the jivan mukta in advaita

[karthik_v]

 

Actually the factual error is in your statement. Namo Narayana is in the vocative, it is addressing someone as Narayana, and is the custom of all Sadhus in Rishikesh and Badrinatha. The mantra Ramanuja gave is "Om namo narayanaya", "I offer obeisances to Narayana." They are completely different statements.

 

 

Thanks for pointing out. I have never seen any Advaitin such as the seers of the Kanci mutt address that way. Nor have I heard of that. The behaviour of some unknown ascetics in Rshikesh is not the yardstick for measuring Advaita, which has be be measured only by the writings of Sankara.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

The behaviour of some unknown ascetics in Rshikesh is not the yardstick for measuring Advaita...

 

 

You seem to think the Kanchi matha is the bonadfide representative of Shankara's teachings. Factually Shankara's advaita is more prominent (and properly preserved) in Benares and Rishikesh than anywhere else in India. The Kanchi Matha is a fabrication, and was never directly connected to Shankara anyway. They have fabricated evidence to claim that their Matha is 2,500 years old. Of course you know all this, and it is off topic in this thread, so I won't get into that.

 

 

...Advaita, which has be be measured only by the writings of Sankara.

 

 

Again you think advaita is the composition of Shankara. Shankara was a follower of Advaita, not the founder.

[karthik_v]

 

You seem to think the Kanchi matha is the bonadfide representative of Shankara's teachings. Factually Shankara's advaita is more prominent (and properly preserved) in Benares and Rishikesh than anywhere else in India. The Kanchi Matha is a fabrication, and was never directly connected to Shankara anyway. They have fabricated evidence to claim that their Matha is 2,500 years old. Of course you know all this, and it is off topic in this thread, so I won't get into that.

 

 

Let us ignore Kanci mutt, for argument's sake. Do you accept that Sankara established atleast 4 mutts? Did you, or SP for that reason, quote any of the writings of any of those Sankaracaryas atleast? As far as I know Sankara didn't establish any mutt in Rshikesh or Benaras. If by your definition, Kanci mutt is fraudulent, by what yardstick Sai Baba fits into your list of prominent advaitins? Did Sankara found the Whitefield ashram?

 

 

Again you think advaita is the composition of Shankara. Shankara was a follower of Advaita, not the founder.

 

 

Not really. Did I not mention earlier that he acknowledges other karikars? No Advaitin has ever stated that Sankara's Advaita is in contradiction with that of the previous acaryas in that tradition. Even academics haven't stated so. I have never seen SP also mention any other Advaita acarya than Sankara [remember his infamous rascal's version, Sankara's version?]. So, any criticism of Advaita should begin with a quotation of Advaita works composed by Sankara.

[theist]

karthik:"I have never seen SP also mention any other Advaita acarya than Sankara [remember his infamous rascal's version, Sankara's version?]."

 

It has been shown repeatedly and convincingly[to those that are willing to understand]that SP has great respect for Sankaracarya.

 

This one quote when placed next to SP's other statements is seen as not being derogatory to Sankara.Try reading that it is a 'version for rascals' and the fog should lift.

[shvu]

 

Theist,

 

Is it possible for one to say "BG as it is" is for rascals and also at the same time have great respect for Prabhupada?

 

Thanks

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

It is possible if you consider Prabhupada a Buddha like incarnation who appeared to delude people. Prabhupada's view of Shankara (and Chaitanya's view) is that he is an incarnation of Lord Shiva who came on the Lord's order to establish a particular temporary doctrine that was necessary at the time. Thus it is logically consistent for a follower of Chaitanya to accept Shankara as a great person and respect him, but to disregard his teachings. Its the same case with Buddha. The Vaishnava acharya's accept Buddha as an avatara of Vishnu, yet they will ridicule his teachings of "anatman".

[theist]

Exactly as Jndas has stated.

[karthik_v]

Shvu,

 

In its strict interpretation, Advaita allows only for the eternal existence of Nirguna brahman. You had stated that a jiivan mukta still preaches to a devotee just as in BG 4:7. Now I have 2 questions in this regard:

 

One, that verse implies that Krishna has some concern for the devotee and so intervenes. In other words, this implies the existence of some attributes in the Supreme, for without which He cannot have concern for His devotee. If we are to state that a jiivan mukta also intervenes in the same way, does it not contradict the basic tenet of Advaita that the nirguna brahman is without attributes?

 

Two, does Adi Sankara relate to any of his personal experiences of realization in any of his works?

