What will it be like?

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Mariusz,

You have said:--.

 

" If I understand correctly S. N. Sastri's comment to the effect

that " each jiva is a subtle body with the reflection of consciousness

in it. It is these jivas who go on taking various gross bodies until

they get enlightenment " , it means that the same jiva goes from one

gross body to another, taking with it its karmic baggage, and thus

the karma aspect is all-important for liberation. However, this seems

a bit dualistic, doesn't it? Please correct me if I am wrong here " .

 

 

I will be grateful for your kind comments.

 

Best regards,

 

Mariusz

 

What I have said does not merely 'seem a bit dualistic'; it is positively

dualistic, because it is from the empirical or vyAvahArika standpoint. From

this point of view duality is real, the world is real and jivas are real.

But it is not the same reality as that of brahman, but it is reality of a

lower order, empirical or vyAvahArika reality. All statements and

discussions are possible only from the empirical standpoint. From the

absolute or pAramArthika standpoint there is only brahman; there is no one

else and so no discussion. Even the mahAvAkya " That thou art " is valid only

from the empirical standpoint under which there is a " thou " or jIva who

thinks, wrongly, that he is different from " That " , or brahman. The mahAvAkya

disabuses this jIva of this wrong notion. From the absolute standpoint there

is no " thou " separate from brahman and so there is no scope or need for any

such statement.

Sri Sankara points out in his work known as'daSaSlokI' that, from the

absolute standpoint brahman cannot be described even as " One " . It cannot be

described at all. madhusUdana sarasvati says in his commentary on daSaSlokI,

known as " Siddhantabindu " that even the statement in the chandogya upanishad

that brahman is " One only, without a second " is based on avidyA. Please see

paras 187 onwards in my translation of Siddhantabindu at

 

www.geocities.com/snsastri/siddhanta.pdf

 

The relevant Sloka of Sri Sankara is:--

na caikam tadanayd dvitIyam kutaH syAt

na vA kevalatvam na cAkevalatvam |

na Sunyam na cASUnyam advaitakatvAt

katham sarvavedAntasiddham bravImi ||

Meaning:--

" It is not one; how can there be a second different from it? It has

neither absoluteness nor non-absoluteness. It is neither void nor non-void

since it is devoid of duality. How can I describe that which is established

by the entire Vedanta! "

The following is the commentary of madhusUdana sarasvati on this Sloka:--

 

189. One is what is capable of being counted as one. A second is what is

capable of giving rise to the cognition of a second relative to it. When

there is no one, how can there be a second? A second is what implies a

third, etc.

 

190. Obj: But by the sruti " One only, without a second " (Cha.Up. 6.2.1),

oneness is postulated.

 

191. No. It is said (in the above sloka)—nor even absoluteness. Absoluteness

is oneness. That statement in the sruti—one only, without a second-- is

also due to avidya. (When the sruti says " One only, without a second " , it is

only repeating the general notion in the world which is due to avidya. Even

absoluteness cannot be postulated in respect of the Atma because that is

also a relative term). Then can it be said that if the sruti does not really

declare the oneness of the Atma, it follows, on the basis of the means of

knowledge such as perception, that there is definitely multiplicity?

 

192. The answer is—No. Not even non-absoluteness. Non-absoluteness is 'being

many'. This follows from the sruti statements such as, " There is no

diversity whatsoever here " (Br. Up. 4.4.19), " One only, without a second "

(Cha. 6.2.1), " Now therefore the instruction, not this, not this " (Br. Up.

2.3.6).

 

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sastri-ji,

 

 

 

You say: " Brahman does not manifest as anything. Brahman does nothing. "

 

 

 

Yes - this is a language problem - an ill-chosen word on my part. By

'manifest', I meant 'appear as or be interpreted as' but I see that this is

incorrect as the dictionary goes. Of course, I did not mean to imply that

brahman was doing something. But the point I was making remains, as you put

it yourself: " we (continue to) see Brahman as the word and as jIva-s " .

 

 

 

After X becomes enlightened, A, B, C... still continue to see Brahman as the

world and as jIva-s. Yet X, A, B, C... were, are and always will be only

brahman. The enlightenment of X has made no difference to anything (apart

from the peace of mind for the remainder of X's 'life').

 

 

 

I seem not to be making any progress here. I think perhaps we should call a

halt to the discussion now. I see that I am skipping between a paramArtha

and a vyavahAra view in the above paragraph. Perhaps that is the simple

explanation to the apparent dilemma.

 

 

 

You are very kind with your attribution of compassion and modesty - I am not

sure it is deserved.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Mariusz,

 

 

 

My statement

 

 

 

<< " when X is liberated, the identity of X is lost forever but the mistaken

identity of other jIva-s continues. Before X was liberated, there was

only brahman, appearing as all jIva-s and the world. After X is

liberated, there is still only brahman,appearing as all jIva-s and

the world. The liberation of X has made no difference to anything at

all other than that the mistaken belief of X that he or she was

separate and limited has gone from X's mind for the remainder

of X's embodiment. Brahman will continue to manifest as ignorant jIva-

s regardless " >>

 

 

 

did not (or at least was not meant to!) imply that

 

 

 

<<there are no " continuous " jivas, in

other words, that each jiva is just a unique " ripple " in the ocean of

the Self, so its karma does not carry over to anything, hence it does

not matter at all. >>

 

 

 

In fact, I was not really concerned at all with the concepts of karma and

reincarnation in this thread. (I do have reservations about both but it

could equally be assumed that I was happy with both.)

 

 

 

But I was implying that:

 

 

 

<<Consequently, each jiva's enlightenment is a one-

time phenomenon, with no consequences beyond this particular

jiva's " existence " .>>

 

 

 

Best wishes (and welcome to the group!),

 

 

 

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Sastri,

 

Thank you kindly for your very informative reply. I believe I perceive

the difference between the absolute and the empirical levels, as well

as the fact that there is really no difference between them, i.e., that

they are " one " . Would you therefore agree with a statement that, from

such perspective, karma does not matter at all?

 

Best regards,

 

Mariusz

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis,

 

But is not your statement to the effect that " when X is liberated, the

identity of X is lost forever " equal to what I have said, viz., " there

are no " continuous " jivas, in other words, that each jiva is just a

unique " ripple " in the ocean of the Self " ?

 

Best regards,

 

Mariusz

[Guest guest]

Sorry, an instantaneous self-correction: Now I see that these two

statements are not exactly identical because you are talking about a

liberated jiva while I talk about a " dead " jiva. The question about

jivas' continuity still remains, though.

 

Best regards,

 

Mariusz

 

 

 

 

In advaitin , " mortlake2002 " <shamshir wrote:

>

> Dear Dennis,

>

> But is not your statement to the effect that " when X is liberated,

the

> identity of X is lost forever " equal to what I have said,

viz., " there

> are no " continuous " jivas, in other words, that each jiva is just a

> unique " ripple " in the ocean of the Self " ?

>

> Best regards,

>

> Mariusz

>