[Advaita-l] The Advaita Tradition of Shankara

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
Hare Krishna

>  I am afraid, we are rekindling the stalemate issue here :-)) Anyway, 
again my take on 'ashareeratvaM' of the jnAni for your consideration. 

While what Sri Ramana Maharshi says //If you know your true nature you 
will
understand the state of Brahma-jnana.//

>  Yes, that brahma jnAna reveals the fact that jnAni (or chetana for that 
matter) was never ever embodied. 

is not disputed, the teaching of the scripture, Veda Vyasa, Krishna and 
Shankaracharya go against the rest
of it. 

>  So, from your observation, can we say bhagavAn ramaNa was engaged 
himself in propagating some asampradAyik teachings !!


In the BGB 2.55 introduction Shankara says:

sarvatraiva hi adhyAtmashAstre kRthArthalakShaNAni yAni tAnyeva
sAdhanAnyupadishyante yatnasAdhyatvAt ...

I/ In all the scriptural works dealing with the Self the marks/behaviour
of the JnAni alone are admitted to be the means to Self-realization* since
this state is something that is possible of attainment by effort.  And
these effort-possible means which are also the marks of the Jnani are 
being
delineated by the Lord in the sequel...//


>  I am sorry I dont know how this would prove the embodiment of the 
jnAni.  Yes, there is sthita praja lakshaNa narrated in geeta, yes there 
is a verse yadyadAcharati shreshTah in geeta to show the jnAni's 
AcharaNa...But for whom these AcharaNa & lakshaNa-s have been narrated?? 
Whether it is to prove jnAni's deha or for guiding the ajnAni-s in the 
right path??  IMHO, for ajnAni-s only these teachings are meant..ajnAni-s 
can see the 'body' of themselves & jnAni's and recognizing the jnAni with 
his/her body.  So, for ajnAni-s, sthita prajna laksha to be explained by 
pointing the finger at the body of stita prajna only.  But when it comes 
to jnAni's deha dhAraNa, its birth, death etc. it is only appearance for 
the ajnAni-s who are not able to think beyond BMI.  Lord clarifies this in 
geeta itself, tAm prakrutiM svAm adhishTAya vasheekrutya saMbhavAmi, 
dehavAniva bhavAmi, jAta iva.  It is only ajnAni's thinking that jnAni is 
born at such & such a place, he did that, he played that etc.  But when 
you ask jnAni, about his birth & activities, since he is established in 
that adviteeya, he would say, ahaM, ajaM, nirvikalpaM, nirAkAraM and ekaM. 
 


The emphatic words of Shankara with the 'eva' kAra come ONLY in the 
section dealing with the
Jnani's lakShaNa-s.

>  Yes, but it is the lakshaNa that every ajnAni should try to adopt & 
implement. 

Consistently Shankara says again in the BSB 4.1.15:

>  I think we have to read this in the light of tattu samavayAt sUtra 
bhAshya, where shankara emphatically clarifies jnAni's ashareeratvam. 
Anyway, we both have stretched this beyond limit :-))


Even while quoting Sri Ramana Maharshi what we are unconsciously doing is
to follow a Jnani's words alone. 

>  Yes, me the ajnAni, would definitely see the body of the person who I 
consider the 'jnAni', for me, the ajnAni, there is no other way out apart 
from 'seeing, talking, interacting' through BMI of jnAni..But this ajnAni, 
when specifically asks jnAni about his activities, talks, mind etc. than 
jnAni's answer would be the above, which Sri Subhanu prabhuji quoted. 


If a Jnani cannot say or behave there is no way Ramana could utter those 
words and such words would not have been available for one to read and 
quote from. 

>  Yes, as said above, we, the ajnAni-s definitely need the words of 
shreshTa and the figure of that person as well. 

Further it is important for Advaitins to remember that what is not 
contradictory alone is to be taken
from non-scriptural sources. 

>  yes, we have to give second thought to our stand, when 
scriptures/acharya-s say 'dehavAniva lakshyate, 'tasmAnmithyApratyaya 
nimittatvAt sashareeratvaM siddhaM jeevatOpi vidushO ashareeratvaM' etc. 
By doing this,  atleast we would come to know, jnAni-s like ramaNa etc. 
would not just like that talk in the air while dealing with these 
'sUkshma-s'. 

If someone's statements patently differ from the method of Shankara and 
the scripture there is not much point in accepting it.

>  I appreciate & admire your rigidity on this issue prabhuji..But 
addressing bhagavan ramaNa as 'someone' would not freely sink-in...is it 
not??

Regards,
subrahmanian.v

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar