The Enlightened Eminently Engage in Empirical Endeavours

[Guest guest]

Dear Members:

 

We are pleased to forward this important message from Subbuji, an

Alumni member of Advaitin List and a great devotee of Adi

Sankaracharya. His observations on the recent discussions are

rigorous and insightful. He has provided authoritative sources with

very clear exposition on the position of Sankara and we believe that

members will be benefitted by this message.

 

On behalf of all of you, we want to express our sincere thanks for

taking his time to express his valuable observations. Members are

welcome to provide their feed back but be aware that Subbuji is not

interested in debating.

 

Members who are interested in reading Subbuji's homepage can click on

the link:

http://www.advaitin.net/Subramaniam/

 

Advaitin List Moderators

 

----- Forwarded Message ----

V Subrahmanian <subrahmanian_v

Wednesday, February 25, 2009 5:48:56 AM

Sharing some thoughts with you all

 

Namaste.

 

Recently during one of my afternoon soujourns of the internet I

chanced to see a topic: 'Enlighened Empirical Engagements' being

discussed in the advaitin forum. Upon reading some of the posts on

this sensational topic I derived a lot of amusement. Not wanting to

rest with just this value, I decided to put down my thoughts on the

subject from the Scriptural angle. The result of this exercise is

what you will be seeing in the attached document.

 

As I know most of the participants in this discussion, I am sending

this to a number of them. In case any one of you feels that this

document should be published in the List, you may do so with one

condition: The author is not available for discussion on this.

 

With warm regards,

subrahmanian.v

Obeisance to the Auspicious Guru

The Enlightened Eminently Engage in Empirical Endeavours

 

An inviolable Law of Vedanta is:

 

//One who denies a BMI for a Jnani denies a Jnani.

He who denies a Jnani denies himself the Liberating Jnana.//

 

It is the conclusion of Shankara in Gita verse 4.38:

 

//..By this the Lord means to say that that Knowledge alone which is

imparted by those who have realized the Truth – and no other

knowledge – can prove effective.//

 

In this verse the Lord teaches that the aspirant has to approach a

Jnani, bow to him, serve him and pose questions on the Atman. If

there was no BMI to a Jnani how can one implement the Lord's

instruction?

 

We encounter two types of teaching in the Scripture and Shankara's

commentaries. For example, in the Brahmasutra Bhashya we find these

two typical teachings:

 

Teaching 1: `The embodiedness of the Self is caused by wrong

conception and so the person who has reached true knowledge is free

from his body even while still alive (Brahma sutra bhashya 1.1.4).

[This is termed `sadyomukti' or instant liberation]

 

 

Teaching 2: [sutra bhashya 41.15]`'The knowledge of the Self being

essentially non-active destroys all works by sublating wrong

knowledge; but wrong knowledge – comparable to the appearance of a

double moon – lasts for some time even after it has been sublated,

owing to the impression it has made. Moreover, it is not a matter

for dispute at all whether the body of the Knower of Brahman

continues to exist for sometime or not. For how can one contest the

fact of another possessing the knowledge of Brahman – vouched for by

his heart's conviction – and at the same time continuing with the

body?'' This alone has been elaborated in the Shruti and Smriti in

the form of teaching of the Sthitaprajna (Man of steady Knowledge).

[Here we have the `jivanmukti' or liberation while alive being

depicted]

 

Now, are these two teachings contradictory? Far from it. They are

actually complementary to each other. Nor are they two optional

types of teaching where one can choose one and leave out the other.

In simple terms, Teaching 1 is the depiction of the Absolute State of

Brahman-Atman, the true state of the jiva. That state is the Goal,

the end to be attained. Teaching 2 is the means to this end. Since

the two teachings are related as means and end, they cannot be

contradictory or optional. An aspirant, Mumukshu, has to be well

informed and be clearly aware of teaching 1, the Goal. Keeping this

end in mind, he has to internalize that teaching through the medium

of the teaching 2. Why is this so? It is because unless he is able

to relate the Teaching 2 in terms of living it, he cannot attain the

goal specified in teaching 1.

 

Some Parallels:

We can see some parallels in scriptural literature regarding the

above concept of two types of teaching. In the Bhagavad Gita, for

example, in the second chapter the Lord teaches the nature of the

Self. Atman is not born, never dies, can never be cut, wet, burnt,

etc., It is Immutable. This is teaching 1. Soon after this, in this

very chapter the Lord, upon a question from Arjuna, gives out the

seminal teaching of the Sthitaprajna (the Jivanmukta) the traits of a

Man of Steady Knowledge. This is teaching 2. The Lord knows that

unless teaching 1 is demonstrated in the life of a human, it is

impossible to grasp, work for and attain it. This teaching 2 is

further elucidated with more traits and examples in the 12 chapter

(parA Bhakta) and the 14th chapter (GuNAteeta). In the 14th ch.

Arjuna asks for the specific marks of a guNAteeta in order to

internalize them. And Krishna gives out those specific marks.

