[Advaita-l] [advaitin] 'Satyasya Satyam..' of the Upanishad explained in the Bhagavatam

[Sundar Rajan]

Namaskar,


>>

For the last reference (HOSS p42), I personally consider it a futile
exercise to talk definitively about the state of a jnani when I am yet an
ajnani. Let me first gain the jnana to then realize for myself what is
annihilated and what remains. One person says Brahman alone exists, another
says the universe will continue to be perceived; I do not wish to
definitively judge one or the other as I am yet to understand the
distinction and nature of my Self versus my antahkarana. Maybe they are
both right but from these two distinct perspectives - Self versus
functioning antahkarana.
>>

This response from Vikram-ji caught my attention. I’ve seen similar remarks
before — “Let me first become a jnani, then I’ll respond.”

It reminded me of something Sri Ramakrishna once said: that one is *out of
the game* after realization. He gave the example of the card game *nax*:

“Whoever scores above seventeen is out of the game. I have scored too many
points and am out of it.”

In other words, when true jnana dawns, the very one who might post, argue,
or reconcile differing views is gone. The salt doll that set out to measure
the ocean dissolves completely and cannot return to describe its depth.

Ok. That may be too poetic, let us try a more pragmatic example — such a
person might simply see no point in belonging to this group and may never
post again.

Regards


Game of Nax:
In *The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna*, he once told his devotees:

“Do you know the game called ‘nax’? It is a card game.
Anyone who scores more than seventeen points is out of the game.
Those who score less are still in it.
I have scored too many points and am out of the game.”




------------------------------

*Reply draft:*

Your humility and restraint are admirable — they echo the very spirit of
the path.

But if I may invoke Sri Ramakrishna’s analogy of the *game of nax*: once
one “scores above seventeen,” one is *out of the game*.

In other words, when true Jnana dawns, the very one who might post, argue,
or reconcile differing views is gone. The salt doll that set out to measure
the ocean no longer returns to tell its depth.

So, if you were to wait until realization before speaking, Sri Ramakrishna
might gently smile and say: “Then, my child, you will no longer *be here*
to post at all — for the one who wished to define, compare, or conclude
will have melted into That.”

Until then, all sincere dialogue — even speculation — is part of the Divine
Mother’s play, Her *lila*. Through these exchanges, She sharpens minds,
ripens hearts, and readies them for dissolution.

So perhaps it is good that we speak *while we still can*. When the score
crosses seventeen, the game — and the player — are over.

------------------------------

Would you like me to make a slightly shorter or more poetic version of this
(something that could circulate beautifully in the list, or even on
LinkedIn)?

