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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Shyam <shyam_md at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Pranams Shri Subbu-ji and Shri Karthik-ji
>
> Let me complement and thank both of you on a truly illuminatiing and
> stimulating series of exchanges, which have allowed us to examine two
> aspects of the highly pregnant term "mukti" in all its connotations. It is
> striking that both of you have picked different shades of the same work the
> JMV - to arrive (quite logically in your own ways) at polarized conclusions!
>
> If I may succinctly paraphrase the two positions here:
>
> Position A
> Jnana is the ONLY proximate cause for mukti. A person endowed with
> discriminatory knowledge - a Jnani - is liberated, a mukta. If he by means
> of supreme vairagya/sannyasa develops vasanakshaya/manonasha he can here-in
> in this embodiment itself enjoy the fruit of moksha or jivanmukti. If
> however such is not his lot(prarabdha? plus? freewill?) then he does not
> attain to the Supreme Peace for the period of embodied existence, but upon
> death, does not suffer rebirth - is free from samsara.
>
>
> Position B
> Jnana "alone" (minus nishta) cannot confer mukti - it is jnananishta alone
> that ultimately leads to a complete consummation of the ahankara by means of
> vasanakshaya/manonasha (on the strength of that jnana alone) - and this is
> what results in mukti - which alone is jivanmukti. A jivanmukta when he
> casts off this body, is said to attain to videhamukti.
>
> (Both these are of course quite distinct from krama mukti which is attained
> to by a worshipper or upasaka of Saguna Brahman)
>
> I would like both of you to share your viewpoints and comments on a section
> of the Vivekachudamani, which I reproduce along with the invaluable
> commentary of His Holiness Sri Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati Mahaswamigal
>


Namaste Shyam ji,

Many thanks for your succinctly stating the two positions.  I have stated in
no less uncertain terms in this thread that the position, or rather the
interpretation of the verse/s from the Vivekachudamani with the Sringeri
Paramacharyal's commentary, does not represent the very clearly stated
position of Sri Vidyaranya in the Jivanmukti viveka about the akRtopAsti
Jnani.  Let me summarise the JMV position thus:


   1. The AkRtopAsti Jnani is an aparoksha Jnani
   2. His Jnanam of the Self obtained through valid shravaNa, etc. is not
   repudiated and stays unfaded
   3. His mukti is simultaneous with Jnanam - jnAnasamakAleenaa.
   4. This is the 'cherished view' of Sri Vidyaranya about the videhamukti
   that signifies the Jnani not acquiring another body
   5. The case of Yajnavalkya, whom the JVM holds is not a one with
   vasanakshaya/manonasha is well argued and proved to be a one where the
   liberation is not hindered by the lack of these and owing to the point 3
   above.

Having said this, let me point out that I have also stated earlier that the
Vivekachudamani verse 267 and the commentary are best seen as
jivanmuktisadhana para if it is not to contradict the JMV points shown
above.  If it is argued that 'liberation, mukti, is invariably dependent
upon vasanakshaya and manonasha' this positiion, in my understanding is not
the one supported by Shankaracharya in His Sutra / Br.Up.1.4.10 bhashya,
references I have shown, and the JMV position on  jnAnasamakAleenaa muktiH.


Let it not ever be perceived, from my above stated position,  that I am
arguing against the practice of jivanmukti consisting of vasanakshaya and
manonasha.  What I have consistently argued for is that aparoksha Jnana
confers moksha the very instant it is had, as taught by the Shrtui that
Shankara quotes in the Sutrabhashya and stated in very clear terms by Sri
Vidyaranya. In fact that is the starting point for the distinction between
the two types of Jnani's, mukta-s. one kRtopAsti and the other one
akRtopAsti.  The JMV is relevant for the Jnani, a mukta, who has not the
adequate levels of vasanakshaya and manonasha to confer upon him, not mukti,
but jivanmukti sukha / the adequate strength in managing the onslaughts of
prArabdha.  Of course, its relevance for a mumukshu is not at all in doubt.
For him it is a threefold sadhana, simultaneously practicing vk, mn and
jnanam.  For the akRtopAsti jnani, he has jnanam that has already conferred
upon him moksha.  He needs only vk and mn, not for moksha but for the
purpose stated above.  Vidyaranya has been very explicit on this.

I would rather suggest that someone takes up for discussion the various
quotations given by Swami Vidyaranya on the presence of raaga, etc. in a
Jnani, both with regard to the jnAnimAtra and the sthitaprajna.  His
quotations from the Naishkarmyasiddhi, the Vaartika and his own Panchadashi
and above all the very explicit statement of Shankara in the Brihadaranyaka
Bhashya 1.4.10 (of a seeming vipareeta bhAvana occuring in an aparoksha
Jnani) are worth contemplating upon especially in the light of the jivamukti
sadhana that you have quoted in detail from the Vivekachudamani and the
illustrious commentary on it.  The question of 'nirantara samadhi' of the
commentary could also be taken up, all  under a new title and not the
present one.

I thank you once again for your interest in the topic and this thread of
discussion.

With warm regards,
subbu


>
>