the jivan mukta in advaita

[raga]

Excerpts from Sankara's Gita Bhasya.

 

<hr>

"I am eternally pure, enlightened and liberated in My nature."

 

<font color="darkblue">bahUni me vyatItAni janmAni tava cArjuna |

tAny ahaM veda sarvANi na tvaM vettha parantapa ||5||

 

bahUni me mama vyatItAni atikrAntAni janmAni tava ca he arjuna tAny ahaM veda jAne sarvANi na tvaM vettha jAnISe | dharmAdharmAdi-pratibaddha-jJAna-zaktitvAt | ahaM punar nitya-zuddha-buddha-mukta-svabhAvatvAd anAvaraNa-jJAna-zaktir iti vedAham | he parantapa ||4.5||</font color>

 

<hr>

"Why do you take birth, then?"

 

<font color="darkblue">kathaM tarhi tava nityezvarasya dharmAdharmAbhAve’pi janma ? ity ucyate --

 

ajo’pi sann avyayAtmA bhUtAnAm Izvaro’pi san |

prakRtiM svAm adhiSThAya saMbhavAmy Atma-mAyayA ||6||

 

ajo’pi janma-rahito’pi san, tathAvyayAtmAkSINa-jJAna-zakti-svabhAvo’pi san, tathA bhUtAnAM brahmAdi-stamba-paryantAnAm Izvara Izana-zIlo’pi san | prakRtiM svAM mama vaiSNavIM mAyAM triguNAtmikAM yasyA vaze sarvam idaM jagad vartate | yayA mohitaM jagat sat svam AtmAnaM vAsudevaM na jAnAti | tAM prakRtiM svAm adhiSThAya vazIkRtya saMbhavAmi dehavAn iva bhavAmi jAta ivAtma-mAyayAtmano mAyayA, na paramArthato lokavat ||4.6|| </font color>

 

"I take birth under the three-fold maya of Vishnu which bewilders the world. Subordinate to My own prakriti, I become embodied."

 

<hr>

[theist]

 

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."

 

Two?

 

 

[raga]

Now comes the exciting part of it...

 

<hr>

<font color="darkblue">tac ca janma kadA kim-arthaM ca ? ity ucyate —

 

"For what reason, then, do You take birth?" To this it is said:</font color>

 

<hr>

Then Gita 4.7 and 4.8, the famous reasons for the Lord's descent yuga after yuga, are given. Sankara doesn't make any noteworthy statements in commenting on the reasons for the Lord's incarnation, merely elaborating on the reasons given in the verse.

 

Sankara doesn't specify any reasons aside this for the non-dual Brahman's becoming embodied. Of course the reasons listed in the Gita are vyavahArika and arise out of a perception of duality, as in truth perception of saints and rogues, deliverance and destruction, religion and irreligion, decline and establishment, etc. are born out of avidya only.

 

Sankara's Bhasya on Gita 4.9 states "taj-janma mAyA-rUpaM" -- that birth is a form of mAyA. Additionally he notes "me mama divyam aprAkRtam aizvaram evaM yathoktaM", therafter declaring that one who knows the nature of that divine janma will not take another birth. Since the birth and deeds of Krishna in particular are mentioned, they are of special significance. They are declared aprAkRta, not of prAkRtI, in Sankara's commentary.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

"I take birth under the three-fold maya of Vishnu which bewilders the world. Subordinate to My own prakriti, I become embodied."

 

 

Shankara's commentary states that "I subordinate the three fold maya", and that "by my maya it appears that I become embodied though in reality I do not."

[shvu]

 

I can hear Theist laughing in the background. It is good to know you guys are having fun.

 

 

Simply your saying wrong does not make the statement false.

 

 

Imagine my disappointment.

 

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.

 

 

Krishna is Sadguna Brahman and hence is not a Jiiva. While jiivas are under the influence of Maayaa, Krishna was not. Refer the "Is Advaita a genuine tradition?" thread for more info or try the BG Bhaashya of Shankara.

 

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.

 

 

That is Sadguna Brahman...magic. You have no issues accepting a digestive system-less Krishna and yet you are skeptical about Krishna being in control of his own Maayaa?

 

Cheers

[theist]

shvu,

 

I am having a little fun today.But don't take it personally(pun intended).

 

Actually you have been very patient and kind in answering my questions on advaita, as I attempted to understand it better.

 

But Jndas's question's do go right to the heart of the matter.Why not consider spiritual varigatedness?

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Krishna is Sadguna Brahman and hence is not a Jiiva. While jiivas are under the influence of Maayaa, Krishna was not.

 

 

So Brahman can perceive variety without being under avidya? Yet perception of duality is caused by avidya.

 

Duality is false and illusory. It is perceived due to ignorance, for it does not actually exist. Krishna (the sad-guna) Brahman, perceives this false duality and interacts with this false duality (which is done through ignorance), but due to "magic" He isn't in ignorance.

 

 

That is Sadguna Brahman...magic. You have no issues accepting a digestive system-less Krishna and yet you are skeptical about Krishna being in control of his own Maayaa?

 

 

I justed wanted to confirm that advaita resolves inconsistencies by employing use of "magic" to explain anything contradictory.

[karthik_v]

Theist prabhuji,

 

 

Why not consider spiritual variegatedness?

 

 

Gosh! What have you said? How can we accept diversity? Don't you know that there is only one path - the path? Thank God, there is no fatwa in ISKCON. Nevertheless, please delete that post.

 

PS: This was written in lighter vein /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Don't issue any fatwa please!!!

[theist]

hoping to take you away...step right this way".

 

"You don't exist".Now you do.Poof!! and now you are gone but not really, as you never were.Confused?No you aren't,there is no you to be confused.And when your confusion ends you will understand this point that was never made".

 

---

 

karthik:"Gosh! What have you said? How can we accept diversity? Don't you know that there is only one path - the path? Thank God, there is no fatwa in ISKCON. Nevertheless, please delete that post.

 

PS: This was written in lighter vein Don't issue any fatwa please!!! "

 

------

 

Are you sure there is no fatwa in ISKCON?Either way have no fear,I am not a member of ISKCON.I have practiced a little escrima though, and may give your knuckles a good rap with my rattan stick.

 

Glad to see you speak up for diversity.Keep it up.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

...or try the BG Bhaashya of Shankara.

 

 

As far as I have seen Shankara does not answer the question as to the ultimate origin of duality. If you know of a particular verse's commentary that does this, please post the reference.

 

[karthik_v]

 

Glad to see you speak up for diversity.Keep it up.

 

 

Thought I always did! Was I hallucinating? Could it be the result of maaya? Or association with maayavadis?

[Somesh Kumar]

 

. 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?

 

 

I've quoted this before as Krishna says this:

 

Yoginam api sarvesham,

mad gatenantar atmana,

sradhdhavaan bhajate yo mam,

sa me yuktatamo matah

 

Among all the yogis (who want to acheive me bby Brahman knwoledge or through Karma) the person who fixes his mind in me and the one who <u>worships</u> Me with faith I consider him to be The Topmost (Best) Yogi

 

Krishna said this in SB:

 

Aham bhakta paradhino,

hi asvatantra iha dvija,

sadhubhir grasta hrdyor,

bhaktair bhakta jana priya

 

"I am under the control of My devotees and I love the person who is <u>bhakta of My bhakta</u>"

 

You can find innumerable instances where Krishna says that, but ofcourse, if there in no faith in Krishna then a person cannot understand this.

 

Asradhanah prushah,

dharma syaysya parantapa,

aprapya mam vartanti,

mrtyu sansara vartmani

 

"A person without faith never attains Me (Krishna) and comes back to the place of death"

 

 

As regards 13:23, here is what Sankara says:

 

 

I accept this comment by Adi Shankaracarya! But again the point remains the same. I can say many personal examples which justifies BG 18.54 where in the great Advaitin saints do Bhajan and enjoy the transcendental bliss of Hari kirtan and Hari katha!

Why do they find bliss in that?

 

<u>Because it is not material. </u>

 

<u>They have left everything material and are in the Brahman realisation stage and still they enjoy Hari katha and kirtan.</u>

 

Why?

 

<u>Because transcendental bliss in Hari katha and kirtan is a stage which comes after the Brahma bhuta prsannatma stage!</u>

[Somesh Kumar]

 

In reply to:

--

 

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.

 

 

 

This discontentment of Veda Vyasa was not material discontentent! How can He be materially discontent? He has written so many vedic literatures recognised by everyone as the <u>REAL TRUTH</u> and still you say that He is not realised? Do you really think so?

 

This is the spiritual discontentment and Narada Ji, the great bhakta of Krishna, advised Him to write SB, which gave Him the real bliss for which He was looking for!

 

And that's the reason He wrote this:

 

dharma svanushtitha pumsam,

visvaksena kathasu ya,

notpadyet yadi ratim,

<u>srama eva hi kevalam</u>

 

"<u>If one does not develop attachment to activities of Hari, then it's just hard labour, nothing else</u>"

[adreamgodus]

Om Shanti...

 

I love all of this! We are all seeking

to understand in words that which can

only be felt!

 

We are so marvelous-here is a thought:

 

Which is Maya?

 

The Glove, the Hand, or that That which

comprises the Hand?

 

Each finger of the glove notes it's

separateness and will attempt to show

how much it understands of it's unique

position on Handhood. Please smile here.

 

The Hand, it may look at the fingers

and think how quaint, but, not see, that

it does the same in comparrison with

the rest of the body.

 

And, so it goes all the way down to the

cells that must differentiate so as to

be a hand in the first place.

 

Now, these cells may consult each DNA

to find confrimation of what they are

to do and be, but, then, we come to

the next question:

 

Do we say that the DNA/RNA-are these

Brahman.

 

We note how we are so attached to our

ideals and our point of view-look

at how i need to add my two rupies/cents

worth!

 

The question: WHY?

 

Why take the time and effort to

show our perspective?

 

Is it really sharing?

 

well?

 

What difference will it make to

know if we are this or that?

 

When we find these insights that

illumine our mind from time to time

does it really help us in mukti?

 

It seems to, at the time. Later?

well, we can each judge this one.

 

Look at the whole dance-why do we do it?

 

If we feel that we have to show another

we have become trapped in Maya. How

clever She--hos lovely with Her Charms-

 

catching her darlings as they attempt so

speak about Truth!

 

We should all be smiling at the mazes

of mad.

 

Or Mayavada as our Ram has said-i am aries

so i like your name, smile.

 

So that gloved hand, what is Not Maya?

 

From this question, we may come to

something interesting.

 

What are we Not?

 

I love this one.

 

Sorry that i dont have alot of quotes

then get lost inside of me and come

out in waves of ignorance. smile.

 

Now, on a serious note:

 

i love all of our being jiva's-such

effort and such care and, yes, such

love for truth! may we unveil it!

 

 

 

[karthik_v]

 

This discontentment of Veda Vyasa was not material discontentent!

 

 

Well, the Supreme Brahman, as per Advaita, is without attribute. So, there is no question of it feeling contentment or discontentment, fr it has no feelings. So, the entire argument of Veda Vyasa feeling discontented, material or otherwise, makes no sense to Advaita, if he were to be also considered self realized. Hope that clarifies.

[Somesh Kumar]

 

Well, the Supreme Brahman, as per Advaita, is without attribute.

 

 

But the attribute here does'nt mean that any kind of attributes. Attribute means "guna". Is'nt it? And what are the gunas - sattva, rajas and tamas.

 

As Krishna says:

 

traigunya vishaya veda,

nishtraigunya bhavarjuna.

 

This means that Krishna is asking to overcome the sattva/rajas/tamo guna to come to the shuddha sattva platform.

 

One more place as Krishna says:

 

naanyam gunebhya kartaaram,

yadaa drshtanu pashyanti,

gunebhyashcha param vetti,

madbhaavam sodhi gachchati.

 

When a person sees that only the three gunas are being manifest and then He sees Me above the three gunas then He attains My nature!

 

 

So, there is no question of it feeling contentment or discontentment, fr it has no feelings.

 

 

Therefore the feelings of contentment and discontentment with respect to spiritual nature can never be compared with the material nature which is always influenced by the three gunas!

 

 

So, the entire argument of Veda Vyasa feeling discontented, material or otherwise, makes no sense to Advaita, if he were to be also considered self realized.

 

 

If Veda Vyasa is not self-realised then no one in this whole universe is self-realised!

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

The famous rope and snake anology is found only in shankar's commentries and before that in budddistic texts.Shankara was called a prachnana baudha(masked buddihist).gaudapadhas karika and nagarjunas madyama kraika tally word to word in many places.Shankar was just substituting shunya with 'brahaman'.It is widely accepted that he lived till 35 years, but ref.his deviyaparadha khsama stotra he says i am in my 80's(i.e) he is 80 years or more.this sloka is accepted by all mutts(whether kanchi or srigeri as written by shankara)ref the subramanya bujan gam stothram where he pledes to Muruga to save his wife and kin(ref sloka verse after 30) .This has also been attributed to shankaracharya .So did shankara have a wife....? or was this not written by shankara.

[Guest guest]

This world can be considered real and unreal, as contradictory the teachings of advaita, dvaita and other philosophies like Krishna consciousness may seem, the reality is perceived by all. It is just that the perception and the angle of looking at the truth is different. The world can be considered an illusion due to the fact that this world cannot affect the self in anyway, because self is not of this world.

 

The same world on the other hand can be considered very real because, the self or "brahman" or "infinite consicousness" is non different with its creation.

 

Thus , we can conclude that the world is as real as the self and yet at the same time it is as unreal as a Hallucination.

 

In reality, Krishna consciousness also preaches the same thing, but in a different perspective. The supreme self is considered to be a manifest being (which he is ). The manifest being is loved and worshipped and praised and pure bliss is received after the adoration of him. (vishnu translates to "one who pervades everything").

 

The same reality is shown in Christianity, Islam and Judaism, but they are in a different perspective ofcourse.

 

The truth still remains the same, neither the teachings of advaita, dvaita, vishista dvaita ( sorry spelling mistake) ... are all looking at one truth and perceiving it in a way. However, when the notions of accepting and rejecting things has dissolved into the truth, nothing remains but pure bliss..

 

 

[Guest guest]

For me though, Christianity seems to be very limited just like Islam, Judaism etc.

 

 

Then , i inspected Krishna consciousness, but it also had the same notions of Christianity Islam and Judaism, but was a very tolerant way to look at God or Krishna the "supreme personality of the godhead" , I assumed a role and read Ujjvala Nilamani, it was very beautiful.

Still, i did not gain any peace, I fell again into the mire of suffering as if i did not gain anything.

I felt complete misery, still I tried hard, I took up a name on this forum and then tried to ask questions. They did not quite help because it seemed as if the answers themselves were very unreliable.

 

Finally I found the teachings of advaita, it too had the same notions and precepts to follow and It too threw me into more delusion later.

 

Now, i have realised the truth in my own way. The truth can only be realized by personal experience, not by listening to teachings. Also, I have also found out that it is "I" who has to search for the truth and no one will help, even a guru cannot make you realize the truth, the truth is realized only by you

[Guest guest]

this is not true.

 

you are part of God, part of God's soul.

you cannot understand anything without that thing being

shown to you.

 

Your mind is incapable of functioning and realizing anything,from the tip of your nose to cosmic consciousness,

unless that realization is given to you.

 

that is the nature of reality, we exist within God,

our perceptual ability is on loan, our senses function

by God's ability, not our own.

 

Our memory is also given to us at every stage and point in out existence, reality is soemthing that is shown to us,

by reality, we have no ability to appreciate reality

on our own.

 

so god consciousness is not something that we attain by our endeavor, it is not something that you can take , it is given, revealed.

 

we are objects of interest to God, our happiness and

full conscious ability is what God seeks from us.

 

otherwise we are in a form of gestation, a cocoon

like life, everything we experience is transforming us

into a higher lifeform.

 

that higher existence is what is our purpose in existence, what we are originally meant for, and that is

where you are going, whether you know it or not.

 

So that is Gaudiya Vaisnavism, full awakening of the soul, God's human potential movement,for eternity.

 

You may have some suffering now and then, that is

the nature of this world, it's like you need to learn that fire is hot, so when you touch it, it hurts, if it didn't you would damage your hand permanently.

 

So in this world we are being prepared for eternity,

being elevated to be usefull ,and to experience the full

range of God's gifts that you can appreciate.

[Guest guest]

 

 

"""The famous rope and snake anology is found only in shankar's commentries and before that in budddistic texts.Shankara was called a prachnana baudha(masked buddihist).gaudapadhas karika and nagarjunas madyama kraika tally word to word in many places.Shankar was just substituting shunya with 'brahaman'"""

 

 

Really. Let us see. Look at the Nasadiya sukta from the Rig Veda. After reading this you would be accusing even the Rig Veda of being buddhistic.

 

RV Nasadiya sukta

 

There was neither non-existence nor existence then.

There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond.

What stirred?

Where?

In whose protection?

Was there water, bottlemlessly deep?

 

There was neither death nor immortality then.

There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of day.

That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse.

Other than that there was nothing beyond.

 

Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning,

with no distinguishing sign, all this was water.

