to Him:  'I shall win them all', ' I
shall proceed to
write a commentary on the Gita'.  If He did not have the awareness of
the body, as you
say, He could not have done all this. ]



>  The Acharya has defined Moksha thus: If desires are
> gradually reduced eventually made extinct, attachment to the body will
> totally disappear.


[ Now you have said what I have said above.  The 'attachment' to the body
will go; not the awreness of the body as you said a little above]

The soul within will then shine forth. There is no need
> to go to other worlds for this. This is what the Vedas and Vedanta refer to
> as "Ihaiva-Ihaiva' - here itself.
>

[All this is not contradictory to what has been quoted from 4.1.15]

>
> Please forgive me if I say that you have too much emphasis on the vEsham
> which is only mithya, unreal.
>

[ Let me clarify.  I have deliberately emphasised the vESham which is
mithya, unreal, only to point out that the thinking that the Jnani is
someone without a body, etc. is not the correct understanding Shankaracharya
wants us to have.  The 4.1.15 bhashyam makes it so explicit that 'even after
the mithyAjnAnam has been sublated, the effects of that mithyAjnAnam will
continue, owing to samskaras, for some time.'  He gave the two-moon vision
as the example for this.  SSS has added a footnote to demonstrate this.]


>
> Please read my posting on Sri Rama's episode by Bhagavan Ramana.
>

[ I  read that post.  It is a nice story independently.  I feel it does not
add anything directly to the point I was making.  The aspect that Rama
continued to look for Sita, however, matches Shuka Muni's description.]

Warm regards,
subrahmanian.v