[Advaita-l] GYAnimAtra and the sthitapraGYa (was Re: FW: Avidya, Jnanis and SSS' views)

[S Jayanarayanan]

--- On Thu, 5/6/10, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 6:43 AM, S
> Jayanarayanan <sjayana at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > >
> > > From the above the is clear :
> > >
> > >    1. The KRtopAsti and akRtopAsti of
> JMV is
> > > slightly different from
> > >    Bhagavan Ramana's view.
> > >    2. Accordingly, the second type,
> > > according to JMV, is an aparoksha jnani,
> > >    a mukta, not to return to samsara,
> but as
> > > per Bhagavan he is not; he is
> > >    'likely to forget it'.  At
> least,
> > > that is the impression I get from the
> > >    excerpt provided by you below.
> > >
> >
> > Not so. According to the JMV, the second type is NOT a
> mukta. To continue
> > the JMV quote from above:
> >
> >   tasmAdidanIMtanAnAM vidvatsaMnyAsinAM
> GYAnasyAnuvR^ittimAtram.h .
> >   vAsanAkshayamanonAshau tu
> prayatnasaMpAdyAv iti sthitam .
> >
> >   "So it is held that for the
> vidvatsannyIs of these days only
> >   the GYAna continues. VAsanAkshaya and
> manonAsha are to be
> >   accomplished by effort to make it
> steady (sthitaM)."
> >
> > Note that the second kind of students do NOT have
> steady knowledge! Hence
> > they are NOT sthitapraGYas, and hence NOT
> jIvanmuktas!
> >
> 
> Dear Karthik,
> 
> I have not added the prefix 'jeevan' for the akRtopaasti
> with aparoksha
> jnanam; I have simply stated that he is a 'mukta' keeping
> in mind the
> distinction SV makes in the JMV. 

The akR^itopAsti (or more precisely, the GYAnimAtra) is not a mukta, and is never mentioned as such in the JMV. Mukti implies that no further effort needs to be made towards the goal of liberation. But the JMV uses the word "prayatna" in reference to this second kind (see quote above), with the implication that this person still has to make further effort (prayatna) to achieve vAsnAkShaya-manonAsha, and hence cannot yet be considered a mukta.

[..]

> > Hence according to VidyAraNya,
> saMyak-aparokSha-BrahmaGYAna by itself does
> > not constitute jIvanmukti. ***The BrahmaGYAna must
> ALSO be steady
> > (sthitaM).***
> >
> > ***The "sthitaM" aspect of BrahmaGYAna is precisely
> what is accomplished by
> > vAsanAkShya-manonAsha.***
> >
> 
> Yes. The samyajnAnam in a non-jivanmukta jnAni could be
> 'asthitam' but not
> 'abhAvam'.  I think this is what SV conveys when he
> distinguishes between an
> the two 'upAsti-s'.
> 

The main reason for the distinction between the kR^itopAsti and the akR^itopAsti is that the former has already achieved vAsanAkShaya-manonAsha by making effort in karma-upAsana prior to VedAntic enquiry, while the latter has not. Hence when the kR^itopAsti achieves saMyak-GYAna, he immediately attains to the status of the sthitapraGYa or jIvanmukta - as the triad of GYAna-vAsanAkShya-manonAsha have all been achieved. Whereas the akR^itopAsti first reaches the state of the GYAnimAtra and then through effort in vAsanAkShaya-manonAsha, finally attains the status of the sthitapraGYa.

> Has Bhagavan Ramana made the distinction so
> unambiguous?  I doubt.  That is
> why I made that comment.

Here's an instance where Ramana agreed with the JMV:

  "Some extraordinary persons get drdha jnana (unshaken knowledge)
  even on hearing the Truth only once (sakrchhravana matrena).
  Because they are krthopasakah (advanced seekers), whereas the
  akrthopasakah (raw seekers) take longer to gain drdha jnana
  (unshaken knowledge)."

Regards,
Kartik