[Advaita-l] Question about Sri Vidyaranya's JMV & jnani matra

[Akilesh Ayyar]

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 9:29 AM Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Namaste Akileshji,
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 6:30 PM Akilesh Ayyar via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> Many of us have been a part of this debate many times in the
> past on this very list but some just love to run around in circles!
>

That sounds about right :-).


> I'd like to make a samanvaya proposition though on your next
> discussion about "onlooker".
>
> So since this is the case, then there cannot really be for a jnani any
>> avidyAlesha, any rAga-dvesha -- because the jnani is not a person. All
>> these again *are* posited only for onlookers.
>>
>> He says: "In sahaja samadhi the activities, vital and mental, and the
>> three
>> states are destroyed, never to reappear. However, others notice the Jnani
>> active e.g., eating, talking, moving etc. He is not himself aware of these
>> activities, whereas others are aware of his activities. They pertain to
>> his
>> body and not to his Real Self, swarupa. For himself, he is like the
>> sleeping passenger - or like a child interrupted from sound sleep and fed,
>> being unaware of it."
>>
>> Indeed, in the end even the very concept of a jnani is from the standpoint
>> of onlookers, because the concept of liberation is itself in the end
>> wrong.
>>
>
> Whatever is mentioned as an onlooker's perspective can be
> understood as *associating the jnAnI with the body-mind-sense-
> complex* whereas the association is no longer there in the case of
> the jnAnI.
>

Sure, that seems reasonable.


> See Maharshi's last verse in his 40 verses: "If it is said that Liberation
>> is of three kinds, with form or with and without form, then let me tell
>> you
>> that the extinction of the three forms of Liberation is the only true
>> Liberation."
>>
>
>
>> Yes, if that is what the so-called traditional camp believes, then that is
>> a pity :-)
>>
> Finally, I urge you to take the traditional perspective from a
> traditionalist and not from those who say what the traditionalists
> say, since for them the tradition itself is a "so-called" tradition!
>

That's why I prefixed my statement with an "if" :-).


>
> For what its worth, orthodox tradition and Bhagavan Ramana's
> teachings have never been at war with each other. This list has
> seen many a discussion on that as well. If anything, they are one
> and the same and just as the former can be confused without
> proper context, so can the latter.
>

Yes, context is everything. At the very least, it is crystal clear that
Bhagavan had the greatest respect for the founder of the tradition.


>
> ramaNArpaNamastu,
> --Praveen R. Bhat
> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
> That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>