[Advaita-l] [advaitin] A smart inference by Shankara

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 6:14 AM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Subbhuji, Here is a response to your recent comment on
> individuality of the jnani
> Avinasi, etc. are applicable to Atman, not jiva (which is Atman
> superimposed by body, anatman, which is perishable). Purushah must be Atman
> identical with Brahman, not jiva. Even if Gita says otherwise, the rule is
> that Sruti prevails over Smrti in the event of a conflict. BS and Gita
> are derivative, not Rishi vakyas. Gita tries to encompass all views current
> at the time of its compilation
>


Namaste

Surely, I have not said that the epithet 'avinashi' applies to the jiva.
It is indeed for the Atman as the Shruti says and as even the Gita
explicitly says.

Purusha is also the Nirguna Brahman/Atman and not the jiva. But in this
Gita verse:

वेदाविनाशिनं नित्यं य एनमजमव्ययम् ।
कथं स पुरुषः पार्थ कं घातयति हन्ति कम् ॥ २१ ॥

(He who knows that the Atman is indestructible and eternal can never be a
doer nor can cause any action.)

the word 'purusha' occurring in the second line is undeniably referring to
the Jnani who has the jnana that the Atman is avinashi, nitya, aja and
avyaya.  Such an informed person, purusha, will not be deluded that the act
of killing (even if the body mind complex would indulge in such an act in a
battle) is 'being done / performed by me (Atman)'.

That is the whole crux of the discourse about the Sthita prajna, whom
Shankara says, is a person who has realized his true nature, but continues
to live in the body.  Surely, either Shankara, or the Shruti or the Gita,
would never ever conceive of a situation where the dawn of knowledge marks
the death of the person to whom such knowledge has arisen.

The fundamental mistake of SSS is the following:

The view of Sri Sacchidanandendra Saraswati SwaminaH (SSS)

The following is what SSS says in the ‘Reply’ to a scholar’s article on
MUlAvidyA:


// AdhyAsa, of course, presupposes ignorance or want of true knowledge. But
this is a logical presupposition, a necessary implication of thought. No
positive entity like the unfortunate MUlAvidyA can claim precedence in time
over adhyAsa; for, as already said, time itself is its product*. Vedanta
which predicates the unity of Brahman will be shattered to pieces, if a
second entity not subjected to or originating from adhyAsa be for a moment
conceded to exist.* The reality of the not-self (anAtman) follows
necessarily from its not being adhyAsa, superimposed. I submit this vital
aspect of the system to the learned Professor for his deep consideration.//

The highlighted portion reveals where SSS has erred: He has misunderstood
the bhAvarUpa avidya as having the same status of Brahman, which the
proponents of that term (bhAvarUpa) never ever even implied. Upon this
fundamental error SSS has built an edifice that his followers are
struggling to sustain. For a person exposed to the traditional Bhashya
sampradaya, this error of SSS is quick to be spotted.

SSS's effort to 'save' Advaita from such a misunderstood 'post-Shankara'
tainting of the Shankaran Advaita, has resulted in so much of confusion for
his followers. Sri Vidyasankar Sundaresan once remarked to the effect 'if
SSS thinks that the post-Shankaran Advaitins have gravely erred, he must
remember that he is also post-Shankara.'


warm regards

subbu








>
>
>
>