Another parallel can be seen in the Acharya's Brahmasutra Bhashya

itself. The adhyAsa Bhashya, the preamble, contains the teaching 1.

Herein the Acharya makes the categorical statement that the problem

of samsara, embodiedness (BMI), and the means to get out of it, viz.,

the scripture teaching Liberation, all are within the realm of avidya

alone. The Self is free of the BMI and therefore cannot have any

transaction based on pramatru, pramana and prameya (the triad of

knower-knowing-knowable).

 

After explicitly proclaiming that the Moksha Shastra, the Veda, too

operates in the realm of avidya alone, Shankara, in the rest of the

Sutra bhashya, embarks upon a detailed, brilliant analysis of the

very Vedic passages in their hundreds. He does not create a divide

between the teaching 1 of the Atman being unconnected to anything,

even the veda, and the very relevance of the veda as applicable to

the human in bondage. He makes the rest of the Sutrabhashya an

unmatched teaching no.2 where the various aspects of the Veda as

relevant to the life of the human in bondage. Thus Shankara strikes

the Gita-type, Upanishad-type, even BrahmaSutra-type relationship

of `Goal and Means' between teaching 1 and 2. Two instances of these

types we saw already quoted above.

 

Why is the teaching of jivanmukti (which can never be divorced from

the concept of prArabdha) so crucial to the Knowledge of Brahman?

Shankara answers this question in the Gita Bhashya 2.55:

 

//All over the Scripture the characteristics of one who is

established in Brahman that are mentioned are the very means for

attaining that state, for this is attainable by effort.//

 

That shows that teaching 2 cannot be brushed aside as something

unimportant or comparatively `lower' in gradation compared to

teaching 1. Attaining Brahman Knowledge depends upon practicing the

jivanmukta traits. It is a sine qua non. If such were not the case,

the Scripture and Shankara would have stopped with just mentioning

the nature of Brahman. That would have meant that there have to be

just the first two chapters of Brahmasutra – the samanvaya and

avirodha. The third and fourth – saadhana and phala – could have

been eliminated. But Vyasacharya takes pain to include these two

chapters and Shankara comments on those two chapters too. Again,

Lord Krishna need not have cared to teach the traits of the

Jivanmukta if He had found them useless and could have stopped with

the Atman-nature teaching in the second chapter.

 

Nowhere does Shankara or Vyasacharya or Krishna say that the

Jivanmukta and his conduct is the imagination of the ajnani. On the

other hand they all insist that it is imperative on the part of the

seeker to give the utmost attention to the jivanmukta and his

conduct, for this and this alone will give mukti. Teaching 1 is

incomplete and impossible in the absence of teaching 2. Again,

teaching 2 by itself will not be effective unless teaching 1 is

imbibed free of doubt and misconception.

Sri Sureshwaracharya solves the problem

 

[The following essay is largely adapted from the explanatory notes

appearing in the book titled `The Naishkarmyasiddhi of Sureshvara',

Madras University Philosophical series No. 47 – General Editor:

Dr.R.Balasubramanian , Director, Radhakrishnan Institute for Advanced

Study in Philosophy, 1988]

 

The question of the Jnani's action or otherwise has been variously

discussed. Sri Sureshwaracharya in his Naishkarmyasiddhi handles

this question in a deft manner, in accordance with the Advaitic

tenets, and without contradicting Shankara.

 

A question about the conduct of the man of wisdom was raised by him

in the verse 4.54: whether a jnani would be governed by scriptural

injunctions and prohibitions, or whether he would behave according to

his likes. He answered this question by saying that, since the man

of enlightenment has no sense of `I' and `mine', and has no more

identification with the BMI complex after the destruction of avidya,

there remains nothing to be accomplished by him by following

scriptural injunctions and prohibitions and that moral laxity is

inconceivable in his case. The man of enlightenment who has realized

the Self and who remains as the Self is no more embodied, even though

he is living, since wrong knowledge which is the cause of embodiment

has been removed. In the words of Shankara `The embodiedness of

the Self is caused by wrong conception and so the person who has

reached true knowledge is free from his body even while still alive

(Brahma sutra bhashya 1.1.4).

 

Sureshvara says in the introduction to verse 4.60 of

Naishkarmyasiddhi that there is another traditional, , sAmpradAyika,

answer to the same question. Though the knower of Brahman is not

bound by the aggregate of BMI and is, therefore, disembodied from his

own perspective, yet from the vyavaharika perspective the body which

has been sublated as false continues for sometime till the exhaustion

of prarabdha karma through experience. Sureshwara drives home the

point by calling our attention to the experience of fear and

trembling which continue for some time even after the removal of the

illusion of the snake by the knowledge of the object in front as

rope. This is called bAdhitanuvritti. In the same way, the

continuance of the BMI complex after the sublation of avidya by the

knowledge of the Self is a case of badhitaanuvritti. It may be noted

that there is no incompatibility between the continuance of the BMI

complex and liberation. …Its continuance itself is not bondage. On

the contrary, attachment to the BMI is bondage. The Jnani certainly

has no such attachment to the BMI. Such a Jnani who is liberated in

life plays the role of a preceptor, AchArya, and is engaged in action

of his own accord for the sake of lokasangraha, for the preservation

of the world-order, for social service, without the sense of `I'

and `mine'. What Shankara says in His commentary on the Brahma sutra

4.1.15 is worth quoting here:

