[Advaita-l] Jnana-karma samuccaya.

[Kathirasan K]

Namaste

I believe Shankara makes another note in Chandogya Upanishad Bhashya 2.23.1
as to why a Jnani would not commit adharma. Unfortunately, I don't have the
bhashya with me right now.

Kathirasan

On 23 November 2010 19:54, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Due to his prArabdha janita dehendriya manObuddhi ahaMkAra, he
> > may  'sometime' involve in 'questionable' activities by getting
> 'vipareeta
> > pratyaya-s!! When the  brahma jnAni's  fate itself is like this then what
> > to speak about 'holymen' ??  So, at least with this excuse the holymen
>  can
> > justify their activities. No pun intended here please, this is the theory
> > which got acceptance from the 'official' flag holders of advaita.
> >
> > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> > bhaskar
> >
>
> The above observation does not portray the view of Shankaracharya and
> Sureshwaracharya.  In fact the stated observation, undoubtedly in bad
> taste,
> is aimed at mocking the Acharyas of Advaita Sampradaya like Shankara and
> Sureshwara.  No 'questionable' activity of a Brahmajnanai has been granted
> 'acceptance' by Shankaracharya or Sureshwaracharya.
>
> Shankaracharya nowhere grants acceptance to any 'questionable activities'
> of
> a Jnani when he writes in the Briharadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10 thus:
>
> //In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad bhashya, while delineating on the mantra
> 1.4.10 where occurs the teaching 'aham brahma asmi', the Acharya says the
> Jnani will have vipareeta pratyaya and raagaadi doSha:  // yena karmaNA
> sharIramArabdham tat *vipareeta-pratyaya doSha *nimittatvaat tasya
> tathAbhUtasyaiva vipareetapratyaya doShasamyuktasya phaladaane
> saamarthamiti
> yaavat shareera paataH taavat phalopabhoga angatayaa* vipareeta
> pratyayam raagaadi
> doSham *ca taavanmaatram aakShipatyeva.  //
>
> [Translation by Swami Madhavananda, Advaita Ashrama, p.115 - 116 :
>
>  // In other words, that resultant of past work which led to the formation
> of the present body (PrArabdha), being the outcome of false notions and the
> evils (of attachment, etc.), is able to bear fruit ONLY as such, i.e. as
> coupled with those (false) notions of and evils; hence until the body
> falls,
> IT CANNOT BUT PRODUCE, AS PART OF ONE'S EXPERIENCE OF THE RESULTS OF PAST
> WORK, JUST SO MUCH OF FALSE NOTIONS AND THE EVILS OF ATTACHMENT, ETC., for
> the past work that made this body has already begun to bear fruit and MUST
> RUN ITS COURSE like an arrow that has been shot. *Therefore knowledge
> cannot
> stop that, for they are not contradictory.*//
>
> Sri Sureshwaracharya has said in the Naishkarmyasiddhi 4.62:
>
> QUOTE
>
> Now, in order to refute the view that the knower of Brahman is free from
> sin
> [even if he performs a sinful act], the following:
>
> [Sureshwara wants to say that the Jnani will not at all indulge in a
> sinful/reprehensible act in the first instance.  When such is the case,
> where is the question of his 'not being touched by any sinful act'?  This
> is
> the idea behind this verse that follows]
>
> If a person who has realized the non-dual reality could  behave as he
> liked,
> then what is the difference between a dog and the seer of Truth in respect
> of eating what is prohibited?
>
> It may be asked: Why is it not possible?  It is for the following reason:
>
> From adharma, demerit, arises ignorance; and from the latter, unrestrained
> conduct.  How is unrestrained conduct possible in the state which is the
> result of dharma, merit, wherein even righteousness is not desired?  (4.63)
>
> [Sureshwara argues that the Jnani is in a state where even puNya is not
> deliberately desired by him and worked for.  In such a state how can there
> be any room for adhArmic activity that he might indulge in? ]
>
> So, the omniscient Hari who has repudiated unrestrained conduct has said:
> 'He whose all works are devoid of desires and purposes, and whose actions
> have been burnt by the fire of wisdom,him the wise call a sage'. (B.G.4.19)
> Also, 'He (jivanmukta) does not hate the presence of light,activity and
> delusion.  Nor does he long for them, if absent.' (B.G.14.22)
>
> UNQUOTE
>
> Shankara has also explicitly said while commenting on a Br.Up.mantra that
> the Jnani, who has the firm conviction that giving room for desire etc. is
> the cause of samsara and all the evils thereof, will never give room for
> these in his vyvahara.
>
> Thus, in the Shankara sampradaya there is no room for the erroneous
> thinking
> that the Jnani will indulge in 'questionable activities'.  Also, the phrase
> 'prArabdha janita dehendriya manObuddhi ahaMkAra' is a product of wrong
> understanding of the Vedanta system. In Vedanta, for every jiva, whether
> jnani or ajnani, the body-mind-intellect-ahankara-apparatus is a result of
> prarabadha only.  This particular apparatus remains till the end of this
> particular set of prArabdha karma.  Atma Jnana does not destroy this
> apparatus.  And most importantly, prarabdha will not bring about any 'new'
> body-mind apparatus so as to qualify it by the term 'prArabdha janita'.
> Thus there is no room in Vedanta shastra for the adjective
> praarabdha-janita
> to be used in the case of the Jnani in particular.  Shankara makes this
> point clear through the words: ' *Therefore knowledge cannot stop that, for
> they are not contradictory' (as quoted above)*
>
> What this portion of the commentary means is this:  Atma jnana is the
> virodhi of mUlAvidyA alone and not of the already begun body-mind
> apparatus.
>
> Nor should it be wrongly concluded that the cases of Veda Vyasa fathering
> the sons of Vichitraveerya's widows or Kashyapa Prajapati uniting with his
> wife Diti in the sandhyAkAla, etc. are 'violations' of dharma on their
> part.  Nor is it a case of their behaving that way a result of kAma. This
> observation: //.As an example : we call kashyapa brahma's acceptance to his
> wife's untimely  demands as an occassional vipareeta pratyaya of the
> jnAni//  does not find approval  in Vedanta.  Nobody in the sampradaya
> 'calls Kashyapa Prajapati's case as 'occasional vipareeta pratyaya'.
>
> This term 'vipareeta pratyaya' that Shankara has used in the Br.Up.Bhashya
> 1.4.10 quoted above has an altogether different meaning.  If a Jnani is
> required to teach a disciple, the disciple has to be seen as 'different'
> from another disciple or from the Jnani himself.  This 'bheda-darshanam' is
> inevitable form him and will last as long as he lives. This has been
> explicitly stated by Shankara in BSB 4.1.19.  It is this requirement of
> bheda-darshana in each and every vyavahara of the Jnani that is referred by
> Shankara as 'vipareeta pratyaya' in the above 1.4.10 bhashya. It never
> means
> any 'lapse' on the part of a Jnani.  Those who do not know what those words
> of Shankara mean attribute their own meanings to these terms and end up
> bringing a bad name to Veda Vyasa and the Prajapati.
>
> These are never held to be 'questionable activities' in the sampradaya.  No
> authority has questioned these instances and adjudged them as immoral.
> These instances have been picked out and shown ONLY with a view to
> emphasize
> that the body-mind apparatus of a Jnani will not disappear upon Atmajnana
> as
> those outside the sampradaya have concluded.
>
> Best 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
>