[Advaita-l] Queries to learn and transform

[Kiran B.R.]

> Every logical system ends up having to resort to axioms i.e. statements
> not provable withing the system itself.  

Sure.

> That there is jnana is something
> we learn from the shastras (shabda - the 3rd pramana) not through
> pratyaksha or anumana.

Why? Don't you see vairAgya, chEtana, vivEka etc? Do you need any
shAstras for that?

> As you mentioned we don't understand porcupine-loka.  so it is irrelevant
> whether we attempt to use its definitions or not.  We do however
> understand manushya-loka.  So we use its' definition of jnana.  Like the
> value of pi, it may not be perfect but it is the best we have available.

If you don't understand porcupine-loka, it is not correct to make
comments about their jnAna or ajnAna.

> Note that sitting there is exactly what Krshna Bhagavan did!  He was the
> charioteer and the actual task of destroying evil was done by Arjuna who
> far from being a jnani actually managed to forget the teaching of the
> Gita.
> 
> The point is even in action there are direct and indirect types.

If He was just sitting there (He was a sthitaprajna, sure, but not a
sthitahasta!), would He say

yadi hyahaM na vartEyam jAtu karmaNyataMdritaH |
mama vartmAnuvartaMtE manuShyAH pArtha sarvashaH ||

utsIdEyurimE lOkAh na kuryAm karma chEdaham |
saMkarasya cha kartA syAmupahanyAmimAH prajAH ||

The difference I'm trying to bring about is between sitting in a cave
and meditating and going out there in the battlefield. Being a
charioteer is equivalent to fighting. Directing Arjuna to the correct
place to aim arrows is fightiing. It's not sitting in a cave and
meditating. It's not being a vegetable, blind to the rise of adharma.

> Or better yet we can forget about needing anyone and do the job ourselves.

Exactly. And be jnAnis too.

> Jnana is impractical, pointless, vegetable like if you will.  If one is
> the type who sees "enemies" then it is better to follow the path the Vedas
> have ordained for such people then to pretend one is a jnani.  For a jnani
> can have no enemies.  It should be noted that Krishna Bhagavan offered
> both the Pandavas and Kauravas the chance to have Him on their side.  If
> He fought Duryodhana, it is because the latter rejected Him (due to his
> avaricious and ignorant nature) not the other way around.

Sure, for the jnAni there is no enemy! For Him there is no adharma,
but He fights adharma. Do you think Krishna would have allowed the
Kauravas to win if Duryodhana had taken Krishna on his side?! If
Krishna had let the Kauravas win, He would have earned the blame of
the entire world. Of course it's no big deal to Him if He has to bathe
in a sea of saliva, but why would He? Why would He at all?

The enemy is brahman, but it has to be killed. Adharma is brahman, but
it has to be eliminated.

> And you can work day in and day out destroy the enemy without being a jnani.

Sure, but you can be both. We need to be both. That's the call of the
hour. Telling ourselves all the time that you can either kill the
enemy or be a jnAni (but not both) is being foolish.

Cheers
Kiran

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
achchakannaDigara baLaga!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kannaDakannaDi
-------------------------------------------------------------------