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

[Akilesh Ayyar]

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 3:48 AM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>

No, Maharshi is saying that merging and emerging is precisely what is *not* the
case with the mukta. One for whom merging and emerging happens is a
sadhaka, not a mukta.


> 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.
>>
>>
>>