[Advaita-l] Bhagavan Ramana and the pain of cancer

[Anbu sivam2]

[ Now you have said what I have said above.  The 'attachment' to the body
will go; not the awareness of the body as you said a little above]

You mean there is an awareness of 'my' body?!

A jeevan muktha has awareness alright and certainly cannot be without.  But
such awareness is not the kind that you and I have of the body as one's own
self.  It is illogical if he had it.  Vishyaartham is impossible if there is
no logic in it.  Illogical contentions are in the realm of the faith.

Regards,
Anbu

On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 1:56 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

> Namaste Anbu ji,
>
> Pl. see my responses within [  ]
>
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Subramianji,
> >
> > Namasthe.
> >
> > You wrote:
> > [It is not a suffering for the Jnani; it is a fact that he cannot do away
> > with.  Brahma sutra bhashya 4.1.15 is proof for this.]
> >
> > BS Bhashya 1.1.4 is related to this.  You cannot talk ignoring this.
> >
>
> [ I have not ignored this.  What I have said is in spite of this.]
>
> >
> > In Brahma Sootra Bhashya Sankara says:  "Tadetat asareerithvam
> > mokshaakhyam"
> > (1.1.4). The word 'Asareeri' only means being without a body. The loss of
> > awareness that  'I am the body' is Asareerithvam - the state of being
> > without a body.
>
>
> [ The above bhashya passage appears in the Bhashyam in the context of
> explaining the Upanishadic concept of MOksha as not something that is to be
> attained by traveling to some other lokam.  Please note that this statement
> of the Acharya is NOT in conflict with what He has said in 1.1.4.  Did you
> not notice my quoting this vaakyam where He affirms:
>
> // Moreover, it is not a matter for dispute at all whether the body of the
> Knower of Brahman continues to exist for sometime or not. For how can one
> contest the fact of another possessing the knowledge of Brahman – vouched
> for by his heart’s conviction – and at the same time continuing with the
> body?  This very fact is elaborated in the Upanishads and the SmRtis in the
> course of determining the characteristics of 'the man of steady wisdom'. //
>
> This passage has been much discussed already.  Surely, the Acharya is
> not contradicting
> Himself when He says this.  So, the correct understanding of the two
> passages is:
> the 1.1.4 talks about the concept of MOksha, where the deha-abhimAna
> is given up. Not the
> deha itself.  In 4.1.15 this is confirmed.  Otherwise, Shankaracharya
> could not have
> lived to write the bhashyam.  I have even shown specific instances
> where He uses the
> first person I with reference to Him:  'I shall win them all', ' I
> shall proceed to
> write a commentary on the Gita'.  If He did not have the awareness of
> the body, as you
> say, He could not have done all this. ]
>
>
>
> >  The Acharya has defined Moksha thus: If desires are
> > gradually reduced eventually made extinct, attachment to the body will
> > totally disappear.
>
>
> [ Now you have said what I have said above.  The 'attachment' to the body
> will go; not the awreness of the body as you said a little above]
>
> The soul within will then shine forth. There is no need
> > to go to other worlds for this. This is what the Vedas and Vedanta refer
> to
> > as "Ihaiva-Ihaiva' - here itself.
> >
>
> [All this is not contradictory to what has been quoted from 4.1.15]
>
> >
> > Please forgive me if I say that you have too much emphasis on the vEsham
> > which is only mithya, unreal.
> >
>
> [ Let me clarify.  I have deliberately emphasised the vESham which is
> mithya, unreal, only to point out that the thinking that the Jnani is
> someone without a body, etc. is not the correct understanding
> Shankaracharya
> wants us to have.  The 4.1.15 bhashyam makes it so explicit that 'even
> after
> the mithyAjnAnam has been sublated, the effects of that mithyAjnAnam will
> continue, owing to samskaras, for some time.'  He gave the two-moon vision
> as the example for this.  SSS has added a footnote to demonstrate this.]
>
>
> >
> > Please read my posting on Sri Rama's episode by Bhagavan Ramana.
> >
>
> [ I  read that post.  It is a nice story independently.  I feel it does not
> add anything directly to the point I was making.  The aspect that Rama
> continued to look for Sita, however, matches Shuka Muni's description.]
>
> Warm regards,
> subrahmanian.v
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>