the jivan mukta in advaita

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

One who has actually realized brahman, is a jIvanmukta - he is liberated while still living. He continues to live in a material body, because of the momentum of the prArabha karma that has already started taking fruit.

 

 

According to advaita, Atma is brahman who, due to ignorance, does not understand that he is Brahman and that the world (individuality) is false (jagan mithya). At the point of Brahman realization (i.e. mukti or liberation), his body continues to exist and he remains embodied, though liberated, until the prarabdha karmas are exhausted (i.e. his body dies). If the world is false and its perception existing only because of our avidya (ignorance), then when the avidya is removed, the illusory world should cease to exist. Our body and its karmas are the product of avidya, they are a mirage that does not actually exist but is only perceived to exist. If we remove avidya (ignorance), the mirage should no longer be perceived and the conditioned body and its prarabdha karma should no longer exist, nor should its perception exist.

 

We should conclude that the world is not false, but real (vishvam satyam).

[Guest guest]

 

yes a common mistake ,the advaitans mistake illusory for

non reality.

this world is illusory,yet it is real.

The term illusory does not refer to non existence,but instead to the perception of the illusioned soul.

 

this world is like the illusion created by a magician,

it is slight of hand,prestadigitation.

 

It is very real ,but not what it appears to be.

[shvu]

 

The body of a Jiivanmukta with it's praarabdha karma and it's activites exist only to the onlooker. There is no mukta there.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Then he is not a jivan mukta, there can be no liberated consciousness within him or functioning through him. If it is, then he is interacting with the illusory multiplicity, and therefore not beyond avidya.

 

For every conscious body there is the combination of atma and matter. When I (a conditioned soul) perceive a liberated "jivan-mukta", which consciousness is functioning within that body? If it is not a liberated consciousness, then it is not a jivan-mukta. If it is a liberated consciousness, then he is continuing to interact with avidya.

 

[theist]

shvu,

 

How does Advaita account for the presence of those onlookers?

 

Why isn't one liberation enough since there is only One?

[shvu]

 

 

For every conscious body there is the combination of atma and matter. When I (a conditioned soul) perceive a liberated "jivan-mukta", which consciousness is functioning within that body? If it is not a liberated consciousness, then it is not a jivan-mukta. If it is a liberated consciousness, then he is continuing to interact with avidya.

 

 

While consciousness exists, there is no individual/center there, witnessing himself apart from the rest of the Universe.

 

Cheers

 

 

[shvu]

 

Good question theist,

 

 

How does Advaita account for the presence of those onlookers?

 

 

To whom are the onlookers? Onlookers, etc are perceived only by someone who can perceive duality, i.e., someone who is not liberated. And as long as one still perceives duality, the universe continues to exist. In the case of a Jiivan mukta, there is no individual anymore who perceives duality and hence there are no onlookers.

 

 

Why isn't one liberation enough since there is only One?

 

 

See above.

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

While consciousness exists, there is no individual/center there, witnessing himself apart from the rest of the Universe.

 

 

In that case, the absolute non-dual Brahman, is interacting with illusion (a mirage) and functioning through an illusory body (another mirage). Thus he is situated and interacting within duality - there is something other than the One, there is multiplicity. If He is situated beyond multiplicity, then there is no question of interacting within the illusory nonexistant world. The multiplicity does not exist, and it is not perceived by the jivan-mukta, for it is a product of avidya (which the jivan-mukta has transcended). Thus it is impossible for the liberated Brahman to act on the level of multiplicity while remaining free from avidya.

 

[muralidhar]

My understanding is that Advaita-vada teaches that the Absolute is one without a second, so there is no possiblity of onlookers, since onlookers is a plural word. But there is an onlooker consiousness, Brahman, who is the knower of Truth, and who is one and the same as that Truth. The liberated soul shares the same state of thought as the Absolute Brahman itself, and is thus merged in the identity of Brahma-nirvana. There is no individual ego consciousness in Brahman, so there is no possiblity of individual "onlookers".

 

Of course this is all quite opposed to the liberated state of a pure devotee of Bhagavan.

 

Murali

[theist]

shvu:"To whom are the onlookers? Onlookers, etc are perceived only by someone who can perceive duality, i.e., someone who is not liberated. And as long as one still perceives duality, the universe continues to exist. In the case of a Jiivan mukta, there is no individual anymore who perceives duality and hence there are no onlookers."

 

But you are still describing separate classes of jivas.According to this theory, maya must have had a separate existence,with her own will to act on the Brahman in such a way as to break up the Brahman into fragments by covering them.

 

When one of those little brahman bits(technical term)becomes jivan mukta there are all these other little bits(jivas)still caught in duality.

 

How can you then refer to the Brahman as unchangable,unbreakable,and that it can't be cut up by matter?

 

Isn't it really that the jivas are always individual and some accepting sayuja-mukti simply fall into a state of deep slumber forgeting that the universes are real, while others remain caught in duality?

