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

[Guest guest]

Forwarded mail....

 

> 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

 

 

 

 

Photos - Share your holiday photos online!