[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Does the mukta/jnani see the world?

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Shri Michael Ji,

Sharing some comments to your fundamental question - "Does the mukta /
jnani see the world?":

1. Who is referred to as the mukta / jnani? Is it a) the erstwhile
individual with a specific antahkarana & body (BMI) conditioning Brahman or
b) Brahman itself? If the latter, Brahman, itself, then the answer is no.
There is nothing, ever, other than Brahman, for Brahman to see. If the
former, the BMI conditioning Brahman, then the next questions come into
view:

2. In the vyavaharika realm, there are 2 aspects to every individual - the
One Atman/Brahman and the individual BMIs. Between the two, who actually
perceives the world? To simplify let's take the case of the ignorant (an
ajnani). For an ignorant, is it Brahman who perceives the world or is it
the BMI conditioning Brahman that perceives the world? (Note: hereafter BMI
refers to BMI conditioning Brahman and not just inert material BMI.) In
other words, who is the knower - is it the Brahman or BMI? It is clearly
not Brahman since it is well established in Advaita that Brahman is not the
knower / agent. Therefore it is functioning BMI alone that is the knower
and perceives the world. However, being the ignorant, due to adhyasa, the
perception by the BMI and its consequent knowership is superimposed with
the ever Conscious Brahman. The result of the superimposition is the sense
of being the individual conscious entity - the jiva. However, this adhyasa
does not change the fact that it is only the functioning BMI that actually
perceives the world!

3. What about a jnani in the vyavaharika realm? For the jnani, is it
Brahman who perceives the world or is it still the functioning BMI? As
above, it is not Brahman as the knower / agent. It is the functioning BMI
alone. Having said so, how is this then different from the perception of an
ajnani? It is not that for the ajnani alone the BMI is the knower and for a
jnani Brahman is the knower - or the vice-versa!! In both the cases,
functioning BMI alone is the knower, with Brahman said to be a mere
witness. What then is the difference between the ajnani and the jnani? The
difference is the understanding of the nature of perception. An
ajnani believes he / she is directly involved & affected by the perception
& experiences of the world. A jnani, on the other hand, understands the
true nature of consciousness as Brahman and realizes the experiences to be
the play of BMI influenced by Karma.

4. Who in a jnani, actually 'understands' and 'realizes' these aspects? Is
it again, the Brahman or the functioning BMI? It is not Brahman, for
reasons said above; consequently it is the functioning BMI alone that
'understands' or 'realizes' the true nature of consciousness and the
experiences! It is thus said that Brahman, ever pure immutable free,
transcends even bondage & liberation; whereas these concepts are applicable
to the mind alone.

5. This then establishes the fact that for both, jnani and ajnani, it is
functioning BMI conditioning Brahman that sees the world. As long as the
BMI functions, the person, whether ajnani or jnani, perceives the world;
perception being the function of BMI. This answers the fundamental question
in affirmative and instead poses another fundamental question - while it is
accepted by all that in the vyavaharika realm, an ajnani is associated with
an individual BMI, is a jnani associated with an individual BMI as well or
not?

6. Advaita's answer to this question is that a jnani too can be associated
with the individual BMI. Such a jnani is termed jivanmukta. The epithet
'jivan' is used precisely to denote the association with the individual
functioning BMI. 'Mukta' refers to the true knowledge of the state of
liberation. This knowledge too, as seen above, is only in the realm of the
mind. Being associated with the BMI, as the BMI functions it perceives the
world around. But the mind has also realized the true nature of Brahman
through aparokshanubhuti (Brahman Sakshatkaram) and is able to discriminate
between the nature of Brahman versus other experiences. The BMI of an
ajnani is not realized, whereas the BMI of a jnani is said to be realized.
Brahman is nitya mukta (ever free).