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

One, that verse implies that Krishna has some concern for the devotee and so intervenes. In other words, this implies the existence of some attributes in the Supreme, for without which He cannot have concern for His devotee.

 

 

Why would the nondual Brahman, that is beyond ignorance and does not perceive duality, descend to the platform of duality (ignorance) in the form of Avatara, to preach to the illusory aspects of his own identity in a nonexistent world.

 

If he comes to help the conditioned atmas, that is just ignorance, for in reality those jivas don't exist, nor are they bound, as per Brahman's cognition in pure brahman realization according to advaita.

[raga]

 

Why would the nondual Brahman, that is beyond ignorance and does not perceive duality, descend to the platform of duality (ignorance) in the form of Avatara, to preach to the illusory aspects of his own identity in a nonexistent world.

 

If he comes to help the conditioned atmas, that is just ignorance, for in reality those jivas don't exist, nor are they bound, as per Brahman's cognition in pure brahman realization according to advaita.

 

 

The answer is given in the excerpt from Brihad Aranyaka I quoted earlier (1.4.2-3). According to Shankara, this is a description of Supreme Brahman (according to Shvu).

 

<hr>

<font color="darkred">so.abibhet

sas abibhet

tasmAdekAkI bibheti |

tasmAd ekAkI bibheti

sa hAyamIkshAM chakre

sa ha ayam IkshAm chakre

yanmadanyannAsti

yad mad anyad na asti

kasmAnnu bibhemIti |

kasmAd nu bibhemi iti

tata evAsya bhayaM vIyAya |

tatas eva asya bhayam vIyAya

kasmAddhyabheshhyat

kasmAd dhi abheshhyat

dvitIyAdvai bhayaM bhavati || 2 ||

dvitIyAd vai bhayam bhavati

 

sa vai naiva reme

sa vai na eva reme

tasmAdekAkI na ramate |

tasmAd ekAkI na ramate

sa dvitIyamaichchhat

sa dvitIyam aichchhat

sa haitAvAnAsa yathA strIpumA{\m+}sau samparishhvaktau |

sa ha etAvAn Asa yathA strIpumA{\m+}sau samparishhvaktau

sa imamevA.a.atmAnaM dvedhA.apAtayat|

sa imam eva AtmAnam dvedhA apAtayat

tataH patishcha patnI chAbhavatAm |

tatas patis cha patnI cha abhavatAm

tasmAdidamardhabR^igalamiva sva iti ha smA.a.aha yAGYavalkyas

tasmAd idam ardhabR^igalam iva svas iti ha sma aha

yAGYavalkyaH

tasmAdayamAkAshaH striyA pUryata eva |

tasmAd ayam AkAshas striyA pUryate eva

tAsamabhavat

tAm samabhavat

tato manushhyA ajAyanta || 3 ||

tatas manushhyAs ajAyanta</font color>

 

<font color="darkblue">2. He feared, and therefore any one who is lonely fears. He thought, 'As there is nothing but myself, why should I fear?' Thence his fear passed away. For what should he have feared? Verily fear arises from a second only.

 

3. But he felt no delight. Therefore a man who is lonely feels no delight. He wished for a second. He was so large as man and wife together. He then made this his Self to fall in two (pat), and thence arose husband (pati) and wife (patni). Therefore Yagnavalkya said: 'We two are thus (each of us) like half a shell. ' Therefore the void which was there, is filled by the wife. He embraced her, and men were born.</font color>

 

<hr>

[shvu]

 

In its strict interpretation, Advaita allows only for the eternal existence of Nirguna brahman. You had stated that a jiivan mukta still preaches to a devotee just as in BG 4:7. Now I have 2 questions in this regard:

 

One, that verse implies that Krishna has some concern for the devotee and so intervenes. In other words, this implies the existence of some attributes in the Supreme, for without which He cannot have concern for His devotee. If we are to state that a jiivan mukta also intervenes in the same way, does it not contradict the basic tenet of Advaita that the nirguna brahman is without attributes?

 

 

It is imperative that we keep in mind the difference between the jnaani's world and the ajnaani's world. They are very different in Advaita.

 

The jnaani's view:

 

"When all that exists is the self, who is there to help and who is there to worship?"

 

On the Paramaartika level, there is only the Nirguna Brahman, period. From the Jiivanmukta's perspective [if we can call it that] there is no one to help, no deluded beings and most importantly, no such thing as liberation itself. As Gaudapaada says, the ultimate truth is that no one is ever born and no one ever dies. Needless to say, he has no body, either.

