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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 6:34 AM, S Jayanarayanan <sjayana at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- 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!
>

But has not Vidyaranya himself upheld 'his cherished view' on videhamukti?
There can be no such implication as supposed above if one were to understand
the statement in the proper light.  One (the first reference to the LYV) is
to be seen as the 'adhyAropa' and the other, the later established
'cherished view' as the  'apavAda'.  Advaita, for instance,  accepts
Brahman, in association with Maya, as the creator of the universe.  There is
also the teaching that the jiva creates the universe through his ajnana.
There can be no contradiction in this.  Again, Gaudapada  himself points out
that the sRiShTi taught by the Upanishad is only an adhyaropa, its apavada
lying in the negation of all duality.

>
> > 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."
>

I see no talk of 'mukti' or 'moksha' in the above dialogue.  It is all about
whether or not raga, etc. are admissible in a jnani or not.  It concludes
that in the sthitaprajna raga, etc. will not be manifesting the way they are
seen to  be in a jnAnimAtra.  On the contrary, this dialogue culminates in
Vidyaranya categorically asserting that the presence of raga, etc. in
Yajnavalkya and the like is no deterrant for their liberation.

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

I agree with you on this.  I made the above remarks so  that what I stated
regarding Shankara and Vidyaranya is  not seen as implying a disagreement
between them.  I have only shown how much they agree on the view of videha
mukti.

Warm regards,
subrahmanian.v

>
>
>