the jivan mukta in advaita

[shvu]

 

 

...false world that doesn't really exist anyway.

 

 

You are wrong once again because you are confusing post-Mukti with pre-mukti. Before Mukti, the world is real just as you and I. So debates make perfect sense.

 

Cheers

[theist]

 

shvu:"Wrong. This says nothing to refute my position. I was talking about post-Mukti, while you are talking about Pre-mukti."

 

 

Are you saying that Sankara spoke from a platform of pre-mukti in all his teachings?

 

If so what does that do to the idea of jivan-mukta?

 

And if so why should we accept what he said?

 

[shvu]

 

 

Are you saying that Sankara spoke from a platform of pre-mukti in all his teachings? If so what does that do to the idea of jivan-mukta?

 

 

Can you explain your Q?

 

[muralidhar]

Weird things you say...

 

How can the world be real before mukti and not real afterwards?

 

Either the world is real or it is not real.

 

Murali

[shvu]

 

That is Maayaa, by virtue of which the unreal appears as real. So long as it appears real, it is real. Just like, until you wake up, you will never know you were dreaming.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

I have to defeat myself just to prove I'm wrong, but then the other part of me is right. I love these kinds of victories over myself. Occasionally I come under the illustion of duality, but then again that's not me. I just have a little trouble agreeing with myself at times. I'm on a mission to remove this illusion. So who am I?

[Guest guest]

 

But Sankara taught, "brahma satyam jagan mithya", or in English, "The Eternal is true, the world is false".

 

 

kastvaM ko 'haM kuta AyAtaH

kA me jananI ko me tAtaH

iti paribhAvaya sarvam asAraM

vizvaM tyaktvA svapna vicAram (23)

 

bhaja govindaM bhaja govindaM

govindaM bhaja mUDhamate

 

Who are you?...Who am I?...Whence are we?

Who is my mother?...Who the father?

ENQUIRE thus WITHIN, CASTING OFF THE NONESSENTIAL...

The world entire...the phantasy of MERE DREAM! (23)

 

Seek the Lord, Seek, Seek, Seek the Lord,

Seek alone the Lord...O mud-headed fool!

 

Krishna also said the same to Uddhava in Bhagavatam:

 

"tasmAdasadabhidhyAnaM yathA svapna manorathAM,

hitvA mayi samAdhatsva mano madbhAva bhAvitam"

 

(Bhagavatam 11.14.28)

 

THEREFORE, GIVING UP DWELLING ON UNREAL WORLD,

WHICH IS NO BETTER THAN DREAM OR FANTASY,

<big> (svapna manoratham)</big>

CONCENTRATE YOUR MIND ON ME,

IN LOVE AND DEVOTION TO ME."

 

[Guest guest]

The Wrong man? The illusionist? The self realized soul?

Whatsmore who is you? Do we really know who we are?

[theist]

shvu,

The more I try to understand the concept of jivan-mukta from the advaita viewpoint the more I become bewildered.

 

If at the attainment of mukti the jiva no longer exists, then how could there be a jivan-mukta?

 

Are you saying that the jivan-mukta exists only in the conceptual minds of the remaining onlookers?But in reality there is 'no one home', so to speak?

 

 

[muralidhar]

Either we conclude that the world really does exist, in which case we conclude Sankara was wrong when he said "the world is false".

 

Or we accept the absurd suggestion that the world doesn't exist.

[theist]

Since Brahman can't be illusioned it would seem to follow that illusion itself doesn't exist.We may think illusion exists but that is just an illusion.Even the fact that we think we are thinking is illusion.

 

Am I close shvuji?

 

 

[muralidhar]

This discussion reminds me of something.

 

I had a friend who was initiated by Srila Prabhupada of ISKCON in 1972. Later, he left Vaishnavism altogether and became a Buddhist. He was initiated by a Tibetan monk and he studied Buddhism for some time. But my friend found it difficult to resolve a particular question that kept bothering his mind. He had a question that he couldn't find a meaningful answer for within Buddhist philosophy. This was his problem:

 

According to Buddhism, "I" only exist when I am in illusion but "I" will cease to exist when nirvana is realized. This being the case, what sense does it make to try and attain nirvana since "I" will not exist when "I" attain it?

