[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Atman and Witness - transcending

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri MCC prabhuji
Hare Krishna

I think it is BSbh 4.1.15 where prarabdha and jnana are related. The interpretation there has to be from vyavaharika perspective not from paramartika drsti. It describes videha mukti not sadyomukti.


  *   Yes, actually I was talking about bruhad bhAshya (1-4-7) shareerArambhakasya karmaNO niyataphalatvAt “”samyakjnAnaprAptAvapi avashyaMbhAvinee pravrutti vAngmanaH kAyAnaam, labdhavrutteH karmaNO baleeyastvAtmuktEshvAdipravruttivat.  This statement is meant for ajnAni-s who still seeing the jnAni as dehavAn, but jnAni has the realization that he is Atman and ashareeratvaM is svAbhAvikaM for HIM.  vidvAn sa ehaiva brahma yadyapi ‘’dehavAniva lakshyate’ sa brahmaiva san brahmApyeti says bru. bhAshya.  But mUlAvidyAvAdins here taken this statement to prove that jnAni is having the individual BMI and it is not just in the view of onlookers but it is his avidyA lesha or prArabdha karma.


Some words on this topic from The Heart of Sri Samkara, HH SSSS:
If those liberated in life are still in any of the three states, such as waking, they do not have the right to claim that they ha\'e perceived the evil of worldly life themselves, let alone having the right to teach it to others.HOSS p16
19. Nor can it be established by experience of 'the Fourth', Perhaps you will say C Let us assume that the enlightened ones have direct experience of the unreality of the world in a state other than sleep and called "the Fourth". And they give us their metaphysical teaching in the waking state. What is wrong with that?' The fault lies in the fact that it is only in the course of actually having experience of the waking state that they declare it to be unreal. Investigators are not expounding an impeccable means of knowledge when they contradict their own experience. HOSS p17

But this view will not stand examination either. For Ignorance and metaphysical knowledge cannot co-inhere in the same place (i.e. in the same person). Contradictories like darkness and light cannot co-exist in the same place. And SureSvara has said, 'Only a fool would claim that Ignorance and knowledge could inhere in the same seat (the same individual consciousness), and that ignorance of a thing could remain on, uncancelled, after the thing had been rightly known' (B.B.V. 2.4.209, cpo B.B.V.S. 2.4.59). HOSS p18

  *   One more categorical statement from bhAshyakAra with regard to this in Itareya bhAshya  introduction : vidyAm chAvidyAM yastadvedObhayaM saha, eti na vidyAvatO vidyayA saha avidyApi vartate ityamarthaH, kastarhi??  Ekasmin purusha ete ekavaiva na saha sambadhyeyAtAm ityarthaha, yathA shuktikAyAM rajatashukti jnAne ekasya purushasya…..tasmAnna vidyAyAM satyAM avidyAsaMbhavOsti.  No one would say this is pearl as well as nacre after realizing the true nature of nacre.  No one would say :  I know it is rope but the tail of the snake is still bothering me to prove that he has ‘avidyA lesha’ 😊
Where there is so much as a faint light, no one can detect darkness even after washing their eyes out. So how can one bring up the idea that light and darkness could exist? HOSS p18


Ø     But as per later vyAkhyAnakAra-s, darkness is not mere prakAsha abhAva, it is a solid thing/Dravya padArtha, if you bring the light to see the darkness, it will run out to somewhere else to give the room to light 😊

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar