[Advaita-l] Jnana and Ajnana - a beautiful dialogue

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 6:13 AM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Subbuji
> Thanks for sharing that. Is it a dialogue with the Paramacharya of Kanchi
> H.H. Sri Chandrashekarendra Saraswati Swamiji? An excerpt from a book?
>
> Regarding the content about the distinction between GYAnam and GYAna vRtti
> , with the latter alone being effectual in destroying aGYAnam while the
> former being the very svarUpam if Atma merely illuminates both aGYAnam and
> is not opposed to it per se, the following question arises.
>
> There is view which was expressed earlier by a respected scholar on this
> forum that the GYAna vRttis are sought to be continually cultivated even
> for the 'higher order' of GYAnIs because there is a possibility of cyuti or
> slippage even for them. So there is no respite. A kind of eternal vigilance
> has to be maintained as the price of liberty. This is one viewpoint.
>
> Is there any 'order' of GYAni for whom we can very literally assert that
> sarvathA vartamAnopi he never slips or is vulnerable to a cyuti because he
> has attained (understood) non-difference with GYAnam as Atma svarUpam? My
> understanding is yes. But wanted to clarify this further.
>

Dear Raghav ji,

I am quoting some portions from the Book 'Yoga Enlightenment and
Perfection':

*{*Bhagavatpàda’s bhàshya on the Gaudapàda-Kàrikà(II.38) runs, in part, as
follows:

*He who has not realised the Reality accepts the mind as the **Àtman** and
thinks the **Àtman** to be changing in accordance with the states of the
mind, or, at times, accepts the body and the like to be the **Àtman** and
thinks, “I am now alienated from the reality that is the **Àtman**. When at
times the mind becomes concentrated, he thinks himself to be united with
the Reality and in peace under the belief, “I am now identified with the
Reality.” The knower of the **Àtman** should not be like that because the
nature of the **Àtman** is ever the same and because it is impossible for
anything to change its nature. He should for ever be unwavering from the
Reality, with the conviction, “I am **Brahman**.”**}*

In the Brhadàranyaka Upanishad, the jävanmukta is eulogised thus:
(III.5.1)

*How does that knower of **Brahman** behave? Howsoever he may behave, he is
just such.*



Further,   (IV.4.23)

*This is the eternal glory of a knower of **Brahman**; it neither increases
nor decreases through (good or bad) action.**}*


{Śrī Vidyāraṇya has written in the Vāsanākṣayaprakaraṇa of
the Jīvanmukti-viveka:

 nanu jñānino rāgādyabhyupagame dharmādharmadvāreṇa janmāntara-prasaṅga iti
cenmaivam adagdhabījavadavidyāpūrvaka-kāmādereva mukhyarāgāditvena
punarjanmahetutvāt
। jñāninastu dagdhabījavad-ābhāsamātrā eva rāgādayaḥ।


Objection: If attachment and aversion are admitted in a knower of
the Truth, then, on account of the resulting merit and demerit, there
would arise the contingency of his being reborn after death. Answer:
Such is not the case. Likes and dislikes that are akin to uncooked
seeds (capable of sprouting) and foreshadowed by avidyā (and, so, by
the erroneous identification of the Ātman with the mind) are the ones
that, by virtue of their constituting the primary variety of attachment
and aversion, cause rebirth. The attachment and the like of the knowers
of the Truth are, however, like burnt seeds (which are incapable
of sprouting) and merely have the appearance of the primary ones.


...tatkāle mukhyavadevābhāsamānānāṁ bādhakatvāt rajjusarpo'pi
mukhya-sarpavadeva tadānīṁ bhīṣayannupalabhyate tadvat
। tarhyābhāsatvānusandhānānuvṛttau na ko'pi bādha iti cecciraṁ jīvatu
bhavān। iyamevāsmadabhimatā jīvanmuktiḥ ।


Though they be mere appearances of the primary likes and dislikes of the
ignorant and incapable of contributing to rebirth) the likes and dislikes
of the knower would, while they last, cause trouble like the primary likes
and dislikes. A false snake seen in the place of a rope causes, for the
time being, fear just like a real snake. The case of the  apparent likes
and dislikes is like this. Objection: There would be no trouble at all
(even temporarily) if the falsity of the apparent likes and dislikes were
kept in mind. Answer: May you live long! This
(keeping in mind the falsity) is what we regard as marking jīvanmukti.


The possibility of apparent erroneous notions causing transient delusion in
a knower of the Truth is stated by Bhagavatpāda as follows in His
Brhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad-bhāṣya on the passage (I.4.10):
...na ca viparītapratyayo vidyāvata utpadyate । ...kvacittu vidyāyāḥ
pūrvotpanna-viparītapratyaya-janita-saṁskārebhyo viparīta-pratyayāvabhāsāḥ
smṛtayo jāyamānā viparītapratyaya

bhrāntim-akasmātkurvanti ।yathā
vijñātadigvibhāgasyāpyakasmāddigviparyaya-vibhramaḥ ।32

Erroneous notions (such as that one is an agent and that oneexperiences
pleasure and pain) cannot arise in the knower of the Truth…Sometimes,
however, recollections that stem from the impressions formed by the
erroneous notions that arose prior to enlightenment and which have the
appearances of erroneous notions crop up and suddenly delude him as to
their being actual erroneous notions just as even one who knows the
directions well sometimes suddenly becomes confused about them.

In the Pañcadaśī, it is said:
bhogakāle kadācittu martyo'hamiti bhāsate ॥33 (VII.245cd)
naitāvatā'parādhena tattvajñānaṁ vinaśyati ।
jīvanmukti-vrataṁ nedaṁ kintu vastusthitiḥ khalu ॥34
(VII.246)
Sometimes, during the period of enjoyment, the idea, “I am a man” may seem
to be. By this much defect, the knowledge of the Truth will not perish.
This (the eradication of such notions) is not any vow of jīvanmukti (to be
observed by the enlightened one without any slip whatsoever). On the other
hand, this is actually how the matter stands.}


Trust this helps getting a clear idea of the scriptural position of the
question.


Thanks for raising the issue.


regards

subbu





>
>
>