[Advaita-l] Two types of Atma jnAni-s &their approachtoreallife situation

[Bhaskar YR]

sAshtAnga praNAms Sri Vidya prabhuji
Hare Krishna

It seems more I write directly to you, more would be your aversion towards 
me...what to do pabhuji that is my grahachAra...

Prabhuji, this time I would try to be as blunt as possible.

Sri Vidya prabhuji :

First question - is viveka-prajnA = samyag-jnAna?

> Frankly, I dont know, you pls. clarify me..if viveka-prajnA = 
samyak-jnAna, then harati viveka-prajnA is as good as saying harati samyak 
jnAnaM...and if samyak jnAna = absolute brahma jnAna then it is as good as 
saying harati brahma jnAna...then it is not kevala pravrutti daurbalya 
there is 'harati' of jnAna itself...Again I dont know which equation is 
correct here.

Sri Vidya prabhuji :

Second question - Over the last couple of years, I have already written
thousands of lines about how the term samyag-darSana has been used
in a more flexible manner than how you construe it and that it does not
have to be restrictive in its application. What else can I add to make it
clearer?

bhaskar :

prabhuji, frankly, I have not seen you writing sofar (for the last 15 
years!!) that jnAni has kAma krOdha and it would take time for him to 
control it & this control will depend on antaHkaraNa set he has in the 
present body etc. I need more elaboration on those statements. Moreover, I 
dont know which are those flexible ways to interpret the term 
samyag-darshana.  I thought whenever you are insisting even after 
samyakjnAna there can be a jnAna pravrutti daurbalyaM, it is absolute 
brahma jnAna only...I didnot know that samyak jnAna when used in more 
flexible way, there can be daurbalya in pravrutti but NOT in jnAna.

Sri Vidya prabhuji :
 

Third question - is your inability to be clear on the grades of jnAnI-s 
something that can be clarified? Doesn't it stem from the same basics
that I asked you to revisit and clarify to the rest of the list?

bhaskar :

Frankly I am not able to understand your question itself!!?? Kindly bear 
with this mUrkha shishya...

Sri Vidya prabhuji :

Fourth question - which prakaraNa grantha have I quoted in support of 
any of my positions at any time on this list? Give me an instance from all
the years both of us have been members of this list. You only have about
fifteen years worth of postings to find one example.

bhaskar :

No No prabhuji, I have not said you have been quoting prakaraNa grantha 
for the points you have raised..I was just requesting you, while answering 
my doubts in the previous mail, kindly dont give prakaraNa granTha 
references...Thats it..

Sri vidya prabhuji :

The problem is this - nobody in the advaita tradition denies the absolute
brahmajnAnI of your definition. Rather, we say that the absolute brahma-
jnAnI of your definition is the brahmavid-varishTha and we allow for other
kinds of brahmajnAnI-s. 

bhaskar :

That would make my life bit easier prabhuji.  Now, kindly clarify the 
following :

(a)  The jnAna pravrutti daurbalya what we have seen in the bhAshya vAkya 
is the problem of brahmavidvarishTa or pertains to only other two 
categories?? 

(b) can we interpret samyak jnAna in this bhAshya vAkya in a more flexible 
way and say varishTa has the undiluted samyaKjnAna in an absolute sense 
and hence no problem of daurbalyam for him but samyakjnAna what vara & 
variyas have which is more flexible may lead to pravrutti daurbalya?? 

(c) can there be pravrutti daurbalya in the form of kAma krOdha ONLY in 
vara & variya-s and  there is a different time gap for quality control of 
these wicked thoughts between vara & vareeya-s and varishTa not at all get 
affected by any daurbalya.

(d) can prArabdha karma is the mere cause for continuation of body & 
antaHkaraNa or this prArabdha karma can cause wicked thoughts also in the 
minds of jnAni??

Sri Vidya prabhuji :

For you, these gradations are impossible, so all the others are ajnAnI-s. 
A wonderful assessment indeed, when there is direct usage of the term 
-varishTha in the Sruti and there is more than enough evidence from 
Sankara bhagavatpAda's bhAshya-s (NOTE, NOT prakaraNa grantha-s, to 
satisfy your "academic" attitude towards the
authenticity of textual attribution) that your restrictive definition is 
not true to his works. 

bhaskar :

Pardon me prabhuji, sofar you have hardly given any justification to prove 
that why vara & vareeya-s cannot be saguNOpAsaka brahma jnAni-s...Anyway, 
while sharing my understanding on your basic questions I shall try to take 
it in more detail.


