[Advaita-l] "adhikarins" and the continuation of the body after jnana

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

> sAshtAnga praNAms Sri Vidya prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
> 
> Just a petite reply before closing my shop at office friday evening :
> 
> In a system of philosophy, even one exception is enough to invalidate the 
> generality of a rule. In this case,
> the presence of even one sa-SarIrI jnAnI is a strong enough case against 
> the a-SarIratva of jnAnI-s. 
> 
> > this is quite interesting observation prabhuji. you are implying here 
> one embodied jnAni is more than enough to prove sa-shareeratvaM of the 
> jnAni..So, according to this there is no meaning in shankara's elsewhere 


Bhaskar, I am going to ask you to read my posts carefully and not put
words into my mouth that I did not utter and that I have no intention
of ever uttering.

I did NOT say what you imply above. Your inference about what meaning
there is or isn't in Sankara's texts is baseless. I was responding to Smt.
Savithri Devaraj's contention about exceptions proving the rule. Any fault
that you see in my response is based on the same misunderstanding that
you have about Sankara bhagavatpAda's bhAshya on this sUtra. It is my
contention that *as per her logic that allows such exceptions*, there is
a big problem, because even one exception will invalidate the general rule.

I have not yet said anything about the situation *as per my logic*, nor
have I yet had time to say more about what Sankara bhagavatpAda says
about it. 

> declaration that jnAni is always ashareeri & he merely looks like he is 
> embodied ( dEhavAn eva lakshyate)!! Because as per the 'plain reading' of 
> the quoted sUtra there are multiple jeeva-s with sa-shareeratvaM and with 
> multiple incarnations & these enlightened ones have their own set of manO 
> vAk indriya-s and they are even after Atmaikatva jnAna (i.e. ekatva jnAna) 
> promptly obeying & following the instructions of saguNa brahman...So, 
> sa-shareeratvaM is permanent for these jnAni-s and with that bheda between 
> jeeva-jeeva & jeeva-brahma is also eternal...Because as you say one 
> exception is enough to invalidate the generality of a rule..No need to 
> mention here that that rule in advaita is Atmaikatva which itself getting 
> defeated here with the multiple existence of jeeva-s & saguNatva of 
> brahman even after samyak jnAna or Atma jnAna.


This whole argument about bheda and the defeating of Atmaikatva again
is your misunderstanding and an imputation of a position to me that I
have never held. On a lighter note, I thought you understood better at
least those who have the title of cyber-guruji thrust upon them by you!

You are welcome to read eternal bheda into the sUtra in question, but
please do not say that this is my position, and please do NOT say that
this is what Sankara bhagavatpAda also says. Let me reiterate, the
bhAshya is in NO need of any special saving of the fundamental Atmaikatva
from anybody. To think that the 'plain reading' is harmful to Atmaikatva and
to think that you have some special interpretation that is an improvement
upon it, is to imply that Sankara bhagavatpAda may have compromised his
fundamental teaching (or only made a small concession to empirical reality),
whereas you are not willing to make any compromise (or even that small
concession). In my book, this is the height of hubris and is based on a
total misunderstanding of the bhAshyakAra's teaching. What more neeed I
say about this?


Nevertheless, I intend to discuss this sUtra and bhAshya in some detail, so
I will get started over the upcoming weekend.

 

Vidyasankar

  
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. 
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5