[Advaita-l] Seeking clarification on Bri. Up. Mantra 1-4-2

[V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l]

Namaste

To the question on 'previously done shravaNAdi not giving the fruit of
liberating knowledge in that janma but in a subsequent janma' we have the
Brahmasutra 3.4.51 'aihikamapi.....' The Acharya gives the example of
Vamadeva who is admitted to have got the liberating knowledge while in the
womb.  While it is impossible for anyone to do shravana, etc. in a womb, it
is agreed that he must have done all that in earlier lives but the karma
that obstructed the rise of knowledge ended only in this life, while he was
in the womb.

Even in the case of Vidura, etc. it is admitted that he was a jnani right
from birth itself implying that this birth was necessary for the
fructifying of the shravaNAdi sAdhana performed in earlier lives.  So,
without any teacher one could get knowledge if the preparations have been
done in earlier lives.  The case of Sri Ramana maharshi also could be
considered.

regards
subrahmanian.v


On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:29 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Subhanuji - PraNAms
>
> You can send the information whenever you have a chance. No need to hurry.
> I am concentrating on the rest of the Madhukanda for my own study and
> contemplation.
>
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Tue, 4/22/14, subhanu via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>  Subject: [Advaita-l] Seeking clarification on Bri. Up. Mantra 1-4-2
>  To: "Advaita-l List email" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>  Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2014, 10:43 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Sri
>  Chandramouli wrote:
>
>  “This is what is not acceptable to Sri Sadanandaji as I
>  understand
>  according to whom if knowledge were to arise without any
>  further instruction
>  then he should have got the knowledge in the previous birth
>  itself. In support
>  of his contention that further instruction only could lead
>  to knowledge he
>  cites the bhagavatham incident. As I could see from the
>  vartika, no other
>  reason is adduced except the above which according to the
>  Acharya is quite
>
>  satisfactory as per reasons given thereof.”
>
>
>
>  And
>  Sri Sadananda wrote:
>
>  “If you can clarify the sidhanta that followed the
>  objection and how it address the objection, that is
>  great.”
>
>  And
>
>  “If your feel Shankara’s sidhaanta following the
>  objection addresses the issue or if you feel that vaartika
>  addresses the objection posed in a different way please let
>  me know.”
>
>
>
>  Namaste,
>  I have fully understood the crux of the issue that Sri
>  Sadandanda has raised. I
>  had started writing a response to Sri Sadananda when I saw
>  Sri Chandramouli’s
>  response with which I largely concur, including that
>  Suresvara follows his
>  teacher but amplifies considerably each step of the
>  argument. (one
>  clarification: the smriti quoted in BUBV 1.4.79 is not manu
>  smriti as you
>  suggest but is vāyupurāṇa 1.1.3
>  ज्ञानमप्रतिमं यस्य
>  वैराग्यं च जगत्पतेः।
>  ऐश्वर्यञ्चैव धर्मश्च
>  सहसिद्धिचतुष्टयः
>  ।।३।।
>  Note the vārtikā as apratigham and the purana has
>  apratimam). I would just add the following to Sri
>  Chandramouli’s comments:
>
>
>  1)
>  The
>  siddhānta of the tradition is satisfied with the
>  response given in BUBV 1.4.77-81 etc including the smriti
>  authority quoted in BUBV
>  1.4.79 where, in the case of the Lord, such sahasiddhatva is
>  sufficient to
>  explain how the knowledge arose in this life. As I
>  previously mentioned, the
>  how when and why of the rise of knowledge in Virāj is
>  incidental to the main
>  point of the illustration, and the objection is answered in
>  detail in the vārtikā
>  more in the spirit of completeness than anything else.
>  Remember, all
>  illustrations have their utility up to a point.
>
>
>  2)
>  If
>  you were really uncomfortable with the seeming contradiction
>  that, if knowledge
>  somehow arose in this birth, then it could have easily
>  arisen in the previous
>  birth when the knowledge was only partial, then you can take
>  the implication
>  from Suresvara’s detailed response in BUBV 77-90 and in
>  other places that the
>  exact combination of factors that give rise to the knowledge
>  accruing have, for
>  whatever reason, come about in this current life for Virāj,
>  and not in the previous
>  life.
>
>
>
>
>    3)   Anandagiri gives a
>    detailed explanation in his commentary on BUBV 1.4.79
>  that throws more light
>    on the vārtikā. It is too long to give
>    here, but I will just provide the last sentence for
>  context: ukta-driṣṭāntāt
>    prajāpaterapi
>  niratishaya-jñāna-karma-vāsanāvatastajjakārya-karaṇa-yuktasya
>  jñāna-vairāgyādau
>    vaishāradyam gamyate’tastasya brahmāsmīti
>  jñānamapyāchāryādyapekṣām vinā
>    smaryamāṇa-vākyādeva syādityarthah.
>
>
>
>
>  4)
>  If
>  you have access to it, brihadāranyaka-vārtikā-sāra (BVS)
>  1.4.40-50 gives further
>  colour to the position from the traditional point of view.
>  For example we have
>  in BVS  1.4.43-44: sahasiddhatva vachasā
>  parāpeksā  nivāryate. na janmakāla evāsya
>  jñāna-sadbhāva ucyate.  āchārya-nirapekṣatve
>  shushrūṣādir anarthatām. Prāpnoti chet
>  svayambhātavedānām astvanarthatā.
>
>
>  So,
>  in summary, the knowledge arose from remembrance and
>  reflection
>  of what he learned in the previous life and not through any
>  teacher etc in this
>  current life, and such circumstances for the knowledge to
>  accrue now and not
>  before only fructified in this current life.
>
>
>  Now, I suspect you will remain unsatisfied with the
>  traditional position on this matter so I offer the following
>  thought which you
>  may/may not agree with: When
>  “The Lord” is invoked for an instruction on Brahman
>  beyond name and form, there
>  might inevitably be what seems to be a “get out of jail”
>  moment invoking simply
>  the Lord’s desire that something did/did not happen at a
>  particular moment in
>  time, beyond which the illustration ceases to have utility.
>
>  Whenever adhyāropa-apavāda
>  prakriyā is being used, then Suresvara’s advice at
>  2.3.219 is always beneficial
>  to keep front and centre, to not lose focus on the true
>  goal: sākṣādbrahmatva-siddhyartham
>  ādeshoy’am athochyate. Sri Sadananda, I can try and scan
>  and send you the vārtikā
>  and vārtikā-sāra sections in full for your own study if
>  you like. I can do this
>  when I return from my business travel after the next 10 days
>  (I will be in
>  Miami and Phoenix then back to Mumbai)
>
>
>  Regards
>
>  Subhanu
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  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
>