[Advaita-l] GYAnimAtra and the sthitapraGYa (was Re: FW: Avidya, Jnanis and SSS' views)
sjayana at yahoo.com
Wed May 5 20:13:51 CDT 2010
--- On Wed, 5/5/10, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:42 AM, S
> Jayanarayanan <sjayana at yahoo.com>
> > I have dealt with this in detail in my postings on the
> > (JMV). I'm mostly quoting from the past postings
> > Thanks Kartik for the information. I wish to
> have / make some
> > Now, as to whether or not the JMV is referring to the
> > viewpoint of someone who has attained to saMyagGYAna
> or the third-person
> > viewpoint has been clarified repeatedly in the JMV
> itself, e.g.:
> > bhagavadgItAsu dvitIyAdhyAye
> sthitapraGYaH paThyate .
> > arjuna uvAcha:
> > sthitapraGYasya kA bhAshhA
> samAdhisthasya keshava .
> > sthitadhIH kiM prabhAshheta kimAsIta
> vrajeta kim.h .. (GItA 2.54)
> > praGYA tattvaGYAnam.h . tad dvividhaM
> sthitamasthitaM cheti .
> > In the second chapter of the
> BhagavadgItA, the sthitapraGYa has
> > been mentioned thus.
> > Arjuna said: "What is the definition
> of him who is steady
> > in the supreme knowledge and in
> profound meditation (sthitapraGYa)?
> > O Keshava! How does he, whose
> intelligence is stable,
> > speak and sit and walk?" (GItA 2.54)
> > Supreme knowledge - praGYA, means the
> knowledge of
> > Reality. That is of two kinds -
> Steady and Unsteady.
> > It is clear from the above that VidyAraNya takes
> "praGYA" to be of two
> > kinds - sthitaM and asthitaM. The context of the
> Bhagavad GItA leaves no
> > room for doubt as to the that this is Atma-GYAna.
> > VidyAraNya continues in the same strain:
> > uktaguNarahitasya kenApi
> > puNyavisheshheNa kadAchidutpanne.api
> > gRRihakarmavattatraiva tattvaM
> > tadidamasthitaM GYAnam.h .
> > Someone without such qualities as
> mentioned, but by the
> > force of some merit, sometime may
> realize the Truth,
> > but soon forgets it as the lover
> forgets the housework,
> > and this is 'Unsteady Knowledge'.
> > Note especially the word "vismarya" - how can this
> possibly be interpreted
> > as a third-person viewpoint?! Unless one can "forget"
> something in the third
> > person, this makes sense only in the first-person
> > Besides, Ramana Maharshi has commented on more than
> one instance on this
> > unsteady knowledge. A couple of instances are:
> > "The seekers fall into two classes; kritopasaka
> > akritopasaka. The former having already overcome
> > predisposition by steady devotion, his mind thus
> made pure,
> > has had some kind of experience but does not
> comprehend it;
> > as soon as instructed by a competent master,
> > experience results.
> > The other class of seeker needs great effort to
> > achieve this end."
> In the JMV is this mention about the KRtopAsti and
> तथा हि विद्याधिकारी
> द्विविधः - कृतोपास्तिः
> अकृतोपास्तिश्च इति
> । तत्र
> उपास्तिं कृत्वा यदि
> ज्ञाने प्रवर्तेत तदा
> स्वत एव सिध्यतः ।
> *तादृश एव
> शास्त्राभिमतो मुख्यो
> विद्याधिकारी* ।
> The student fit for the acquisition of Jnana is of two
> kinds: he who has
> passed through the prescribed course of devotion (upasana,
> bhakti), and he
> who has not yet done so. *If he enters upon Jnana
> (sadhana), having gone
> through upasana to the extent of actually realizing the
> object of upasana
> (dhyeya devataa)*, owing to the firm hold of the
> obliteration of vasana and
> the dissolution of the mind, on him, the Renunciation of
> the Knower as well
> as Jivanmukti will follow Jnana (sAkShAtkAra) of their own
> accord. *Such is
> the real student spoken of in the shAstra.
