[Continued from Part – 1]
Does this all amount to showing disrespect or arriving at too quick an intellectual claim that “I am brahman and after all this guru (of mine) is also my dream character?”
The answer is that it will never be the case for a proper adhikAri.
It is always like how bhagavatpAda Shri Shankara expresses in a concluding salutation for mANDUkya kArikA:
यत्प्रज्ञालोकभासा प्रतिहतिमगमत्स्वान्तमोहान्धकारो
मज्जोन्मज्जच्च घोरे ह्यसकृदुपजनोदन्वति त्रासने मे ।
यत्पादावाश्रितानां श्रुतिशमविनयप्राप्तिरग्न्या ह्यमोघा
तत्पादौ पावनीयौ भवभयविनुदौ सर्वभावैर्नमस्ये ॥ — verse 3, Shankara at the end of mANDUkya kArikA.
Meaning: I make obeisance with my whole being to those holy feet—the dispellers of the fear of this chain of births and deaths — of my great teacher who, through the light of his illumined reason, destroyed the darkness of delusion enveloping my mind; who destroyed forever my (notions of) appearance and disappearance in this terrible ocean of innumerable births and deaths; and who makes all others also that take shelter at his feet, attain to the unfailing knowledge of Scriptures, peace and the state of perfect non-differentiation.
Therefore, earnest seekers always remember that:
ईश्वरो गुरुरात्मेति मूर्तिभेदविभागिने ।
व्योमवद् व्याप्तदेहाय दक्षिणामूर्तये नमः ॥ — 1.30, mAnasollAsa.
Meaning: Ishwara – Guru – Atman – (Underlying) these different forms of (apparent) separation, who pervades, like Space (i.e. Consciousness-space or cidAkAsha), Salutations to that Dakshinamurti.
All in all, the status of jIvanmukti should never be a sign of prestige or high achievement. The respect a student holds for his teacher should never be based on the pride of being under the tutelage of a jIvanmukta teacher. It should only make the student humble but not filled with pride.
Discussion:
Question 1: Who or what exactly is the entity that can be christened “jIvanmukta“?
In my comment, as you see, I have mentioned only about “mukti.” I have not put forward my understanding about “mukta.” In fact, I have used the word “mukta” only once (in conclusion # 3, Part – 1/3) and that too in saying ‘there is no special status to jIvanmukta’. Whereas I used the word mukti 11 times. Therefore, my comment was only about mukti but not about mukta.
As I understood it, from the viewpoint where teaching and seeking are valid, mokSha is a puruhShArtha and jnAna is a means to mokSha inasmuch as jnAna itself is mokSha. Therefore, my understanding is, there is jnAna but not a jnAni. There is mukti but not a mukta.
It is always an onlooker who asks about jnAni and/or about mukta, similar to how Arjuna enquired asking:
स्थितप्रज्ञस्य का भाषा समाधिस्थस्य केशव |
स्थितधीः किं पृभाषेत किमासीत व्रजेत किम् ॥ — 2.54, BG.
Meaning: What, Keshava, is the description of one of steady Knowledge, who is constant in contemplation? How does one of steady Knowledge speak, sit, and move?
To such an enquiry, I agree there exists a teaching such as:
प्रजहाति यदा कामान्सर्वान्पार्थ मनोगतान्… |
आत्मन्येवात्मना तुष्टः स्थितप्रज्ञस्तदोच्यते ॥ — 2.55, BG.
Meaning: When a man, satisfied in the Self alone by himself, completely casts off all the desires of the mind, then is he said to be one of steady Knowledge.
But what is the main or primary teaching of shAstra? i.e. Is it paramagati or about ‘one who attained paramagati’?
As I understood it, the teaching is about paramagati, but not about the holder of paramagati. There are indeed teachings about the ‘man of realization’ here and there. I think the purpose of such a teaching is only to make the so-called seeker (i.e. one who considers himself to be a seeker) take up a sAdhana, so that it helps the seeker to reduce the attachment to his misconceptions and thus indirectly aid in “bestowing” mokSha (note bestowing in quotes).
bhagavatpAda says:
सर्वत्रैव हि अध्यात्मशास्त्रे कृतार्थलक्षणानि यानि तान्येव साधनानि उपदिश्यन्ते, यत्नसाध्यत्वात् । यानि यत्नसाध्यानि साधनानि लक्षणानि च भवन्ति तानि । — Shankara at 2.55, BGB
“For in all the scriptures without exception, dealing, with spirituality, whatever are the characteristics of the ‘man of realization’ are themselves presented as the disciplines for an aspirant, because these (characteristics) are the result of effort. And those that are the disciplines requiring effort, they become the characteristics (of the man of realization).”
That much only is the purpose of teaching related to the ‘man of realization.’ The purpose is not to promote a concept of jnAni and mukta in the sense that as if person/personality holds this jnAna and/or that jnAna resides in a specific body (and not in other bodies).