 

`'The knowledge of the Self being essentially non-active destroys all

works by sublating wrong knowledge; but wrong knowledge – comparable

to the appearance of a double moon – lasts for some time even after

it has been sublated, owing to the impression it has made. Moreover,

it is not a matter for dispute at all whether the body of the Knower

of Brahman continues to exist for sometime or not. For how can one

contest the fact of another possessing the knowledge of Brahman –

vouched for by his heart's conviction – and at the same time

continuing with the body?''

 

The next verse (4.61) of N siddhi is:

 

//Just as the destruction of an uprooted tree takes place only

through the process of withering away, even so the destruction of the

body of the one who has known the Self takes place only through the

removal (of prarabdha karma).//

 

In this context, it would be relevant to see what Sureshwaracharya

says in 4.51:

This man of enlightenment, seeing within himself the Self, not

subject to acceptance or rejection, [conducts himself as follows]:

 

//He 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.//

 

If one keeps in mind the distinction between tattva drishti and

vyavahara drishti,, the distinction between the perspective of

reality and that of the empirical world, one will notice that there

is no inconsistency in Sureshwara's position. Since the man of

knowledge knows the truth, he rejects the world of plurality as non-

real. A person who knows the shell is no more deceived by the

appearance of silver therein, and is in a position to speak of the

shell-silver; even so the man of wisdom knows that it is

BrahmanAtman which appears as the world of plurality. It means that

he accepts the pluralistic universe as an appearance, ie, as

empirically real. Since `acceptance' and `rejection' are from two

different standpoints, there is no defect of inconsistency in

Sureshwara's statement.

 

Moreover, this above stand of the Jnani's vision of the Truth and at

the same time the interaction with the world is accepted by

Shankara. In His commentary to the BhagavadGita verse 2.16, Shankara

concludes by giving out the message of the verse:

 

// Thus, taking recourse to the way the Jnanis adopt, Arjuna, you

too practice forbearance of the opposites viewing them as `these are

really nonexistent, yet they appear to be real'.//

 

Thus Shankara unambiguously states that the Jnanis perceive the world

but with the clear understanding that it is a mere appearance without

any reality of its own.

 

It is in the light of the foregoing that some verses (denying the

concept of prArabdha ) of the Aparokshanubhuti are to be understood.

Clearly, these verses denying prarabdha to the Jnani, are from the

Jnani's drishti, or tattva drishti (teaching 1). That which has been

stated by Shankara in the prasthanatraya Bhashya categorically in

over a dozen places affirming the fact of Jnani's prarabdha (teaching

2) are to be seen, undoubtedly, from the vyavahara drishti. Shankara

never confuses the aspirants. A competent Acharya would make it

clear to the aspirant the difference in the two standpoints and

remove the confusion that could perhaps arise reading the two

apparently contradictory teachings given out by Shankara.

In fact, the verse preceding the `denial' of prarabdha in

Aparokshanubhuti reads:

 

//Oh Bright one! Never losing sight of Self-Knowledge, live the rest

of the life experiencing the prarabdha in its entirety. While doing

so never give room for anger, grief, etc. // 86.

 

This verse is essentially the teaching 2. How? See the crucial

word `anger, etc.' This is known as `udvega' in Sanskrit. One can

see this word occuring in the Gita multiple times in the context of

jivanmukta lakshana.

 

The verses following the above verse in Aparokshanubhuti constitute

the teaching 1. In this case, it is only that teaching 2 precedes

teaching 1. Nevertheless, the teaching is not confusing either.

What is to be noted is that when prArabdha is denied in the

pAramarthic sense, it is definitely emphasized in the vyavaharic

sense. Why is this? Is it not that we have to give up the

vyavaharic and get hold of the paramarthic? True. But it is

impossible to give up the vyavaharic unless it is sublimated to

naturally dove-tail into the paramarthic. That is the reason why

jivanmukti is inevitable for the attainment of sadyomukti. Thus,

there is absolutely no contradiction in the Aparokshanubhuti with the

other statements of Shankara emphasizing prArarbdha, both in this

work and in His other works. In fact the Vivekachudamani (verses

450 onwards) too denies prArabdha from the ultimate standpoint. The

commentary of the Renowned Jivanmukta Acharya Sri Chandrashekhara

Bharati Swamiji of Sringeri could be read for these verses. The

Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan has brought out an English translation of this

work.

