Bhaghavath Gita lectures by Sri Sathyadhyana Theertha, Chapter 6, Part 14

[Guest guest]

hari sarvottamma, vaayu jiivottamma

 

shrii gurubhyo namaha

 

shrii kR^iShNa parabrahmane namaha

 

MUKTHI NAIJA SUKHA NUBHUTHIHI: DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF MUKTHI: MUKTHI

SVARUPA NIRUPANA: ESTABLISHMENT OF MUKTHI ENJOYMENT OF SVARUPANANDA

OFJEEVAS

 

Krishna says that bondage, freedom from bondage, freedom from the bondage

experience of sorrow from bondage, by freedom from bondage, freedom from

sorrow & experience of happiness for ever, all these are only for chethana.

 

BG 13-22,15: While chethana lives in the body made up of prakruthi, he will

be experiencing pleasure & pain created by prakruthi. One who knows the

freedom from the bondage from prakruthi & the method of getting that will

attain paramathma.

BG 4-10: Many chethanas ecome pure from jnana & tapas & attained Mukthi.

BG 5-21: A devotee who is a dhyanaruda will attain Mukthi & enjoy happiness

forever.

 

Non living anthakarana or mind (Buddhi visesha) is considered to be the

thing called 'I' instead of a definite soul. The system that intentionally

argues bondage is for the non living (jada) & Mukthi is for non living

(jada) is a form of dehathmavada of charavaka or on the basis of the

acceptance of all things that are actually experienced, it would appear that

jeeva himself has been called jada (non living): but this does not amount

to saying that jeeva has neither bondage nor Mukthi.

 

Now examination of hte statement that Brahmaikya is Mukthi in advaitha

system. We have previously stated that when there is already Brahma bhava,

there is no question of again getting that brahmabhava & where there is no

distinct feeling of enjoyer, enjoyed & enjoyment that state amounts to

jadathva like a stone & therefore it cannot be called a purushartha & as

such the state involves the destruction of feeling of " I " ness no one likes

to have such a state after making much effort. Another important point is

that there is not a single sruthi that states & confirms by direct

(Akhandaartha, not Lakshnartha) that jeeva & Brahm are identical. This is

acceptable by both advaithies & Dvaithies. Bhasya By Samaracharya on

Brihadharanya upanishad is very clear on the point. Meaning if we say that

upanishads like thathvamasi etc... confirm the identity of jeeva & brahma,

this is not only against other upanishads that describe creation of the

world etc... & karma kande of all vedhas, but it is also opposed to

prathyakshya Pramana, & anumana pramana, which confirm the difference

between jeeva & brahma. Therefore why we should not consider the sruties

that appear to show identity of jeeva & Brahma are either false, or give

some other meaning for them? This is a statement raising a doubt . But

here, Shankaracharya has clearly state that what is the evidence available

in favor of.

 

1. Identify between jeeva & brahma

2. difference between jeeva & brahma

According to him, in favor of identity only a few statements like

" thatvamasi " aham brahmasmi "

In the favor of difference

1. All prathyakshya pramanas

2. All anumana pramanas

3. Portions of upanishads describing creation etc...

4. Karmakanda of all vedas.

 

So in this way, except a few sentences like " thathvamasi " & " Aham

brahmasmi " . All other evidences are in favor of difference between jeeva &

brahma. This is according to the opinion of Shankaracharya himself. Now we

should consider the strength of a few sentences like thathvamasi that are

supposed to prove the identity of jeeva & Brahma. Advaithies themselves have

stated that the few sentences like thathvamasi do not clearly state the

identity of jeeva & Brahma. But if you breakup the sentence into three

words " thvam " & " Asi " (that you are). If you join the meaning of the three

words when they are separated, that combined meaning indicates that the

jeeva & brahma are identical. This method should not be followed. There is

the meaning of simply " Brahma " if you take the direct meaning (Mukthya

Vruthi) of the entire sentece as a whole. So far, the question what is

proof for the identify of jeeva & brahm aif the answer is just " Brahma " it

is not a clinching evidence. So, the grand structure of advaitha falls down

like the mansion built on sand. Sankaracharya himself has said that

sentences like thathvamasi do not mean by direct meaning (by Mukhyartha)

that jeeva & Brahma are identical. But you have to interpret the statement

" Chinmathra " is the same. The position of adhvaithies is this that there

are few sentences that show the identity of jeeva & Brahma on

lakshnavruththi & on the basis of these sentences, we reject all other

evidences that prove difference between jeeva & Brahma on Mukhyavruthi.

 

Here some consideration is necessary. If it is to be said that identity is

to be proved by Lakshanavruththi by sentences like thathvamasi

1. This knowledge of identity must have been obtained by mukhyavruththi by

any other sentence.

2. there should be some relationship between, all knowing Brahma & a little

knowing jeeva & chaithnya common to them. Athing which was not known by

Mukhya vruththi by any sentence cannot be known by Lakshna Vruthithi.

 

In Advaitha system, it is said that the meaning of chinmathra " Brahma " or

identity of Jeeva & Brahma is to be derived by Lakshnavruththi the two

objections pointed out above obstruct the effort. Since sankaracharya

himself has accepted that a few sentences like thathvamasi that indicate

identity do so only by Lakshanavruththi then by which other sentence one is

going to show the meaning as identity by mukthyavruththie? Therefore, it is

not permissible to apply lakshana vruthithi to arrive at the meaning as

identity of jeeva & Brahma.

