[Advaita-l] More about Janaka

[Srikrishna Ghadiyaram via Advaita-l]

Om !

Thank you for further research and clarification on this subject.

What is the derivation of Mithila, here?

Is it not Chandravamsha, and not Suryavamsha?

Regards

Srikrishna



________________________________
 From: Jaldhar H. Vyas via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
To: Advaita-L <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 11:24 PM
Subject: [Advaita-l] More about Janaka
 

[was Re: [Advaita-l] Jiiva at Satya Loka - Will He or Won't He come back]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Srikrishna Ghadiyaram wrote:

> How did you conclude that that Janaka and this Janaka are the same? What
> evidence is advanced for that, by anyone?

So after further research I must say they are not the same.  According to 
Bhagavata Purana 9.13, the Janaka mentioned in the upanishad was the son 
of Nimi the son of Ikshvaku.  That Nimi after an altercation with Maharshi 
Vasishtha became bodiless.  As Janaka was born while his father was in 
that condition, he (and his kingdom) became known as Vaideha and Mithila. 
That he came of the lineage of Ikshvaku is significant because the Krshna 
Bhagavan says (Gita 4.1) that formerly the teachings of the Gita had been 
passed down from Vivasvat to Manu to Ikshvaku.  The Suryavamsha of whom 
the Kurus including Arjuna are descendents are also of the lineage of 
Ikshvaku through a different line.

The Janaka who was the father of Sita ma was also known as Shiradhvaja. 
The Ramayana says his purohit was not Yajnavalkya but called Shatananda.

As well as under the Gita shloka 3.20, Shankaracharya discusses the case 
of Janaka in the introduction to the bhashya on Samkhyayoga (adhyaya 2.)

I shall quote from the English translation of A. Mahadeva Shastri.  Please 
see Advaita Sharada for the original.

"First suppose that Janaka and the rest were engaged in karma though they 
knew the truth.  Then, they did so lest people at large might go astray; 
whereas they were sincerely convinced that 'the senses'--but not the 
self--were engaged in the objects.  (See 3.28)  Thus they reached 
perfection by jnana alone.  Though the stage of renunciation had been 
reached, they attained perfection without abandoning works; that is to 
say, they did not formally renounce works.

Secondly, suppose that they had not known the truth.  Then the passages 
should be interpreted thus;--By means of work dedicated to Ishvara, Janaka 
and the rest attained perfection,-- 'perfection' meaning here either 
'purity of mind' or 'the dawn of true knowledge.'"


-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
_______________________________________________
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