 

Shankara emphasizes the prArabdha concept even in His

SopAna/sAdhana/upadesha panchaka, the Manisha panchaka, the Kaupina

panchaka etc.

 

A synopsis of the above discussion:

• A Jnani has the tattvadrishti, the absolute, paramarthika,

view of the Self that he is never embodied. He has the knowledge of

the unreality of the world that he lives in and interacts with. This

is the vyavaharika drishti.

 

• Prarabdha is admitted to a Jnani by Shankara and Sureshwara

only from the vyavaharika standpoint. This is because even the

concept of a Jnani is relative. For, we find in the Gaudapadakarika

a verse: na nirodho na cha utpatti….(From the absolute, pAramarthika

viewpoint, there is no creation, no dissolution, no seeker, no

bondage, no liberated.)

 

• It is only the lack of discrimination between the two clearly

different standpoints adopted by the scripture and the Acharyas that

creates confusion.

 

• Seen from the two standpoints, the dozens of statements of

the Acharyas can be neatly docketed in the appropriate slots without

overlapping and contradicting.

 

• Shankara says in the BG verse `upadekshyanti te jnanam' that

the teaching received from a Jnani alone will be fruitful. This

comment of Shankara speaks volumes of His/the scriptural view of the

Jnani operating with a BMI.

Peace be to All

 

Essay 2

EMPIRICAL ENGAGEMENTS BY THE ENLIGHTENED IS AN UNDENIABLE FACT

 

We have incontrovertible evidence from the following sources for the

fact of the Enlightened (jnani) engaging in the empirical

transactions with a localized BMI:

1. Shruti

2. Smriti

3. Sutra (brahmasutra)

4. Shankara

5. Sureshwara

6. Logic (yukti)

7. Experience (anubhava)

We shall consider some instances from these:

 

Shruti:

• The Taittiriya Upanishad teaches that the Source from which

all these beings have emerged, their ground of sustenance and the

abode into which these lapse in dissolution is Brahman. Brahman is

the Creator, Sustainer and Destroyer of the world. Surely, this is

the highest order of empirical engagement. And this is Brahman's

function. None can question Brahman's Enlightened status. Shankara

establishes in Brihadaranyaka Up. 1.4.10 where occurs the famous

Mahavakya `aham Brahma asmi' that it is Brahman that `acquires' this

realization and thereupon attains the Universal Self status.

 

• In the Vishnu sahasranama, a collection of a thousand names

of Lord Vishnu, there occurs a name `Brahmavit', `Knower of

Brahman'. Lord Vishnu is admitted to be the Creator, Sustainer and

Destroyer of the universe.

 

• Shankara addresses Lord Shiva in the ShivAnanda Lahari

as `Adi KuTumbiNe' meaning `Oh Foremost Family-man!'. Surely none

can question the enlightenment of Lord Shiva.

 

• One might object: These are all mere scriptural statements.

Who has seen the Creator Lord with a BMI? The reply is found in the

Bhagavad Gita. Arjuna had the greatest good fortune of beholding the

Lord both in His individual, localized BMI form and also in His

Universal BMI Form. Ch. 11.45,46 are proof for this. Brahman, as

Lord Krishna was born from a womb, grew up eating, played with the

cowherdesses, fought wars, was injured and finally left His mortal

body. All this was possible only because He had a localized, but

highly powerful BMI.

 

• In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad there is the AjAtashatru

BrAhmaNam (II.i). AjAtashatru, a Kshatriya, a Jnani, is the King.

He is approached by a Brahmana named BAlAki, a conceited one, priding

himself with an assumed Brahman-Knowledge. He visits the King and

offers to teach him Atma vidya and only ends up as the King

AjAtashatru's disciple. In the course of the discourse between them

AjAtashatru holds Baalaaki by hand and leads him to a sleeping man

for conducting some experiments. This episode in the Upanishad

proves that : the Jnani Ajaatashatru had a body, could be a King

engaged in empirical duties, had a hand, had eyes, ears, a mouth to

talk to Baalaaki and a mind to process the info. received from B and

to reply to B. He had legs to walk to the sleeping man, etc. By

implication, this Jnani had a stomach which he filled now and then to

stay alive. He had prAna too, so that he could be alive. [Although

the Upanishad does not specifically mention these things, we, in our

deep ajnAna of the Vedanta shastra, are required to `Discover' them

in order to convince ourselves that the Jnani operates with a

localized BMI!! What a pity!!]

 

• In the same Upanishad we have Sage Yajnavalkya, a Jnani who

taught King Janaka who also became a Jnani owing to the teaching. Y

was a householder, was extremely wealthy and had two wives named

KatyAyani and Maitreyi. Some of the finest teachings on Atman

emerged from his discourse with Maitreyi. This episode also proves

that a Jnani has a localized BMI and operates through that

equipment. (hands, feet, mouth, etc. are also to be `discovered' by

us). Y and J undoubtedly enlightened ones, did engage in empirical

transactions.