 

According to Shankara, a person can attain Mukti at any point of time [bG Bhaashya, 13th chapter], and thus he sanctions Jiivanmukti, which is denied by the other two big schools of Vedaanta. The natural question that comes up next is "If a person attains Mukti what is the necessity for the body to coninue to live on as in the case of Shankara, Ramana, etc"? The answer is the Praarabdha karma of the body. Ramana did no saadhana and was an ordinary child, but yet was liberated at the age of sixteen. The reason is he was a yoga brashta, someone who had come within inches of realization in his past life. The results of this past saadhana enabled him to attain mukti without actually doing a thing. After Mukti, the body continues to function without actually having a center [Ramana's description] to fulfill it's destiny. It is better to read his own words on the topic.

 

The ajnaani's view:

Bondage, Liberation, a Krishna who is concerned about liberating mankind, Jiivankumta [or more specifically, the body of a jiivanmukta], etc, make sense only on the Vyavahaarika level. On the Vyavahaarika level, Brahman possesses attributes and is is different from the Jiiva. The rest follows.

 

 

Two, does Adi Sankara relate to any of his personal experiences of realization in any of his works?

 

 

Far as I know, no. He sticks to the doctrine in his texts and in a few places such as the kaarika bhaashya, he salutes his Guru and parama Guru for removing his ignorance. That is as personal as he gets. His personal stories can be found in his biographies, which of course are mostly hagiographic. Ramana's talks are very useful in getting answers to this question.

 

Cheers

[Somesh Kumar]

Dear Karthik,

 

Perhaps, you got stuck with the analogy. I cautioned you not to get stuck with that, but seems like, for now, we need to go with the analogy

 

 

Analogy is the best way of understanding complex situations. So, it's good to have an analogy. Though I agree with you that in this subject analogy cannot be taken cent percent.

 

 

Let us turn the analogy around once more. You said it is the girl's dharma to go to her husband's place. I agree. Suppose, the girl is obsessed with her parents that she won't even marry or if married, won't even think of her husband and just live with her parents, is she fulfilling that dharma? Is her attachment to her temporal state, her parents' abode, helping her fulfill her dharma? Obviously not.

 

 

No, she is not fulfilling her dharma. But please do understand what I posted before as well. The forgetfulness of dharma on part of the girl is again because of Krishna. Why? This verse will answer it which I quoted before:

 

sarvasya chaham,

hrdi sannivishtam,

mattah smritir,

gyanam apohanam cha

 

"I am present in the heart of everyone and rememberance, forgetfulness and knowledge is due to Me"

 

Also the forgetfulness is based on the wish of the person as the Paramatma consents to the wish of the person as I quoted the verse before:

 

updrshta anumanta cha

bharta bhokta mahesvara

pamatmeti capyukto

dehesmin purusha parah

 

So Krishna is consenting to the wish of the person - anumanta.

 

The point I am trying to make here by repeating from the previous post is that It's because of Krishna's and Jiva's wish that someone wants to stop at Brahman realisation and someone comes to the realisation of the stage above Brahman which is <u>Paramatma</u> and <u>Bhagavaan</u>.

 

Sukadeva Gosvami was a Brahma-gyaani and what was His enjoyment after attaining that?

 

Singing Hari katha Talking about Hari's pastimes and enjoying in that blissful ocean of Hari's sweetness!!!

 

Veda Vyasa, father of Sukadev Gosvami, who wrote all the Vedas and so many philosophical treatises. He felt that even though He has written so much about Brahman etc. etc. but still He was lacking something.

 

And what gave Him satisfaction?

 

Glorifying Hari and His activities in Srimad Bhagavatam

 

 

Anyway, the objective of this discussion is not to establish the superiority of Advaita over GV/Vaishnavism or vice versa. I don't believe that such a thing is even possible.

 

 

By considering the above examples don't you think that Vaishnavism is superior? Please don't consider this as fanaticism or something like that...

 

 

[karthik_v]

Dear Somesh prabhuji,

 

 

The point I am trying to make here by repeating from the previous post is that It's because of Krishna's and Jiva's wish that someone wants to stop at Brahman realisation and someone comes to the realisation of the stage above Brahman which is Paramatma and Bhagavaan.

