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

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste.

Sri Akilesh Ayyar wrote

<<  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?  >>,

Since the Maharshi is talking of merging and emerging, can it be understood
that,  in his view, for a mukta  The ‘ I ‘ sense merges and emerges from
 own  Nature (swarupa) at will because of  His  jnAna and sAdhana. When it
has emerged, the ‘ I ‘ sense identifies itself with the body and He is able
to speak and interact with others. When the ‘ I ‘ sense merges again, He is
no longer seeing anything  and not in communion with the world.

I am specifically asking if this could be what the Maharshi meant, not our
individual opinion on the issue.

Regards



On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 11:18 AM Akilesh Ayyar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 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.
>
>
>