7. Next question - what causes the continued association of the BMI with a
jnani? For an ajnani, it is accepted by all that the association is due to
the person's Karma. But for a jnani, with the dawn of knowledge, why isn't
the association broken? Scriptures' answer is that the continued
association of the BMI with a jnani is due to Karma as well. Particularly
it is the prarabdha Karma, which is also termed as the traces of avidya,
due to its momentum, that results in the association. As long as this Karma
continues, there will be specific vasanas, desires, thoughts, emotions and
actions. All these are only in the realm of BMI. It is through this Karma
that the guru-sishya parampara is maintained. Brahman has no Karma and no
experiences.

8. The realized BMI of the jnani teaches the unrealized BMI of the ajnani.
All the while Brahman remains ever the One and same. The very prarabdha
Karma of the jnani impels the BMI to impart spiritual instructions to
students and guide the world at large purely out of compassion for loka
sangraham. There is no conflict / contradiction between the realization of
a jnani, functioning of the BMI for loka sangraham and the pure state of
Brahman. It is also possible, depending on the influence of Karma, that
there are minimal to none thoughts in the BMI and the jnani is observed to
be quiet in a secluded place. In that case, there may just be enough Karma
to sustain the body for a while. When the Karma is exhausted, the
association with BMI is dropped. Neither of this has any bearing on Brahman
or even the state of realization at the BMI level for the jnani. This thus
establishes the modus operandi of a jnani as a teacher.

9. While it is clear from a jnani's perspective that prarabdha Karma, as
traces of avidya, is continuing to fructify, how does this explain the
state of Isvara such as Bhagavan Shri Krishna teaching Shri Arjuna? There
is clearly no prarabdha Karma for Bhagavan that creates / maintains an
association with the BMI!! Is Bhagavan Shri Krisha then an ajnani, per
Advaita?? The answer is no, Bhagavan Shri Krishna is not an ajnani. While
prarabdha Karma is responsible for the association for a jnani or ajnani,
for Bhagavan it is His sankalpa through Maya alone that causes the
association with a specific BMI. Bhagavan's sankalpa directly influences
the activities of the specific chosen BMI. The physical person seen as Shri
Krishna with the specific characteristics of the body, senses, antahkarana
etc. is only the functioning BMI conditioning Brahman, created by Maya per
Bhagavan's sankalpa. In terms of realization and activities this
functioning BMI is not different from the functioning BMI of a jnani.
Isvara's chosen BMI, in the form of Bhagavan Shri Krishna, teaches the
student Shri Arjuna. This does not impact the realized state of the BMI or
even Isvara / Brahman. There is no conflict / contradiction here.

10. As to the leading question, how can Brahman have sankalpa; Brahman
being nirguna? - the response is that, as seen in the first point, there is
nothing, ever, other than Brahman, for Brahman to see. There is no sankalpa
either for pure Brahman. It is only through the lens of Maya (associated
with avidya in some form) that Brahman as Isvara is imbued with the quality
of sankalpa. This is in vyavaharika alone.

Hoping this communicates clearly my current understanding; and clarifies
Shri Kalyan Ji's doubts as well.

