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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 7:40 AM Akilesh Ayyar <ayyar at akilesh.com> wrote:

> The issue is that these two standpoints -- one where there are jnanis,
> seekers, etc. and one where there are not -- are not quite independent of
> each other, and nor are they even directly comparable.
>
> The first is a standpoint, and the other is the standpoint of no
> standpoints. The second, in other words, is really not a standpoint at all.
>
> Given this, then, the question Ramana is answering is: what is the
> experience of the jnani?
>
> If we take it that there is such an experience, which would suggest we are
> in that first standpoint, where there are seekers and jnanis, we are to
> indicate that there is something about that experience that expresses that
> other non-standpoint standpoint.
>
> Thus Ramana's description of jagrat sushupti. He is trying to indicate
> something which shifts angle, but not to another perspective -- rather to
> outside-the-concept-of-perspective.
>
> This is why in Guru Vachaka Kovai, he says:
>
> *“Since the experiences of seeing [hearing, tasting and so on] are, when
> experienced, the same for Muktas [as for others], and since they [the
> Muktas] are thus experiencing the many differences which appear as a result
> of seeing [hearing and so on], they are experiencing non-difference [even
> while seeing those differences]” – to say so is wrong.*
>
>
> *The Mukta is seen as if He is also seeing the many [different] forms only
> in the deluded outlook of onlookers who see the many differences; but [in
> fact] He is not the seer [or anything at all].*
>
> Here is another attempt to bridge the gap. The mukta does not see
> non-difference within difference, but simply cannot be considered to see at
> all. That is because even his seeing is truly and simply non-seeing.
>
> In Letters from Sri Ramanasram, Maharshi quotes a story from Yoga Vasistha
> to this same effect:
>
> *In a forest, a sage sat motionless and in silence. His eyes however were
> open. A hunter hit a deer and as it was running away, he began pursuing it
> and when he saw the sage, he stopped. The deer had run in front of the
> sage, and hidden itself in a bush nearby. The hunter could not see it and
> so asked the sage: ‘Swami, my deer has come running this way. Please tell
> me where exactly it has gone.’ The sage said he did not know. The hunter
> said, ‘It ran in front of you. Your eyes were open. How could you say you
> do not know?’ To that the sage replied, ‘Oh my friend! We are in the forest
> with universal equality. We do not have ahankara. Unless you have ahankara,
> you cannot do things in this world. That Ahankara is the mind. That mind
> does all things. It also makes all the sense organs work. We certainly have
> no mind; it disappeared long ago. We do not have the three states, the
> states of waking, dream and deep sleep. We are always in the fourth or
> Turiya state. In that state nothing is seen by us. That being so, what can
> we say about your deer?’ *
>
> And Bhagavan then remarks on your point:
>
>
> *“It may well be asked, ‘If there is no ‘I’ (aham), how did he speak?’
> When properly understood, that which occurred as ‘I’ before, becomes our
> own Nature (swarupa) afterwards. That is called destruction of mind (mano
> nasa). That thought- free awareness or other signs of awareness are cases
> of merging (laya) and not of destruction (nasa). So long as there is
> merging and emerging, it is merely a state of spiritual practice
> (sadhana),” said Bhagavan.*
>
> So the I is replaced by our own nature; the mind is destroyed but speaking
> is possible. These are paradoxes, of course, but how else to explain the
> inexplicable? The difference between this and the quote from VC is that the
> latter is more comprehensible for seekers, but at the expense of being less
> close to the truth.
>

