The Jiva, as a thinker/doer/experiencer is tossed in the dualities of samsara – pain and pleasure, good and bad, right and wrong, ignorance and enlightenment. As a Jiva, he is always trying to “become”: become good, become better, become knowledgeable, become detached, become enlightened.
However, with the rise of Jnana, his perception shifts from duality to non-duality instantaneously. Knowing his essential nature to be Self, the Jiva becomes a Jnani freed from all notions of duality. This freedom and perfection is instantaneous with the rise of direct Knowledge. Freed from the notion of being a thinker/doer/experiencer, the Jnani is freed not only from all notions of becoming but also from all works, including the notion of good works and bad works.
Thereafter, there is nothing left for the Jnani to attain or lose, in any way, no matter what acts are seen to be performed by him. While others may judge his acts in terms of duality – such as good and bad, he knows that he does nothing and that all acts are Self. The body of the Jnani carries on till his prarabdha karma exhausts and it finally drops. Then he attains videha-mukti.
This is a true account of the rise of Jnana and the status of a Jnani. But many people find themselves in disagreement with many facts stated in this account. To dispel their doubts I am writing this article, quoting passages from Chapter 4 – Results of Knowledge (Jnana Phala), Brahma Sutra Bhashya of Shankaracharya (Translation by Swami Gambhirananda), addressing all erroneous notions.
In the comments following the Question and Answer on the subject of mAyA and Ishvara – Q.325, Peter and I began the following exchange on the subject of ‘reflection of Consciousness’ (between the <<< >>> marks below). We continued this discussion off-line. Now that this has been concluded, we are posting the discussion so that others may, perhaps, benefit from the clarification that ensued.
PB: 2. The easiest misunderstanding to resolve is the distinction between ‘original consciousness’ and ‘reflected consciousness’: there is NO difference. To explain this we are given the analogy of light. Any opaque object is seen because it reflects light. One can say that the light reaching our eyes from the object is ‘reflected light’. But what is the difference between ‘reflected light’ and ‘original light’? There is no difference: light is light. ‘Reflected light’ is merely the name given to ‘original light’ seen together with a reflecting medium (the object). In the same way, ‘reflected consciousness’ is the name given to ‘original consciousness’ seen together with the reflecting medium of the perceptible gross and subtle universe. ‘Original consciousness’ is given the name Brahman. Continue reading →
Although science is good at investigating objects, even there it is doomed to fail – because the essence of objects, too, is ultimately the same non-dual reality. As Atmananda Krishna Menon puts it, in his ‘Notes on Spiritual Discourses’: “As long as the least trace of subjectivity remains, objectivity cannot disappear. And until objectivity disappears completely, the real nature of the object can never be visualized. This is the fundamental error committed by science as well as philosophy, both in India and outside, in trying to approach the Truth through the medium of the mind.” (Vol 3 Notes, 1386)
Notes on Spiritual Discourses of Shri Atmananda: Volumes 1, 2 and 3, Shri Atmananda and Nitya Tripta, Non-Duality Press 2009, ISBN 978-0956309129 (Vol 1) Buy from Amazon US or Amazon UK. Continue reading →