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

[Akilesh Ayyar]

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 1:51 PM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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?
>

Subrahmanianji,

In fact, the idea of onlookers is also only from the standpoint of
onlookers.

Beginningless ignorance creates the idea of objects and people and
interactions. From this 'standpoint' conversations and so on happen and the
'jnani' interacts in a reasonable way.

But when jnana "dawns," this standpoint is seen to be utterly non-existent.

It is not there as a vyavaharika standpoint as opposed to the paramarthika
standpoint; no -- it cannot be said to be there AT ALL. The very idea that
it ever existed is wrong.

In the light ignorance does not disappear -- it is seen to be that it never
was.

The very notion of all these objects, conversations, and experiences
ultimately depend on language and mental categories of "this" and "that"
that are rooted in the concept of a separate "I"; when that egoic notion is
seen to be a misconception, all these too must fall.

So what then can be said about all these phenomena? It is anirvachaniya, of
course. The question has no answer, and jnana does not answer it, but
rather dissolves the frame of reference in which that question makes sense.

But for the sake of seekers, of course, variations of the relative
standpoint are given, including the one mentioned below in Vivekachudamani.


> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>