Kanchi Maha-Swamigal's Discourses on Advaita Saadhanaa (KDAS-44) Corrected & Reposted

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

For a Table of Contents of these Discourses, see

advaitin/message/27766

 

For the previous post, see

advaitin/message/32320

 

SECTION 27: WHY IS THE ULTIMATE STAGE TERMED AS ‘RELEASE’

AND NOTHING MORE? (CONTD.)

Tamil Original: http://www.kamakoti.org/tamil/dk6-101.htm

 

When the basic sUtra of the Vedanta school is itself

mentioning the Brahman experience as the ultimate goal,

why is that MokShaM is talked of popularly as the ultimate

goal? I have already given one reason for this. Another

reason strikes me. The ideas of the Vedas and Vedanta go

back to antiquity. Later, that too in ancient times, other

schools and religions did blossom – namely, BauddhaM,

PAtanjalaM (that is, Yoga Shastra), NyAya (Logic).

Humanity did generate different opinions. Among these,

there did come in later times, schools and religions much

different from the basic Vaidika school of thought. There

came even some which were totally against the Vaidik

religion. However, except for the Lokayata school of

thought, all others have agreed to the central point of

reaching a state which transcends the bondage of samsAra.

The Lokayata school which contends that “There is no God;

no Atman, no after-life; so there is no question of karma

or karmic experience, let us eat well and enjoy well” is

not eligible to be called a religion. The others, though

different from pure Vedanta, certainly keep the goal of

Release from worldly tangle.

 

However, none of them talk about the bliss after the

Release! BauddhaM talks about the state of void – nirvANa –

at the end of it all. Nyaya – and its sister-school,

Vaisheshhika – talk of the goal as ‘apavarga’, which is

said to be only a state of sorrowlessness, but there is no

talk of any state of happiness or bliss. The Release from

the bondage of samsAra produces sorrowlessness. Since there

is no mention of any happiness, one might even think of it

as an inert state which does not recognize any unhappiness.

The ‘kaivalya’ that is the goal of Sankhya is only the

Release from the play of MayA caused by PrakRti; there is

no talk of any positive happy state. In Patanjali’s yoga

also, the very sUtra talks negatively about the control of

flow of mind and there is no positive mention of any Bliss

of Realisation. Obviously the bondage of SamsAra as well as

the impact of MayA are both felt only by the mind-flow and

so if one can stop that mind-flow by a rock-like dam, the

resulting Release is the Release from samsAra.

 

All these different schools and religions have been there

since ancient times. And that may be the reason why our

Vedanta also has mentioned the so-common ‘mokShaM’ as its

lakShyaM (goal).

 

If one goes by the Vedanta route and obtains that MokSha,

it has to be only Realisation of Brahman. It does not mean

there is something new called Brahman which is ‘realised’.

Nor does one obtain any new happiness of a state called

sat-cid-Ananda. The Jiva is always Brahman. He is a mass

of sat-cid-AnandaM. Still mAyA has played its trick by

binding a blindfold on him. When the SadhanA is complete,

that blindfold gets severed. He is released from MayA.

That is, he obtains MokSha. And simultaneously and

automatically he knows his true nature as Brahman. So all

the SadhanA is for the removal of MayA, to get a release

from MayA – not for producing a sat-cid-Ananda Brahman, nor

to obtain it, nor for any action related to that. It cannot

be produced or created. Nor can it be destroyed . It is

always existing. It is with us all the time --*svayaM

siddhaM* --. There is nothing like ‘obtaining’ it.

 

Looked at this way, what is achieved by SAdhanA is only the

breaking of the MayA-bondage and the Release implied

therein; so it is but fitting to call the goal of sAdhanA

as ‘MokSha’.

 

SECTION 28: MUMUKSHU: DEFINITION BY THE ACHARYA

Tamil Original: http://www.kamakoti.org/tamil/dk6-102.htm

 

One has to come out of this mAyA and become Brahman; this

should be the only thought of the mind. One who is thus

totally involved in this manner is said to be a ‘mumukShu’.

The Acharya in shloka #27(or 28) of Vivekachudamani gives

this definition:

 

ahaMkArAdi dehAntAn bandhAn-ajnAna-kalpitAn /

sva-svarUpA-vabodhena moktum-icchA mumukShutA //

 

Here he talks about both the mAyA that has to be discarded

and the Realisation of the Natural state, that one

experiences after the release from the mAyA.

 

Ignorance itself is mAyA. It is because of mAyA that Ego

is imagined as an ‘I’ distinct from the Supreme Self. This

ego is the source of all the hierarchy of errors. The

hierarchy starts in the form of that ego as a subtle

thought and ends up with an individualised ego in every

physical (sthUla) Jiva. What thinks of the body as oneself

is the action of mAyA. The Jiva has been bound by imagined

bondages right from the subtle ahamkAra down to the

concrete physical body. This is what is said in the first

line of the verse above.

[subbu-ji’s explanation of ‘dehAntAn’:

‘dehAntAn’ is one word which is a plural of the

word ‘dehAntaH’. The meaning is 'the group consisting of

members starting from ahamkara upto deha.' The overall

meaning of the verse considers each member of this group to

be a bandha. Thus ahamkAra is a bandha, buddhi is a

bandha....upto deha which is a bandha].

 

[Another comment by Subbu-ji:

Incidentally, the verse is a profound refutation of the

several schools that hold any one of these members as the

ultimate reality.The verse 'deham praanamapi' of the

Sridakshinamurtistotram is called up to one's memory when

the above verse is read.]

