[Advaita-l] Lower order GYAnI will be reborn?

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

I just one more reading of all points, and the jIvanmuktivivekaH chapter
which I mentioned.
Then one more thing to add, any type of GYAnI, even that who appears
jIvanmukta, needs to continue practice because who knows when and how one
falls.
I request you to write the definition of jIvanmukta and videhamukta here,
then think about their fate according to my hints.
Then I'll reply.
I must say that you are very good at grasping hints, because things which
were barely indicated by me were written clearly by you.
I'll reply once you do as requested.

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 16:07 Raghav Kumar Dwivedula, <raghavkumar00 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Pranams Swamiji
>
> Thank you for the elaborate reply. I tried to carefully understand the
> content.
>
> I wanted to reread it and try to not follow up with too many other
> questions since you may have dealt with these questions earlier.
>
> I shall raise only one follow up question expressed in different ways and
> then rest this thread.
>
> Firstly
> I understand you to be saying that GYAnI-s (non-jIvanmukta-s) who have
> attained total (100%) freedom from pramAna-gata and prameyagata samshaya
> and also importantly  from *viparyaya* (by nidhidhyAsana),  alone are
> eligible for videhamukti. Such GYAnI-s as per JMV nomenclature are not yet
> jIvanmukta-s.
>
> My question-
> Now, is the aphorism Asupter AmRter kAlam nayet vedAnta cintayA applicable
> even for them and are they also 'vulnerable' to being overpowered by dvaita
> vAsana-s if they do not 'maintain' the advaita vAsana's active?
>
> As a corollary -
>
> Can we say that such continuous maintenance of advaita vasana (by
> practicing the means of GYAna)  *till death* is essential even for these
> potential candidates for videhamukti to ensure videhamukti in the first
> place? If they do not do keep up such practice of the means of GYAna, will
> they also likely *lapse* in to the lower order GYAnI and have to be reborn?
>
> Alternatively, we could say that such practice of the means of knowledge
> (since GYAna itself can't be practised, as you said), is meant only for
> those who belong to the still lower order of GYAnI-s who may have some
> viparyayas left to deal with who are 'due' to be reborn?
>
> Regarding another point, i am restating what i understood you to be
> saying, in my own words.
> In another mail to Sri Sadananada ji, you clarified that when you say
> GYAna is anitya, you are asserting that, of course GYAna will never undergo
> bAdha or negation by any other pramANa (because pramAtRtvaM itself is
> grasped as mithyA so how can GYAnam ever undergo bAdha) but,  it can become
> as though unavailable or inactive if overpowered by dvaita vAsana because
> even the GYAna, which is represented by the arising of akhanDAkAra vRtti,
> leaves only a saMskAra on the mind and this is of course not permanent.
> There is abhyAsa apeksha.
>
> The point of no return to saMsAra does not occur by the mere first arising
> of the akhanDAkAra vRtti which is born of grasping the artha of mahAvAkya
> as aikya, by seeing the nondifference between the lakShyArtha of tat and
> tvam pada-s.
>
> I shall stop here on this thread as indicated by you.
>
> Om
>
>
> Raghav
>