This way taking jnAna to be personal and ask about jnAni is what an ignorant individual does, and shAstra, taking advantage of that prescribes sAdhana. As I understood, brahmajnAna is impersonal.
Therefore, for the question “Who or what exactly is the entity that can be christened “jIvanmukta“?”, my answer is:
If this question is what an onlooker is asking, then shAstra provisionally gives certain lakShaNa-s as indicative of mukti. But even while giving such lakShaNa-s, shAstra’s ultimate message is always:
न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिर्न बद्धो न च साधकः ।
न मुमुक्षुर्न वै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थता ॥ — 2.32, GK.
Meaning: There is no dissolution, no origination, none in bondage, none aspiring for wisdom, no seeker of liberation and none liberated. This is the Absolute Truth.
When we pay attention to what is negated in this sloka, we find that all *concepts* stand negated.
निरोधः (nirodhaH — dissolution / death);
उत्पत्ति (Utpatti – origination / birth);
बद्धः (baddhaH — one in bondage);
साधकः (sAdhakaH — one aspiring for wisdom);
मुमुक्षुः (mumukSuH — one seeking liberation);
मुक्तः (muktaH – one who is liberated).
All the above words in the verse are mere *concepts* out of AtmA-anAtmA adhyAsa (out of identification with upAdhi – body mind complex) and therefore, stand sublated.
The significant point to be noted in the verse at 2.32, GK (which, incidentally, appears in four Upanishads), is that like everything else, मुक्तः (muktaH – one who is liberated) is also a concept and hence, gets rescinded. However, मुक्ति (mukti – Liberation) alone is *not denied.*
We can infer from the above that there is no मुक्तः (muktaH), but there is only मुक्ति (mukti), which is AtmA Itself, One without a second. In other words, there is no ज्ञानी (jnAnI), and there is only ज्ञान (jnAna), which is none other than AtmA Itself.
In short, jIvanmukti is impersonal. So also brahmajnAna is impersonal.
Question 2: The Body-mind are insentient and they perish; they have no mukti.
The ‘pratyagAtmA’ is actually Atman which is equivalent to brahman and does not need mukti.
The body-mind-pratyagAtmA Combo is just an illusion and hence no scope for an illusory entity to have mukti.
Fine. Let it be so. “Having no mukti” does not contradict the ultimate message – Atman is never in bondage, hence, no siddhAnta hAni.
(To Continue … Part – 3)
Perfect.
Amen !
So mukti is another name for Brahman .
Vijay
You are trying to have your cake and eat it again, Ramesam!
In reality (paramArtha), there is only Brahman. There is no creation and (therefore) no jIva-s, no mokSha and no jIvanmukta-s.
But clearly you are not referring to paramArtha, because YOU are TALKING and WRITING about IT. I.e. we are entrenched in duality – vyavahAra – the ‘world’ of ‘appearances’, where there are ‘seekers’, who may practice shravaNa-manana and eventually gain j~nAna and, if they have prepared sufficiently mentally, even jIvanmukti!
There is no way around this paradox. You either want to talk about it or you don’t. If you do want to, you are obliged to accept a vyAvahArika context. There is no way around it, I’m afraid.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis,
Thank you for the comments.
As you say, the final understanding that one following Advaita doctrine comes to is: “In reality (paramArtha), there is only Brahman. There is no creation and (therefore) no jIva-s, no mokSha and no jIvanmukta-s.”
There is also no suprise that all teaching ‘appears’ to happen within a dualistic regime (vide 1.18, GK).
But what is not clear is why you conclude that “You are trying to have your cake and eat it again.”
Which part of the Post you find violates the shAstra? What is being specifically objected to?
If you kindly let me know, I can request the author for providing necessary clarification / response.
In general, all the readers who wrote to me through e-mail and also the above commentators, Venkat and Vijay, expressed agreement with the write up.
regards,
Dear Ramesam,
My problem is with statements such as “Therefore, my understanding is, there is jnAna but not jnAni. There is mukti but not mukta.”
You cannot start “from the viewpoint where teaching and seeking are valid” and then suddenly make statements such as the one above. This is the ‘mixing’ of different levels of understanding.
I agree that the teaching is principally about j~nAna but the fact that you use the word ‘paramagati’ (which I am not sure I have actually come across before) shows that you are really referring to a j~nAnI. Only a j~nAnI can have the ‘final beatitude’, if Monier-Williams is correct in its literal translation. This ‘final beatitude’ can only refer to a jIvanmukta, as I understand it.
One can only have the ‘ultimate’ anubhava in respect of j~nAna phalam, not in respect of Brahman – one does not experience Brahman. And all of this is still within the vyAvahArika realm.
Enlightenment is in the mind. Whether you like it or not, j~nAna and j~nAnI go together. Jivanmukta comes when pratibandha-s have been eliminated. And all is still in the realm of vyavahAra. Stating the pAramArthika truth makes no difference to the appearance.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Namaste Dennis, thanks for accepting me here and glad to make your acquaintance, as it were.
