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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 7:33 PM Akilesh Ayyar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
> >> 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."
>

The above is not very intelligible to me. As it does not accord to reason.
What comes out from the above is: The Jnani (his body) does not die in
'sahaja samadhi.' What is called 'destruction' of the three states,
activities, etc. is not physically going out of existence. If they are
destroyed literally, how can others notice the Jnani active, eating talking
etc.? Are the onlookers imagining/perceiving only the activities, talking,
movements etc. of the Jnani or are they also imagining/perceiving the body
of the Jnani? How can he be said to be unaware of these activities, when
they happen? Supposing he is in a conversation. The other person asks him
something and he gives a considered reply which satisfies the other person.
How can this happen without the Jnani being aware of the conversation?
Should he not be hearing the question, think of the apt reply and verbalize
it so that the other person at least hears it? For this, should not the
Jnani at least modulate his voice to be able to make himself sufficiently
audible to the other? How is this possible without his being aware of these
elements of a conversation?  We have seen videos of Bhagavan where he
walks, does not dash against any obstacle, receives medicine, a glass of
water, drinks it, sits, etc. How can these happen without his being aware
of these?

In the Vivekachudamani is a shloka:

ब्रह्माकारतया सदा स्थिततया निर्मुक्तबाह्यार्थधीः

अन्यावेदितभोग्यभोगकलनो निद्रालुवद् बालवत् ।

स्वप्नालोकितलोकवज्जगदिदं पश्यन्क्वचिल्लब्धधीः

आस्ते कश्चिदनन्तपुण्यफलमुग्धन्यः स मान्यो भुवि ॥४२६॥


Always staying in the form of Brahman, freed from all thought of external
objects, connected with the enjoyment of enjoyable things only when
informed by others just like a sleepy man or a child, looking at this world
as at the world seen during dreams, with the mind centred sometimes (in
Brahman or the outside world) - is one enjoying the fruit of limitless
merit. Fortunate is he and worthy of respect in the earth.

Here it is about a Jnani in samadhi, occasionally coming out. There is
certainly an interaction with others/outside world, though to a very feeble
extent.
The account purportedly given by Bhagavan Ramana, naming it sahaja samadhi,
does not admit of either the death of the Jnani nor his awareness of
anything, yet, admits of others observing/perceiving his activities. There
is no mention of such a state in the prasthana traya bhashya that I have
known. If anyone has found such a phenomenon, he may please give the
reference.

Even the Jivanmukti viveka talks of the seventh bhumika of the Yoga
vasishtha where the jnani is forever in samadhi, can't be awakened by
others, nor by himself.  Here there is no activity admitted.

So, the account purportedly given by Bhagavan is not corresponding to the
available literature in traditional Vedanta. If someone can make a
samanvaya I would be interested to read that.

warm regards
subbu

> >>
> >> 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] */
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>