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

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Sundar Rajan ji,

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

Quite true; this is indeed a long shot. However, for me to talk
*definitely* about the state of a jnani when I am yet an ajnani - is
something like a born-blind man trying to judge a discussion between the
red vs green color of an object.
Speculate, anyone can; but to be definitive, one should be a jnani. Whether
the jnani's perspective can then be somehow pointed, that is the long shot.

prostrations,
Vikram


On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 5:03 PM Sundar Rajan via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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)?
>
>