[Advaita-l] Fwd: A perspective -20

[Anbu sivam2]

Sri Subramanian,

Go with your conviction and see where it leads you.  I wish you all the
best.

Regards,
Anbu

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:50 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear Sir,
>
> Pl. see my comments appended in between [ ]
>
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Sri Subramanian,
> >
> > I did foresee that you would leave everything else and come to the story
> of
> > Ahalya!
> >
>
> [ It is because this story that formed the basis for your conviction of a
> Jnani not having a mind and this, to my knowledge, is not the way the
> Scriptures teach.]
>
> >
> > I do not go by the quotation from a website but from personal knowledge.
> > Bhagavan did not invent any new story to say that Ahalya as a person was
> *
> > not* turned into a stone.  That would be a repudiation of the ithihaasa
> > story.  (There are lot of westerners who twist things a little bit to be
> in
> > line with their thinking and feed their following.  I ignore them.)
> >
> > Ahalya was a Gnaani and she did not identify herself with a fleshy BMI or
> > stone BMI.  Same like Bhagavan Ramana who remained and taught in this
> world
> > with no identification with the BMI.
> >
> > In the second chapter of Bhagavat Geetha (2.54), Arjuna asked Lord
> Krishna
> > how a Gnaani sits, how he walks etc.  In other words Arjuna as an
> ignorant
> > man wanted to identify a Gnaani.  You should read Bhagavan's (Krishna's)
> > reply.
> >
>
> [I have read the Lord's reply and they are in perfect accordance with
> Arjuna's question. That is how one can identify a shrotriya brahma nishtha.
> Sri Ramakrishna said: 'That is the way, Naren, Rakhaal, you should test me
> by the day and test me by the night.' ]
>
> >
> > Bhagavan Ramana has clearly said the body (which cannot be separated from
> > the BMI complex until death of the body) is destined with the praarabha
> > karma and exhausts in time.  A person who who has attained Gnaana
> > immediately disengages from this BMI complex but the body carries on to
> its
> > termination in time.    For an ignorant onlooker it would be like the
> Gnani
> > is doing it.  This Gnaani is the Jeevanmuktha who is described by
> Bhagavan
> > Krishna in reply to Arjuna. Bhaskarji has already explained this.
> >
>
> [ This is Bhagavan's teaching in the 5th chapter and the Acharyal's
> bhashyam:
>
> //And besides, this person does not act in the real sense. Hence,
>
>
> 8-9. Remaining absorbed in the Self, the knower of Reality should think, 'I
> certainly do not do anything', even while seeing, hearing, touching,
> smelling, eating, moving, sleeping, breathing, speaking, releasing,
> holding,
> opening and closing the eyes-remembering that the organs function in
> relation to the objects of the organs.
>
> Yuktah, remaining absorbed in the Self; tattva-vit, the knower of
> Reality-knower of the real nature of Truth, of the Self, i.e., the seer of
> the supreme Reality; manyeta, should think; 'na karomi eva, I certainly do
> not do; kincit, anything.'
>
> Having realized the Truth, when or how should he think? This is being
> answered; Api, even; pasyan, while seeing; srnvan, hearing; sprsan,
> touching; jighran, smelling; asnan, eating; gacchan, moving; svapan,
> sleeping; svasan, breathing; pralapan, speaking; visrjan, releasing;
> grhnan,
> holding; unmisan, opening; nimisan, closing the eyes. All these are to be
> connected with the above manyeta (should think).//
>
> Note the word: 'manyeta'.  And the Bhashyam:'Having realized the Truth,
> when
> or how should he think?'
>
> How is this possible if there were to be no mind at all?
>
> If Bhagavan and Shankara were of the opinion that 'only the ajnani thinks
> that a jnani acts', They would not taken the trouble of answering Arjuna's
> question.  They could have easily told him: Arjuna, you are just imagining
> that a Jnani acts.  Do not hold such funny ideas.'  Instead, They took the
> pains to show Arjuna that it is not the Atman that acts but only the BMI
> that acts and this discrimination is at the root of Atman knowledge.]
>
>
> > Sri GurubyO Namaha
> > Anbu
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:18 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Anbu ji,
> > >
> > > This 'shaapa vimochanam' by Bhagavan abounds in the Puranic and Itahasa
> > > lore.  Take for instance young Krishna passing thru the two trees with
> > the
> > > grinding stone tied to His waist.  The two brothers Manigreeva and
> > > NalakUbara emerged from the felled trees.  They were the sons of Kubera
> > and
> > > had got this tree form due to a curse.  They were not Jnanis before and
> > > after. There is another instance of a lizard turning out to be a
> > gandharva,
> > > being freed from the shaapa.  Even this gandharva was not a Jnani.