 

 

Who that Supreme is explained in BG 13:18 as well, so we cannot isolate a verse and arrive at a conclusion. This verse clearly says that He is unmanifested. I am curious to know why you consider Brahman realization to be inferior to the rtealization that culminates as a result of bhakti. Does Krishna say so? As regards 13:23, here is what Sankara says:

 

 

Sankara comments:

 

He who is the upadrasta, Witness, who while staying nearby does not Himself become involved: As when the priests and the performer of a sacrifice remain engaged in duties connected with the sacrifice, there is another (called Brahma) remaining nearby who is unengaged, is versed in the science of sacrifices and witnesses the merit or demerit of the activities of the priest and the performer of the sacrifice, similarly, He who is not engaged in the activities of and is different from the body and organs, who has characteristics other than theirs, and is the proximate (upa) observer (drasta) of the body and organs engaged in their duties, is the upa-drasta.

 

Or: The observers are the body, eyes, mind, intellect and the soul. Of them the body is the external observer. Proceeding inwards from that (body), the Self is the inmost as also the proximate observer, compared with which there is no other higher and inner observer. The Self, because of being the most proximate observer, is the upadrasta. Or, It is the upadrasta since, like the non-looker of a sarifice, It witness everything.

 

And He is the anu-manta, Permitter: Anumananam, approval, means satisfaction with those performers (viz body and organs) as also their perfomances. The agent of that (approval) is the anumanta. Or, He is the anumanta since, even though Himself not engaged in the activities of the body and organs, He appears to be favourably disposed towards and engaged in them. Or, He is the anumanta because, when the body and organs are engaged in their own functions, He remains as a witness and never dissuades them.

 

It is the bharta, Sustainer: Bharanam means the continuance in their own state of the body, organs, mind and intellect, which reflect consciousness and have become aggregated owing to the need of serving the purpose [Viz enjoyment, or Liberation.-Tr.] of some other entity, viz the conscious Self. And that (continuance) is verily due to the consciousness that is the Self. In this sense the Self is said to be the Sustainer.

 

It is the bhokta, Experiencer: As heat is by fire, similarly, the experiences of the intellect-in the form of happiness, sorrow and delusion in relation to all objects-, when born as though permeated by the consciousness that is the Self, are manifested differently by the Self which is of the nature of eternal Consciousness. In this sense the Self is said to be the Experiencer.

 

He is maheswarah, the great God, because, as the Self of all and independent, He is the great Ruler.

 

He is paramatma, the transcendental Self, because He is the Self which has the characteristics of being the supreme Witness etc. of (all) those-beginning from the body and ending with the intellect-which are imagined through ignorance to be the indwelling Self. He is api ca, also; uktah, spoken of, referred to, in the Upanisads; iti, as, with the words; 'He is the indwelling One, the paramatma, the transcendental Self.' [Ast reads atah in place of antah. So the translation of the sentence will be: Therefore He is also referred to as the transcendental Self in the Upanisads.-Tr.] Where is He? The parah, suprem; purusah, Person, who is higher than the Unmanifest and who will be spoken of in, 'But different is the supreme Person who is spoken of as the transcendental Self' (15.17); is asmin, in this; dehe, body.

 

What has been presented in, '....also understand Me to be the Knower of the field' (2), has been explained and conclude.

 

 

[karthik_v]

Dear Somesh prabhuji,

 

 

Veda Vyasa, father of Sukadev Gosvami, who wrote all the Vedas and so many philosophical treatises. He felt that even though He has written so much about Brahman etc. etc. but still He was lacking something.

 

 

If someone feels discontent, then as per Advaita, he is not yet realized.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

The answer is given in the excerpt from Brihad Aranyaka I quoted earlier (1.4.2-3). According to Shankara, this is a description of Supreme Brahman (according to Shvu).

 

 

But that Brahman being discussed here is the Purusha prior to universal creation (the unmanifested state of material existence). That is already a level of duality or multiplicity.

 

Loneliness implies personality. To be lonely is like to be angry, happy, silly etc. So Brahman must have diversity in personality in order to be lonely. The word lonely separated from other characteristics is meaningless. It is understood not in isolation but only in conjunction with other aspects of personality.

 

Another thing to consider is if Brahman feels lonely and so incarnates, then why on earth would we want to attain self-realization since that will just be a place of loneliness. It is better that we avoid that place of loneliness and stay in this world. It makes the whole point of attaining brahman useless. Its not full of bliss, but rather full of loneliness.

 

Brahman has been described in the Upanishads and Vedanta Sutra as full of bliss. Thus we cannot accept that the Brahman feels lonely and is lacking, and therefore incarnates to fill that void. If such a case were true, then we have already attained our perfection, as the state of nondual Brahman was lacking, and material variety was his "liberation" from it. We would be in the more progressive and complete stage of existence.