Thank you Akilesh Ayyar for taking the time to explain.  Having been
exposed to the Bhashya-s and the utterings of and the writings on the
Acharyas of Sringeri, I find myself more comfortable in comprehending and
appreciating these than the statements purportedly of Bhagavan Ramana. I
find the former quite in tune with reason. Swami Vidyaranya's Panchadashi
and JMV too do not pose any difficulty.  The life of a Jivan mukta has been
recently seen and written upon in books like the Yoga, Enlightenmen and
Perfection.  There I see no loose ends.   What you say here //So the I is
replaced by our own nature; the mind is destroyed but speaking is
possible.// is fine. The third shloka that Shankara cites (from a Sundara
Pandya) at the end of the bhashya for the fourth Brahma sutra says 'that
which was seen as the pramatru, jiva, (I), is now known to be the Self.'
And all that Shankara says in the entire bhashya corpus, and those of other
Acharyas of Advaita, fits in finely with this. Nowhere does one get the
feeling 'this is for seekers only and not close to the Truth.' The Bhashyas
do not fall in the category of something that does not deliver the ultimate
truth.

You say: //*“Since the experiences of seeing [hearing, tasting and so on]
are, when experienced, the same for Muktas [as for others], and since they
[the Muktas] are thus experiencing the many differences which appear as a
result of seeing [hearing and so on], they are experiencing non-difference
[even while seeing those differences]” – to say so is wrong.//*

*This I think contradicts the Bh.gita and bhashya: 5.18: *

विद्याविनयसम्पन्ने ब्राह्मणे गवि हस्तिनि ।
शुनि चैव श्वपाके च पण्डिताः समदर्शिनः ॥ १८ ॥
 भाष्यम्
<http://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Gita?page=5&id=BG_C05_V19_B01&hlBhashya=%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A4#bhashya-BG_C05_V18>
विद्याविनयसम्पन्ने विद्या च विनयश्च विद्याविनयौ, विनयः उपशमः, ताभ्यां
विद्याविनयाभ्यां सम्पन्नः विद्याविनयसम्पन्नः विद्वान् विनीतश्च यो ब्राह्मणः
तस्मिन्ब्राह्मणे गवि हस्तिनि शुनि चैव श्वपाके च पण्डिताः समदर्शिनः । विद्या
विनयसम्पन्ने उत्तमसंस्कारवति ब्राह्मणे सात्त्विके, मध्यमायां च राजस्यां गवि
, संस्कारहीनायां अत्यन्तमेव केवलतामसे हस्त्यादौ च, सत्त्वादिगुणैः तज्जैश्च
संस्कारैः तथा राजसैः तथा तामसैश्च संस्कारैः अत्यन्तमेव अस्पृष्टं समम् एकम्
अविक्रियं तत् ब्रह्म द्रष्टुं शीलं येषां ते पण्डिताः समदर्शिनः ॥ १८ ॥
Panditah, the learned ones; sama-darsinah, look with eanimity; brahmane, on
a Brahmana; vidya-vinayasampanne, endowed with learning and humility-vidya
means knowledge of the Self, and vinaya means pridelessness-, on a Brahmana
who has Self-knowledge and modesty; gavi, on a cow; hastini, on an
elephant; ca eva, and even; suni, on a dog; ca, as well as; svapake, on an
eater of dog's meat. Those learned ones who are habituated to see (really)
the unchanging, same and one Brahman, absolutely untouched by the qualities
of sattva etc. and the tendencies created by it, as also by the tendencies
born of rajas and tamas, in a Brahmana, who is endowed with Knowledge and
tranillity, who is possessed of good tendencies and the quality of sattva;
in a cow, which is possessed of the middling ality of rajas and is not
spiritually refined; and in an elephant etc., which  are wholly and
absolutely imbued with the reality of tamas-they are seers of reality.
How can this 'seeing non-difference in difference' be wrong? How can the
vision of non-difference be spoken of unless in the face of difference,
though difference is a manifestation of ignorance?
If it is said 'there is no difference first of all, and therefore there is
also no vision of non-difference', then we are in the 'na nirodh na
chotpattih....paramarthathaa.'  Then there is no speaking and no hearing.
Vidyaranya has said: chodyam vaa parihaaro vaa kriyataam dvaitabhaashayaa.
In paramartha, there is neither question nor reply.
regards
subbu

>
>
>>>>
>>>>