The life force that was covered with emptiness,

that One arose through the power of heat.

 

Desire came upon that One in the beginning,

that was the first seed of mind.

Poets seeking in their heart with wisdom

found the bond of existence and non-existence.

 

Their cord was extended across.

Was there below?

Was there above?

There were seed-placers, there were powers.

There was impulse beneath, there was giving forth above.

 

Who really knows?

Who will here proclaim it?

Whence was it produced?

Whence is this creation?

The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.

Who then knows whence it has arisen?

 

Whence this creation has arisen

– perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not –

the One who looks down on it,

in the highest heaven, only He knows

or perhaps He does not know.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

The quote u are giving is unworthy of upholding what advaitha u says because u have said ( I quote)

 

"Desire came upon that One in the beginning, that was the first seed of mind. "

 

So it was THIS desire of bhraman from which all things were created and not from maya" Nowere it is said it was due to ignorance (Maya) the world was created. So shankaras maya theory stands refuted.

 

In veda "Yagnas ya maya" is used .It means by power or shakti of yagna

 

Rajju sarpa Naya is void because

 

 

We can mistake a rope for a snake only, if the breadth and length of the rope is similar to a snake. We can not superimpose a snake on a cow. So in order to have an illusion (or case of mistaken identity) we should have 2 things that have similar characteristics & appearance etc. then only can an illusion of one for another happen. Similarly to have an illusion of jagat(world) there should have been these characteristics in "Bhraman" or an illusion is not possible,(just like cow cannot be imagined as snake).To clarify in detail, "Bhraman" should have got the characteristics of "Maya&#8221;. So, to superimpose one on another, we have to see firstly either the jagath or bhraman and then the other.Either way this is against advaitha.

 

To superimpose a snake on a rope we should have seen a snake earlier.If the snake(jagath) did not exists we cannot see it and superimpose it on a rope(Bhraman).Similarly if we have to superimpose the jagath on bhraman the person who has this superimposition should have seen bhraman and Jagath earlier. Then were is that jagath? .How can independent Jagath exist as it is contrary to advaitha?

 

The next question is who is having this superimposition?." Jeeva" or "Bhraman"

 

case 1). If jeeva is having the superimposition then , were was jeeva before this superimposition, How can there be a Jeeva before Maya as, this is contrary to what advaitha is trying to establish!.How could jeeva have existed side of "Bhraman" when the is northing other than "Bhraman" as per advitha ?

 

case 2).If it is Bhraman , then did see a world (jagath) different from itself and then Bhraman superimposed "that wold" on itself(Bhraman) ?

 

case 3).If bhraman superimposed Jagath on itself due to maya, then is not maya a charactertic of bhraman ?.Since Brahman is permanent Maya being its attribute is also permanent Agate is also permanent. Then the characteristic of jagath is same as Bhraman.The theory of superimposition loose ground. By arguing "Jagath" is false we end up saying "Bhraman" is false. If Maya is permanent and different from Bhraman then there is no advaitha!.How was maya created if it is different from Bhraman ?

 

Moreover if Jeeva and bhraman is same , we will have to attribute the cause of maya on Bhraman as there is no jeevan before superimposition .This makes maya a attribute of brahaman So we have to call bhraman as maya and there becomes no possibility of release from ignorance(Maya) .

 

For the above said reasons advaitha has been condemned by many acharyas.

 

 

[Guest guest]

the world is very much real. The world does not exist a advaithi so it cannot be considred real, All others accept the world to exist,So their prespectives can bee understood.But when the wold itself does not exist where is the question of reconsiling their views of( dwaitha/Islam/christainty etc).

[Guest guest]

nArAyaNam. padmabhuvam. vasishTham. Saktim. ca tatputra parASaram. ca

vyAsam. Sukam. gauDapadam. mahAntam. govindayogIndram athAsya Sishyam. |

SrI Sam.karAcAryam athAsya padmapAdam. ca hastAmalakam. ca Sishyam.

tam. toTakam. vArttikakAramanyAn asmad gurUn santatamAnatosmi ||

sadASiva samArambhAm. SankarAcArya madhyamAm.

asmadAcArya paryantAm. vande guru paramparAm. ||

 

 

THe Advaitha Guru param para stotra stats with "narayana"! need any more proof Narayana is supreme.

 

 

[Guest guest]

See this for more on protect my wife as said by shankara

http://www.kamakoti.org/shlokas/kshlok4.htm