[Advaita-l] Sankara on "After GYAna" (was Re: BrahmaGYAna and jIvanmukti - 1...)

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Dear Amuthan,

I am not sure if you are contradicting what I said or taking the
discussion in a slightly different direction. I wasn't talking about
adhikaaris or anything like that. Nor was I talking about whether
there is any vidhi or not regarding statements like shrotavya.h,
mantavya.h, etc. The point is simple, if there is nothing else apart
from brahman after realization, there is no question of any kind of
vidhi, I think that should be fairly obvious. This is with regard to
SSSs claim of what Sankara says about realization, and is intelligible
in that regard only.

Rama

On 11/16/06, Amuthan <aparyap at gmail.com> wrote:
> namo nArAyaNAya!
>
> On 11/17/06, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian
> <rama.balasubramanian_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > ... In any case, even a niyama vidhi implies avoidance of an
> > action, and that implies an assumption of a doer who *opts* not act.
> > Niyama vidhi is not compatible with the teory that there is only
> > brahman "after" brahma-j~naana. You cannot impose a niyama-vidhi on
> > the perfect aatman can you, it is already naishkarmya! ...
>
> the very fact that AchArya instructs "...sAdhanabalAvalambanena
> Atmaj~nAnasmRtisantatiH niyantavyA bhavati" implies that an option
> exists. true, niyama vidhi cannot be imposed on the Atman, but nothing
> prevents it from being recommended for a j~nAnimAtra.
>
> just to clarify, since a time of acquisition is mentioned for
> Atmaj~nAna ("samyajj~nAnaprAptAvapi..."), it follows that this
> Atmaj~nAna is a chittavRtti, though in this case the buddhi assumes
> the form of the self (brahmAkAra). since it is a buddhivRtti which has
> newly arisen, it cannot (for a j~nAnimAtra) immediately destroy
> samskArAs which exist from time immemorial (as explained in the quoted
> BUBh). what this means is that the ahaMkAra (in the case of a
> j~nAnimAtra) doesn't always remain akhaNDAkAra, but tends to
> associates with the mind and body by force of habit. the moment this
> happens, (theoretically) the brahmavit is subject to either niyama or
> parisa~NkhyA vidhi (but certainly not apUrva vidhi). but this 'vidhi'
> is more of a recommendation than a vidhi proper, NOT because the Atman
> is beyond any vidhi, but because there exist uttamAdhikArIs for whom
> sadyomukti is possible immediately after the rise of samyajj~nAna.
> thus, the 'fact' that the Atman is not subject to any vidhi is not a
> valid reason to explain why a 'vidhi' is not applicable to a
> brahmavit.
>
> all the while, the Atman is not affected at all since dawn of
> Atmaj~nAna, vairAgya or any form of sAdhana for that matter are only
> buddhi vyavahArAs.
>