[Advaita-l] A study of a chapter of the book `BhAmatI-samAlochanam'.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Venkata Subramanian <
venkat_advaita at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Well I dont think the Holenarsipuram Swamigal presents that there is no
> Jivan Mukta.
>
> To a Jnani, once the paramartha is realised he understands His true nature
> that is ever present and ever the same (if the word ever has any sense
> here); and that Jnani, while his body continues in the world is perceived by
> others in vyavahara as "living".  Both these are present in the same person,
> and this is what is "Jivan Mukti"; He is a mukta and at the same time
> Jivathi api.  This does not imply any "avidya lesha" in him.....The point of
> difference discussed here is whether Avidya lesha is a concomitant in a
> Jivan Mukta; not that there is no Jivan Mukta concept in the commentaries as
> understood by the Holenarsipur tradition.
>

One cannot deny, without rejecting the Bhashya, that the 'samskAra' is
concomitant in a Jivan mukta; that is what makes jivan mukti a possibility.
'jeev prANadhaaraNe' is the dhAtu.  When prANa is there, the mind is  there
and the samskAra is also there.

When the Holenarsipur tradition accepts the concept of jivan mukti and the
jivan mukta, it implies that they also accept the samskAra that is what is
vital to jivanmukti.  When samskAra is accepted, its other name: avidya
lesha also stands accepted.  When I accept 'water' is called 'jalam' in
Sanskrit, I cannot protest 'udakam' is not acceptable to me.

>
> In fact the Holenarsipur tradition does not have any prejudice like the
> self officiating treasury benches who require their self claimed baptism to
> be honoured by them before they accept some one as "within" their order.
>

I do not think this goes well with what JnanaprasUnendra Swamigal's
concluding remarks to Martha Doherty's paper implies.  He asserts  - what
SSS has admitted, said and rejected is the final word and anything other
than that is not the correct understanding of Vedanta.  Whatever names,
however popular or revered, are invoked to show a different understanding of
the Vedanta from that of SSS is of no consequence.

I have only restated and not reproduced his words.  Going by this, Jagadguru
Chandrashekhara Bharati Swamigal does not qualify to be a Jivanmukta, why a
mukta at all, as His well-known approval and teaching of the concept of
mUlAvidyA, and by extension, avidyA lesha,  definitely does not come
'within' the SSS order.  Even on that count, it is definitely startling that
Sri Subraya Sharma includes this mahAtma in the book.


>
> Thanks & Regards,
> subrahmanian.v
>
> Sadgurubhyo Namah.
>