Mukti According to Advaita Vedanta

[Guest guest]

Dear Advaitins,

 

In the sankhya philosophy prakriti and purusha are said to be

different from each other. The liberation there is explained as the

freedom from prakriti. But it is maintained that both are eternal

principles and even it is said that there are innumerable purushas

and the liberation is individual in each case.

 

In the advaita vedanta prakriti is explained as anadi (beginnigless),

and it is maintained that it undergoes transformation in the stages

of shristi, sthiti and laya. Scitifically also it is stated that the

sum total of all the matter of the universe remains the same and one

cannot destroy the matter but the matter can be transformed from one

state to another.

 

Having taken these points can we conclude that the concept of

liberation in the advaita vedanta is also transcending nature? If the

prakriti is said to be beginning less logically it should be eternal

also. Then is the concept of liberation is somewhat similer to those

that of samkhays?

 

Another point to be noted here is even though an individual merges

his ego in the atman at the time of samadhi there are other

innumberable souls who still experience the world. Once the siddha

descends down to the normal plane he himself also sees the world.

Here too we can assert that the liberatin is individual and it only

deviates from the samkhya philosophy in maintaining that the atman is

one but not many.

 

If members can throw some light on the aforesaid points by quoting

relevent scriptural passages it would be immensely helpful.

 

JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA

 

Yours in the lord,

 

Br. Vinayaka

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

>

> Another point to be noted here is even though an individual merges

> his ego in the atman at the time of samadhi there are other

> innumberable souls who still experience the world. Once the siddha

> descends down to the normal plane he himself also sees the world.

> Here too we can assert that the liberatin is individual and it only

> deviates from the samkhya philosophy in maintaining that the atman

is

> one but not many.

 

Namaste,

 

IMHO..It is not that the other souls are experiencing the world per

se, it is that they are still part of the illusion that never happened.

The liberated soul doesn't experience the world at all, only his body

mind does until the body drops.

The reason that the world and prakriti etc are termed 'beginningless'

is because there is no beginning to something that hasn't happened in

the first place; There is no beginning but there is an end to delusion-

-Moksha! The Siddha isn't liberated for he retains a thought to help

and that requires mind. He is said to dwell in Brahmaloka and not

merge until Pralaya, otherwise..Gautama and Mundakya Upanishad are

good commentary for this--the Karikas.

[Guest guest]

IMHO, You have misunderstood what is "Samkhya".

Pls, Refer to the BG for the Answer.

Ans. in my Words: Since, Truth is one and False could just be any, You

need to have knowledge of Numbers to know exactly what is what.

Thus, A "Samkhya" is one who knows Numbers/Counting i.e., One who knows

Both the one Truth and the Many UnTruths. Thus, As he knows all those

which need counting and doesn't need counting, He is a Samkhya.

 

Thus Both individual & Many are part of the Samkhya philosophy And thus

no "deviation".

 

Your Question seems to me like asking, Does Samkhya Philosophy deviate

from Samkhya Philosophy ?

 

 

advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

> Dear Advaitins,

>

> Here too we can assert that the liberatin is individual and it only

> deviates from the samkhya philosophy in maintaining that the atman is

> one but not many.

>

> Yours in the lord,

>

> Br. Vinayaka

[Guest guest]

Tonyji observes :

 

(otherwise..Gautama and Mundakya Upanishad are

good commentary for this--the Karikas.)

 

Tonyji, there are two upanishads that almost sound alike but

are 'spelled' differently !

 

one is 'Mundaka' upanishad !

 

The name 'Mundaka' is derived from the root mund, 'to shave,' as he

that comprehends the teaching of the Upanishad is shaved or liberated

from error and ignorance. The Upanishad states clearly the

distinction between the higher knowledge of the Supreme Brahman and

the lower knowledge of the empirical world. It is by this higher

wisdom and not by sacrifices or worship that one can reach Brahman.

Only samnyasin who has given up everything can obtain the highest

knowledge.