> प्रायेण अकृतोपास्तय
> एव औत्सुक्यमात्रात्
> सहसा विद्यायां
> प्रवर्तन्ते ।
> वासनाक्ष्य-मनोनाशौ च
> सम्पादयन्ति । तावता
> निष्पाद्यन्ते ।
> सम्यगुदेति *।
> तस्य शथिल्यम्* ।
> *वासनाक्ष्य-मनोनाशौ तु
> प्रारब्धेन तदा तदा
> निवर्तते *।
> Nowadays men rush in quest of Jnana, out of sheer
> curiosity, in most cases
> even without going through the preliminary stage of
> upasana. *They even
> reach the stage of obliteration of vasana and the
> dissolution of the mind
> for the time being*, and in consequence, study,
> contemplation and
> assimilation (of the VEdanta) are also fully accomplished
> by repeated
> application to these three; ignorance, doubt and false
> perception are
> demolished; *and real Jnana is achieved*. In the
> absence of a more powerful
> means to counteract it and of any cause which can
> resuscitate the ignorance
> dispelled by it, *the resultatnt Jnana does not
> fade.* *But then the
> obliteration of vasana and the dissolution of the mind are
> extinguished*, like a lamp exposed to the breeze, for want
> of steady
> application and in consequence of being influenced, from
> time to time, by
> the fruit-bearing previous karma.
> [translation complete]
> 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!
(For the equation sthitapraGYa = jIvanmukta, see the first chapter of the JMV).
Besides, note that the second class of students (akR^itopAsti) still have to achieve vAsanAkShaya-manonAsha according to VidyAraNya, hence this is another reason they are not jIvanmuktas, as VidyAraNya gives the definition of jIvanmukti in the very beginning of the JMV:
atha jIvanmuktisAdhanaM nirUpayAmaH .
"Now we will discuss the means to jIvanmukti. The knowledge
of the Truth (tattvaGYAna), the annihilation of the mind
(manonAsha) and the effacement of latent tendencies
(vAsanAkshaya) are the means of jIvanmukti."
Since the akR^itopAsti's have not yet accomplished vAsanAkShaya-manonAsha, they cannot be considered jIvanmuktas.
However, it is correct that the GYAnimAtra is not a saMsArin either. He is in a state that can not be considered the same as that of an aGYAnI or a sthitapraGYa.
Here is yet another reason why there is no doubt that VidyAraNya considers saMyak-aparokSha-brahmaGYAna alone does NOT constitute jIvanmukti, as he gives the example of YAGYavalkya:
asti hi yAGYavalkyasya tatprativAdinAM ushhasta-kaholAdInAM
cha bhUyAnvidyAmadaH, taiH sarvairapi vijigIshhukathAyAM
"Even YAGYavalkya and his opponents ushhasta, Kahola and
others, all had vast pride of learning inasmuch as all of
them entered into disputation desiring victory."
nanu teshhAM vidyAntaramevAsti na tu brahmavidyeti chet.h .
"(Objection:) They had other learnings only, but not
knowledge of Brahman."
na, kathAgatayoH prashnottarayoH brahmavishhayatvAt.h .
"(Reply:) It cannot be said so, since in that debate, all
questions and answers thereto are found to be concerning
nanu brahmavishhayatve.api teshhAMApAtato GYAnameva na tu
saMyagvedanaM iti chet.h .
"(Objection:) Although Brahman was the object of discussion,
they had only imperfect knowledge, not perfect (saMyak) knowledge."
na, tathA satyasmAkamapi tadIyavAkyaiH utpannAyA
brahmavidyayA asaMyaktvaprasangAt.h .
"(Reply:) It cannot be said so, because, in that case, our
knowledge of Brahman arising out of their statements shall
also become imperfect knowledge."
nanu saMyaktve.api paroxaGYAnameveti chet.h .
"(Objection:) Although it is perfect (saMyak), yet it is mediate
knowledge (parokSha) only."
na 'yatsAxAt aparoxAdbrahma' (BR^i . up . 3.4.1) iti
mukhya aparoxavishhayatayaiva visheshhitaH prashnopalambhAt.h .
"(Reply:) To this we say no, as the questions put were
especially concerned with the directness and immediateness
of the knowledge of Brahman: 'That Brahman which is direct
and immediate (aparokSha)' (B.U. 3.4.1) thus."
There can be no ambiguity about SV's opinion of YAGYavalkya's BrahmaGYAna. SV is not talking about YAGYavalkya as a mere "scholar of the scriptures", but as one who had known Brahman perfectly (saMyak) and immediately (aparokSha). In other words, according to VidyAraNya, YAGYavalkya had saMyak-aparokSha-brahmaGYAna.
