[Advaita-l] Question about Sri Vidyaranya's JMV & jnani matra

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 5:55 PM Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
>
> Hare Krishna
>
>
>
> Yes, the Jnani Shankara and Bhagavan Krishna have emphatically said that
> the Jnani has a body. In BSB 4.1.15 Shankara has asked: How can anyone deny
> a Jnani's conviction of being Brahman and also being in a body?
>
>
>
>    - Yes, both of them emphatically said jnAni has the body, ofcourse for
>    ajnAni-s like us ( sorry like me) there must be emphasis like this
>    otherwise we would ask the question like that disciple did to ramaNa 😊
>    These teachings about jnAni’s BMI, jnAni’s movement, how he sits, how he
>    walks, how he smells, how he speaks etc. are for the ajnAni-s who need to
>    follow the path of jnAni (shrEshTa-s), not meant to teach jnAni’s avidyA
>    lesha, deha dhAraNa, his kAma-krOdha etc.
>
>
BG says: sarvathaa vartamaano'pi na sa bhUyo abhijaayate - however might he
conduct/behave in the world he will not be born again.  This is the one
that encapsulates 'kama-krodha' that might manifest in a Jnani. Avidya
lesha is a synonym of Prarabdha. This is because karma per se is
avidyamoola. Prarabdha is just one type of karma. When Bhashya accepts
prarabdha it accepts this avidymulaka karma's baadhita anuvrtti.



>
>    - If that is not the case bhAshyakAra would have not said : vidhvAn sa
>    ehaiva brahma ‘yadyapi dehavAn eva lakshyate sa brahmaiva sar brahmApyeti.
>
> Let me clarify: yadyapi dehavan iva lakshyate is not to mean 'the ajnani-s
imagine a body for jnani'. Such a laughable idea will never come from
Shankara.


>
>    - And apart from this, in the fifth sUtra itself in shAreeraka
>    meemAmsa shankara clarifies how jnAni is ashareeri before understanding how
>    continue to have pravrutti through indriya-s even after samyak jnana.
>
> When it is said jnani is ashareeri, in fact ajnani is also ashareeri, it
is meant that jnani has no mithyabhimana in shareera as 'I am a manushya'.
In samanvaya sutra bhashya he has clarified this. He gives the example of a
man attached to kunDala/wealth will feel joy or fear or sorrow due to that
attachment. One who has no attachment with them, even if he were to possess
them, will not have joy, etc. due to them.
 न हि शरीराद्यात्माभिमानिनो दुःखभयादिमत्त्वं दृष्टमिति, तस्यैव
वेदप्रमाणजनितब्रह्मात्मावगमे तदभिमाननिवृत्तौ तदेव मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तं
दुःखभयादिमत्त्वं भवतीति शक्यं कल्पयितुम् । न हि धनिनो गृहस्थस्यधनाभिमानिनो
धनापहारनिमित्तं दुःखं दृष्टमिति, तस्यैव प्रव्रजितस्य धनाभिमानरहितस्य तदेव
धनापहारनिमित्तं दुःखं भवति । न च कुण्डलिनःकुण्डलित्वाभिमाननिमित्तं सुखं
दृष्टमिति तस्यैव कुण्डलवियुक्तस्य कुण्डलित्वाभिमानरहितस्य तदेव
कुण्डलित्वाभिमाननिमित्तं सुखं भवति । तदुक्तं श्रुत्या — ‘अशरीरं वाव सन्तं न
प्रियाप्रिये स्पृशतः’ (छा. उ. ८ । १२ । १)
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Chandogya?page=8&id=Ch_C08_S12_V01&hl=%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B5%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%A8%20%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%87%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%83%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%83>
 इति ।

In the following lines he raises the question: ashareeratvam can be
admitted only after the fall of the body and not while being alive. And
answers: no, sa-shareeratva is due to mithyajnana. So, if mithyjnanam is
not there, there is no sa-shareeratvam.  He does not accept the idea:
ashareeratva is possible only after the fall of the body.  Thereby he is
accepting ashareeratva even while being alive.

 शरीरे पतितेऽशरीरत्वं स्यात् , न जीवत इति चेत् , न ; सशरीरत्वस्य
मिथ्याज्ञाननिमित्तत्वात् । न ह्यात्मनः शरीरात्माभिमानलक्षणं मिथ्याज्ञानं
मुक्त्वा अन्यतः सशरीरत्वं शक्यं कल्पयितुम् ।

I just wanted to clarify to the readers the above since the word
'dehavaaniva lakshyate' of the bhashya may create a wrong impression unless
clarified. ashareeratva is a bhaava and does not depend on the presence or
absence of the body. Shankara is making this clear in the above lines.

warm regards
subbu

>
>    -
>
>
>