with humble prostrations,
Vikram


On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 8:17 AM Michael Chandra Cohen <
michaelchandra108 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Does the mukta/jnani see the world?
> from: Sri Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati (SSSS), Sugama (SKT -
> Version); Section 71 (tr. Hishi Ryo ji):
> (English tr. follows)
> विनष्टत्वात् कथं भेदज्ञानानुवृत्तिः ? तदभावे च कथं
> शिष्येभ्यस्तत्त्वज्ञानोपदेशः ? तदनुवृत्तौ स्वयमज्ञस्य कथमाचार्यत्वम् ?
> बाधितानुवृत्तिस्वीकारेऽपि कथं मिथ्याविषयत्वनिश्चये सत्युपदेशाय प्रवृत्तिः
> ? कथं च नित्यनिवृत्ताज्ञानस्य भगवतोऽर्जुनं प्रति गीतोपदेशः ?
> तस्माद्विद्याविद्यास्वरूपविभागोऽयमसमञ्जस एवेति न प्रतिभातिति चेत् । अत्र
> प्रष्टव्यो भवान् । किं द्वैतसत्यत्वबाधकमद्वैतज्ञानमङ्गीकृत्येदं प्रश्नजालं
> प्रतायतेऽथवा अनभ्युपगम्येति । तत्र प्रथमे कल्पे तावन्न प्रश्नो नापि
> चोत्तरम् । न ह्यद्वितीय तत्त्वज्ञाने सति पुनरपि किञ्चित् चोद्यम् भवति ।
> द्वितीये तुकल्पेऽज्ञदृष्ट्या सर्वोऽप्ययं व्यवहारोऽवकल्पत एवेति न
> कस्यचिदाक्षेपस्यावकाशः ।
> न ह्यद्वैतसिद्धान्ते ज्ञानोत्पत्त्यज्ञानबाधगुरुशिष्यभेदोपदेशादिकं परमार्थ
> इत्यभ्युपगम्यते प्रपञ्चसद्भावतनिवृत्ती वा पारमार्थिके इति ।
> द्वैतज्ञानसन्दूषितचित्तानां तु शिष्याणा क्रमेण बोधनायेदं सर्वं
> प्रक्रियारचनमिति नात्र किंचिदसामञ्जस्यम् यथाऽऽह भगवान् भाष्यकारः
> "एकस्मिन्ब्रह्मणि निरुपाधिके नोपदेशः, नोपदेष्टा, न च उपदेशग्रहणफलम्"इति।
> Interpretation/Translation:
> How can there be a continuance of duality (knowledge of difference,
> bhedajñānānuvṛttiḥ)) after it has been sublated ('eliminated')? And because
> it has been sublated (i.e. absence of wrong knowledge), how can there be
> any instruction of knowledge of reality to students? And in the case
> (bhedajñānānuvṛttiḥ) continues, how can such an ignorant assume to be a
> teacher? Even when such a continuation of what has been sublated
> (bādhitānuvṛtti) is accepted, how can there be an engagement ('activity) of
> teaching the Truth when the subject matter has been (already) determined to
> be wrong? And how was the teaching in Bhagavad Gita by the Lord to Arjuna
> possible who is eternally devoid of it [i.e. ignorance]? Therefore, one
> should ask if this division of knowledge and ignorance is (itself) proper.
> (Consequently), are these questions (objections) from the perspective of
> Non-Duality ('by acceptance of non-reality) that contradicts duality, or is
> (non-duality) not at all accepted? In the former, there is no need for a
> question or response, as there is no question or response from the
> perspective of Non-Duality/Brahman. In the second case, however, all these
> questions are conceived from the perspective of ignorance, so there is
> (also) no room for these (valid) questions (or objections).
> According to Advaita SiddhAnta, i.e. from the perspective of ultimate
> reality (paramArtha), [concepts such as] liberation, avidyA gets (really)
> eliminated, a distinction between teacher and disciple etc. is certainly
> not accepted. Rather, the cessation (sublation) of understanding the
> world/duality (as 'real') is considered the ultimate truth.
> (However) for disciples whose minds are (still) influenced by dualistic
> notions (i.e. ignorants), this prakriyA (i.e. adhyAropApavAda) is gradually
> shaped towards their liberation. There is nothing inappropriate, as the
> revered bhAShyakAra says:
> "(Nevertheless, in case you think that) when the one unconditioned Brahman
> is realized as the only reality, there is neither instruction nor
> instructor nor the result of comprehending the instruction (BrUP 2.1.20 Bh.
> Sw. MADVH)."
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "advaitin" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to advaitin+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvE0X79mV7ETUFT2itUPbQoRxifTcuJXE5MV0HEiHUiBqw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAAz9PvE0X79mV7ETUFT2itUPbQoRxifTcuJXE5MV0HEiHUiBqw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>