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 1:32 PM Vikram Jagannathan via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaskaram Michael ji,
>
> Will keep it shorter this time :)
>
> << There is no doubt we view the appearance of body and karma. The issue
> however concerns the view from Jnana itself - if pramatr, pramana, prameya
> are dependent on avidya, where is there 'a' jnani, 'the' jnani or the
> instruments to recognize duality or duality itself?  Are there many jnani-s
> or just one Jnanatvam?  >>
>
> Actually, this triputi is from our perspective too, and not from Jnana's
> perspective. From Jnana's perspective, it is the homogenous Chaitanya alone
> and nothing else whatsoever; no triputi. We view the continued appearance
> of the jnani's body and karma (BMI-V) due to our ignorance. This continued
> appearance of the jnani's BMI-V recognizes duality and interacts with it;
> again from our perspective alone and for our own benefit. There are as many
> jnani-s as we perceive as many jnani's functioning BMI-V. Jnana,
> all-through, is one and non-dual.
> As a recap:
> 1. Chaitanya's perspective = paramarthika perspective - universe is asat
> 2. Ajnani's perspective = vyavaharika ajnana perspective - universe is sat
> 3. Jnani's perspective = there are 2 sub-perspectives - 3a. and 3b.
> 3a. Jnani's perspective from the jnani's perspective = paramarthika
> perspective - universe is asat
> 3b. Jnani's perspective from the ajnani's perspective = vyavaharika jnana
> perspective - universe is mithya
>
> We at times blur the difference between 3a and 3b; this causes confusion.
>
> << Agreed but only if the teaching of avidya-lesa etc. is confirmed by
> bhasya, reason and universal experience. Brahman, moksa, avidya are all the
> adhyaropita teachings of sastra. I don't see the upaya of adhyaropa/apavada
> fundamentally presented by post-Sankara authors. >>
>
> Avidya-lesa indeed aligns with adhyaropa-apavada principle. The attribution
> of avidya-lesa to the jnani is indeed adhyaropa. We perceive a
> tattva-darshi jnani guru imparting jnana upadesha. We can either
> a) explain that this is due to avidya-lesa, due to our own avidya or
> b) the tattva-darshi jnani guru is actually not a tattva-darshi jnani guru
> or
> c) Advaita is no longer advaita but becomes dvaita, with plurality becoming
> eternally unsublatable.
>
> With a) the Advaita siddhanta remains completely self-consistent as the
> perception of this avidya-lesa is only due to our own avidya. When we
> overcome our avidya, then all avidya and avidya-lesa is completely removed
> and it is Chaitanya alone.
> With b) the teachings of the so-called tattva-darshi jnani guru (including
> Bhagavan Krishna) becomes falsified
> With c) Advaita siddhanta is utterly destroyed
>
> Both b) and c) are not conducive to Advaita siddhanta and are stances taken
> up by several purvapakshas.
>
> << --tattva-darshi jnani - is this person knowable to the ignorant? Do you
> just assume this of our guru? I've had the blessing of sitting at the feet
> of several teachers who I believe were tattva-darshi jnani-s. However, not
> one claimed such status yet they taught in a manner that convinced me they
> were full blown jnani-'s. So how are we to determine whether this
> charismatic guy is a jnani engaging in the world or still, despite a pure
> personality and pristine teachings may still be afflicted with empirical
> attachments? It is not an uncommon phenomena to learn of the scandalous
> demise of one of the spiritual heroes. Let us not assume by personality but
> determine by challenging the teaching to resolve doubt what is authentic
> Vedanta. >>
>
> True. One has to first become a jnani to recognize another jnani. Important
> to note that Jnana is one non-dual, but from our current perspective
> (ajnani perspective) the BMI-Vs of the jnanis are several and distinct.
> Therefore, from our current perspective it is appropriate to say that one
> BMI-V which has gained the Brahmakara-vritti-jnana (aka jnani) is capable
> of recognizing another BMI-V which has also gained this
> Brahmakara-vritti-jnana. All the while the absolute Jnana (Chaitanya) is
> one and non-dual. However, there are some clues in the scriptures including
> the stithaprajna-lakshna and shraddha / maha-viswasam (absolute trust and
> faith) is quite essential. Beyond this, it is actually not the student
> approaching a teacher's feet, but in actuality it is the teacher coming to
> a prepared student.
>
> << "the entity' you are giving entity status to snake where indeed the only
> entity is rope. >>
>
> Correct, but I do not know this until the dawn of rope knowledge. Until
> then, the entity is the snake as it is my current experience taken to be
> real. And any back-reference to this prior experience will also have to
> term the entity as a snake only.
>
> << Addendum citations and notes: >>
>
> I don't see any contradictions from any of your quoted references (except
> the last one - HOSS p42). Do you feel any of them contradicts what we have
> discussed so far?
>
> For the last reference (HOSS p42), I personally consider it a futile
> exercise to talk definitively about the state of a jnani when I am yet an
> ajnani. Let me first gain the jnana to then realize for myself what is
> annihilated and what remains. One person says Brahman alone exists, another
> says the universe will continue to be perceived; I do not wish to
> definitively judge one or the other as I am yet to understand the
> distinction and nature of my Self versus my antahkarana. Maybe they are
> both right but from these two distinct perspectives - Self versus
> functioning antahkarana.
>
> prostrations,
> Vikram
>
>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>