Question: Does a jnAni see a world?

Hishi Ryo (aka Thomas Felber) answers: 

[This post only scratches the surface, as this topic can be viewed from many angles per shloka, mantra, sUtra, prakaraNa etc. Due to the amount of texts and references, the answer can quickly become lengthy. As long as there are glimpses to ponder, we can all learn something.  ]

A few points:

(a) Adi Shankara says at Bhagavad gItA bhAShya 4.22:

लोकव्यवहारसामान्यदर्शनेन तु लौकिकैः आरोपितकर्तृत्वे भिक्षाटनादौ कर्मणि कर्ता भवति . स्वानुभवेन तु शास्त्रप्रमाणादिजनितेन अकर्तैव | BGh. 4.22

Viewed from the standpoint of the normal worldly [ignorant] dealings, the common people attribute (Aropita) to him begging as an ‘act of doing’, but in his own experience (svAnubhavena) and in view of the teaching of the scriptures, he is (truly) a non-doer only (akartA eva).

[Note 2: ‘svAnubhavena‘ (through his own experience/understanding) is key here, as you’ll later see in brahmasUtra bhAshya 4.1.15].

He continues:

स एवं पराध्यारोपितकर्तृत्वः शरीरस्थितिमात्रप्रयोजनं भिक्षाटनादिकं कर्म कृत्वापि न निबध्यते बन्धहेतोः कर्मणः सहेतुकस्य ज्ञानाग्निना दग्धत्वात् इति | BGh. 4.22

Even though *others* attribute (para adhyAropita) to him the act of doing (doership) for the reason of his begging etc. — no matter that it is for the mere maintenance of the body — he is not bound, for action which is productive of bondage together with its root cause has been burnt clean in the fire of knowledge [i.e. true knowledge].

In that context, one SSSS Footnote (Fn) says:

2.ಶರೀರ, ವಾಕ್ಕು, ಮನಸ್ಸು – ಇವುಗಳಿಂದ ಮಾಡುವ ಈ ಕರ್ಮಗಳು ಬರಿಯ ವ್ಯಾಪಾರಮಾತ್ರವಾಗಿ ತನಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧವಿಲ್ಲವೆಂದು ಜ್ಞಾನಿಯು ತಿಳಿದಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ.

“The jNAnI understands that actions performed through the body, speech, and mind are merely transactions and do not truly belong to him.”

[Personal note 2: parAdhyAropitakartRtvaH: *whose doership is only falsely attributed by others* is nothing but vyAvahArika/avidyA dRRiShTi].

Sri Sri SatChidAnandendra SarasvatI (SSSS) in vedAntaprakriyApratyabhijnA writes:

एतादृशज्ञानिनः बाधितानुवृत्त्या मिथ्याज्ञानानुवृत्तेः सत्त्वेऽपि तज्ज्ञानस्य न काचित् क्षतिः. यथैव तस्य कर्मणः लोकसंग्रहार्थत्वेऽपि तस्य कर्मबन्धाभावः, तद्वत् तत्कृतोपदेशेन मुमुक्षुजनानुग्रहेऽपि न तस्मिन् अपि तस्य वास्तविकं कर्तृत्वम् अस्ति

“There is no break (loss) in the knowledge of the Self of such a jNAnI, even though he conforms to the erroneous vision of the world, for he is merely conforming to what he knows to be an error. Such a person’s actions do not involve him in merit and demerit and consequent further transmigratory experience, as they are performed only for the welfare of the people. And if he gives spiritual teaching, it is only to help seekers of liberation. Even here, he does not feel that, in the final analysis, he is an individual person performing an action.” (MoV, p. 156, English ed. by AJ Alston).

*************************************************

(b) I might also point to Sri SureshvarAchArya’s Naishkarmya Siddhi 4.51 and 4.53 and commentaries such as SSSS’s KlesApahArinI, but also Sri JnAnottama’s ChandrikA and Sri Chitsukhacharya’s BhAva Tattva PrakAshikA (latter two pertaining to Post-Shankara).