 

The question as to why the Brahman incarnates remains unanswered. It cannot be for compassion for the conditioned jivas, as they do not exist to Him. It is like you feeling compassion for a character in a film, that you never saw and that was never written, and that was never broadcasted on TV, and actually didn't exist. It makes no sense at all. To the supremely nondual Brahman, they is no question of avidya or perception of variety. There are no deluded souls to deliver, nor is there a world to incarnate into, nor is there a personality to incarnate.

 

If one says an incarnation is only the perception of a conditioned Jiva, and He also doesn't actually exist, then it is just a big joke. The conditioned perception of the jiva is imagining an incarnation (to deliver spiritual knowledge to man). In reality it is all then just a product of our self-created illusion, and therefore the teachings of the avatara are also illusion. Again it becomes like a thousand monkeys at a typewriter trying ot write a novel.

 

I will repost my original questions, as I would like to get an answer from advaitins before I continue:

 

"Why would the nondual Brahman, that is beyond ignorance and does not perceive duality, descend to the platform of duality (ignorance) in the form of Avatara, to preach to the illusory aspects of his own identity in a nonexistent world."

 

"If he comes to help the conditioned atmas, that is just ignorance, for in reality those jivas don't exist, nor are they bound, as per Brahman's cognition in pure brahman realization according to advaita."

[karthik_v]

 

The question as to why the Brahman incarnates remains unanswered. It cannot be for compassion for the conditioned jivas, as they do not exist to Him.

 

 

This is a good question.

[shvu]

 

Who sees Brahman incarnating, etc? That answers the question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[karthik_v]

 

Who sees Brahman incarnating, etc? That answers the question.

 

 

Jivaa, who still perceives duality.

[shvu]

 

That is it. So long as one is clear about the distinction between Vyavahaarika and Paramaartika, there will be no confusion. All doubts about Advaita arise due to mixing up the two.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

From my previous post:

 

If one says an incarnation is only the perception of a conditioned Jiva, and He also doesn't actually exist, then it is just a big joke. The conditioned perception of the jiva is imagining an incarnation (to deliver spiritual knowledge to man). In reality it is all then just a product of our self-created illusion, and therefore the teachings of the avatara are also illusion. Again it becomes like a thousand monkeys at a typewriter trying ot write a novel.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Shvu,

 

Previously you had stated the universal Brahman is acting in the body of the jivan-mukta. Now the stance is that actually it is only the jiva who perceives the Brahman acting in the body of the jivan-mukta, but the Brahman in reality is not acting.

 

In other words, we are just imagining incarnations, liberated souls, etc. They are just products of avidya, their teachings are products of avidya, and their actions are products of avidya. The Gita on the other hand says Krishna's janma and karma are divyam.

 

Again the consistency in advaita is slowly disipating like the fog in the morning.

 

[shvu]

 

Once again the same old problem of mixing up the the real with the apparent. So long as you keep doing this, you will continue to have this distorted picture of Advaita and you will continue to find it one big joke. The bright side to this is at least it makes you laugh.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

1) Brahman is absolutely nondual.

 

2) Brahman incarnates.

 

3) Actually Brahman doesn't incarnate, only the illusioned jivas perceive it to incarnate.

 

4) Perception of variety is due to avidya.

 

5) The incarnation perceives and interacts with the multiplicity (variety) and thus is also influenced by avidya.

 

6) That illusioned incarnation teaches us how to be free from the duality he himself is in.

 

[shvu]

1) Brahman is absolutely nondual. [Paramaartika]

 

2) Brahman incarnates. [Vyavahaarika]

 

3) Actually Brahman doesn't incarnate, only the illusioned jivas perceive it to incarnate. [Wrong]

 

-- The Jiiva perceives incarnations/jiivanmuktaas [Vyavahaarika]

 

-- No one is ever born. [Paramaartika]

 

4) Perception of variety is due to avidya.[Correct]

 

5) The incarnation perceives and interacts with the multiplicity (variety) and thus is also influenced by avidya. [Wrong]

 

6) That illusioned incarnation teaches us how to be free from the duality he himself is in. [Wrong]

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

5) The incarnation perceives and interacts with the multiplicity (variety) and thus is also influenced by avidya. [Wrong]

 

 

Simply your saying wrong does not make the statement false. Krishna interacts within the world of multiplicity. Thus He is perceiving variety. Perception of variety is due to avidya. Thus the avatara is influenced by avidya.

 

The fact that Krishna interacted within the world, seeing, speaking, replying, etc., cannot be disputed. It is impossible for Him to have interacted with this variety without having perceived it.