 

Source S. Radhakrishnan : The Principal Upanishads

 

The other is *Mandukya'upanishad which is the source of the famous

Hindu theory of the four states of consciousness: waking, dreaming,

deep sleep, and the fourth state (turiya), which is the state of

enlightenment. The Upanishad is named after the sage Mandukya.

 

Sankara said that this Upanishad, together with Gaudapada's

commentary on it, "contains the epitome of the substance of the

import of Vedanta!

 

But, tonyji ! this is very innovative! by combining both these

upanishads -( mundaka and mandukya) - we get a new upanishad -

Mundakya! no problem! smile!

 

The Mundaka upanishad states :

 

III-ii-8: As rivers, flowing down, become indistinguishable on

reaching the sea by giving up their names and forms, so also the

illumined soul, having become freed from name and form, reaches the

self-effulgent Purusha that is higher than the higher (Maya).

 

The Mandukya upanishad states (verse 12)

 

The Fourth (Turiya) is without parts and without relationship; It is

the cessation of phenomena; it is all good and non-dual. This AUM is

verily Atman. He who knows this merges his self in Atman- yea, he who

knows this.

 

SO, MAYBE IT DOES NOT MATTER - Whether it is 'mundaka' or 'mandukya'

 

as Swaqmi vivekananda says

 

""In modern language, the theme of the Upanishads is to find an

Ultimate Unity of things. Knowledge is nothing but finding Unity in

the midst of diversity."

 

i like this new uoanishad- a combination of mundaka and mandukya -

called " MUNDAKYA" - we invite a new karika on this! smile

 

AUM SHANTI ! AUM SHANTI ! AUM SHANTIHI!

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "dhyanasaraswati"

<dhyanasaraswati wrote:

>

> Tonyji observes :

>

> (otherwise..Gautama and Mundakya Upanishad are

> good commentary for this--the Karikas.)

>

> Tonyji, there are two upanishads that almost sound alike but

> are 'spelled' differently !

>

> one is 'Mundaka' upanishad !

>

> The name 'Mundaka' is derived from the root mund, 'to shave,' as he

> that comprehends the teaching of the Upanishad is shaved or

liberated

> from error and ignorance. The Upanishad states clearly the

> distinction between the higher knowledge of the Supreme Brahman

 

Namaste,

 

There were two typos in my post that have strange effects. I typed

Gautama instead of Gaudapada and I mispelt Mandukya. It is strange

that Gaudapada is often connected to Gautama the Buddha and enough is

said about the two Upanishads. In the end result the typos related to

the original post and the Karikas.........Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

> Having taken these points can we conclude that the concept of

> liberation in the advaita vedanta is also transcending nature? If the

> prakriti is said to be beginning less logically it should be eternal

> also. Then is the concept of liberation is somewhat similer to those

> that of samkhays?

>

> Another point to be noted here is even though an individual merges

> his ego in the atman at the time of samadhi there are other

> innumberable souls who still experience the world. Once the siddha

> descends down to the normal plane he himself also sees the world.

> Here too we can assert that the liberatin is individual and it only

> deviates from the samkhya philosophy in maintaining that the atman is

> one but not many.

>

> From

Sankarraman

 

The many purusas, still awaiting liberation after the

attainment of liberation of one purusa, are, in the light of the

advaita vedanta, only the unreal, empirical, egos, and not the

transcendentantal atman, which is neither one nor many. In the sight

of the realised, there is not the dichotomy of samadhi, and the

perception of the natural world, this idea being d to only by

sankhya, yoga and the saiva-siddhantha schools. Liberation, according

to advaita, is only subjective and not individual, the liberated

individual, not capable of having any feeling of individuality or

volition. Further, according to advaita, the creation is only vivarta

and not actual. Advaita is nondualistic,whereas yoga and sankhya are

dulistic. The only distinction between yoga and sankhya is the latter

not entertaining the idea of god, a development made in the yoga. The

saiva-siddhanhta is also similar to yoga except that the Tamil yogis

like Tirumular, Ramalingar, Thayumanavar, Mounaguru and Pattinathar

belived in dissolving the body itself in the light of the Atman, a

reality being given to nature, and it being conceded that one has to

transcend nature by bodily perfection. Thayumanavar comes close to

advaita in spite of his yogic leanings. The advaita, on the other hand

rejects, the waking state itself, and mukti, according to advaita, is

not an appendage to the waking state or any state for that matter in

time and space. Further, it is to be understood that in all schools

other than advaita, the reality of the waking state is conceded. From

the sadhana aspect, the sankhya and yoga schools are excellent. But

the ontology of advaita is most sound, having least inconsistencies.

