[Advaita-l] Jnana-karma samuccaya.
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Thu Nov 25 20:19:04 CST 2010
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:
> Hare Krishna
> ..A jnAni may be a king like janaka,
> gruhasta like yAjnAvalkya saNyAsi like our bhagavatpAda, atyAshrami like
> ramaNa or nagna yOgi like saMvarta...The external appearances, statuses,
> attires etc. of these jnAni-s are only our perception, and the real jnAni
> would not identify himself with BMI and say: see I am a 'king jnAni'
> there is another 'saNyAsi jnAni' in forest :-)) The popular saying goes
> : ONLY jnAni can identify another jnAni ( but for the real jnAni there is
> no 'another') :-))
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
What is that 'popular' saying? Where is it popular? Shruti/Smriti?
It is the fundamental understanding in Advaita that for the real Jnani there
is no 'another'. Nevertheless such an understanding does not preclude the
Jnani to refer to another Jnani as another keeping in mind the
vyavahAra-imposed differences. Shankara has provided for this in the BSB
4.1.19 with the explicit statement that the Jnani will have 'bhedadarshanam'
till the fall of the body.
There are innumerable instances where Jnanis have referred to other Jnanis,
clearly differentiating themselves from those others. Veda Vyasa, a Jnani,
after his teaching failed, identified Janaka, another Jnani, and directed
his son Shuka to go to Janaka for instruction in Brahmavidya. If Vyasa had
not made this differentiation between himself and Janaka, he could not have
so directed. Vyasa even asked Shuka to go to Janaka not using his Yoga
shakti by taking the AkAsha marga but by walking the whole distance, with
humility. Vyasa not only referred to Janaka as a different vyakti but also
saw/knew that Janaka, another Jnani lived in a different desha, deshAntara.
In the ManIShA panchakam the chanDAla-jnani is referred to as: chAnDAlo'stu
sa tu dvijo'stu sa gururityeva manIShA mama: Be he a chandAla or a dvija,
such a realized person (he) is a guru. This is my firm conviction.
Here Shankara refers to the other person as 'he' and Himself as 'me/my'.
Paul Brunton was directed to Ramana Maharishi by the Kanchi Acharya with the
clear reference that 'there is a certain realized soul.... approach
him...'. We can easily see the difference between the referrer and the one
referred to. This kind of vyavahara is inevitable.
In Sringeri successive Acharyas, both Jnanis, have lived concurrently for
years, decades, conversing with, referring to each other as different from
one another. One Jnani Acharya will ask a devotee to consult/contact/submit
something to the other Jnani Acharya. This kind of vyavahara is
inevitable. This does not mean that they did not have the 'advaita/ekatva
bhAva'. It is only to provide for such vyavahAra there is the 'bheda
darshanam' for the Jnani till death (BSB4.1.19).
There are instances about Jnanis referring to other Jnanis in kAlAntara
too. Thus, in the Upanishad we have the Rishi saying: iti shushruma
pUrveShAm...[thus we have heard from our earlier Acharyas]. Krishna too
refers to 'several' jnanis who have attained Him: bahavo jnAna tapasA pUtA
madbhAvam AgatAH [Gita 4th ch.] Here we can see the Jnanis being referred
in bahuvachanam, apart from vyakti bheda. There is thus ample evidence for
Jnanis referring to other Jnanis with vyakti bheda, desha bheda and kAla
Yajnavalkya addressed Janaka and said: abhayam vai Janaka prAptosi: Janaka,
you have attained the Fearless. It is only because Yajnavalkya saw the
difference between himself as a teacher and Janaka as a disciple could he
say this upon Janaka's realization.
Lord Krishna not only refers to other Jnanis but also uses the plural,
bahuvachanam: JnaaninaH te updekShyanti: Jnani-s will teach you. Shankara
also uses this plural and even differentiates, just as you have done above,
a jnani-sannyasin from a jnani-gRhastha. Shankara very clearly says in the
BSB 4.1.19 that the Jnani will have bheda darshana until the fall of the
body. It is this continuing bheda darshana that enables the Jnani to do
vyavahara in the world which requires, by default, this
mithyA-bheda-darshana. Nowhere Shankara gives room for the ashrutakalpana:
the Jnani's activity/body is ajnanis' perception. Not a single
bhashyavakyam supporting such an erroneous view can be shown. He never
holds Lord Krishna or the Upanishads as ajnanis for teaching about the body
and activity of Jnanis.
Regarding your observation:
//But fact remains that we, the ajnAni-s, with all the study material,
Acharya vAkya, gurUpadesha and our own understanding of these things on
hand, engage ourselves to prove
jnAni-s krOdha, kAma, his deha, indriya, manO buddhi, ahaMkAra and argue
endlessly that these are all how jnAni would REALLY suffer / do AND it is
NOT just, we, the ajnAni-s perception....We have nowadays become the
official 'media representatives' of the brahma jnAni-s is it not?? :-))//
the response is:
Shankaracharya never says that the Jnani 'suffers' 'really' when He says in
the Chandogya bhashya that 'praarabdha bhoga is inevitable for the Jnani'.
For that matter, the suffering of even ajnanis is not 'real' as per Shankara
advaita. Shankara makes it clear that the Jnani knows all experiences of
the world are mithyA, like mirage-water. He explicitly makes this statement
in the Gita bhashya 2.16. And this is the view Arjuna should adopt as per
Shankara. Thus, the 'reality' of all suffering of ajnanis as well as jnanis
is of the same level. Nowhere does Shankara give room for the
ashrutakalpana that the jnani's BMI-prArabdha bhoga is the ajnAni-s'
perception. All that Shankara hastens to say is: the kartrutva (also
bhoktrutva) alone is superimposed by the uninitiated on the jnani. The
jnani himself knows that the Self is not kartA-bhoktA and all karma and
bhoga go on in the dehendriya level. (guNA guNeShu vartante iti matvA na
sajjate/ indriyANi indriyArtheShu vartante) Shankara and the Scripture will
be the foremost ajnanis if such an erroneous view as stated by you is
admitted. All teaching about a jnani is officially available for the
follower of Vedanta/Shankara through the 'representation' of the Acharya's
upadesha. There are numerous references explicitly on the
deha-indriya-manas-buddhi-ahankara of the Jnani throughout the Bh.Gita and
the BSB. This is validated by Sruti, smRti and BhashyavAkya.
Says Lord Krishna to Uddhava in the Uddhavagita (part of Srimadbhagavatam):
6.13,14 and 15 have explicit references to the functions of prana, manas,
indriya, buddhi and the body of the Jnani.
To hold that this is in the vision of the ajnani will amount to admitting
Lord Krishna to be that ajnani.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list