 

My friend gave up Buddhism after some time, and in the end he decided to go and meet with Srila Sridhar Maharaj and get some good guidance. He had lost faith in materialism, then lost faith in Vaishnavism, then lost faith in Buddhism. After all those things happened he decided to go to meet Guru Maharaj in Nabadwip. But when he was going to Nabadwip he was killed by a truck that came up on the sidewalk and ran over him.

 

Life is short. Don't waste your time arguing about stupid nonsense. Chant Hare Krishna!

 

 

[theist]

At least he had his destination straight at the end.

 

Impersonal philosophies are not very appealing.Buddhist or Advaita."I am suffering therefore let me die."Rather morbid in a sense.

[shvu]

 

Theist,

 

You are getting close. According to Advaita, a person does not attain Mukti and think 'Hey ! I got it !!!' . Simply because Mukti is absence of diversity where no such thing as I, Mukti, etc exist.

 

The Jiivan-mukta is only to the eyes of the onlookers. We refer to that body as a Jiivan-mukta, although there is no Mukta per se. The concepts of illusion, reality and liberation again exist only to those who are under the spell of the illusion.

 

The best verse to explain this is,

 

For when there is duality, as it were, then one smells another, one sees another, one hears another, one speaks to another, one thinks of another, one knows another. But when everything has become the Self, then what should one smell and through what, what should one see and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one know and through what? Through what should One know That owing to which all this is known—through what, my dear, should one know the Knower?" - BU 2.4.14

 

Cheers

 

[shvu]

 

 

Impersonal philosophies are not very appealing.Buddhist or Advaita."I am suffering therefore let me die."Rather morbid in a sense.

 

 

Au contraire, they have the numbers, in terms of followers. Death cannot be perceived, theist. I cannot experience death, just like I cannot experience that point when I fall asleep. So basically, we will never die. Only others will see us as dead.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

Die thou false self, to Live in the everlasting real world of loving reciprocation with the Sweet Lord Swayam Bhagavan and His eternal blissful associates.

[theist]

shvu, Why are you so sure there is not something beyond this state?What convinces you that individuality can't be a spiritual reality?

 

Isn't it really just a reaction to samsara.As in, "Individuality appears to just result in broken dreams birth and death etc.,so the answer must be to sacrifice my individuality."

 

What proof is there that there is not a spiritual world filled with variety?

[muralidhar]

Shvu said:

The Jiivan-mukta is only to the eyes of the onlookers. We refer to that body as a Jiivan-mukta, although there is no Mukta per se. The concepts of illusion, reality and liberation again exist only to those who are under the spell of the illusion.

<hr>

Shvu says that something which doesn't exist (jiva) is doing things.

 

Shvu, can't you see the absurdity of this? How can something that doesn't exist cause some events to happen?

 

Murali

[Guest guest]

You didn't get it.

The 'dream' is FALSE only if the dreamer is awakened.

As long as the dreamer is dreaming on, though the dreamer is naturally in illusion, still want to hold on to his dream as the real thing.

Once the dreamer is awakened from the dream, he no longer believes in the illusion. So One has to wake up first. One cannot realize the dream as illusion as long as one is dreaming on indefinitely.

 

Unless and until dreamer is awakened and liberated from the dream, he oe she can NEVER realize that the dream itself was an illusion.

For the DREAMING ignorant person with no realization, the world which is no better than a DREAM according to Krishna and Shankara, both being LIBERATED, non-dreaming divine Souls.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

You are wrong once again because you are confusing post-Mukti with pre-mukti. Before Mukti, the world is real just as you and I.