>

Sankaarraman

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "jairamt" <jairamt wrote:

 

> Both the one Truth and the Many UnTruths. Thus, As he knows all those

> which need counting and doesn't need counting, He is a Samkhya.

>

> Thus Both individual & Many are part of the Samkhya philosophy And thus

> no "deviation".

>

> Your Question seems to me like asking, Does Samkhya Philosophy deviate

> from Samkhya Philosophy ?

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

I think you are not aware or overlooking the fundamental differences

between the samkhya and vedanta philosophy.

 

They are

 

1.The samkhya philosophy is dualistic rather pluralistic in approach.

It asserts that both purusha and parkriti are real and they exist

parallelly.

 

2.It maintains that there are innumerable purushas they even exist as

different locus of consciousness after liberation seperated from nature.

 

3. Samkhya philosophy is atheistic and it maintains that iswara is not

necessary and doesnt accept saguna ishwara in its framework.

 

But vedanta asserts that there is only one reality and due to

primordial ignorence we see multiplicity. There are not many untruths

to be counted upon it is but the projection of the avidya of the jiva.

You might have got different notion about samkhya philosophy by

reading gita. In the gita it should be taken as jnana or culmination

of the vedantic knowledge not as the samkhya philosophy with is one of

the sad darshanas.

 

In fact bhagvatpada considers samkhya philosophy as the chief opponent

or mahamalla he goes head on to disprove this philosophy especially as

it is very powerful in argument and comes very near to vedanta. Infact

he himself accepts that their knowledge of the 24 tatwas are

flawless. We can say that vedanta was the further development of

thought built on the samkhya. Vedantins accept the theory of 24

tatwas, their definitions and working as defined by the samkhyas but

the difference lies on the final aspect that is vedanta asserts that

atman is the material and efficient cause of the universre where as

samkhyas say that matter is the material casue and the consciousness

is the efficient cause and in vedanta ultimately there is a state

where there is no mind and no nature. Videha mukta attains the only

one ultimate reality ie atman whose nature in satchitdananda.

 

Swami Tapasyanadaji of Ramakrishna Order opines that before the karika

of the ishwarachandra there was no difference between samkhya and

vedanta. It is said that they accepted ishwara as the 25th principle

also. But after the aforementioned karika it is said to be deviated

from the mainstream of vedanta and developed into independent philosophy.

 

Of cousre what is the state of final liberation, whther world exists

eternally these things are penultimate questions in the spiritual

quest. The real key to the knowledge lies in realisation. Shastras can

give only blurred definitions so that we can progress in our

meditaions in the right direction.

 

JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA

 

Yours in the lord,

 

 

Br. Vinayaka

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

> > Dear Sir,

>

> I think you are not aware or overlooking the fundamental differences

> between the samkhya and vedanta philosophy.

>

> They are

>

> 1.The samkhya philosophy is dualistic rather pluralistic in

approach.

> It asserts that both purusha and parkriti are real and they exist

> parallelly.

>

> 2.It maintains that there are innumerable purushas they even exist

as

> different locus of consciousness after liberation seperated from

nature.

>

> 3. Samkhya philosophy is atheistic and it maintains that iswara is

not

> necessary and doesnt accept saguna ishwara in its framework.

>

> But vedanta asserts that there is only one reality and due to

> primordial ignorence we see multiplicity. There are not many

untruths

> to be counted upon it is but the projection of the avidya of the

jiva.