Sri Vidya prabhuji :

I would like you
to give me your answers in your own words, without sUtrabhAshya
references or what Sri Saccidananandendra Sarasvati Swami says about
those references.

bhaskar :

but you know prabhuji without bhagavatpAda's bhAshya (NOT ONLY sUtra 
bhAshya) & my parama guruji's works I am completely Zero...perhaps you may 
see old iskconite in me ..nothing more than that prabhuji.  Anyway, I 
shall try but you have to bear with my ignorance..

I draw your attention again to bRhadAraNyaka bhAshya 1.4.7 - What is 
samyag-jnAna-prApti?

>  ajnAna nivrutti...but I did not know that samyag jnAna has more 
flexible meanings in this context. 


What is jnAna-pravRtti? 

>  pravrutti that would not give any room for  duality as per my 
understanding when samyak jnAna considered as absolute brahma jnAna. 

Why does Sankara talk of jnAna-pravRtti AFTER the prApti of samyag-jnAna? 

> I dont know why he should not!!??  especially when the samyag jnAna has 
more elasticity in its meaning!!?? 

Whose is pravRtti - the one who has samyag-jnAna or the one who is still 
desirous of
obtaining samyag-jnAna? 

> I think it is former...correct me if I am wrong.


If samyag-jnAna is nothing short of muktAvasthA
brahma-jnAna, then everyone who has samyag-jnAna is the same as
everyone else who has samyag-jnAna. 

>  there is no gap between muktAvasTha AND brahma jnAna/samyak jnAna or 
avidyA nivrutti to infer two are different stages at two different point 
of time. Infact that is what shankara says in sUtra bhAshya...but you have 
ordered me not to quote shankara nor Sri SSS..so I am handicap here.


In that case, how can jnAna-pravRtti be weak or strong? Why does Sankara 
bhagavatpAda say that
it can be weak? 

>  I am still searching for the answer for weakness of jnAna pravrutti 
with jnAna intact..so I donot know the answer for both the above questions 
prabhuji.

If it is the case that in samyag-jnAna there is absolutely no more mind, 
so much so that anyone who has a mind can only be an ajnAnI, why does 
Sankara bhagavatpAda say, "avaSyaM bhAvinI-pravRttir vA^N-manaH-kAyAnAM"? 
Whose is this vAk? Whose is the manas and whose is the kAya? The one with 
samyag-jnAna or another? 

>  these are all pertains to a living jnAni who is nothing but 
'ashareeri'...who is seemingly engaging in activity in the drushti of 
ajnAni-s, who is looks like having a body (dehavAniva lakshyate..sorry 
could not resist..)

You came up with a convoluted explanation of brahmavid-varishTha with 
reference to saguNa-brahma-jnAnI vis-a-vis nirguNa-brahma-jnAnI. 

> sorry prabhuji, till I see any authentic & reasonable explanation in 
bhAshya about these grades in 'absolute brahma jnAni-s, I stick to the 
stand that brahmavidvarishTa is an absolute brahma jnAni & vara & vareeya 
brama vida-s might be there with saguNa brahma jnAna. 

What explanation can you give to Sankara bhagavatpAda's own words in the
passage I quote above? Leave aside the discussion about vidhi-s and citta
vRtti nirodha in that passage. There is still a lot of information there 
and a
lot of thought that needs to be put into it, about samyag-jnAna, samyag-
jnAnI, jnAna-pravRtti and its daurbalya, the vAk, manas and kAya of the
one who has this jnAna-pravRtti etc. Will you save your supposedly 
logically
unassailable definition of samyag-jnAna or will you pay attention to what
Sankara bhagavatpAda is teaching here?

>  I will pay attention to 'what' shankara bhagavatpAda teaching in 
prasthAna trayi bhAshya prabhuji.


As I said before, you have the entire history of my postings to this list 
to get
ample amount of clarification on my stand. 


> As I said above, I have hardly saw your new stand on jnAni's kAma 
krOdha, time gap etc.  in your earlier posts..Hence waiting for further 
clarification...

I don't need to add anything else, because as far as I am concerned, your 
request for clarification is like asking
me what is the relationship between Rama and Sita after listening to the 
whole of the Ramayana. 

