Jnana and Jivanmukti - Pt 2

[Guest guest]

Having said that, there are instances even in Shankara’s bhashyas where he

clearly differentiates jnana and mukti.

 

In Br.Up 1.4.10 " Morover false notions do not arise in a Realized

Man........however sometimes memories due to the impressions of false notions

antecendent to the dawning of knowledge, simulating those notions, suddenly

appear and throw him into the error of regarding them as actual false

notions… " showing that there may be lack of constancy in the conviction of

Oneness at least in some Realized men – i.e. Knowers. Certainly this cannot be

seen to be applicable to jivanmuktas as that Status, of Vishnor paramam padam,

by accounts of both Shruti and Smrti has been shown to be clearly an Absolute, a

point of no-return. Furthermore in the same Upanishad Shankara also says even

after the rise of right knowledge (samyag-jnAna), due to the strong effect of

prior karma, whose momentum is like that of a released arrow, and the relatively

weakness of the newly acquired tendency towards jnana, it is necessary to

maintain a steady recollection of Self-knowledge

(Atma-vijnAna-smRti-saMtati), accompanied by renunciation (tyAga).

 

In the Mandukya Karika as well we have a very similar description of a steady

recollection (– see the identical use of the term smrtim) of self-knowledge

Mandukya 2.36

Vidityva enam HAVING KNOWN it evam thus YOJAYET SMRTIM one should fix one's

memory ADVAITE on non-duality. And Shankara clarifies here – one should

practice recollection for the realization of nonduality. And having comprehended

that nonduality, having realized directly and immediately that Self, AND after

attaining the consciousness I am the Supreme Brahman lokam acharet jadavat one

should behave in the world like a dull-witted...

 

Here we find a very clear cut distinction between knowledge and the direct

realization thereof. The “having known†here refers to aparoksha jnana –

in other words aham brahmasmi - alone – but this knowledge now needs to be

constantly and incessantly contemplated upon by directing one’s thoughts

exclusively towards it

 

Furthermore, Shankara says in his Up Sah that The Knower who has renounced

everything unreal does not get bound again, AND further, when the desires of a

man of self-knowledge vanish he becomes immortal. Were the knower to

automatically mean a muktA – these type of assertions would be rendered

totally meaningless – if a person is a Knower, a Brahmavit, and he is already

a jivanmuktA – then why qualify such a knower by saying “The Knower WHO HAS

RENOUNCED EVERYTHING†– why not simply say the Knower does not get bound

again….and similarly so for “when the desires of a man of

self-knowledge….â€

 

Elsewhere too, in the words of the Vivekachudamani - Pramado brahmanishtayam na

kartavyah kadachana - In respect of brahmanishta one should not be guilty of

negligence and Atah pramadanna parosti mrtyuh vivekino brahmavidah samaadhau For

the man of discrimination who IS A Brahmavit is in deep concentration there is

no other death than inadvertence

 

Now if aparoksha jnana of Brahman as “aham brahmasmi†that was fully mature

after shravana and manana had already resulted in jivanMukti, then is it not

extremely incongruous to talk of pramada or lassitude for that same

“individual� Here is an individual who has achieved the Supreme State of

Peace and Immortality, from which there is no return and here is advice to him

– be careful of unmindfulness?? Clearly there is a distinction made between

one who is a Knower of Brahman – Brahmavit - and yet lacking in consummation

of that Knowledge or jnananishta.

 

It is important here to note that the content or construct of the knowledge

itself does not change. It is not as if the knowledge of aham brahmasmi is in

anyway going to get transformed – in other words aham brahmasmi in the case of

a “knowerâ€, a Brahmavit, is in every sense of the term samyag jnana or

aparoksha jnana. There are some who contend that this type of

“non-liberating†knowledge is only paroksha jnana (in the case of a

non-mukta knower) and that by deep and constant meditation it has to be

converted into a different kind of special knowledge - a suprasensory knowledge

or special experience in order to convert it into “aparoksha†jnana and

thence only does he obtain mukti – this viewpoint has been firmly negated by

Shankara in the Br Up 1.4.7 (“Others say that meditation generates a new,

special kind of consciousness concerning the Self, through which the latter is

known and which alone removes ignorance….this view is

wrong.â€.)

 

So if the knowledge itself is not going to change, and any further action is not

possible for a knower, as he knows himself to be a akarta on account of his

right knowledge, then what further remains to be done or can be done for Mukti?

 

(to be continued)

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

--- On Thu, 9/24/09, shyam_md <shyam_md wrote:

[Guest guest]

I very much enjoyed reading Shyamji and Subrahmanianji's recent posts on this

topic.

