[Advaita-l] Ego, Mind and Body of a Jnani

[S Jayanarayanan]

(I received the message that I have responded to below as just a jumble of incomprehensible symbols, so I ignored it. Later, I checked out the archives and here's my reply to it.)

--- On Sun, 7/18/10, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>  wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:09 AM, S Jayanarayanan
> <sjayana at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > --- On Mon, 7/12/10, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian
> at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Namaste.
> > >
> > > It is true that a Tattvavit will not have the
> 'erroneous'
> > > identification of
> > > the nature of 'I am this' or 'This is
> mind'.  Yet, a
> > > jivanmukta who is
> > > undoubtedly with a body-mind apparatus and in
> vyavahara can
> > > and does have a
> > > 'knowledgeable' identification with the body or
> the mind or
> > > the intellect
> > > purely for the purpose of vyavahara. And this
> > > identification alone makes
> > > jivanmukti a possibility.
> > >
> >
> > There is absolutely no question of the sthitapraGYa
> having the
> > "I-am-the-doer" idea. Read for example the gItA 5.8-9
> along with the bhAShy
> > (courtesy of the Gita Supersite http://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/ ):
> >
> > ---
> > ..5.8-9..
> > naiva kiJNchit karomiiti yuktaH samaahitaH san manyeta
> chintayet, tattvavit
> > aatmano yaathaatmyaM tattvaM vettiiti tattvavit
> > paramaarthadarshiityarthaH..
> > kadaa kathaM vaa tattvamavadhaarayan manyeta iti,
> uchyate -- pashyanniti.
> > manyeta iti puurveNa saMbandhaH. yasya evaM
> tattvavidaH
> > sarvakaaryakaraNacheshhTaasu karmasu akarmaiva,
> pashyataH
> > samyagdarshinaH tasya sarvakarmasaMnyaase eva
> adhikaaraH, karmaNaH
> > abhaavadarshanaat. na hi mRRigatRRishhNikaayaam
> udakabuddhyaa paanaaya
> > pravRRittaH
> > udakaabhaavaGYaane.api tatraiva paanaprayojanaaya
> pravartate..
> > yastu punaH atattvavit pravRRittashcha karmayoge
> >
> > 5.8-9
> > Yuktah, remaining absorbed in the Self; tattva-vit,
> the knower of
> > Reality-knower of the real nature of Truth, of the
> Self, i.e., the seer of
> > the
> > supreme Reality; manyeta, should think; 'na karomi
> eva, I certainly do
> > not do; kincit, anything.' Having realized the Truth,
> when or how should
> > he think? This is being answered; Api, even; pasyan,
> while seeing;
> > srnvan, hearing; sprsan, touching; jighran, smelling;
> asnan, eating;
> > gacchan, moving; svapan, sleeping; svasan, breathing;
> pralapan,
> > speaking; visrjan, releasing; grhnan, holding;
> unmisan, opening; nimisan,
> > closing the eyes. All these are to be connected with
> the above manyeta
> > (should think). For the man who has known the Truth
> thus, who finds
> > nothing but inaction in action-in all the movements of
> the body and
> > organs-, and who has full realization, there is
> competence only for giving
> > up all actions because of his realization of the
> nonexistence of actions.
> > Indeed, one who proceeds to drink water in a mirage
> thinking that water
> > is there, surely does not go there itself for drinking
> water even after
> > knowing that no water exists there!
> > ---
> >
> > Krishna stresses that even minor actions like unmiShan
> and nimiShan does
> > not have the imprint of the "I-am-the-doer" thought in
> the tattva-vit. How
> > then can there be any trace of "I-am-the-body" in
> him?
> >
> 
> Actually, we are not disagreeing at all on this.  I
> have never stated that
> the Jnani will have, in the same way an ajnAni has, either
> the doership idea
> or the body-identification.  What I have said,
> however,is that the Jnani
> does not deny anything happening.  Ner does he deny
> the existence of the
> body-mind apparatus, although seemingly they do. 

Let us separate the enquiry into two questions. I will always take the EGO = ahaMkAra = "I-am-this-body" idea.

Question 1: Can the GYAnI (i.e. is it possible for some GYAnI to) have an ahaMkAra?
Answer: NO.

Question 2: Can the GYAnI (i.e. is it possible for some GYAnI to) speak or act AS IF an ahaMkAra exists?
Answer: YES.

If you accept the answers to Question 1 as "NO" (Vide Gita 5.8-9), we have no disagreement. Otherwise, we definitely have a disagreement.

If you hold that the GYAnI can have the ahaMkAra (NOT merely act or speak as if an ahaMkAra exists), I would like you to provide a strong authoritative quote to that effect.

[..]

Regards,
Kartik