>  I like this example...for my manda mati after hearing the rAmAyaNa I am 
getting the doubt how can there be two rAma-s & their temparament is 
different at different point of time...I am agreeing that I have manda 
mati hence these trifle doubts.

If at the end of reading through my previous posts, you can still claim 
that what I, along with others, am saying about jnAnI-s is only a 
"popular" stand, hats off to you! 

>  I dont think there is somuch to read in my casual remark prabhuji!! 
Popular stand does not meant in any derogatory sense..I have said that 
just keeping the most prevalent & widespread & accepted norms by most of 
the advaitins.. 

Please point to what sentence of mine gives you the impression that I see 
sarcasm ONLY in your mails. That I see sarcasm in your posts does not mean
that it is there ONLY in your posts. There is a world of obvious 
difference there.

>  since you particularly pointed your finger to me with comments like: 
you load lot of sarcasms with prabhuji-s' etc. I thought I am the ONLY 
culprit...However, when the traffic is moving smoothly in both ways, why 
am I the scape goat for this firing prabhuji?? 

For example, in one of yesterday's posts on another thread, you said, "You
can expect more scholarly & deplomatic reply from Sri Subbu prabhuji or 
Sri
Vidya prabhuji...In the meantime you can cherish my not so worthy reply 
:-))"

In another post a month or two ago, you wrote that I say certain things 
only
because I am "sampradAya-baddha".

If these are not instances of sarcasm, please let the list know what they 
are.

>  Oh!!! No, no, prabhuji, I am afraid, you have completely misunderstood 
my comments here...Those who read all the mails from all the members would 
definitely know who is more deplomatic, scholar & well mannered in his 
articulation..I am certainly not to that scholarly mark prabhuji...I am a 
Kannada medium govt. school student, how can I match myself with 
prabhuji-s like your goodself & Subbu prabhuji who have degrees & 
doctorates from IIT-s and foreign universities ??  I am always at short of 
appropriate choice of words when it comes to foreign language mails..Hence 
lot of misunderstanding happening in the contents of my mail..That is the 
reason why I said you both are well equipped with good language control & 
great authority on the scriptures, so one can easily expect more authentic 
answers from you...Kindly note there is absolutely no intention of any 
sarcasm here, believe me.

>  you might have forgotten prabhuji, 8 years back I have made the same 
comment to Sri Jay prabhuji, who was at that time having discussion with 
your goodself, I told him "you can expect more authentic, deplomatic & 
scholarly reply from my guruji" ..At that time you had taken my remarks as 
genuine ones..but this time you are seeing sarcasms in  those same 
remarks...prabhuji this is what I mentioned as 'attitude change'towards 
me. 


In any case, I would request you to please stop calling me one of your 
guruji-s.
It is a title that you thrust upon me in the first place and I am not one 
to hold
you to it, 

>  prabhuji you may kick this manda bhAgya shishya out of your shishya 
vrunda...But for me you are always my guruji..LIke drONAchArya you may 
deny the shishyatva to ekalavya, but for ekalavya drONAchArya is the 
guru..Though I am not ekalavya here, you are always drONAchArya to me 
prabhuji..I feel it is my 'adrushta' to have guru-s like yourself & vyAs 
prabhuji...

but increasingly, the content and tone of your responses on the list
are not what one gives to a guruji. 

>  that is my language limitation prabhuji..please understand...Anyway, I 
have decided not to write anything directly to you in future...I've 
observed that my mails are leading to more misunderstandings between you 
and me. 

Spare me the guruji title and we can have a more honest disagreement and a 
more open discussion. I won't ask you to 
drop the prabhuji title, because you habitually hand it out to everybody.

>  As said above, you dont have to consider me as your shishya, but at the 
same time please dont ask me to not to  consider you as my guru..Atleast 
that is the ONLY favour I am asking you directly in this last mail to you 
prabhuji. 
Humble & koti koti praNAms to my guruji
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

PS :  whatever you say in reply to the above mail is the 'final word' on 
this thread prabhuji...no more mails from me to you prabhuji. I would 
write my understandings on those basics, but kindly note that will not be 
addressed to you directly prabhuji...So, you dont have to take trouble to 
reply to it prabhuji...Even if you reply to that mail there wont be any 
subsequent mail from me prabhuji.