Jnani indicates one who possesses or even one who is possessed of jnana. I think that is what you are saying, However, the very the nature of jnana is the complete falsification of individuality/jivAtvam together with mind as well as vyavahAra and that is indicated by referring to jnana rather than jnani.
One may continue to discuss jnana or jnani from the perspective of vyavahAra but that is avidya talking. Any discussion of jnana is necessarily indirect/lakshana vakya. That doesn’t mean that the teaching does not go beyond discussion. It is by applying the method of adhyaropa/apavada that Sastra and Sankara teach with the ability to ‘go beyond’.
A few citations, as space will permit, to indicate individuality/pramatratvam is eliminated along with prameya.
“• This mutual superimposition of the non-Self and the Self (atmānatmanor itaretara adhyāsaṁ) that is called avidya (avidya akhyam) is the basis (puraskṛtya) on which rest all the practical distinctions between means of knowledge and objects of knowledge (sarve pramāṇa prameya)….
//…When all these do not combine the Self that is unattached cannot become a cognizer, there is no operation of the means of knowledge. Therefore, the means of knowledge such as perception and the scriptures are meant only for those that remain on the plane of avidya. (adhyasa bhasya)”
• But in a context where the unconditioned Self is one, there can neither be knowing by oneself not by another. Kebh2.4
• “For when there is duality, as it were, then one… knows another. But when everything has become the Self, then what should one …know and through what? “Br2.4.14
• Therefore, in suṣupti, jīva joins its own svarūpa – say the Brahmajñānis. ChUbh6.8.1
• “With a view to show that it is in dreamless sleep alone that we find the Self in its form as a deity, liberated from its condition as an individual soul, the argument proceeds further” (ChU Bh. 6.8.1)
“Besides when the non-distinction (between the two) comes to be realized, by means of such reference to non-distinction, as “That thou art”, then the nature of the transmigratory existence of the Jiva-Self, and the creative activity of Brahma, both vanish, on account of the removal of the entire set of transactions, depending upon the notion of distinction which is but only a display of false-ignorance, by true knowledge. BSbh II. i. 23] ”
• Those things that caused the particular visions (of the waking and dream states), namely the mind, the eyes and forms, were all presented by Ignorance as something different from the Self.” (Brhad. Bh. 4.3.23)
• Karika 3.32. When, following the instruction of scriptures and the teacher, the mind ceases to think as a consequence of the realisation of the Truth that is the Self, then the mind attains the state of not being the mind; in the absence of things to be perceived, it becomes a non-perceiver.
• In the same way, one who was ignorant of the Self and who is awakened from this ignorance by the Vedic text (sruti) sees nothing other than his own Self. The Teacher (guru), the texts and he himself as deluded individual soul have all disappeared. (Nais Siddhi 4.37)
Hi Michael,
Welcome to the site and apologies if you had difficulty in getting here!
You are clearly very knowledgeable and have access to relevant scriptures. You will therefore appreciate that one has to take into account a number of things when quoting them, such as:
1) context in which the quotation is made;
2) literal translation of the original Sanskrit;
3) who has made the quoted translation and what is their background ‘school’/sampradāya understanding.
It takes significant time to do all of this thoroughly. In the second volume of the ‘Confusions’ series, I have done this for a number of quotations and it can take (me!) days to work through a single one in this way. Needless to say, therefore, there is no way that I can respond to the list that you have provided, even if you included the source references in your list.
Fortunately, I do not believe this is necessary, since reason alone makes it clear that what I said in my response to Ramesam must still stand. Everything that the scriptures say, and all of the Bhāṣya-s that Shankara wrote upon them, are in vyavahāra. The guru-śiṣya relationship is in vyavahāra. Enlightenment takes place in vyavahāra – and the one who is enlightened does not suddenly disappear in a puff of vyāvahārika smoke.
Yes, it is all an appearance. In reality, there is only Brahman. All of this – the world, the jñānī-s and ajñānī-s – are all simply name and form of Brahman. But the appearance is otherwise, both before and after mokṣa. The jñānī knows this to be so and still sees what appears to be duality. Perception and knowledge are NOT the same! The teacher respects the ignorance of the disciple and teaches him/her, knowing that there is no other, only the Self, but also knowing that the mind of the seeker has not yet realized this. Fortunately for us…
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis, Pranam and thanks for your response. Have you read Sri Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati/SSSS? He articulates a powerfully meticulous argument refuting much of conventional Vedanta based on misinterpretation of Sankara prasthanatraya bhasya beginning with Padmapada and continuing to date. I would recommend for you his 1929 seminal dissertation translated by AJ Alston and freely available in pdf format, linked below. It is a better approach than wrestling back and forth here between us trying to make and defend many faceted positions. I think you will enjoy SSSS’s texts whether you agree or not for they are rich with profound inquiry and self reflection. Perhaps his text could be a rich source for discussion here or elsewhere.
http://www.adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/english/english_books_toc.php?book_id=042&type=english&book_title=The+Heart+of+Sri+Samkara
Dear Michael,
I have read most of SSSS’s books, as well as Sri Gangoli’s additional works. I respect him highly but do not always agree with everything he said. I have written a long section (of around 10,000 words) discussing his views in the next volume of ‘Confusions’, within the overall topic of ‘Ignorance’. I share his aim of trying to represent Shankara’s true teaching and repudiating the distortions of later AchArya-s. But I also believe that he allowed his (non-sampradAya) understanding of some aspects to distort his representations.
