Summary (of "Question", "braHmavid=Krishna?" series of mails) (fwd)

[Kiran B R]

> I believe in the jivanmuktasya lakshaNaani part of
> vivEkachUdAmaNi
> (someone pointed out the relevant shlokas earlier)
> it says that there is
> no more worldly/material attachments
> (I'm quite sure
> the word samsAra is
> used in this context) for one who knows the Truth.
> And this is a necessary
> and sufficient condition. So if "I" as in Naresh or
> Kiran were to want
> to run 100m in 2s and claim to be a brahmavit, won't
> we arrive at a
> contradiction?

I need not run 100m in 2s because I am attached to
that act. I can run without that attachment. Then we
have no contradiction.

You see a contradiction because you daisy-chain
attachment and karma.

There is such a thing called as karma devoid of
attachment, and it is such karma that a braHmavid
does, seeing nothing but akarma in it.

Consider this: Krishna in the Mahabharata "did" karma.
Yet we know him as the Supreme. Is there a
contradiction?

-Kiran

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com