Mind and the mukta

[Guest guest]

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

> Sri Vidyasankar wrote:

> Frankly, I think the various participants in the thread have

painted

> themselves into corners and are repeating themselves over and over.

I also

> think Sri Br. Pranipata Chaitanya made the most acute observation

on this

> thread recently. If dehI means dehAbhimAnI, then jnAnI is not a

dehI.

> However, if dehI merely means dehavAn iva lakshyate, then jnAnI can

be

> called a dehI, so long as the prArabdha plays itself out. There is

a lot

> of power in the Skt word " iva " , as illustrated beautifully in

> bhagavatpAda's gItAbhAshya introduction. We can write pages after

pages in

> English without ever capturing it that succinctly.

> The two sides of this discussion seem to be falling on two sides of

these

> possible meanings. All the argument then is either just semantics

or a lot

> of misunderstanding, both of which lead to personal

recriminations.

> Another member of the list, Raji Iyer, wrote eloquently about it,

but I

> don't have her email address to cc her!

> With warm regards,

> Vidyasankar

>

> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

> Namaste Advaitins,

>

> This seems to be a case of jumping off the fence on both sides and

> galloping off in all directions. Seriously though it’s

interesting that

> there is no clear cut authoritative analysis of the issue that

would put

> the issue to rest. Of course I think that the general tone of

Brh.IV.iv.6

> and particularly that represented by Shankara as an erroneous

position is

> a clear vindication of the - though in the body, they are not of

the body

> - view of jnanihood.

> " Objection: If liberation makes no difference from the particular

state,

> it is unreasonable to make a particular effort for it, and the

scriptures

> too become useless. "

>

> Possibly the problem is this: sutras which are more akin to poetry

than

> logical or philosophical analyses need careful sifting by a

realised

> sage. I think that the separation of discourse into relative and

absolute

> as a way of avoiding apparent contradiction can be a trap even

though it

> is habitually resorted to. As is said, reality is beyond the pairs

of

> opposites and is not conceptually graspable. Thus observations

about

> reality and those who have realised it fall short.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

 

Namaste M,

 

Yes lets not confuse apples and oranges even if they are both an

illusion.

 

My understanding is that the ego itself is not satisfied in actions

with a Mukta, and that the governing mind is the Sakti through the

vijnanamayakosa...The body will still complete the karmas however and

appear to be 'normal'....Cheers Tony.