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

[S Jayanarayanan]

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

> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:19 AM, S
> Jayanarayanan <sjayana at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 

[..]

> >   jIvanmuktapadaM tyaktvA svadehe
> kAlasAtkR^ite .
> >   vishatyadehamuktatvaM
> pavano.aspandatAm iva || [LYV 5.98]
> >
> >   "VasiShTha: "When the life expires
> the body dissolves and giving
> >   up the state of jIvanmukta. He enters
> the state of
> >   Liberation after the disembodiment,
> just like the wind
> >   becomes motionless." [LYV 5.98]"
> >
> 
> Shankara disagrees with the 'entering the state of
> liberation', as I have
> shown in the sequel. 

Your statement above implies that you have proven the existence of a disagreement between Sankara and VidyAraNya, because VidyAraNya quotes the LYV verse as an authority!

> For him moksha is here and now
> for anyone who has the
> aparoksha jnanam.
> 

I see absolutely no disagreement whatsoever between Sankara and vidyAraNya, certainly not in the above context. The correct view is this - any references to "mukti=GYAna" must be taken as the GYAna of the sthitapraGYa, where the aparokSha GYAna is steady.

VidyAraNya Himself gives the way to handle such statements during the discussion of YAGYavalkya (page 154 of JMV, Swami Moksadananda's translation):

  (VidyAraNya talks about YAGYavalkya not having conquered his mind)

  nanu vijigIshhor Atmabodha eva nAsti,
  rAgo li~Ngam abodhasya chittavyAyAmabhUmishhu |
  kutaH shAdvalatA tasya yasyAgniH koTare taroH ||
  [naiShkarmya siddhi 4.67]
  ityAchAryair abhyupagamAd iti chet, 

  "Objection: Moreover, there is not even self-knowledge in him who
  is desirous of defeating others, since the AchArya (sureshvara)
  has agreed to this thus: 'Attachment to the grounds on which the
  mind exercises (sound, etc.) indicates absence of knowledge. How
  can a tree remain verdant which has fire in its hollow?'"
  [naiShkarmya siddhi 4.67]


  na . rAgAdayaH santu kAmaM na tadbhAvo.aparAdhyati .
  utkhAtadaMshhTroragavad avidyA kiM karishhyati ..
  [BR^ihadaaraNyaka vArttika 1.4.1539.2, 1.4.1746.1]

  ityatra taireva rAgAdyabhyupagamAt.h . na chAtra 
  parasparavyAhatiH, sthitapraGYe GYAnimAtre cha vachanadvayasya 
  vyavasthApanopayuktatvAt.h .

  "Reply: It is not so, because the AchArya (sureshvara) himself
  approves of such things in the BR^ihadaaraNyaka vArttika, thus:
  'Let the attachment and the rest remain freely, their presence alone
  cannot offend. What (harm) can the ignorance - avidyA - do like the
  serpent whose fangs have been extracted?
  [BR^ihadaaraNyaka vArttika 1.4.1539.2, 1.4.1746.1]
  There is no contradiction between these two positions inasmuch
  as they can be so arranged as to fit in with a sthitapraGYa and
  a simple Knower (GYAnimAtra)."


Note the last statement. That is, all scriptural references to BrahmaGYAna = (jIvan)mukti are to be read as "steady BrahmaGYAna of the sthitapraGYa", while the consideration of the JMV includes the "unsteady BrahmaGYAna of the GYAnimAtra."

In fact, that is the whole point of the JMV - that contrary references to "GYAna=mukti" and "GYAna=/=mukti" are to be read as "GYAna that dawns for the kR^itopAsti" (sthitapraGYa) or "GYAna that dawns for the akR^itopAsti" (GYAnimAtra)!

The same goes for the word "GYAnI" as well - the word can be taken as referring to the sthitapraGYa or the GYAnimAtra, and it must again be carefully understood with respect to the context.

I think I have pretty much said all there is to be said in this thread, and I will let it rest here!

Regards,
Kartik