 

 

The desire to be rid of this bondage is *moktuM icchA*

(desire to be released). The anguish for the release is

*mumukShutA*. Such is the negative definition of ‘MokSha’.

But what the final goal is, is also mentioned right in the

middle of the shloka in a positive way:

*sva-svarUpAvabodhena*. ‘avabodhaM’ means waking up. The

waking up is the awakening to wisdom from the darkness of

ignorance. Wisdom about what? About ‘sva-svarUpa’, that

is, about Atman, one’s own natural true state. Instead of

saying ‘ awakening to wisdom about Atman’ we better say

‘awakening to the Atman’. The Atman itself is the wisdom,

knowledge. This awakening is called also ‘Awareness’. The

self-consciousness brought about by this awakening is not

different from the Atman. They are both the same. MayA is

Ignorance; Brahman is JnAna, Knowledge. That Knowledge is

the ‘sva-svarUpa-avabodhaM’.

 

(To be Continued)

PraNAms to all students of advaita.

PraNAms to the Maha-Swamigal.

profvk

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa murthy

Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

"V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk > wrote:

In the latest posting of yours on the above subject, it has been stated that "Ignorance itself is Maya". I have few doubts here:

(A): Sri Shankara, whereever he has described Maya, he uses the following terms for Maya :

avidyAkalpitA,

avidyApratyupasthApitA.

avidyAkRtA.

avidyAkAryA,

avidyAtmikA,

avidyAlakShaNA.

All the above terms mean the objective appearane due to avidya. If the term 'Ignorance' means avidya, then, according to Sri Shankara, Maya is the objective false appearance due to ignorance or avidya and avidya is subjective. Then how it has been stated "Ignorance itself is Maya"? I am confused.

I request you kindly to clarify the above matter.

With respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

 

 

 

Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers

[Guest guest]

sreenivasa murthy <narayana145 (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote: H.N.Sreenivasa murthy

Dear Sri Krishnamurthy,

"V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk > wrote:

 

 

All the above terms mean the objective appearane due to avidya. If the term 'Ignorance' means avidya, then, according to Sri Shankara, Maya is the objective false appearance due to ignorance or avidya and avidya is subjective. Then how it has been stated "Ignorance itself is Maya"? I am confused.

I request you kindly to clarify the above matter.

From

Sankarraman

Dear sir,

In many passages of the writings of Sankara, the terms avidya and Maya are being used with the same connotation. But it is clear from the works such as, 'Pancadasi' that the term Maya refers to the objective side, being the upadhi courted by Iswara, the very same Iswara deluding the jivas incarcerating them into the five kosas and the three states, whose sway the jiva is subject to; whereas the Iswara is not overcome by his Maya. I think it is purely a matter of semantics. There is no need for any confusion. So also, there are two different views about the locus of avidya, the one tracing it to the individual soul, and the other to Brahman. These are different intellectual theories.

with respectful regards,

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

Groups are talking. We´re listening. Check out the handy changes to .

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

In #32381 Srinivasamurthy-ji writes:

In the latest posting of yours on the above subject, it has been

stated

that "Ignorance itself is Maya". I have few doubts here:

(A): Sri Shankara, whereever he has described Maya, he uses the

following terms for Maya :

avidyAkalpitA,

avidyApratyupasthApitA.

avidyAkRtA.

avidyAkAryA,

avidyAtmikA,

avidyAlakShaNA.

All the above terms mean the objective appearane due to avidya. If

the

term 'Ignorance' means avidya, then, according to Sri Shankara, Maya

is the

objective false appearance due to ignorance or avidya and avidya is

subjective.

Then how it has been stated "Ignorance itself is Maya"? I am

confused.

I request you kindly to clarify the above matter.

 

Srinivasamurthy-ji,

 

I was away from the internet for 48 hours and within those 48 hours

much water has flown under the bridge. (Whether the bridge is the

advaitin-group and the river is advaita or it is vice versa, let

each one decide for oneself!). I notice that your mail needs a reply

from me. I also note that some others have given a reply.

 

Well. Each individual jIva has a beginningless ignorance which is

avidyA. The collective ignorance of the entire universe of all

jIvas is mAyA. It is customary in advaita literature to speak of

both as the same.

 

Here is a quote from `Advaita bodha-deepikA':

 

"Disciple: All the shAstras proclaim that this samsAra is the

handiwork of mAyA; but you say it is a product of Ignorance. How are

the two statements to be reconciled?

Master: Ignorance is called by different names: MayA, PradhAna,

avyakta, Darkness, Nature, avidyA. Therefore samsAra is the result

of Ignorance".

 

It is mAyA because it deceptively hides the Spirit behind Matter and

projects falsity.

It is Pradhana (fundamental) because it is the qualities inherent in

the Cosmic Energy (PrakRti) that gives matter its substance.

It is avyakta (unmanifest) because it is not perceptible to the

senses.

It is Darkness because the Light is not there.

It is Nature (PrakRti) because all matter came from the inferior

PrakRti (Cosmic Energy)

It is avidyA – Ignorance.

 

As far as I am concerned, I know I have avidyA and ShAstras say I am

in the clutches of mAyA. To get out of either, I need the direction

of the Guru. So when the Mahaswamigal says Ignorance itself is

mAyA, I have no way of analysing it !

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

 

 

 

>