2. There is no relationship between jeeva & Brahma known by Mukhyavruththi

& chinmathra known by Lakshanavruththi & identify. In Advaitha system,

Brahma is devoid of all relationship. Further advaithies say that identity

is also of Brahma. Since there is no relationship between meaning based on

Mukhyartha & the based on Lakshnaartha, there is no room to say that the few

sentences like thathvamasi indicate identify is also of Brahma. Since there

is no relationship between meaning based on Mukhyartha & that based on

Lakshnaartha, there is no room to say that the few sentences like

thathvamasi indicate identity by lakshnaartha.

3. It is proper to adopt Mukhyartha when possible to do so instead of

adopting Lakshaartha just to arrive at a meaning which has not been

established by Mukhyartha by any other sentences.

4. It is quite possible to interpret these sentences by Mukhyartha & they

support bhedartha between jeeva & brahma by applying suthras in grammer

like " supam suluk " etc... Panini himself has said (in vaidika prakarana)

that " Thath " can give meaning in more than one case ending as it is in the

nominative case like because of Brahma, for the sake of Brahma, & by Brahma,

you are here, you are servant of Brahma. you are under the support of

Brahma " etc.... Like this, all correct more than one meaning is possible by

mukhya vruththi. These would be in accordance with sruthies like a

sanmoolahasavaemaha prajaha " identity would be one derived from lakshnaartha

& ipposed to all pramanas. The sentence can be broken as atha +Athathvamsi.

according to grammer. By Mukthya vruththi, the meaning that you get is

different from you derived from Lakshnaartha it is in agreement with the

nine examples given under this sruthi which are all in favor of bhedha which

is accepted by advaithies.

 

Now it is clear that there is no sruthi which confirms the identity of jeeva

& Brahma even by Lakshnaartha neither nirgunabrahma nor Brahmaikhya has been

established, by convincing proofs. Just like flowers of the sky, the theory

of the unknown " Ikyanubhava " is mukhthi has become fit to be mentioned in

novles like the marriage of the son of barren woman.

 

Question: Swamy, the Ikya of jeeva & Brahma is not one that should be

established by pramanas like vedas. Brahma is svaprakasa. Ikya is also

Brahmathmaka. The experience of Brahmaikya need not come from vedas etc...

That comes peculiarly (vilakshana) in a different way. Therefore how can on

e say either there is no proof for the identity of jeeva & Brahma or that

Ikyanubhava (experience) is not Mukthi?

 

Answer: This is a clever statement, even some of the peopel knowing the

advaitha system also talk like this sometimes. For the ignorant people of

jijnasa, there is illusion that there is a great truth in this statement.

This is a question very appropriate for the present context. The truthi is

(Vasthuthathva) that adhvaithathamaka jeeva Brahma ikya svaprakasathvam

means unknowable. Advaithese say " Avedyathvam svaprasthvam " this means

that no body at any time will be able to know either Brahma or Brahmaikya.

How to say such unknowable brahmikya exists?

 

Question: Swamy, when an impression (general) that there is brahmaikya is

obtained from Brahmanubhava (experience of Brahma occurs of its own accord).

Why we should not say that this is realization of advaithathma. This is

Mukthi?

 

Answer: We have already proved that one can never get the idea of identity

of jeeva & Brahma from vedas. Sankaracharya himself has said that except

for a few sentences like thathvamasi, all other evidences are in favor of

bheda jnana only. Even the sentences like thathvamasi, when considered by

mukhyartha (akhandartha indicate only) chith. " There is no sentence that

can give an impression of identity of jeeva & Brahma.

2. We have also shown with reasons that there is no room in advaitha to get

the meaning of identity of jeeva & brahma even by lakshnaartha. Therefore

according to advaitha system, there is no possibility of knowling either

" Brahma jnana " or " Brahmaikya jnana " from vedas, therefore it is not proper

to say experience of brahma or experience of ikya is Mukthi.

 

Question: Swamy, this is my opinion. Veda need not teach identity. It is

not probable that vedas can make us understand the unknowable brahma. But

when we hear the sentences from upanisads like thathvamasi, Ahambrahmasmi,

though we may not enter into discussion of their meaning, we get a feeling

of deep happiness. In that good state of mind, the knowledge of advaiththma

happiness. That is the experience of Ikya, then there is nothing of

prapancha to me. I am also dissolved in Brahman. By such experience, we

can understand that there is advaithathma & Ikya is true. Some western

scholars say that if the philosophy of Shankara is taught in this way, it

will appeal to the mind in a particular way.

 

Answer:

 

TO BE

CONTINUED.................................................................

 

Lectures on Bhaghavath Geetha (Dhwaitha Siddhantha Vaijayanthi) by H. H.

Sri Sathya Dhyana Thirtha Sri Padhangalavaru, Uttradhi Mutt

Translated into English by Sri Krishnamurthy

 

Published by Sri M. R. Krishnamurthy & Sri M. N. Gururaja Rao of Mumbai

 

Printed at:

Parishree Printers

100/3 Nagappa Street

Palace Guttahalli

Bangalore 5600 04

Telephone # (80)36828

 

All rights remain with Uttradhi Mutt, Basavangudi, Bangalore 560004

Permission was given to post it in this list by the Uttradhi Mutt

authorities & by Sri SathyAthma Thirtha Swamiji of Uttradhi Mutt.

 

bhAratIramaNamukhyaprANA.ntargata shri kR^iShNArpanamasthu