> You might have got different notion about samkhya philosophy by

> reading gita. In the gita it should be taken as jnana or culmination

> of the vedantic knowledge not as the samkhya philosophy with is one

of

> the sad darshanas.

>

> In fact bhagvatpada considers samkhya philosophy as the chief

opponent

> or mahamalla he goes head on to disprove this philosophy especially

as

> it is very powerful in argument and comes very near to vedanta.

Infact

> he himself accepts that their knowledge of the 24 tatwas are

> flawless. We can say that vedanta was the further development of

> thought built on the samkhya. Vedantins accept the theory of 24

> tatwas, their definitions and working as defined by the samkhyas but

> the difference lies on the final aspect that is vedanta asserts that

> atman is the material and efficient cause of the universre where as

> samkhyas say that matter is the material casue and the consciousness

> is the efficient cause and in vedanta ultimately there is a state

> where there is no mind and no nature. Videha mukta attains the only

> one ultimate reality ie atman whose nature in satchitdananda.

>

> Swami Tapasyanadaji of Ramakrishna Order opines that before the

karika

> of the ishwarachandra there was no difference between samkhya and

> vedanta. It is said that they accepted ishwara as the 25th principle

> also. But after the aforementioned karika it is said to be deviated

> from the mainstream of vedanta and developed into independent

philosophy.

>

> Of cousre what is the state of final liberation, whther world exists

> eternally these things are penultimate questions in the spiritual

> quest. The real key to the knowledge lies in realisation. Shastras

can

> give only blurred definitions so that we can progress in our

> meditaions in the right direction.

>

> JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA

>

> Yours in the lord,

>

>

> Br. Vinayaka

>

Pranams Br. Vinayaka ji,

This above post of yours clarifying the position as put forward by

another member, gives a lot of light on the subject. I proceeded to

give a reply to your original post and just before posting the same i

found that you have covered several of the points in this latest post

of yours. Hence, despite some overlapping, i go ahead with posting

the reply composed already. I admire your sincerety in undertaking a

very deep and serious and sadhana-oriented study of the Vedanta with

the Acharya's Bhashya. My pranams to you.

 

Dear Advaitins,

 

In the sankhya philosophy prakriti and purusha are said to be

different from each other. The liberation there is explained as the

freedom from prakriti. But it is maintained that both are eternal

principles and even it is said that there are innumerable purushas

and the liberation is individual in each case.

 

In the advaita vedanta prakriti is explained as anadi (beginnigless),

and it is maintained that it undergoes transformation in the stages

of shristi, sthiti and laya. Scitifically also it is stated that the

sum total of all the matter of the universe remains the same and one

cannot destroy the matter but the matter can be transformed from one

state to another.

 

Having taken these points can we conclude that the concept of

liberation in the advaita vedanta is also transcending nature?

 

Response:

In advaita Vedanta although the sadhana is directed to free oneself

from prakriti, the final liberation is in 'KNOWING experientially

that the prakritri and its evolute, the prapancha, are mithyaa and

that the Purusha, Brahman/Atman, alone is satyam.'

 

 

For this question of yours,

If the prakriti is said to be beginning less logically it should be

eternal

also. Then is the concept of liberation is somewhat similar to those

that of samkhays?

 

The reply would be:

In Vedanta, prakriti, in other words, Maya, is not eternal. It is an-

Adi, beginningless, but sa-anta, does end upon the dawn of liberating

knowledge.

 

You write:

Another point to be noted here is even though an individual merges

his ego in the atman at the time of samadhi there are other

innumberable souls who still experience the world. Once the siddha

descends down to the normal plane he himself also sees the world.

Here too we can assert that the liberation is individual and it only

deviates from the samkhya philosophy in maintaining that the atman is

one but not many.

 

The position of Vedanta:

 

In Vedanta, Samadhi alone is not liberation. It is the experience of

those vedantins who are adepts in Samadhi that it is the destruction

of avidya through the akhandaakaara-vritti, the plenary experience,

resulting from the shravana, manana and nididhyasana of the purport

of the Mahavakya, that constitutes liberation. Samadhi greatly aids

the arising of the akhandaakaara-vritti.