However, I agree with your observation that we do not want to ‘wrestle back and forth’ on any of these issues. My hope is that, with the recent addition of learned members, there might result some posts and discussions that do not have to involve myself. It seems that, in the past, what all too often happens is that I find myself alone arguing with everybody else! (Perhaps there is a message there which I ought to learn from… 😉 )
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis, I quite understand. We needn’t pursue discussion here. You have peaked my interest and anxiously await your next Confusions volume. Agree or not, I am sure it will be inspire some meaningful manana. Where and when will it be available?
Dennis, Please, non-sampradAya understanding – can you be more specific?
Dear Michael,
I haven’t yet quite completed Vol.2. I am just going through changing all ITRANS to IAST and other editorial matters. It should complete within the next month or two but publishing being as slow as it is, I would not expect it to be ‘in the shops’ before Summer 2024 and maybe even later.
I do not want to start any discussion on the ‘authenticity’ of SSS. As I said, I respect him highly and his books have been very helpful, especially in pointing to Shankara references. I attempt to provide a balanced view in ‘Confusions’ and, in doing so, am obliged to indicate critical views as well as positive ones. As a brief response to your query, here are a couple of paras from the book:
<<< But… he was significantly influenced by K. A. Krishnaswamy Iyer and V. Subrahmanya Iyer, both of whom were themselves Neo-Vedantins – effectively followers of Vivekananda. [The teaching of Vivekananda was criticized in Volume 1.] The former is known for his book ‘Vedanta or the Science of Reality’ (Ref. 290). The book is dedicated to Shankara but has a foreword by Radhakrishnan. The latter chapters are also replete with material relating to Western philosophers. Furthermore, according to Ref. 292, not only did SSS himself not belong to a sampradāya, but his teacher questioned his Sanskrit ability: "…for his subsequent study of the Shankar Bhāṣya with Virupaksa Sastri, the official pandit (āsthānavidvān) of the Mysore court, Virupaksa Sastri did not go into great detail with his student because he felt that his knowledge of Sanskrit was limited and that he lacked expertise in grammar (vyākaraṇa), logic (tarka) and other disciplines considered prerequisite to the study of the Bhāṣya." Accordingly, he did not study the further ‘explanatory texts’ on the Bhāṣya-s. This enables criticism from his opponents of the claim by his supporters that his understanding of Shankara was ‘pure’. >>>
Best wishes,
Dennis
Pranaams Dennis ji
1. On Sampradāya:
From BGBh 13.14 (verse starting सर्वतः पाणिपादं..)
‘..संप्रदायविदां वचनम् — अध्यारोपापवादाभ्यां..’
‘..saṃpradāyavidāṃ vacanam — adhyāropāpavādābhyāṃ..’
‘Thus, as is well known, there is saying of the people versed in tradition, (the Transcendental is described) with the help of superimposition and its refutation.’ Sw. Gambhirananda.
https://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/srimad?language=dv&field_chapter_value=13&field_nsutra_value=14&scsh=1&setgb=1
2. SSSS ji unearthing the above ‘saṃpradāya’ approach has been really transformational in unambiguously understanding Śrī Śaṅkara Bhagavatpāda Bhāṣya.
3. Your reference to Ref. 292 can be corrected on other grounds too.
Dear Sri Kumar,
No objection to this at all. The emphasis on adhyAropa-apavAda as the essence of the teaching is fundamental in my view. The above comment provided some ‘negative’ material, since that is what Michael had asked for.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis,
It has been 45 years since I first read KA Krishnaswamy Iyer’s book but I remember it as an inspired text presenting Vedanta reflections not seen elsewhere.
I think it is an injustice to label Iyer as “neo-Vedanta” without pointing out ideas that veer from bhasya. Claiming he was a disciple of Vivekananda is insufficient as much of Vivekananda owes much of teaching to authentic Sankara Bhasya.
Further, he must have been an extraordinarily respected individual to have received Dr. Radhakrishnan’s foreword. The inclusion of Western philosophers was an indication of scholarly aptitude in India during the first half of the 20th Century in India. Compare perhaps 1/2 of Martha Doherty’s 1990s Harvard dissertation was Western Philosophy. Regardless, it is disingenuous to imply that should cast unfavorable light upon SSSS.