 

Hare Krsna

 

[shvu]

 

 

In that case, the absolute non-dual Brahman, is interacting with illusion (a mirage) and functioning through an illusory body (another mirage). Thus he is situated and interacting within duality - there is something other than the One, there is multiplicity...

 

 

It is very simple. Mukti, Jiiivanmktas, etc are only for Jiivas, who perceive diversity. As long as one can perceive diversity, there is Brahman, an illusion, Maayaa, etc. Mukti is when there are no such labels including Mukti [Realized state, consciousness] itself.

 

Gaudapaada says, "The ultimate reality is that no one is ever born" and Shankara in his commentary says this is the one line summary of the truth.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

 

 

But you are still describing separate classes of jivas.According to this theory, maya must have had a separate existence,with her own will to act on the Brahman in such a way as to break up the Brahman into fragments by covering them.

 

 

I did not mention separate classes of jiivas. According to Vedaanta, jiivas are not created and were always in existence. That is to say, they are beginningless. Hence, there is no point of time when an "external entity" Maayaa acted on Brahman and "covered" Brahman. In fact, since Maayaa itself is unreal, how can such a thing happen?

 

Now this may sound confusing to some. A good anology here is the Rajju-sarpa [rope-snake] example often quoted by Advaitins. A rope is mistaken to be a snake in the absence of sufficent light, but under proper light, the truth about it's real nature is known. Was there ever a snake? No. The same applies to Maayaa. Another example is that of a dream. I dream that I am a king living in a huge castle. When I wake up, nothing from the dream exists. Although the castle was real enough in the dream, the truth is it never existed.

 

 

When one of those little brahman bits(technical term)becomes jivan mukta there are all these other little bits(jivas)still caught in duality.

 

 

There are no bits. The truth is, no one is ever born and so no one was ever deluded. But this is Mukti. Prior to that, there is no Maayaa, and so everything is real. You are separate from me and I am separate from anyone else. Unless you understand the difference between these two perspectives, your confusion will remain.

 

 

Isn't it really that the jivas are always individual and some accepting sayuja-mukti simply fall into a state of deep slumber forgeting that the universes are real, while others remain caught in duality?

 

 

This is covered above.

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

It is very simple.

 

 

Yes, it is simple, but not self-consistent.

 

 

Mukti, Jiiivanmktas, etc are only for Jiivas, who perceive diversity. As long as one can perceive diversity, there is Brahman, an illusion, Maayaa, etc. Mukti is when there are no such labels including Mukti [Realized state, consciousness] itself.

 

 

Thus it is impossible for there to be jivan-mukti in advaita vedanta. Jivan-mukti requires a liberated atma to remain embodied while prarabdha karmas are burnt off. That liberated atma continues to act within the world, yet all new karmic reactions are burnt by the fire of jnana, thereby not creating any new reactions. Thus there is action after the state of mukti (jivan-mukti). Yet how is it possible for the liberated atma (who has now realized that he is the absolute supreme Brahman and all that there is) to continue acting through the deha of his embodied self. To do so would require continued perception of multiplicity, which is a direct product of avidya. If he is situated within avidya, he is not liberated. If he is situated beyond avidya, he experiences no multiplicity and cannot perform any illusory activities. Yet the jivan-mukta by definition continues to act within the world through his past body, thus he continues to experience multiplicity.

 

It is impossible for jivan-mukti to exist within advaita vedanta and for the system to continue to be a self-consistent model.

[shvu]

 

 

Thus it is impossible for there to be jivan-mukti in advaita vedanta. Jivan-mukti requires a liberated atma to remain embodied while prarabdha karmas are burnt off.

 

 

If a liberated soul has to still work off karma, then the soul isn't liberated. Karma does not persist to the Atma after Liberation. The Praarabdha karma is what the body took birth for and it completes it's destined work. Ramana is believed by many to be a solid example of this in recent times.

 

I will try and locate Shankara's exact words on this topic, tonight.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

I have a simple question for Shvu and JNDas. Are you debating based on your personal realization or the realization of your acharyas ? What is your grantha ? The following is the reason is why I am stating this :

 

JNDas is using his logic to debate advaita but is not quoting the authority of any of his pUrvAcharyas. Shvu, while you say that you are debating based on what Sankara says, you are making statements before referring Sankara's works.

[shvu]

 

 

JNDas is using his logic to debate advaita but is not quoting the authority of any of his pUrvAcharyas.

 

 

 

What is the need? One can debate using logic alone. Surely, any consistent system should stand the test of logic.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Administrator, can you please add a provision in your discussion forum to indicate that this discussion is casual ? One who understands remembers. If we forget the verse, that is because we have not internalized the words of the acharya (Sankara) enough. Of course, in this age we have less intelligence and forgetfulness is normal. But if we are serious, we would refer the works of the acharya, re-ascertain the conclusion and then present the same with proper reference. Not doing that is a matter of choice but then in my estimate such a discussion is casual and superficial. Therefore, the points thus made are not worth wasting time on. Marking this as a casual discussion would prevent me from visiting this thread.

