[Advaita-l] BrahmaGYAna and jIvanmukti - 5 (Other References)

[S Jayanarayanan]

--- S Jayanarayanan <sjayana at yahoo.com> wrote:

[..]

> Thus it is not uncommon to find students of SSS who use such
> "superior logic" to the level of not accepting even scriptural
> quotes
> that go against SSS's works. Whereas a minor difference (which is
> not
> actually a difference at all) between Sankara and the
> Panchapadikacharya renders the whole of the Panchapadika redundant.
> 
> For example, when I first pointed out that Vidyaranya has
> distinguished Self-knowledge from Liberation, Bhaskar said:
> 
> "From my understanding, it is like saying, since our advaita
> AchArya
> Sri VidyAraNya saying that there is difference between these two,
> we
> have to accept it....I hope that would not be the case &  Sri
> Karthik
> prabhuji will address these issues in detail in his subsequent
> posts
> by providing logical answers with proper supportings from shruti-s"
> 
> After I provided the relevant shruti reference -- the
> Brihadaranyaka
> Upanishad 3.5.1 that speaks of the GYAnI as giving up desires --
> Bhaskar goes into denial, saying:
> 
> "...under these circumstances, where is the question of *leaving
> desires* AFTER atma jnAna??"
> 

In case someone is wondering whether it is only Bhaskar who has
misunderstood SSS, here's a quote from "The Method of the Vedanta",
where SSS criticizes the Bhamati for propounding the theory that
latent impressions need to be effaced after Self-knowledge (page
624-625):

"All that Sri Sankara's commentary in fact says here is that
Ignorance is the superimposition of a false appearance due to lack of
discrimination, whereas knowledge is determination of the true nature
of the real through discrimination. It is clear that it does not say
that, when the truth has been ascertained through a discriminating
cognition, the latter will have to be repeatedly re-affirmed. There
is not a shadow of doubt, however, that the author of the Bhamati,
through his prejudice in favour of Mandana, takes Mandana's doctrines
of the persistence of an impression of Ignorance (Brahma Siddhi, p.
35) and the need for repeated re-affirmation of knowledge and passes
them off as explanations of Sri Sankara's commentary. It is declared
repeatedly in the Bhamati that (even in the case of the enlightened
person) the impression (Samskara) of Ignorance, understood as
synonymous with Vasana, had to be suppressed by direct intuition
obtained through repeated re-affirmation of knowledge of the truth
(Bhamati, English translation p.61,108,127). This doctrine is
expressly refuted by Sri Sankara in his Commentary on the
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.7 (translation Madhavananda, p. 131)."

Obviously, SSS denies the validity of (at least parts of) the Bhamati
because the text propounds the doctrine that Vasanas may persist
after the Self is known -- precisely what the Jivanmuktiviveka (as
also the Brihadaranyaka 3.5.1) teaches.

There is absolutely no doubt that SSS did not comprehend the
difference between steady and unsteady Atmagyana.

Regards,
Kartik


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate 
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367