 

• King Janaka becomes enlightened by the teaching of Y. Y

makes the famous statement: `abhayam vai janaka prAptosi' (O Jananka,

you have attained Fearlessness). Soon after this statement, J

replies to Y offering, nay keeping the entirety of his Kingly

possessions at the feet of Y for his own use. This shows that a

Jnani, Janaka, can and will respond to a name even after

realization. He will not turn a deaf ear to names addressed to him

just because of his realization of the All-pervading, nirguNa Brahman

as his very self.

 

• This also shows that a BMI for a Jnani is not projected by

the ajnanis. Sage Y was Himself a Jnani. He addressed and conversed

with Janaka even after Janaka was enlightened.

 

• In the Valmiki Ramayana there is an occasion when Rama

declares: `AtmAnam mAnuSham manye rAmam dasharatAtmajam' [i regard

myself a human named Rama, the son of Dasharatha ] Despite the Lord

declaring Himself, in all His humility, to be a mere human, with a

name and an identity relating Himself as a son of …., does it in any

way affect the Supremely Realized status of the Lord?

 

• In the Chandogya Upanishad we have the episode of UddAlaka, a

father, a Jnani, discoursing with Shvetaketu, his son. The

famous `Tat tvam asi' teaching is a result of this discourse.

Evidently U engaged in empirical duties and had a localized BMI.

Shvetaketu too became a Jnani, as per the Upanishad.

 

• In this very Upanishad we have the Narada and Sanatkumara

discourse. Sanatkumara is a Jnani approached by Narada. S, over a

long dialogue gives out the teaching to N. Evidently, S had a BMI,

ears, mouth, mind, etc. to our great surprise.

 

• In the Taittiriya Upanishad we have the father VaruNa, a

Jnani, teaching his son Bhrigu, the Self-knowledge. Again, V should

have had a localized BMI, to our utter surprise, in order to

successfully communicate with his son, who became a Jnani.

 

• Bhrigu, sings in great joy, the Eureka, in the words `Aham

annam, aham annam, aham annam..' expressing his attainment of Atman

knowledge. Surely, he must have had a mouth, vocal cords, mind,

prana, etc. to be alive to give expression to it after attaining

Jnana.

• In the Kathopanishad, the Acharya is none other than Lord

Yama, the Lord of Death. He imparts Self-knowledge to Nachiketas.

Yama, the Jnani, is engaged in the busiest empirical duty, of

administering death to the multitudes of beings! The Upanishad speaks

of a dialogue between Yama and Nachiketas. Initially, Yama, in

atonement for having made Nachiketas wait for three days without food

and water, in all humility, washes Nachiketas' feet and offers

worship for this young Brahmana. Y is asked to do this by his women

folk. In appreciation of N's sharp intellect, Y gifts him an

ornament of high value, from what He himself is wearing. All these

events show that Y, the Enlightened, had a body, hands, eyes, mouth,

a virtue-filled mind, etc.

 

We shall take up the Smriti evidence for the Jnani's engaging in

empirical duties:

 

• The Gita is replete with the proof of the Jnani having a

localized BMI. For instance, in the 3rd ch. Krishna teaches that a

Jnani should not unsettle the ignorant people who are wedded to karma

alone (3.25, 26). He says the Jnani should be a role-model to the

ignorant ones by devoutly engaging himself in the scripturally

ordained karma, of course, with the full realization that he is not

the doer.

 

• In 3.20 He says: Janaka, etc. were engaged in Karma. So you

too, Arjuna, do not give up karma. Shankara comments: The wise

(Jnani) Kshatriyas of old, such as Janaka and Ashvapati tried by

action alone to attain Moksha.

 

• In 3.24/25 Shankara comments: Suppose, you or any other man

thinks that he has achieved his ends and has realized the Self, even

he should work for the welfare of others, though for himself he may

have nothing to do.

 

• In 3.22 the Blessed Lord shows Himself as an example. Says

He: I have nothing whatsoever to achieve in the three worlds…. yet I

engage in action.

 

• In verse 2.55, 56 we have the depiction of a Man of Steady

Knowledge: He has a mind that is not tormented by misery, not elated

in joy, etc. `duHkeShu anudvigna manaaH'. This shows that the

Enlightened has a mind. Only when there is the possibility of

misery, joy, etc. occurring, can there be the question of not being

affected by them. Another word here is: manOgatAn kAmAn, that is he

rids the mind of all the desires. This also shows that the Jnani has

a mind. And it is a localized one. How do we assert this? When a

Jnani rids his mind of desires, other ajnAni's do not experience that

their minds are also rid of desires. This is proof of the localized

state of the Jnani's mind.

 

• BG 2.61 says that he whose sense organs are controlled is a

sthitaprajna. This shows that the Enlightened one has sense organs,

indriyas. And these are essentially localized. Proof? When his

sense organs are controlled, the other ajnanis who have not done that

do not experience the benefit of calm.

 

• BG 6.20 uses a word `sthira buddhiH' showing that the Jnani

has an intellect that is firm. This is also essentially localized.