 

I think that during the course of this discussion some evidence has been

provided in favour of Shankara supporting the view that liberation immediately

follows from knowledge and the view that liberation does not immediately follow

from knowledge.

 

Of these views, I think Shyamji has accepted that Shankara does say on several

occaisons that liberation follows immediately from knowledge.In the quote

Sastriji gave in an earlier thread, Shankara says that " The following texts show

liberation as coming immediately after the knowledge of brahman... " and then

proceeds to give several quotes. Shyamji would have to argue that Shankara is

not saying that this is always the case but is saying that this is sometimes the

case (or maybe in Shankara's time, usually the case). However, I do not feel

that this is very convincing. There is no indication whatsoever that Shankara is

talking about something that applies only to certain people and not to everyone.

Shankara clearly seems to be talking about a general rule, something that must

neccesarily be the case.

 

Sastriji's other argument is also, I believe, quite strong. As we know, in

Advaita Vedanta, Brahman (which is one's Self) cannot be known as an object and

knowing Brahman really only means removing ignorance about ourself. Sastriji

quotes Shankara as explicitly saying that the removal of ignorance and

liberation are simultaneous. Shyamji would have to argue that knowledge can

arrise but not destroy ignorance - if this is the case, knowledge and ignorance

can co-exist and this is obviously a problem. Once again, when Shankara says

that the cessation of ignorance is simultaneous with liberation, I don't think

we can take this to apply only to some people - there is no indication

whatsoever that this is Shankara's intent.

 

As for the passages that Shyamji quotes in support of his position, I do not

think that this evidence is so clear in its purport. Regarding, Br.Up 1.4.10,

Shankara clearly does say that false notions cannot arrise in a jnAni. Then he

says something about how the memory of false notions can arrise and it is

possible to mistakenly take these to be false notions. The only error of the

jnAni here is to think that the mere memories of false notions are actually

false notions, there is no error mentioned with regards to the nature of the

Self. I think that this just means that even for a jIvanmukta, some memory of

false notions may arrise and that it may take a little bit of time to make sense

of what is going on. This reminds me of how Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi mentioned

that even after getting moksha, for some time he didn't really know what was

going on and he even thought he was possessed by a ghost. Here I think that the

mistake is a vyavhArika one (which jIvanmuktas can also make, gItA 14.22) and

not a pAramArthika one. Note that Shankara clearly says in this very passage

that false notions do not rise in a jnAni.

 

As for the mAnDukya quote, viditvA enam does not neccesarily have to mean that

knowledge of the Self itself arrose. Shyamji's himself implied that jnAnam is

the correct knowledge of non-duality. That means that viditvA enam (if it refers

to jnAnam) implies the comprehension of non-duality - in that case, why does

Shankara then say that " having comprehended that nonduality " afterwards. If

viditvA enam was qualitatively the same knowledge as direct realisation, then

the non-duality was already comprehended. Note that as the phala of the sAdhanA,

Shankara doesn't say " after becoming firmly rooted in the earlier gained

knowledge " or anything of this kind - he says " having comprehended, " " after

attaining the consciousness that 'I am Brahman' " - both of which should have

already taken place with viditvA enam by Shyamji's interpretation.

 

I feel that the passages that Sastriji quotes are much stronger because Shankara

explicitly says that liberation immediately follows from knowledge. Shyamji's

passages can be interpreted differently (and in my opinion reasonably too). When

the strength of the evidence is so different, I am not sure it is fair to

interpret the Brahma Sutra passage as referring only to some very well-prepared

people, when the passage in itself clearly does not warrant it.

 

When Shankara talks about sannyAsa after jnAna, this could just mean that this

is what would be natural b/c a jnAni would have no need for activity. When

talking about Janaka, he gives an example saying that ordinarily, if one doesn't

have a desire for the fruit of some ritual, then one would simply give it up.

But if one has already started the ritual and the desire goes away, then one

might just complete the ritual anyway. However, the standard course would be to

give up the ritual. Similarly, for a jIvanmukta, the ordinary course would be to

give up actions (according to Shankara), but this is not a rule.

 

I look forward to reading further discussion on this topic!

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane wrote:

>

> I very much enjoyed reading Shyamji and Subrahmanianji's recent posts on this

topic.

>

> I think that during the course of this discussion some evidence has been

provided in favour of Shankara supporting the view that liberation immediately

follows from knowledge and the view that liberation does not immediately follow

from knowledge.

 

Namaste Rishiji,

 

Jnana or Moksha cannot come from knowledge; as all knowledge is ignorance....It

can only come from 'beyond knowledge'...Tony.