As far as Sanskrit is concerned, SSSS has authored dozens of books in Sanskrit, though he wrote mostly in the Kannada language. Elsewhere you commented on the difficulty in understanding parts of The Heart of Sri Samkara. I agree but wonder if that has to do with Alston’s translation as opposed to the original in Sanskrit. Alston never met SSSS so he may himself been challenged by interpreting the original. It was the fact that the same author of the 6 volume Sankara Sourcebook chose to translate SSSS (as well as Hacker and Mayeda’s confirmation of SSSS) that substantially aided my consideration of SSSS’s rehabilitations of Sankara’s Advaita.
May I know what ref. 292 is – I own Krishnaswamy Iyer’s book and can look it up.
There’s more I would have said but I’ll just let it be
P.S.: It would be nice, if I am able to edit my comments, if needed, to avoid repetition and inadvertent incomplete posting..
Dear Michael,
As I said, I have no wish to enter into discussions about SSS’s ‘value’ regarding traditional Advaita. You asked for any negative comments from the book, so I gave you one. My overall view – which I think will be apparent from the book – is positive. I admire his dedication, erudition, and his style of writing.
My view on K. Iyer is actually similar. I scribbled in the front of ‘Science of Reality’: “Flowery writing but clear explanation of some difficult topics and often quite humorous and ironic. Addresses the stance of many Western philosophers, highlighting their insights and rewording their errors.”
But there clearly are some Vivekananda-type misunderstandings. E.g. He wrote the introduction to Mūlavidyānirāsa and expressed the same mistaken views as Vivekananda when he said that the “oneness of Reality” was “not a matter of faith but one of intuitive experience, not a doctrine accepted on authority but a Truth realized in life.” (Ref. 259) Much of Vol. 1 of ‘Confusions’ was devoted to explaining that enlightenment is nothing to do with experience.
Ref. 259 is A Contemporary Debate in Advaita Vedānta: Avidyā and the Views of Swami SatchidAnandendra Saraswati, Martha J. Doherty, Harvard University, 1999. No ISBN.
Ref. 292 is A Contemporary Debate Among Advaita Vedantins On The Nature Of Avidyā, Martha Doherty, Journal of Indian Philosophy (2005). (The references are from ‘Confusions’, not from Iyer’s book.)
Of course I appreciate that you, as an adherent of SSS, probably do not accept most of her criticisms! 😉
Incidentally, at the risk of incurring further wrath from someone, although Radhakrishnan was clearly a profoundly knowledgeable and clever philosopher, I would not advocate relying too much on his interpretation of traditional Advaita…
You should be able to edit your own comments and posts according to Google on WordPress.
Best wishes,
Dennis
Dear Dennis,
Thank you for your response. I too don’t wish to debate issues here but I would like to suggest that it might be rich to share your objections on SSSS’s view to one or another worthy expert. I am sure Ramesanji or I can find someone suitable and willing to respond.
Yes, long ago, I carefully went through Martha’s (now, Swami Agamanandaji) dissertation considering all her points with Atma Chaitanyaji/Musta Ram/Ira Shepetin, the only Western direct disciple of SSSS. Again, if you wish to discuss SSSS’s thinking perhaps he would be willing.
I would think the first thing to settle is whether moksa is direct experience or something else. I see you don’t agree with Iyer and maybe there’s nuance not recognized but SSSS certainly does hold Sankara’s teaching equates moksa.with intuitive experience such that, · “In the recognition that there is no second thing, duality resolves” – jnate dvaitam no vidyate GK 1.18.
That said, I agree both Swami Vivekananda and Prof. Radhakrishnan misinterpreted Sankara Advaita and gave cause for a text like your own Confusions in Advaita Vedanta. Such misinterpretation seems unfortunate now but times and societal needs change. Perhaps Vedanta interpretation itself conforms to the philosophic need of the time.
Best Regards,
Michael
Following comment received from H S Chandramouli, who was unable to post directly for some as-yet-unknown reason:
Namaste.
Reg << there is jnAna but not jnAni >>,
Shruti itself presents such Sages
Vamadeva
<< स एव तदभवत्तथर्षीणां तथा मनुष्याणां तद्धैतत्पश्यनृषिर्वामदेवः प्रतिपेदेऽहं मनुरभवं सूर्यश्चेति । >> (BU 1-4-10),
Trishanku
<< अहं वृक्षस्य रेरिवा । कीर्तिः पृष्ठं गिरेरिव । ऊर्ध्वपवित्रो वाजिनीव स्वमृतमस्मि । द्रविणं सवर्चसम् । सुमेधा अमृतोक्षितः । इति त्रिशङ्कोर्वेदानुवचनम् ॥ १ ॥ >> (Tai. Up 1-10),
Jnani (exulting)
<< अहमन्नमहमन्नमहमन्नम् । अहमन्नादो३ऽहमन्नादो३ऽहमन्नादः । >> (Tai Up 3-10-8)
All these in vyAvahArika state only. It is therefore not appropriate to claim
<< there is jnAna but not jnAni >> in vyAvahArika state.