> > >
> > > In Advaita,  Jnanam is complete disidentification from the AnAtma.  If
> a
> > > Jnani is cursed by some Deva/Rishi and starts identifiying with a
> stone,
> > > then the very definition of Jnanam is questionable. Even granting that
> > > Ahalya was a Jnani and experienced the effects of the curse, the story
> > does
> > > not obviate the need for the instrumentality of the mind, even in the
> > case
> > > of  a Jnani.  For, only with a mind can one identify and disidentify.
> > > JaaDyam is also a mode of the (taamasic) mind alone. Atman is beyond
> the
> > > guNa-s. My persistence is on this one aspect.
> > >
> > > By the way, here is the story, 'as told by Bhagavan' from literature
> > > related
> > > to Bhagavan Ramana where this Ahalya episode is discussed:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.messagefrommasters.com/ramana_stories/ramana_maharshi_gautama_ahalya_32.htm
> > >
> > > // Devotee: “The statement that Ahalya turned into a stone
> > > applies only to her mind and not to her body. Is that not so?”
> > >
> > > Bhagavan: “That is so. If it is not for the mind, could it be for the
> > body?
> > > It is only ordinary people that say her body turned into a stone and
> that
> > > Rama restored her to her original form by putting his foot on the
> stone.
> > > How
> > > is that possible? It only means that the mind lost its awareness of the
> > > Self, and unable to think of anything else, she became dull like a
> stone.
> > >
> > > That dullness got relieved by the darsan of a great personage.
> > > As she herself was a great tapasvini she could immediately become aware
> > of
> > > the Self. //
> > >
> > >
> > > Warm regards,
> > > subrahmanian.v
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Sri Subramanian,
> > > >
> > > > I suppose I have said all that could be said of my conviction.  There
> > is
> > > no
> > > > such thing as a rule book for advaitha.  At the end of the day one
> has
> > to
> > > > understand it intuitively.  It would be the same if you imagine
> > yourself
> > > to
> > > > be Ahalya and Sri Rama placed his holy paadham on your head.  I
> suppose
> > a
> > > > bhakthimaan has a different concept than an exegete.
> > > >
> > > > Actually according to Bhagavan Ramana Ahalya was a gnyaani even when
> > she
> > > > was
> > > > cursed.  This might surprise you and might tempt you to ask more
> > > questions.
> > > > We are merely treading into how jeevan mukthas behave in this world.
> >  Our
> > > > AachaaryaaL referred to one such person in Sivaanandalahari namely
> > > Kannappa
> > > > Nayanaar who also placed his holy foot on Lord Siva.  If you are
> > > interested
> > > > you can read my 3 part commentary on that in the 63rd Sloka of
> > > > Sivaanandhalahari.
> > > >
> > > > Subhamasthu,
> > > > Anbu
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 6:54 AM, V Subrahmanian <
> > > v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dear Anbu ji,
> > > > >
> > > > > Pl. see my responses in [ ]
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Sri Subramanian,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the first post under this thread I wrote: " Advaitha teaches
> us
> > > that
> > > > > > giving up the intellect enables one to become one with this
> > Reality."
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [ This is not the teaching of traditional Advaita of Shankara's.]
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  *A gnyani is one with the reality and as such he is asangan.*
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [This is true]
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That would be the acquiring of aathmagnyaanam which can be
> obtained
> > > > only
> > > > > by
> > > > > > the surrender to the Guru.  Such ability to surrender to a Guru
> > comes
> > > > out
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > sukrutham in many many births.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [There are no issues on this.]
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then what happens between him and the Guru is one-on-one and does
> > not
> > > > > > involve any set pattern and the upadesa may involve words or not
> > even
> > > > > > words.  Bhagavan Ramana gave nayana dheeksha to many people.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [If Bhagavan Krishna, Himself PUrNa, could have approved such
> methods
> > > of
> > > > > 'nayana deeksha' why did He not do that for Arjuna?  Why did He ask
> > him
> > > > to
> > > > > acquire Jnanam by 'tad viddhi praNipaatena pariprashnena sevayaa?'
> ]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >  My examples from Ramayana and Bhagavatha are in these lines.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [I do not think Ahalya became a Jnani after the shaapa vimochanam.]