स एष विद्वान्हानोपादानशून्यमात्मानमात्मनि पश्यन् ।

सर्वमेवानुजानाति सर्वमेव निषेधति ।

भेदात्मलाभोऽनुज्ञा स्यान्निषेधोऽतत्स्वभावतः ॥ ५१॥

“This man of enlightenment, seeing within himself the Self (‘seeing the Self’ Alston), not subject to acceptance or rejection, [conducts himself as follows]. [This man of enlightenment] accepts everything and rejects everything. Acceptance is admission of the world of duality [from the empirical standpoint], and rejection is [its denial] on account of its not being real.” (R. Balasubramanian ji’s translation).

Sri Chitsukhacharya is on point when he writes (on 4.51):

विदुषोऽनुभवप्रकारमिदानीं दर्शयति स एष इति । कथमेतद्विरुद्धमभिधीयत इति ? आहभेदेति । व्यवहारदृष्ट्या द्वैतप्रपञ्चस्य स्वरूपलाभोऽनुज्ञा तत्त्वदृष्ट्या तदभावो निषेध इत्यर्थः । । ५१

“He now shows the manner of the knower’s (jNAnI) experience (by saying) ‘this man of enlightenment’. How can this contradiction be asserted? [He replies] because of bheda (here, rather apparent distinction). From the empirical viewpoint, the dualistic world is accepted; from the standpoint of [absolute] truth, its rejection [non-existence or unreality], is the negation — that is the meaning.”

SSSS Mahaswamiji not much different here (on 4.51):

यथा लोके शुक्तितत्त्वं विजानन्नपि ऽशुक्तिका रजतवत् अवभासतेऽ इति व्यवहर्तुं शक्नोति बाधितानुवृत्त्या, एवम् अयम् अपि सर्वमेवभेदस्य स्वरूपलाभम् अनुजानाति, स्वस्य तु दृष्ट्या नित्यनिर्भेदस्वभावतः मद्व्यतिरिक्तं न किञ्चिदप्यस्तीत्यपि व्यवहरतीत्यदोष इत्यभिप्रायः |

(KlesApahArinI SKT version, p. 526)

“Just as in the world, even while knowing the truth of the shell (śukti‑tattvam), due to bAdhita‑anuvRtti one can say ‘the shell appears like silver’, so too, this (jNAnI) accepts the appearance of difference to have a (provisional) form (svarūpa‑lābha) in entirety. “But from his own standpoint, due to the nature of being eternally and devoid of difference [non-dual], he behaves [in that sense of] ‘there is absolutely nothing apart from me (i.e. AtmA).’ There is no fault in this — this is the intended meaning.”

Also another gem, Naishkarmya Siddhi 4.53:

एतावदिहोक्तम् । नेहात्मविन्मदन्योऽस्ति न मत्तोऽज्ञोऽस्ति कश्चन । इत्यजानन्विजानाति यस्स ब्रह्मविदुत्तमः ॥ ५३

“What has been said here culminates in: “There is no other Self-knower (jNAnI) but I, and no other ignorant one but myself” — he who has this feeling [or realizes] is the highest knower of the Absolute (brahman), though (in the worldly sense) he is not a “knower” at all.” (R. Balasubramanian, AJ Alston, edited).

*************************************************

prArabdha karma is prArabdha karma AbhAsa and that itself parAdhyAropitam (that which is superimposed by someone else)!

(c) In bRhadAraNyakopanishad bhAshya 1.4.10, there is a famous explanation:

तच्छेषस्थितिहेतुत्वात् — येन कर्मणा शरीरमारब्धं तत् , विपरीतप्रत्ययदोषनिमित्तत्वात् तस्य तथाभूतस्यैव विपरीतप्रत्ययदोषसंयुक्तस्य फलदाने सामर्थ्यमिति, यावत् शरीरपातः तावत्फलोपभोगाङ्गतया विपरीतप्रत्ययं रागादिदोषं च तावन्मात्रमाक्षिपत्येव — मुक्तेषुवत् प्रवृत्तफलत्वात् तद्धेतुकस्य कर्मणः . तेन न तस्य निवर्तिका विद्या, अविरोधात्; किं तर्हि स्वाश्रयादेव स्वात्मविरोधि अविद्याकार्यं यदुत्पित्सु तन्निरुणद्धि, अनागतत्वात्; अतीतं हि इतरत् [१]. किञ्च न च विपरीतप्रत्ययो विद्यावत उत्पद्यते, निर्विषयत्वात् –

