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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

On Tue, 12 Nov, 2019, 3:40 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula, <
raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Subbu ji
> Thank you for the references indicating that there is a stage where even
> the so called slippages from GYAnam are so only nominally and do not
> diminish or adversely affect spontaneous or effortless abidance as
> GYAna-svrUpam.
>
> Om
> Raghav
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Nov, 2019, 8:18 AM V Subrahmanian, <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>