Proof? When he has a firm intellect, the ajnanins who have not a

firm intellect do not experience the Steadiness of Knowledge.

 

• BG 6.22 says: `When having obtained It (the Knowledge of

Self), he thinks no other acquisition superior to It; when, therein

established, he is not moved even by a great pain.' Shankara

comments: Pain: such as may be caused by a sword-cut, etc. This shows

that the Jnani has a physical body. Proof? A sword-cut can be

inflicted only on a physical body. And this is essentially

localized. For, when the Jnani gets a sword-cut, as for example when

Ramana was hit by the thieves, the others around do not experience

the pain.

 

The above instances prove to us that a Jnani has a localized Body,

sense organs, mind and intellect and works in the world without any

attachment.

 

There is the instance of a Jnani, Dharma VyAdha, described in the

Mahabharata. He was a butcher. Certainly, a butcher's job is an

empirical engagement. He too must have had a physical body, hands to

cut the animal flesh, a mind to sell the meat and take the money,

etc. All these must have been localized ones only. He had parents

whom he served with great devotion. When he was engaged as a

butcher, certainly his parents did not experience that they were also

cutting the meat, etc. This shows that that Jnani's BMI was

localized.

 

Let us see some instances of the Enlightened one's empirical

engagements as mentioned in the Brahma sutras:

The sutra `yAvadadhikAram avasthitiH…' (3.3.32) says: For liberated

beings with a mission, there is corporeal existence as long as the

mission demands it. One could read the commentary to get more

details.

 

Sutra 4.1.19 says: `But exhausting the other two through experiencing

them one merges in Brahman.' Shankara says: That the dualistic

vision lasts before the fall of the body (for the enlightened person)

is because of the need of exhausting the remaining portion of the

prArabdha through experience. But after death there is no such

dualistic vision.

 

This shows that the enlightened one will continue in the BMI,

localized, experiencing the fruit of the prArabdha. He will continue

to experience duality (although with the firm realization of its

unreality) till the fall of the body. This quote from Shankara also

teaches us that the Jnani has the Unified Vision of the Self and also

the dualistic vision to carry on the empirical engagements. That

both these diametrically opposed visions exist in him without

contradicting each other is the beauty of Jivanmukti.

A doubt: Has not Shankara declared in the First chapter of the

Brahmasutra commentary that all duality will end immediately upon the

dawn of Brahman knowledge? Has he forgotten that while making the

statement of continuing of duality for the Jnani till death?

Reply: No. What Shankara has stated in the earlier part of

Brahmasutra commentary is only the conviction that arises in the

Jnani's mind about the unreality of the dualistic world. This

conviction does not mean the disappearance of duality. Hence, there

is no contradiction in Shankara's two statements.

 

Did Acharya Shankara, admitted to be an Enlightened One, have a

localized BMI?

 

We get the answer to this from His own words. In the Taittiriya

Upanishad Bhashyam (II.8) we come across a very rare instance of

Shankara referring to Himself in the first person singular. All over

the commentary literature He refers to Himself, the Advaitin, as `we

shall refute it, we shall consider it' etc. But in this rare

instance He says:

 

//Objection: Because there are many opponents. You are a monist,

since you follow the Vedic ideas, while the dualists are many who are

outside the Vedic pale and who are opposed to you. Therefore I

apprehend that you will not be able to determine.

 

Reply: This itself is a blessing for Me that you brand Me as sworn to

monism and faced by many who are wedded to plurality. Therefore I

shall conquer all! And so I begin the discussion.//

 

His original words are even more striking: `Yetad eva Mey svasti

ayanam. Ato jEShyAmi sarvAn! Arabhe cha chitAm.'

What is the proof for Shankara's BMI to be a localized one? When He

said `I shall conquer all' the others they did not experience that

same feeling in their minds: `I shall conquer all'. This shows that

Shankara's intellect as a commentator was subject to Him alone and

did not pervade all others in the universe. In this instance, from

His own words we conclude that the Jnani has an ego too. That a

Jnani has a body, shareeram, was confirmed by Shankara Himself in the

Brahma sutra bhashya quote we saw already. That a Jnani has a mind,

intellect, etc. is undeniable. That all these are localized is also

unquestionable. And such a mind holds a reflection of consciousness

(RC) is also proved beyond doubt. It is only in a RC does a person

experience ignorance, samsara. It is with the RC only he does

sadhana. It is only in the RC he realizes his own Brahman nature.

It is in the RC alone he retains that realization. All this is

brought out by Shankara Himself in the Sutra bhashya quote 1.4.15

where He uses the word: `sva-hRdaya pratyayam brahma bhAvam' which

means the Brahmanhood of oneself is experienced by oneself in one's

own localized RC. Elsewhere in the Gitabhashya (13.2) He has

categorically confirmed that Avidya too is experienced as a pratyaya,

a thought. Surely, for being experienced as an object, vishaya,

avidya has to be a bhAva padArtha. An unreal object, like a rope-

snake, can be an object of experience. But certainly a vandhyA putra,

or a hare's horn can not be a vishaya for experience.