 

Shvu, thanks for answering on behalf of JNDas. But he himself did not say that he is debating on purely logical grounds. As far as I know, he would debate on the basis of the authority of gaudiya vaishnava pUrvAcharyas.

[shvu]

 

 

Therefore, the points thus made are not worth wasting time on. Marking this as a casual discussion would prevent me from visiting this thread.

 

 

Ram,

 

I have no idea what your issue is.

 

You have in the past, discussed Advaita at length without supplying a *single* quote from Shankara. However, now you seem to have a problem with me not remembering exact verses! There is no obligation from anyone to produce exact references, unless they are asked for or out of one' own choice.

 

You also chose to ignore exact verses of Shankara that I reproduced once, in favor of your understanding of Advaita which you say is something you got from reading Totakaashtakam. With due respect, your version of what you call Advaita [with eternal forms] is incorrect. Perhaps it is some kind of Bheda-abheda or Vishishtadvaita, but it is most certainly not Advaita.

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Karma does not persist to the Atma after Liberation. The Praarabdha karma is what the body took birth for and it completes it's destined work. Ramana is believed by many to be a solid example of this in recent times.

 

 

But a body must exist with a soul in it for life. The body which is exhausting its prarabda karma has a fully realized brahman functioning through it. That functioning requires perception of the multiplicity, which is avidya. Thus the fully realized Brahman is in ignorance.

 

To be practical, a soul such as Ramana attains jivan-mukti (hypothetically). He is now free from the ignorance of experiencing the multiplicity and only experiences the one nondual absolute reality. Yet his body is continuing to function as a conscious entity. He walks, talks, answers questions; all of which require perception of multiplicity, which is a product of avidya. If he is realized and liberated he should no longer perceive the ignorance of multiplicity. If he continues to perceive it, then we can conclude he is not liberated.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

I have a simple question for Shvu and JNDas. Are you debating based on your personal realization or the realization of your acharyas ?

 

 

Before answering I need to know if your question is based on your own inquisitiveness, or the inquisitiveness of your previous acharyas.

 

 

What is your grantha ?

 

 

Here we don't use granthas, we use pusthakams. Inda thamizh nadu. Neenga thamizh la pesunga.

 

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[theist]

There is a verse in SB which speaks very directly to this point.But I can't remember where it is.Somewhere in the first nine cantos I think. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

I can imagine Supersoul continuing the play with the jiva that had absorded himself in either Brahman realization or as the verse from SB spoke of it, absorbtion in the Lord's pastimes.

 

I don't see how the advaitins can fully explain it though without acknowledging Supersoul.

[raga]

I would like to see if Ram can quote something from the writings of Shankara.

 

Since Gita is about the only text I've seen him quoting, perhaps he could start with Sankara's Gita Bhasya available at http://www.granthamandira.org/ggm2/ggm.php?action=category&id=4 .

[karthik_v]

 

Here we don't use granthas, we use pusthakams. Inda thamizh nadu. Neenga thamizh la pesunga.

 

 

Dear J N Das prabhuji,

 

Super thalaivaa!!! Vaazgha Thamizh pesum engaL pon man chemmal J N Das!! I didn't know you can speak decent Tamil. Good job. Did you see Baba?

[Guest guest]

jndas - nin thamizhai vazhtha vayadillai vanangugiren.

 

i dont have the age to appreciate to praise your tamil, i pray at the feet of your tamil jnanam.

 

i introduced one tamil to jndas so that he can preach to him. jndas spoke a little tamil and the tamil man was very impressed. he said : "paravallai thambi bhakti mattum illama tamilum therinju vachirukkaru. greaT". ((younger) brother knowledge is not limited to bhakti alone but he knows tamil also.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

I have a simple question for Shvu and JNDas. Are you debating based on your personal realization or the realization of your acharyas?

 

 

To give a serious reply, I am analysing the self-consistency of a tenet of advaita (jivan-mukti). I am judging it based on logic, as self-consistency is associated with logic as opposed to divine statement. Such a discussion has nothing to do with realization, neither personal nor that of previous acharyas. It is based on self-contradictions within a teaching.

 

 

What is your grantha?

 

 

I am using the first quote in this thread as the basis for further discussion. If one does not consider that a proper presentation of the teaching of Shankara, then it doesn't have to be connected to Shankara. Advaita is not founded by Shankara. It has existed for millions of years, and has had thousands of teachers and lineages, with many disagreeing with each other on particular points of doctrine.

 

 

JNDas is using his logic to debate advaita but is not quoting the authority of any of his pUrvAcharyas.

 

 

It isn't necessary to cite one's purvacharya's when dealing with direct observations. I am saying the preceding tenet of advaita is inconsistent with the overall doctrine. It doesn't matter whether I say it or Mr. XYZ says it. Whether it is true or not, or whether it was spoken by me or Mr. XYZ, it could be addressed and refuted logically.