jumping off, falling short

[Guest guest]

Sri Vidyasankar wrote:

Frankly, I think the various participants in the thread have painted

themselves into corners and are repeating themselves over and over. I also

think Sri Br. Pranipata Chaitanya made the most acute observation on this

thread recently. If dehI means dehAbhimAnI, then jnAnI is not a dehI.

However, if dehI merely means dehavAn iva lakshyate, then jnAnI can be

called a dehI, so long as the prArabdha plays itself out. There is a lot

of power in the Skt word " iva " , as illustrated beautifully in

bhagavatpAda's gItAbhAshya introduction. We can write pages after pages in

English without ever capturing it that succinctly.

The two sides of this discussion seem to be falling on two sides of these

possible meanings. All the argument then is either just semantics or a lot

of misunderstanding, both of which lead to personal recriminations.

Another member of the list, Raji Iyer, wrote eloquently about it, but I

don't have her email address to cc her!

With warm regards,

Vidyasankar

 

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Namaste Advaitins,

 

This seems to be a case of jumping off the fence on both sides and

galloping off in all directions. Seriously though it’s interesting that

there is no clear cut authoritative analysis of the issue that would put

the issue to rest. Of course I think that the general tone of Brh.IV.iv.6

and particularly that represented by Shankara as an erroneous position is

a clear vindication of the - though in the body, they are not of the body

- view of jnanihood.

" Objection: If liberation makes no difference from the particular state,

it is unreasonable to make a particular effort for it, and the scriptures

too become useless. "

 

Possibly the problem is this: sutras which are more akin to poetry than

logical or philosophical analyses need careful sifting by a realised

sage. I think that the separation of discourse into relative and absolute

as a way of avoiding apparent contradiction can be a trap even though it

is habitually resorted to. As is said, reality is beyond the pairs of

opposites and is not conceptually graspable. Thus observations about

reality and those who have realised it fall short.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

> Sri Vidyasankar wrote:

 

Namaste M,

 

Yes lets not confuse apples and oranges even if they are both an

illusion.

 

My understanding is that the ego itself is not satisfied in actions

with a Mukta, and that the governing mind is the Sakti through the

vijnanamayakosa...The body will still complete the karmas however and

appear to be 'normal'....Cheers Tony.