When we say that a Jnani's mind is an expanded one what we mean is

His vision of the Universal Self. This does not mean that his Self-

realization, hunger, thoughts, pain, pleasures, etc. are reflected

in/experienced by the unenlightened and vice versa.

Shankara's views on the Enlightened one's Empirical Engagements with

an essentially localized BMI has been provided above in the form of

 

His commentaries.

Sureshwaracharya's views on the above are available in the

Brihadaranyaka Up. Bhashya Vartika 1.4.10. In the Taittiriya Up.

Bhashya Vartika too he gives his views. Ref. 3.77, 78, 79, 81, 82.

In the Naishkarmya siddhi too Sureshwara gives his views about the

Jnani's BMI owing to prArabdha karma. For instance he says in 4.62:

//If a person who has realized the non-dual reality could behave as

he liked, then what is the difference between a dog and the seer of

truth in respect of eating what is prohibited?//

Surely, the above can be said only where there is the possibility

of a Jnani, in a localized BMI, to be engaged in empirical

transactions. If there is no possibility of a BMI for the Jnani,

Sureshwara cannot say the above.

 

Swami Vidyaranya has said in the Panchadashi:

jnAninA charitum shakyam samyak rAjyAdi loukikam

[it is very well possible for the Jnani to engage in empirical duties

such as administering a Kingdom]. We have seen specific cases of

this in the foregoing.

 

Logic has it that a body that has taken birth, given the occasion for

Knowledge to dawn, will not vanish upon realization. This is

because, as Shankara has clarified, Brahman Knowledge is an antidote

for avidya alone and is not an opposing force for the BMI. Shankara

has stated His own experience in this regard in the Sutra bhashya

quote 1. 4 15.

 

In no place does Shankara say that the Jnani's BMI is an imagination

on the part of the onlookers. In the Gita bhashya He comments in a

place: the actions of a jnani is superposed by the ignorant. What He

means by this is: the others believe that the Jnani does these

actions with the `I am the doer' feeling. That alone is the

superimposition. If this is not admitted, all the instances quoted

by Krishna, etc. will be contradicted.

 

So what more evidence do we need to prove the fact of Jivanmukti,

BMI, praarabdha, etc. for a Jnani?

There is this `catch-22' situation in denying empirical engagements

to the enlightened: (According to the internet Urban

Dictionary: `catch-22' is: A situation where both choices would have

negative impacts on oneself.)

1. Shankara is not an enlightened Acharya.

2. The Commentaries that we have in the name of Shankara are authored

by an ajnAni.

 

Shankara will have to be regarded as an unenlightened one. Why?

Because He wrote the Bhashyam. The Bhahsyam can be written only by

using the BMI. These are not there for an enlightened. As a result

of this, we have to deem the bhashyam that we have now to be a

product of some unenlightened person. If we accept Shankara as a

Jnani, we cannot hold him to be a bhAshyakAra. The bhashyam also

will lose its revelatory nature, prAmANyam, as it is not authored by

a Jnani.

 

This absurdity can be avoided only if we take the path of the Shruti,

the Sutra, the Gita, Shankara, Sureshwara, etc. and accept the

concepts of Jnani, prArabdha, localized BMI for him, etc.

There is further difficulty for those who, in their ignorance of the

Scriptural methods as taught by Shankara, insist that there is no BMI

for a jnani. If the Acharya who has introduced this skewed thinking

born of his personal understanding is deemed a Jnani by his

followers, then his words/writings will be an impossibility as they

have to be done with the BMI only. If he is regarded as not

enlightened, then his words will have no prAmANyam in this very

matter. The Mundaka Upanishad 1.2.8 describes such a case

as `andhenaiva neeyamAnA yathA andhAH', the blind leading the blind.

 

 

Empirical engagements of an enlightened cannot be there in the

following situations:

• The person kills himself immediately after realization. (But

lo! This is also not possible for he won't have a body to be killed

or any instrument he can use to kill himself!!)

• The Jnani expends his prArabdha and dies a natural death.

(This is the natural, scripturally admitted way.)

• The Jnani immediately after realization goes into

irreversible samAdhi and the body withers away in time.

Anubhava or Experience of Jnani-s is also proof for their having a

localized BMI. Shankara Himself has expressed it in no uncertain

terms.

 

Logic too is in support of this. Shankara gives the logic: Jnanam is

the dispeller of the wrong notion of one's embodiedness. Jnanam is

NOT the destroyer of the body. The body, born of natural forces will

meet its end in the natural course. Shankara gives this logic in

several places in the commentaries.

 

Thus, in the foregoing we have considered all the possible sources,

pramanams, to establish that the Enlightened ones Eminently Engage in

Empirical Endeavours.

