Guest guest Posted January 31, 2001 Report Share Posted January 31, 2001 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.