Guest guest Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 praNAms Sri paramahamsa prabhuji Hare Krishna Sorry if I am a late intruder in this discussion...Due to official work, official cricket & badminton matches, I am not able to regularly participate in these discussions :-)) Anyway, here are my bits on your latest observations : Sri PV prabhuji : Swamiji clearly said, " The whole universe is jnAni's body " but not, " jnAni has no body " . bhaskar : prabhuji, I think there is a lot of difference in saying 'jnAni has universe as the body' and jnAni has individualized/localized set of indriya-s in 'a' body & has ONLY reflected consciousness in that body!! Yes, geetAchArya says Atman has the legs, hands everywhere (sarvataH pANi pAdaM etc. ) and at the same time Atman is sarvendriya guNAbhAsaM & sarvendriya vivarjitaM ( 13-13 & 14 etc.)..Since we are telling here jnAni is nothing but Atman and Atman is nothing but brahman (brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati) brahman cannot have the boundaries like localized BMI & RC etc. So, jnAni has the universe as his body from adhyArOpa drushti & he is devoid of any sense organs is apavAda drushti (shankara himself says this in geeta bhAshya)...In either case it is clear that there is no room to infer that jnAni is an individual entity with limited upAdhi-s...Because individuality (jeevatva) is itself an adhyAsa, this cannot be forwarded to the state of mukti. Sri PV prabhuji : As SrI Sadananda-ji has put it in a lucid way, //Jnaani is the one who realizes that world is mithyaa - that is it has no independent existence other than Brahman - That does not mean it is non existent either since non-existent things need not be negated.// bhaskar : jnAni cannot/should not have a doubt like this to say jagat is brahman or otherwise...his jnAna is *nischaya jnAna* that there is absolutely nothing apart from HIM...In that 'perfect knowledge (paripUrNa jnAna)' there is no duality whatsoever...His knowledge about 'socalled' jagat is perfect.. Yes, non-existent things need not be negated & at the same time 'all' existing things are nothing but THAT in that realization..Hope you know what negation means according to shankara. Sri PV prabhuji : can you assure us that such a claim as, " jnAni is ajnAni's projection " is found in scriptures? bhaskar : I think there is some confusion here...We are not telling jnAni is ajnAni's projection...jnAni is absolute brahman/Atman without any traces of individuality according to us :-)). OTOH, we are telling jnAni's embodiedness (sashareeratvaM), his localized indriya-s, his own reflected consciousness etc. etc. are the false projection of ajnAni-s who think that there should be a body to project jnAna:-)) tasmAt mithyA pratyaya nimittatvAt sashareerasya siddham jeevatopi vidushaH ashreeratvam.(shankara in tattu samanvayAt sUtra bhAshya) So, prabhuji jnAni's shareeratvam is due to mithya pratyaya...Now you tell me who can have the mithyA pratyaya here?? jnAni or ajnAni?? If this mithyA pratyaya is the dOsha of ajnAni, who is still entertaining 'dehAtma buddhi' what is the problem in saying jnAni's embodiedness is the projection of ajnAni?? Kindly clarify. Finaly with regard to your quote (1-1-4) from Sri Subbu prabhuji's article , I dont think it is fair to discuss his observations here when the author of that article (who is still reading all these exchanges) is not ready to continue this discussion... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 Namaste Bhaskarji: I want to clarify your statement below with reference to quoting and discussing a post that appear in the list. Here are the facts as for as I know: Unlike other lists, advaitin lists has no restriction with respect to reading or copying the messages from the list serve. The goal of this list is to serve the universal community by spreading the message of Vedanta to uplift their life and spirit. Currently the list has nearly 2000 members and the number of people who access the list archive is certainly much more than 2000. As I have noticed that all individuals who join the list have certain goals and when their goals are met, they leave the list. Also members leave the list due to greater demand of time for meeting personal and work obligations. Those who their membership due to other obligations do read messages from the list by using search engine, etc., As you have rightly pointed out in the beginning of your message that we set up our priorities and read and reply messages when we get some spare time. As for as I know that the list guidelines do not stipulate that those who post their messages have the obligations to participate in discussions until the discussions get exhausted. Neither any member nor the moderator can impose such rules to force a poster participate in the discussions. As one of the moderators of this list, I occasionally receive emails from both nonmembers and past members with the subject matter pertain to an ongoing list discussion . A majority of those who sent such messages have good intention to share their insights but do not have time to participate in the discussions. If and when I find an email message with valuable insights that have potential beneficial to the list membership (after taking permission from them) I post them on their behalf. Subbuji and Vidyasankarji both were past members of this list and have left the lists due to time constraints. Both have indicated in their private emails that they occasionally read messages from the archive whenever they get some spare time. As many may be aware, Subbuji and Vidyasankarji have a depth of knowledge in both Vedanta and the Scriptures and I always find their insights quite valuable for all Vedantins. When I asked their permission to post those messages to the list, they have indicated that they don't have time to participate or answer clarifications but they will have no objection to me posting their messages. I don't believe that they object any member to site or discuss the messages posted in their names. Observations and works of Adi Sankara, Madhusudanana Saraswati, SSS, Swami Atmananda, Swami Dayananda, Swami Krishnananda, Swami Chinmayananda, Swami Paramathmananda and other scholars are often posted in the list. Though those scholars are not available for discussions, we do discuss their thoughts and insights. What justifies you to think it is not fair to discuss Subbuji's observations when he doesn't want to participate in the discussions? We are all here to learn through exchange of the insights from the members who participate in the discussions and also who from those who do not participate in the discussions. I hope my clarification helps all of us to continue our discussions with the goal to serve and learn, With my warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote: > > Finaly with regard to your quote (1-1-4) from Sri Subbu prabhuji's article > , I dont think it is fair to discuss his observations here when the author > of that article (who is still reading all these exchanges) is not ready to > continue this discussion... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 What justifies you to think it is not fair to discuss Subbuji's observations when he doesn't want to participate in the discussions? praNAms Sri Ramachandra prabhuji Hare Krishna prabhuji it is because author of the article himself declared at the end that he is unavailable for subsequent discussions. When he is very much available on cybernet, accessible & have enough time for private mail exchanges & clarifications, dont you think we need his service here also especially he is much worried about the fate of the members of this list ?? If he is intentionally drawing back himself from the discussion, what is the point in holding his article as a reference for our discussion?? Kindly let me know whether he has entrusted anyone to officially represent his article & given them the permission to write mails on behalf of him?? As you know, he has clarified somany issues on his article when I asked him (ofcourse with lot of firing from his gun :-)) via private e-mails...Most of the readers would not be knowing that he is treating sadyo mukti & jeevan mukti are one and the same especially when he is ascribing SM to teaching-1 & JM to teaching -2...Most of the readers would not be knowing that for him, there is no difference in sAdhya (he attributed it to teaching -1 i.e. ashareeratvam of the jnAni) and sAdhana ( teaching -2 that which supports the embodiedness of a jnAni)..He also clarified in one of his mails (again private mail) that his approach is different from that of School-1 & School-2 :-)) Like this, on somany issues I had to write to him personally to get his view points clear...My question is how many prabhuji-s would have that opportunity when he is declining to share his thoughts openly in the forum?? This is the reason why I thought, WITHOUT KNOWING THE REAL INTENTIONS OF THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE, it is not fair on our part to discuss these issues as a 'reference'....Hope I am clear now prabhuji. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.