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who can assert that the intellect was involved in all these?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Since Ahalya's case is out of this, it could well be said in the
> > case
> > > of
> > > > > Gopis that the intellect had become pari pakvam to intuit only the
> > > > > antaraatma dRk, sAkshi, to the exclusion of every thing else.  This
> > is
> > > > what
> > > > > Krishna advises in the 6th chapter: na kinchidapi chintayet.  The
> > > Gopi-s
> > > > > could be said to have had this ability.  Constant, one pointed,
> > Krishna
> > > > > chintanam can take place only in the intellect.  So, where is the
> > > > > destruction or giving up of the intellect?  In the Panchadashi
> > > Vidyaranya
> > > > > gives the example of a woman constantly thinking of her paramour
> even
> > > > when
> > > > > engaged in her daily routine.]
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What I am saying is that it is preposterous to say that a gnyaani
> > > needs
> > > > > the
> > > > > > mind to carry on in this world.  He is there exhausting his
> > > praarabhdha
> > > > > > karma but he is asangan.  What he seems to be doing is a destiny
> > that
> > > > he
> > > > > > knows unlike the agnyaani but may not care for he is asangan.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Sir, pl. note that for carrying on in this world the Jnani
> > definitely
> > > > > needs
> > > > > the mind.  Supposing he is writing a book.  Will he not consult
> > several
> > > > > other books and select and reject material?  How is this possible
> > > without
> > > > a
> > > > > mind?  How will he distinguish between what is required for him
> from
> > > what
> > > > > is
> > > > > not?  If he has to show compassion, care, etc. to others, how will
> > this
> > > > be
> > > > > possible without the mind?  Bhagavan has taught in the Gita that
> > these
> > > > are
> > > > > all faculties of the mind. If he  is an Acharya, a shortriya
> > > > brahmanishtha,
> > > > > how can he teach various students of various levels unless he
> > > > > distinguishes,
> > > > > discriminates, etc.  It is a wrong notion that the jnani would have
> > no
> > > > > mind.
> > > > >
> > > > > According to the Vedanta, prarabdha karma is the one where the
> > present
> > > > > body-mind complex that has begun will run its destined course and
> > only
> > > > then
> > > > > cease.  How can we admit that only the physical body of the Jnani
> > > without
> > > > > the mind will continue? ]
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why so?  Because the world is a product of karma and Easwara as
> > > > > Karmaphala
> > > > > > Dhaatha has to ensure that the phala that he has dispensed is not
> > > > > overcome
> > > > > > by any means.  He ensures this by being the space, time and
> > causality
> > > > and
> > > > > > the jeeva too!
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [ When He is the jeeva, will He be just the jiva's body and not the
> > > >  mind,
> > > > > intellect, ahankara also?  If he is not always in samadhi, he will
> > have
> > > > to
> > > > > interact with the world.  If someone calls him by name, how will he
> > > > respond
> > > > > if he has no mind, ahankara? The notion of 'mind is lost with
> > > > > self-realization' is a concept that is not acceptable to Vedanta.]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Now tell me how can anyone with only a useless weapon as an
> > > > > > intellect can challenge his will?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [The intellect is required to go along with the prarabdha even if
> not
> > > for
> > > > > challenging Iswara's will.  Let me also tell you that there are
> some
> > > > videos
> > > > > available on the Paramacharya of Kanchi.  One can see, over the
> > years,
> > > > the
> > > > > Acharya had to be prompted by those around Him for suitable words,
> > > names,
> > > > > dates, etc.  This was not required when He was young in His
> thirties
> > > and
> > > > > forties. I have seen those videos too.  That shows that the
> intellect
> > > > takes
> > > > > the beating of ageing. This is the natural course of Prakriti to
> > which
> > > > even
> > > > > a jnani is subject. Of course it is needless to say that his
> > AtmajnAnam
> > > > > will
> > > > > not be affected by these.  The Panchadashi Chapter 2 last few
> shlokas
> > > are
> > > > > specifically on this. ]
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > subbu
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > > > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > > > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > > >
> > > > For assistance, contact:
> > > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > >
> > > For assistance, contact:
> > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>