My understanding.
You have missed the point of Shri P Neti’s article. There is no vyavaharika state for a jnani – or the sruti – to exist in.
Vide BSB4.1.4:
Opponent: In the absence of perception etc. the Vedas also will cease to exist.
Vedantin: That is no defect, since that position is admitted by us. For according to the
texts starting with, “In this state the father is no father” and ending with “The Vedas
are no Vedas” (Br. IV. iii. 22), we do admit the absence of the Vedas themselves in the
state of enlightenment.
So your refutation, with an appeal to sruti, does not hold.
Moreover, BSB 1.4.22:
The individual soul is verily unchanging, eternal, and a mass of homogeneous consciousness; there can be no possibility of its annihilation. But as a result of knowledge, there is a dissociation for it from the matras comprising the senses and the elements that originate from ignorance. And since from an absence of contact, particularized knowledge arising from that contact cannot exist, it has been said, “After this attainment there is no consciousness”.
Hence no jnani, only jnana = mukta = brahman.
Those are the heights that ajata vada takes you to. No jiva, no bondage, no jnani, no vyavaharika.
Namaste.
Reg <>,
No vyAvahArikA state for the Shruti to exist in ?? Shruti exists ONLY in the vyAvahArikA state is my understanding. It does not find a place in pAramArthika state. If it is meant to mean that vyAvahArika state itself is nonexistent (subsequent parts of your post seem to suggest so. I may be wrong ), it is not so as broughtout later in this post. Towards the end while dealing with MandUkya Up.
Reg <>,
As mentioned above, my understanding is perfectly in accordance with this part of BSB. Everything , including Shrutis etc is absent in the pAramArthika state. But they are relevant in the vyAvahArika state.
Reg <>,
This is in the context of abheda (non-difference) between Supreme Self and Individual Self. Purva Pakshi cites from BU 2-4-12
<>,
<>.
The citation you have quoted above is part of the Sidhantin’s refutation of this Purva Paksha. It states that — ** there is no more Consciousness ** should be understood as ** since from an absence of contact, particularized knowledge arising from that contact cannot exist, it has been said, “After this attainment there is no consciousness” **.
I don’t see any contradiction between this and my post.
Reg <>,
I am unable to see how this follows from the citations.
Reg <>,
ajAta vAda is a prakriya. Instead of arriving at the Advaita Sidhanta starting from Creation, it starts from the PAramArthika level ** No jiva, no bondage, no jnani, no vyavaharika **. Meaning the absence of these at that level. However it admits all these at vyAvahArika level as mAyikA as stated in MAndUkya Karika 3-27
<>. (MandUkya kArika 3-27).
Several other verses can be cited. But I stop here as I feel it is not relevant to my post.
I do not see where my observation of Shruti itself talking of jnAnIs in the vyavahArika state has been addressed and rejected.
Regards
Communication Received from Shri Prashanth Neti Ji:
Dear Shri Chandramouli Ji, Venkat and Shri Prasanth Neti Ji,
Namaskarams.
I am posting below Shri Prasanth Neti Ji’s mail received by me.
regards,
P.S.: I also request Venkat to post his Question at AV site re: the Dissolution of the finite Mind as it is definitely a matter of interest to most of the readers. Shri Prasanth Neti Ji’s response can also appear at the AV site itself as and when it is ready.
***
Shri Prasanth Neti Ji’s Communication:
From: Prasanth Neti
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2023 9:19 AM
To: Ramesam
Namaskaram
With regards to Sri Chandramouli ji’s comments:
I see in his comments, the tag Reg<>.
I am unable to guess what is in those angled brackets.
Please quote the other person’s comment in its entirety when giving his reply.
These discussions are becoming unnecessarily lengthy and spanning several responses without a real need and useful purpose out of it. I do not want to speculate as to which portion of my comment (or other’s comment) is he responding to from the way he is responding.
Once the angled brackets are filled properly then I can read his response and make sense out of what is he asking me / expecting from me / contending.
Regarding Sri Venkat ji’s question, I am putting together my understanding. I shall send the same once I complete it.
Regards
Prasanth
Dear Dennis,
You say in your Comment addressed to me on 03.12.2023 (3rd comment from top) as follows: “we are entrenched in duality – vyavahAra – the ‘world’ of ‘appearances’, where there are ‘seekers’, who may practice shravaNa-manana and eventually gain j~nAna and, if they have prepared sufficiently mentally, even jIvanmukti! …There is no way around this paradox. You either want to talk about it or you don’t. If you do want to, you are obliged to accept a vyAvahArika context. There is no way around it, I’m afraid.”