…for the residue of action known as prArabdha karma is the cause of the continuance of the body (even) after the dawn of knowledge. The action on account of which the body has come into being, since it has sprung up from a consciousness of an opposite nature and the evils (of attachment and the rest), is able to yield result only in accordance with the above, that is to say, as associated with the defect of that consciousness and evils. As such, until such time as the body falls, it goes on yielding, as part of one’s enjoyment of the fruits of past actions, so much of false notions and evils of attachment etc., for the actions of the past which brought into being this body, have begun to yield fruit like an arrow already shot. Hence knowledge does not stop it, for it is not opposed to it. Then what does it do? It stops the effects of ignorance which clings to it, i.e. the effects which are opposed to it and which are about to show forth themselves but have not yet appeared. But the other (prArabdha) is that which has appeared already. Moreover, there arises NO MORE false notion in the enlightened one (jNAnI), since there is no object for it.

Fn by SSSS:

[1] If it is said that (true) knowledge does not eliminate prArabdha karma, it means that it does not prevent its results from appearing. It does not mean that it cannot eliminate false knowledge (mithyA–jNAnam, avidyA). See Brahma SUtra Bhashya 4.1.15. It is stated here that prArabdha karma produces both false notions and defects like attachment. This refers to the appearance of (false) notions (pratyayAbhAsa) and the appearance of defects like attachment (rAgAdyAbhAsa), which will be clarified in the next sentence.

(BrihadUP Vol. 1 by SSSS Mahawamiji, p. 337)

*************************************************

(d) IMPORTANT points to note are:

1.) Does the mukta/jnani see the world? This question itself is mithyA pratyaya (a wrong idea). Why? Both *a world* AND and a *jNAnI* CANNOT co-exist, in the same way as AtmA/Brahman AND the *world* cannot co-exist (no matter how lovely that might sound for some). Whoever considers himself as *jNAnI* and says: “I see a world as jNAnI“, he or she IS NOT a jNAnI* according to Adi Shankara. In the vision of Advaita, the siddhAnta says: There is ONLY AtmA/brahman, which means, NO jNAnI, no world, and no ajNAnI too. Because AtmA eva vidyate.

So (for a jNAnI) even the possibility for appearances to arise is no longer possible because BEING AtmA/brahman, appearances are equally nothing but AtmA/brahman, hence, actually NO appearances. An example: Water (of an ocean) CANNOT claim: “I, as water, see the rise and fall of wave-apperances”, because what exists is water alone.

2.) jNAnI == IS brahman, so speaking of jNAnI is part of the shastra/teachings/tradition because that aligns and is for the benefit of the (confused) student only. jnAni lakshaNas are at most upacAra (figurative).

3.) There is NO way ever to *see* or *understand* what a so-called mukta/jNAnI might *see*, or to prove that person X is a jNAnI. Why? Because jNAnI or sthitaprajna lakShaNa IS NOT pramANa.

Adi Shankara clearly says (asked rhetorically) in BSB 4.1.15:

अपि च नैवात्र विवदितव्यम् — ब्रह्मविदा कञ्चित्कालं शरीरं ध्रियते न वा ध्रियत इत् . कथं हि एकस्य स्वहृदयप्रत्ययं ब्रह्मवेदनं देहधारणं च अपरेण प्रतिक्षेप्तुं शक्येत? श्रुतिस्मृतिषु च स्थितप्रज्ञलक्षणनिर्देशेन एतदेव निरुच्यते

“Moreover it is not a matter for dispute at all whether the body of him who knows brahman continues to exist for some time or not. For how can one man contest the fact of another possessing the knowledge of brahman, vouched for by his heart’s conviction, and at the same time continuing to enjoy bodily existence? This very fact is elaborated in Sruthis (Upanishads) and the Smrithis in the same course of determining the characteristics (sthitaprajna lakShaNa) of ‘the man of steady wisdom’.” (Trans: V. Panoli).

[Note: The text of this post is copied from a Social Network site by me and posted here just for wider information. It may contain some inadvertent typos etc. which may please be condoned — ramesam.]