 

It is the opinion of this author that the various topics dealt with

here are self-explanatory. If anyone needs further clarification on

any of the topics the best recourse is to go to the very source

books, references for which are amply provided.

 

(The above article is dedicated to the Acharyas of the Vedantic

tradition who have handed down the esoteric wisdom with the utmost

clarity in their infinite compassion to the seeking humanity.)

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Subbuji has sent me his message in word format and since this is an

important message, I have transferred into adobe pdf file and posted it

in Subbuji's homepage. This will enable members to easily read the

article with a printable format and enable them print it easily.

 

Here is the link:

 

http://www.advaitin.net/Subramaniam/Jnani.pdf

 

Let me take this opportunity to congratulate Subbji for sharing his

insights to benefit the members. His dedication and devotion is truly

reflected through this article. His research is quite thorough and his

presentation is very clear. I strongly recommend members to read this

article to get insights on Sankara's position on the nature of Jnani.

 

Thanks again Subbuji,

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , " advaitins " <advaitins wrote:

>

> Dear Members:

>

>

> Members who are interested in reading Subbuji's homepage can click on

> the link:

> http://www.advaitin.net/Subramaniam/

>

[Guest guest]

" advaitins " <advaitins wrote:

 

> Members are

> welcome to provide their feed back but be aware that Subbuji is not

> interested in debating.

 

Dear Moderators and respected Sri Subbuji,

 

With all due respect, I have a question.

When a text is presented in a list like ours (so-called discussion list)

with the disclaimer that the author is not interested in debating,

doesn't it jeopardizes the very concept of Mananam?

Is the point of view of this text to be taken as Scripture?

 

Best regards,

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Reference post 43810 and Subbuji's marathon on jnAni.

 

Congrats to Subbuji for the hard work and research. He hasn't left

out any references. The paper is thorough. He deserves the accolades

showered on him simply for that reason. I join in the chorus whole-

heartedly.

 

However, as all would anticipate, I am inclined to strike a

differrent note on the theme and conclusio of the paper.

 

Subbuji has apprehended two teachings which are contradictory in

nature to each other. From the beginning of the paper, it is very

clear to the reader that he has thrown his weight in favour of

Teaching 2. The reason for this is not too far to seek. He is

extremely passionate about guru parampara and mortally scared that

acceptance of Teaching 1 in toto might put the tradition in

jeopardy. He is, therefore, reluctant to look even for a healthy

reconciliation between the two teachings.

 

The parampara is very much in vyavahAra. Esprit de corps towards it

shalln't blind our eyes towards the Truth, which admittedly is

Teaching 1. A better reconciliation between the two teachings was

indeed possible like the one attempted between me and Shri

Neelakantanji yesterday. But Subbuji has sounded the judge's hammer

heavily and thrown himself solely in favour of No. 1.

 

It is possible to debate each and every reference Subbuji has

quoted. Most of them have already been covered. So, let us better

avoid 'tautology'.

 

Perhaps due to his preoccupation with shAstra and shruti, Subbuji

hasn't paid any attention to Bh. Ramana, Nisargadatta Maharaj and

other teachers outside the parampara. Well, I can't blame him

because he is valiantly upholding the flag of the tradition. His

eyes seem too fixed on the flag to look elsewhere.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

"Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair wrote:>> Perhaps due to his preoccupation with shAstra and shruti, Subbuji > hasn't paid any attention to Bh. Ramana, Nisargadatta Maharaj and > other teachers outside the parampara. Dear Nairji, If you pay attention to Bhagavan Ramana and Nisargadatta you will find that their "point of view", actually, fluctuates between both of the so-called Schools 1 and 2.We can't nail down a Jnani to a particular point of view (am I contradicting myself?) for the same reasons that you are defending, meaning, a Jnani is much more and much less that our minds would ever imagine.In vyavahara there are only points of view (how could it be otherwise?) Jnanis... they are the "view" itself.Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna(so far, I learned a lot from your posts, thanks.)

[Guest guest]

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:>> If you do have any specific questions you can ask and there may be other who can respond to you - if no one can answer, one of the moderators can communicate to Subbuji and get his answer if he finds that it is important.Thank you Sri Sadaji for your response to my "question about Mananam".That being said, I am a little confused about a specific passage in Sri Subbuji's presentation, at the very start.> It is the conclusion of Shankara in Gita verse 4.38:> //..By this the Lord means to say that that Knowledge alone which is > imparted by those who have realized the Truth – and no other > knowledge – can prove effective.//> > In this verse the Lord teaches that the aspirant has to approach a > Jnani, bow to him, serve him and pose questions on the Atman. If > there was no BMI to a Jnani how can one implement the Lord's > instruction? The Gita version I have (Gambirananda's translation with Bhagavan Sankara's Comment.) doesn't match the above quoted passage.Maybe Bhagavan Sankara makes this conclusion in another commentary?Could someone please redirect me to the right bashya?Thanks in advance,yours in Bhagavan,Mouna