Shri Prasanth Neti Ji’s Comment at Part 3/3 on 03/19/2023 adequately answers the point made above by you. I copy below the relevant portion for ready reference:
Prasanth Ji: “I also agree that, this ‘jñāni related’ teaching is to vyavaharika viewpoint, but, there is also another area of the teaching which says that such vyavaharika altogether do(es) not exist in truth. My focus was more on the latter part of the teaching — as I said before, sastra is apavada Pradhana.
“If anyone insists that after all there is a jñāni, even though it is in vyavahara and thereby sidetrack the discussion into jñāni’s vyavahara, I would say, “yes! I agree that I saw in my waking vyavahara that the jñāni was eating, sleeping, talking, reading. And this is the same waking vyavahara which sastra is urging me to understand as no different to my dream vyavahara”. Therefore, that so-called jnani’s vyavahara is after all that which happens to be a subset of my waking vyavahara which in turn sastra is urging me to understand as no different to my dream vyavahara. Therefore quoting bhāshya vakya-s and sastra vakya-s in such a way which re-affirm my ignorance is useless in my opinion – it will not serve purpose called mokSha. But sastra vakya and bhāshya vakya have to be applied with only one point agenda i.e. transcend the wrong notion that “there is vyavahara”! – there is only Brahman and That Thou Art, teaches sastra.
regards,
Dear Venkat,
I assume that your comment of March 18, 2023 at 18:20 was aimed at myself, although it contained no salutation.
I started to look into this but, to be honest, I do not have the patience. We discussed all of this, dare I say it ‘ad nauseam’, a year or two back.
If you really want me to reply to it, then I’m afraid you will have to dig out the precise Sanskrit that Shankara used when he said this. You quote from Gambhirananda’s translation and I have already found ‘biased’ translation in another sutra bhAShya. As I have said before many times, if a translation is an affront to all of our experience, all of our Vedantic knowledge, and simple reason, then it is almost certainly wrong!
Common sense suggests that it means something like: just as, when we wake up, we no longer ascribe truth/reality to the dream we just had, so when we are enlightened, we know that the world that we continue to see is simply name and form of Brahman. I.e. the perception of duality is no longer accepted as true.
Best wishes,
Dennis
P.S. It’s actually 4.1.3 if you are going to track down the Sanskrit.
Actually, Venkat, I realize that I alreadly have (with Ramesam’s help) done a thorough analysis of this section, using the original Sanskrit, in Vol. 2 of ‘Confusions’. Although Swami G’s translation is correct in essence, here is my preferred translation:
<<<< For the transmigratory state is conceded before enlightenment, and the activities like perception (as a means of knowledge) are confined within that state only, because texts as this, ‘But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what?’ (Br. 2.4.14), point out the negation of perception etc. (as a means of knowledge) in the state of enlightenment. (‘Negation’ appears along with ‘non-existence’ in Monier-Williams, as one of the meanings of abhāva; and ‘perception’ should be thought of in the sense of the pramāṇa, which pratyakṣa is.) >>>>
Dennis
Namaste.
This is in response to what Dennis Waite (Abridged as D hereafter) on March 20, 2023 at 09:19 said
D
Dear Venkat,
I assume that your comment of March 18, 2023 at 18:20 was aimed at myself, although it contained no salutation.
My ( C hereafter) response
Great. I understood Venkat ( V hereafter) Ji as referring to my post ( posted by D March 18, 2023 at 14:41), and responded accordingly by me on March 19, 2023 at 10:26.
Yes. BSB 4-1-3 is right for the first citation by V (mentioned by him as BSB 4-1-4).
प्रत्यक्षाद्यभावे श्रुतेरप्यभावप्रसङ्ग इति चेत् , न, इष्टत्वात् ; ‘अत्र पिताऽपिता भवति’ (बृ। उ। ४ । ३ । २२) इत्युपक्रम्य, ‘वेदा अवेदाः’ (बृ। उ। ४ । ३ । २२) इति वचनात् इष्यत एव अस्माभिः श्रुतेरप्यभावः प्रबोधे ।
[pratyakShAdyabhAve shruterapyabhAvaprasa~Nga iti chet , na, iShTatvAt ; ‘atra pitA.apitA bhavati’ (bRRi. u. 4 | 3 | 22) ityupakramya, ‘vedA avedAH’ (bRRi. u. 4 | 3 | 22) iti vachanAt iShyata eva asmAbhiH shruterapyabhAvaH prabodhe |]
Later citation by V, BSB 1-4-22
कूटस्थनित्य एवायं विज्ञानघन आत्मा ; नास्योच्छेदप्रसङ्गोऽस्ति ; मात्राभिस्त्वस्य भूतेन्द्रियलक्षणाभिरविद्याकृताभिरसंसर्गो विद्यया भवति ; संसर्गाभावे च तत्कृतस्य विशेषविज्ञानस्याभावात् ‘न प्रेत्य संज्ञास्ति’ इत्युक्तमिति ।
[kUTasthanitya evAyaM vij~nAnaghana AtmA ; nAsyochChedaprasa~Ngo.asti ; mAtrAbhistvasya bhUtendriyalakShaNAbhiravidyAkRRitAbhirasaMsargo vidyayA bhavati ; saMsargAbhAve cha tatkRRitasya visheShavij~nAnasyAbhAvAt ‘na pretya saMj~nAsti’ ityuktamiti |]
(The individual soul is verily unchanging, eternal, and a mass of homogeneous consciousness; there can be no possibility of its annihilation. But as a result of knowledge, there is a dissociation for it from the matras comprising the senses and the elements that originate from ignorance. And since from an absence of contact, particularized knowledge arising from that contact cannot exist, it has been said, “After this attainment there is no consciousness”).
