braHmavid=Krishna?

[Jagannath Chatterjee]

Dear Kiran,

Namaskar.

Aniruddhanji and Srikrishnaji have given such wonderful answers to your
queries. They are sastravids, you should listen to them. Should I say more
(or rather do I have the qualifications to say more?)

On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:35:27 -0700, Kiran B R <kiranbr at ROCKETMAIL.COM>
wrote:

>Dear Jagannath,
>
>First of all, I must re-assert that I might be talking
>just plain nonsense. I don't even know what kind of
>knowledgeable people are reading and replying to these
>mails. Kindly weigh my words as those of a seeker
>after Truth who is prone to error at every word. For
>that is the Truth.

You are not talking nonsense. The advaita knowledge must be as sure as
having a betel nut in the palm of your hand. But for having that you must
go through many purificatory procedures. See Srikrishnaji's reply to Rev
Mathews (Oneness with Brahman). It should be a eye opener for you. Take a
printout and keep it by you. It will be useful. Better still ask him for
more.

>> From your poser it does not seem this is your first
>> brush with religion. However you may want it that
>> way.
>
>I "want" only The Truth.

Sure. But for ensnared jivas the truth is very difficult to comprehend. The
hesitation you see in the replies to you by the list members stems from the
acute awareness that one is yet to ascertain the truth. Only a brahmavid or
an avatara can confidently answer your questions. The rest can only give
you the directions from which you should benefit.

>
>> Who are you fooling? Do you disbelieve in the words
>> of the Lord? What would you call personalities like
>> Sri Shankaracharya, Sri Ramakrishna, Bhagawan Sri
>> Ramana?
>
>Perhaps discussing on the above will be equivalent to
>discussing on everything I want to discuss.

Yes, do discuss. That (shravana/manana) is a step in the positive direction
by the seeker.

>
>I have no reason to fool anyone, my friend! I will not
>accept the words of the Lord if it does not convince
>me, let alone accept unconvincing words of anybody
>else about the words of the Lord, be it even those of
>Sri Shankara. In thus not-accepting such words I may
>be ruining my own life, but so it must be. The veil of
>avidyA does not get lifted so fast, does it?
>

You have already got it. The veil of avidya does not get lifted so fast.
Now do you realise?


>What would I call personalities like Sri
>Shankaracharya, Sri Ramakrishna, Bhagawan Sri Ramana?
>I call them my teachers. Teachers without whom I would
>have remained a baser beast. Teachers whom I worship.

Thats nice. But besides worshipping them try to follow their teachings. One
of the first things you will notice is internal peace and the subsidence of
unnecessary questioning.

>
>What do you call them? And do you think Sri
>Shankaracharya could have run 100m in 2s if he had
>wanted? (Please answer both Qs. You may think they're
>stupid Qs, but to me they aren't).

1. I call them what they are, avataras. 2. Won't it be real silly if I
asked Sri Sankaracharya to run the 100m? Moreover he has done more than
that. To travel the length and breadth of the country for the salvation of
Hindu dharma he has done more than run 100m.

>
>Perhaps I should ask it more formally. If I understand
>it correctly, Sri Shankaracharya was a braHmavid.
>Since this is the first time I am hearing of a
>braHmavid having to reach a higher state (sajujya
>mukti), I don't know if Sri Shankaracharya had
>attained it. But I suspect he had attained it.

Sri Shankaracharya was no ordinary jiva. Sajujya mukti or for that matter
any other mukti is not for him. Sajujya mukti is not a higher state for a
Brahmavid. Even after brahmavidya the body continues for some time. After
the body falls the brahmavid automatically attains sajujya mukti.

>
>> There is no question of the jiva or for that matter
>> a brahmavid becoming Krishna.
>
>In saying the above, you leave me in a doubt as to
>whether a jIva, having attained sajujya mukti, can
>become Krishna. Can (s)he?

No, a jiva can never become Krishna whatever the height of his achievements.


>
>If yes, did Sri Shankaracharya "become" Krishna? Or is
>it he who in the next avatara, will "become" Krishna
>(and therefore get to pass elephants through needles)?

Sankaracharya is an avatara of Lord Shiva. If he decides to come back again
I have no idea what he would do.

>(Again, kindly answer both Qs. They are not stupid Qs
>to me).
>
>I want to pass elephants through needles. Is there a
>way?

If you are an avatara surely you can.

>
>> We look forward to your second coming.
>
>Hey, thanks! Me too!
>
>(By the way, why only the "second"?)

You are very ambitious. That's good.

>
>> But for now
>> you will have to be
>> satisfied with your present status of a seeker.
>
>I believe, firstly, that spiritual satiation is
>something only for Lord Krishna (and also for Sri
>Shankaracharya if the answer to "Did Sri
>Shankaracharya "become" Krishna?" is YES).

For spiritual satiation you have to travel the spiritual way or you can
enjoy the same just by God's grace.

>
>Secondly, I believe that material satiation is
>something for a sannyasi.
>
>I am neither.

Perhaps you are a grihastha. The grihastha ashrama is the highest of all
other ashramas because it is the grihastha who provides for the others. So
do not despair.

>
>> I hope I have hurt you with my comments,
>
>Worry not, my friend. The only thing that can hurt me
>is physical assault. *That* hurts!
>
>Jagannath, I am not trying to get into a fight with
>you. I have no reason to do that. Please try to see my
>words as those of a seeker after Truth. And forgive me
>if I make mistakes.

No one is picking up a fight. Why don't you realise the friendly intention
of all the forum members who are trying to solve your problems. Listen to
them and try to do as they say. It is for your own benefit.

Your friend,

Jagannath.