But VidyAraNya emphatically denies that YAGYavalkya was a jIvanmukta:
iyam evaasmadabhimataa jIvanmuktiH. yAGYavalkyaH tu
vijigIshhudshaayaaM na hIdR^ishaH, cittavishraantaye
vidvatsaMnyaasasya tena karishhyamANatvaat.h .
"This is the jIvanmukti we approve of. But YAGYavalkya was
not in this state while he was still desirous of victory in
disputation, since he was yet to take the vidvatsannyAsa in
order to set the mind at rest.
Put it simply:
According to VidyAraNya: YAGYavalkya had saMyak-aparokSha-brahmaGYAna.
According to VidyAraNya: YAGYavalkya did NOT have jIvanmukti.
(The reason I place the qualifier "According to VidyAraNya" in the two statements above is because one may perhaps dispute whether VidyAraNya's assessment of YAGYavalkya's BrahmaGYAna is correct, but there can be no doubt that in VidyAraNya's opinion, YAGYavalkya had saMyak-aparokSha-BrahmaGYAna but not jIvanmukti.)
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.***
I have explained all of this in detail in my postings on the JMV.
> I doubt if anyone else has gone into the practical part of
> the advaita
> sadhana, pre and post Jnana, in so much detail and concern
> and imagination
> as Swami Vidyaranya has done in this most unique book.
> Humble Pranams to
> that great Brahmavidya Acharya.
> Recently Sri Vidyashankar Sundaresan hinted about the
> concept of 'videha
> mukti' as per the JMV. I have identified it in the
> 'vAsanA kshaya
> prakaraNam'. This, fairly lengthy discussion appears
> just before the above
> quotes I have provided. If you can, will you pl.
> present that portion, at
> least the salient points, in translated form? In case
> you have already
> covered them in your earlier posts, you could cull out this
> portion and
> present it again. In the Adyar Library Edition of JMV, it
> is in the pages 46
> - 49 (Sanskrit) and 246-252 (English).
> Best regards,
> > Q: There is a statement in the book Vichara
> Sangraha that though a
> > person realises the Self once, he cannot, for
> that simple reason
> > alone, become a mukta. He continues to remain a
> victim of vasanas
> > (latencies). Sri Bhagavan was asked whether the
> realisation referred
> > to was the same as the jnani's, and if so why
> there should be a
> > difference in their effects.
> > M.: The experience is the same. Every person
> experiences the Self
> > consciously or unconsciously. The ajnani's
> experience is clouded by
> > his latencies whereas the jnani's is not so. The
> jnani's experience
> > of the Self is therefore distinct and permanent.
> A practiser may by
> > long practice gain a glimpse of the Reality.
> This experience may be
> > vivid for the time being. And yet he will be
> distracted by the old
> > vasanas and so his experience will not avail
> him. Such a man must
> > continue his manana and nididhyasana so that all
> the obstacles may
> > be destroyed. He will then be able to remain
> permanently in the Real
> > State.
> > ^^^^^^
> > D.: What is the difference between a man who
> makes no attempts and
> > remains an ajnani, and another who gains a
> glimpse and returns to
> > ajnana?
> > M.: In the latter case a stimulus is always
> present to goad him on
> > to further efforts until the realisation is
> > D.: The Srutis say: Sakrit vibhatoyam brahmaloka
> (This knowledge of
> > Brahman shines forth once and forever).
> > (Note: Above quote is from Chandogya 8.4.2)
> > M.: They refer to the permanent realisation and
> not to the glimpse.
> > D.: How is it possible that a man forgets his
> very experience and
> > falls back into ignorance?
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Sri Bhagavan illustrated it with the following
> story: ...
> > Ramana Maharshi's stance cannot be misconstrued - he
> speaks of the
> > "experience" of one who has had a "glimpse" of the
> reality, but yet forgets
> > the Truth, as his mind is again clouded by ignorance.
> > The terminology needs to be clarified. Typically, the
> term "GYAnI" is used
> > almost interchangeably with "sthitapraGYa" (one who
> has steady knowledge,
> > synonymous with jIvanmukta). Ramana Maharshi's
> reference to "person who has
> > had a glimpse of the reality" is precisely in
> reference to the "unsteady
> > knowledge" of VidyAraNya, who prefers the term
> "GYAnimAtra" to denote such a
> > person.
> > Regards,
> > Kartik
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list