 

The samadhistha-vedantin seeing the world upon emerging from Samadhi

is no defect in Vedanta; what is crucial is the mithyaatva-nishchaya

pertaining to the world. Sage Vidyaranya says in the

Panchadasi, 'Jnaaninaa charitum shakyam samyag raajyaadi-loukikam'

that is, a Jnanai can perfectly engage in the complex activity of

even a governmental administration.

That such a liberation is individual, in the sense that the fruit of

liberation, jivanmukti here and freedom from rebirth after death, is

experienced by that person alone and not shared by the others who

continue in ignorance, is not in dispute.

 

You conclude:

If members can throw some light on the aforesaid points by quoting

relevent scriptural passages it would be immensely helpful.

 

JAI JAI RAGHUVEER SAMARTHA

 

Yours in the lord,

 

Br. Vinayaka

 

Reply:

 

Scriptural passages in support of the various points made above

abound :

 

A point of clarification regarding the word 'Saankhya': Generally,

in the Vedanta, the word 'sankhya' refers to that system of

philosophy propounded by Sage Kapila (not of the Bhagavata). This

system. although close to Vedanta in several respects, is opposed to

the ultimate position of Vedanta. As an example of its

admissibility, in a limited context, by the Vedantins, we have these

words of our Acharya in His Gita Bhashya, xviii.19:

 

(Quote)The science of Gunas (sattva, rajas, tamas) (by the word 'guna-

sankhyAne' in the verse) here referred to is Kapila's system of

philosophy. Even Kapila's science of gunas is certainly an authority

in the exposition of the functions of gunas and of their products,

and their science is therefore accepted here as an authority as

serving to extol the teaching which follows. Hence no

inconsistency. (unquote)

 

As an instance of the SAnkhya's system being opposed to Vedanta, we

have:

the Brahmasutra: ii.3.50,51, i.4.28, ii.2.1-10, etc. and in several

Upanishad bhashyas.

the Karikas of Gaudapada (IV – 11, 12, 13). etc.

 

As to the destruction of prakriti (also termed as Maya, ajnanam,

avidya, shakti, etc.) we have several passages:

 

Bh.Gita IV 37, V.16, Vivekachudamani: 463, Panchadashi: VII- 278,

279, 164, Chandogya: 7.1.3, Br.Up. 4.2.4, Mundaka Up. 3.1.3.

Panchadashi: VI.130 says:

This Maya is seen as non-existent, indefinable and real from the

three standpoints, of Veda, of reason and of parlance.

Shvetashvatara Up: BhUyashchaante vishvamaayaa nivrittiH ( finally

there is cessation of all illusion)

The Sutra bhashya: iv.2.18.6 says:

The constituents that spring from ignorance can have no remnant after

their 'resorption' through Knowledge.

In the Chandogya statement 'Ekameva advitiiyam', the purport shown by

the bhashya is that 'at that time, before creation, Brahman alone

existed without a second. Without a second means, without Maya'.

The Mandukya seventh mantra, 'na antaH prajnam' etc. denies, negates,

in the Turiya the entire kaarya prapancha and the kaarana, that is

avidya, and its effects.

 

The Karika IV 58 says:

…..saa cha maayaa na vidyate: And that Maya does not exist.

The Acharya commences His bhashyam for the second chapter of the

Mandukya Karika: Vaitathya prakaranam thus: Om. Jnaate dvaitam na

vidyate (referring to karika I.18) Duality ceases to exist upon

realisation.

 

There are several other passages to substantiate the Vedantic

position that Maya (prakriti, avidya, ajnana, etc.) is only an

appearance. It is just a prakriyaa adopted to 'explain' the world-

appearance. Once the teaching is sufficiently grasped by the

aspirant, the concept of Maya is dropped.

 

Thank you Br. Vinayaka ji, for this post covering a question of

supreme importance to Vedanta.

 

Warm Regards,

subbu