Intra Religious Distinctions - Section 7

[Guest guest]

I don't want to get into an advaita vs. viSishTAdvaita debate on this

list, but I had to point out something wrt jIvanmukti and videha mukti.

 

Let us first see what the real argument about jIvanmukti is, from the

advaita perspective. Briefly, the jIvanmukta is considered to have burnt

all sancita and Agamin karma by having realized brahman, and only prArabdha

karma that was responsible for taking on the present body continues to

operate. When this prArabdha karma exhausts itself, the body perishes and

the jIvanmukta is not affected thereby.

 

Now, from part 6 of this series, Sri Ramaswamy says, "... as visishtadvaita

holds, on performance of prapatti, all sins are extinguished except that

portion of prarabdha karma which the 'tripta' prapanna has agreed to

experience till the time comes for the fall of his body in the normal course.

 

..... Only at the time of death, there will be a nil balance of Karma thus

entitling the Prapanna to Moksha. "

 

Now, if we replace the word jIvanmukta in the paragraph setting out the

advaita position, with the word prapanna, the two positions are very nearly

identical. Both schools hold that Prarabdha karma continues to operate till

the body dies in the normal course. We advaitins call such a person a

jIvanmukta. We do not say that there is no karma at all, but we hold that

karma does not affect the jIvanmukta. I assume that karma cannot affect the

true prapanna who is entitled to Moksha at the moment of physical death.

 

Aren't we then merely quibbling about terminology? We seem to be saying the

same things in different ways with different emphases. Physical death is

something that happens to the deha, which is not the AtmA, which is why we

don't consider the moment of death to be of great importance in this case,

and we call such a person a jIvanmukta. I can understand the reluctance of

viSishTAdvaita to use this word, as it is likely to be misused by fraudulent

people, who can claim to be jIvanmuktas, but are not really so. But when

pressed, the phislosophical differences on this detail seem to melt away,

leaving the core difference between the two schools in their approach to

interpreting Vedanta, the most important of which lie in the differing notions

of ontology and epistemology.

 

Regards,

 

S. Vidyasankar

 

 

ps. I have been making slow progress through Vedarthasangraha, and while

the traditional style is to set the purvapaksha argument first and then

set forth one's own siddhAnta, I also find more substance in Ramanujacharya's

philosophical arguments. Sankara has been accused of misrepresenting Buddhism,

Ramanuja has been accused of misrepresenting advaita, and so on. However,

pointing out why one differs from the pUrvapakshin is quite different from

misunderstanding the pUrvapakshin and thereby misrepresenting his position

completely.

 

mA vidvishAvahai

[Guest guest]

On Apr 4, 2:26pm, vidya wrote:

> Re: Intra Religious Distinctions - Section 7

> I don't want to get into an advaita vs. viSishTAdvaita debate on this

> list, but I had to point out something wrt jIvanmukti and videha mukti.

>

> Let us first see what the real argument about jIvanmukti is, from the

> advaita perspective. Briefly, the jIvanmukta is considered to have burnt

> all sancita and Agamin karma by having realized brahman, and only prArabdha

> karma that was responsible for taking on the present body continues to

> operate. When this prArabdha karma exhausts itself, the body perishes and

> the jIvanmukta is not affected thereby.

>

> Now, from part 6 of this series, Sri Ramaswamy says, "... as visishtadvaita

> holds, on performance of prapatti, all sins are extinguished except that

> portion of prarabdha karma which the 'tripta' prapanna has agreed to

> experience till the time comes for the fall of his body in the normal course.

>

> .... Only at the time of death, there will be a nil balance of Karma thus

entitling the Prapanna to Moksha. "

>

 

 

The very essence of saranaagathi is such that once surrendered the karamaas

are immaterial to that soul and there is very fine distinction that can be

assumed here between the totally surrendered soul and prapannaa for the sake of

clarifying this. A surrendered soul if requests the Lord to immediately accept

him or her, the Lord will do so. However, prapanna even though surrendered

would want to serve the Lord Untill such time the body is destined to live on

this face of earth. That is where this jivan mukthaa accept to serve the left

over life due to the joy they think of having by serving the archa moorthis and

fellow srivaishnavaas and not due to the "hold" of prArabtha karmaa. The

prArabtha karmaa ceases once a soul surrenders at once or as a prapaNNaa. The

question of whether praarabtha karma is powerful enough to hold the body of the

surrenderd soul untill its mandated life term is answered such that the

prArabtha karma cannot do so. ie once surrenderd even prArabdha kaRma is

surrenderd at the feet of the Lord who is superior and (Lord) is not bound by

this karma. And that such Lord absolves all such karmaas including the

prArabtha karma when surrendered by the soul and as desired by the the soul. ie

All we need to do is ask either of the two things.

 

 

1. We surrender *all* our good and bad vianai and request HIM to render us from

the cycle of birth and deaths and take us to be part of HIS etrenal service

from this moment at HIS eternal abode.

 

2. We surrender *all* our good and bad vianai and request HIM to render us from

the cycle of birth and deaths and take us to be part of HIS etrenal service

from this moment in the earth as a prapannaa and until such time this body is

mandated to live and then to serve HIM in HIS eternal abode.

 

There are souls who have opted the rule no.1

 

eg. Sri Alawandaar

eg. Sri Bishmar (He would surrender his soul only at this auspicious time)

 

>

> ps. I have been making slow progress through Vedarthasangraha, and while

> the traditional style is to set the purvapaksha argument first and then

> set forth one's own siddhAnta, I also find more substance in Ramanujacharya's

> philosophical arguments. Sankara has been accused of misrepresenting

Buddhism,

> Ramanuja has been accused of misrepresenting advaita, and so on. However,

> pointing out why one differs from the pUrvapakshin is quite different from

> misunderstanding the pUrvapakshin and thereby misrepresenting his position

> completely.

>

> mA vidvishAvahai

>-- End of excerpt from vidya

 

 

 

I think the sequence of argument is very similar to what the modern world would

follow as a procedure to prove a new approach or thoery.

 

1. Literature survey of the already exixting schools of approach.

 

2. The scope for a new approach by pointing out the deficiencies of the

existing appraoch.

 

3. Preseting the new approach with soultions to solve such deficiencies pointed

out in the earlier approaches.

 

4. Comparative evaluations of the earlier approaches and this new approach with

solved problebs as example.

 

5. Practical or Experimental solutions and validation of the new approach.

 

6. Conclusions

 

Sri RaamaNujaa's approach may look new but it is eternal. In the crnologu of

events that is mandated to occur in this kalpam or calender or yugam It is

however new at the time of its inception. It was compared to the earlier

appraoches of Sri Adi sankara and others by HIMself where ever required. It is

not born out of misunderstaning the previos approaches. It is very thorough

even in terms of modern standards for presentations of a new appraoach. Sri

Raamnuja need not have compared our principle with others as ours is the only

eternal one. However, in the context of this yugam and the state of confusion

(confusion - in terms of eternity and parath thuvam - created by the earlier

approaches) that was present in the in the so called "advanced minds" of

people, he found a neccesity to do so to provide a relative postion of this

approach so that such "advanced mind" can perceive this easily.

 

 

Sampath Rengarajan