I had mentioned in my response that this forms part of the Siddhantin’s response to the pUrva paksha which is as follows.
ननूच्छेदाभिधानमेतत् — ‘एतेभ्यो भूतेभ्यः समुत्थाय तान्येवानुविनश्यति न प्रेत्य संज्ञास्ति’ (बृ। उ। २ । ४ । १२) इति ; कथमेतदभेदाभिधानम् ?
[nanUchChedAbhidhAnametat — ‘etebhyo bhUtebhyaH samutthAya tAnyevAnuvinashyati na pretya saMj~nAsti’ (bRRi. u. 2 | 4 | 12) iti ; kathametadabhedAbhidhAnam ?]
(The Self comes out from these elements and is destroyed with them. After this attainment there is no more Consciousness** (BU 2-4-12) — being a statement of annihilation, how can this be a declaration of non-difference).
Unfortunately, most of these were cut out by WordPress from my earlier post as I had enclosed them in brackets <> .
Regards
Namaste.
Dennis Waite on March 20, 2023 at 11:56 said
/// Although Swami G’s translation is correct in essence, here is my preferred translation:
<<<>>> ///
I don’t think this translation reflects the correct position. As I have mentioned in my earlier post, this is the refutation by Siddhantin of the pUrvapakshi who objects , based on BU 2-4-12, that <>.
The translation offere by you does not reflect this at all. Translation by Swami Gambhirananda is also in line with the translation by Sri SSS (in kannada).
Regards
Same problem I aced earlier. Bracketed portion does not appear. Reposting in a different format.
Namaste.
Dennis Waite on March 20, 2023 at 11:56 said
/// Although Swami G’s translation is correct in essence, here is my preferred translation:
For the transmigratory state is conceded before enlightenment, and the activities like perception (as a means of knowledge) are confined within that state only, because texts as this, ‘But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what?’ (Br. 2.4.14), point out the negation of perception etc. (as a means of knowledge) in the state of enlightenment. (‘Negation’ appears along with ‘non-existence’ in Monier-Williams, as one of the meanings of abhāva; and ‘perception’ should be thought of in the sense of the pramāṇa, which pratyakṣa is.) ///
I don’t think this translation reflects the correct position. As I have mentioned in my earlier post, this is the refutation by Siddhantin of the pUrvapakshi who objects , based on BU 2-4-12, that :: The Self comes out from these elements and is destroyed with them. After this attainment there is no more Consciousness** (BU 2-4-12) — being a statement of annihilation, how can this be a declaration of non-difference) :: .
The translation offere by you does not reflect this at all. Translation by Swami Gambhirananda is also in line with the translation by Sri SSS (in kannada).
Regards
Dennis writes in his Comment above: “Actually, Venkat, I realize that I alreadly have (with Ramesam’s help) done a thorough analysis of this section, using the original Sanskrit … …”
Chandramouli Ji writes in his Comment above: “The translation offere by you does not reflect this at all. Translation by Swami Gambhirananda is also in line with the translation by Sri SSS (in kannada).”
If my memory serves me right, I think I did point out to Dennis that interpreting प्रत्यक्षादिव्यवहार (perceptual activities) as “means of knowledge” would not be acceptable at 4.1.3, BS bhAShya; direct perception at the commentary on this aphorism simply refers to the sensory perception of the dualistic world. Dennis may pardon me if my memory is incorrect or I was not clear at the time we were discussing the issue.
regards,
I think the SSSS comment on ‘pratyakSha vyavahAra’ appearing at 4.1.3 Bhāsya is self-explanatory.
SSSS writes: “Before the rise of jñāna we accept the samsāritva, and pratyakshādi vyavahāra is there as object (to the samsāri).”
Thank you Shri Chandramouli Ji and Shri Sri Kumar Ji.
Both the versions of translations (Swami Gambhirananda and Shri SSS) do indicate that the term प्रत्यक्षादिव्यवहार (perceptual etc. activities) pertains to the duality and Shakara does not seem to consider it in his usage as a “means to knowledge.”
Dennis may please consider these valuable inputs in formulating his “preferred translation.”
regards,