 

 

Something is either real or it isn't real. When you mistake a rope for a snake, the snake does not factually exist regardless of how scared you are of it. It will not bite you, even if you are 100% convinced it is a snake, simply because it does not exist. Thus it is impossible for the world to be real now, and false once we attain liberation. For what exists, there is no end. Reality is not dependent on our perception of it. And our illusioned perception of something, does not make the illusion real. This is another inconsistenty of advaita.

 

 

That is Maayaa, by virtue of which the unreal appears as real. So long as it appears real, it is real. Just like, until you wake up, you will never know you were dreaming.

 

 

The dream is not factual, neither in the time of sleep, nor when we awaken. Simply because we thought it was real at the time did not make it a reality. The Maya, which is a duality that exists within the nondual existence (with no explanation as to how or why), makes something appear real. You are claiming that the avidya we possess in perceiving that now makes the illusion real. This is completely false. Reality is not created based on avidya. Rather reality is based on brahman, the absolute truth.

 

 

The Jiivan-mukta is only to the eyes of the onlookers. We refer to that body as a Jiivan-mukta, although there is no Mukta per se.

 

 

Again more inconsistencies. The body is acting, it is conscious, it possesses life, which are the signs of an atma. A body cannot live without the presence of a soul. Thus we must either accept the atma is not liberated and is still illusioned, or that the atma is liberated. If we accept the atma as being liberated, then why is it still experiencing diversity? Why is it still interacting with the multiplicity, which is only perceived due to avidya (ignorance). Thus the liberated soul is covered by avidya. Since the liberated soul is actually realized brahman, brahman has become covered by illusion. There can be no existence at all of jivan-mukta within advaita for the system to remain consistent. This is a self-evident truth based on simple logic. You can try to juggle words around, but the fact remains - the system is logically inconsistent and self-contradictory.

[shvu]

 

Among several other places, Shankara's acceptance of Jiivanmukti can be found in his commentary on BG 13.23. However, since this topic is not about the possibility of Jiivanmukti, but it's internal consistency, I am not getting into an analysis of how Jiivanmukti is possible. Understanding BU 2.4.14, which was posted earlier on this thread is important in order to understand the Advaitic coneption of Mukti.

 

 

Something is either real or it isn't real. When you mistake a rope for a snake, the snake does not factually exist regardless of how scared you are of it. It will not bite you, even if you are 100% convinced it is a snake, simply because it does not exist. Thus it is impossible for the world to be real now, and false once we attain liberation. For what exists, there is no end. Reality is not dependent on our perception of it. And our illusioned perception of something, does not make the illusion real. This is another inconsistenty of advaita.

 

 

So long as the rope is mistaken to be a snake, it is a snake for all practical purposes. Similarly the world. As long as diversity is perceived, the world is real and will continue to remain so. Do you doubt the content of your dream, while dreaming? You never will, because you are unaware that you are dreaming and so everything in the dream is *real* until you wake up. That is the idea.

 

 

The dream is not factual, neither in the time of sleep, nor when we awaken. Simply because we thought it was real at the time did not make it a reality.

 

 

 

It did not, but it was real enough at that time, irrepsective of whether it is ultimately real or false. That is the point. For instance, it doesn't help to think one is not the body because the BG says so. One has to actually know it as an experience to really understand what that means. Until then, for all practical purposes we are the body. The same logic applies in the case of the reality of the world. Thinking the world is an illusion because the scriptures say so is not enough, for it is absurd to think so while diversity is still being perceived. It is a reality only when there is no more diversity, which is Mukti. Let me rephrase my words as "The world is an apparent reality until Mukti". That should hopefully clear the confusion.

 

 

Again more inconsistencies. The body is acting, it is conscious, it possesses life, which are the signs of an atma. A body cannot live without the presence of a soul.

 

 

 

From the perspective of the onlookers (which is the only perspective) it is that universal self operating everywhere all the time. There is no individual "liberated Atma" there anymore. Hence this question is moot. In fact, theist posted an interesting piece recently on this same thread where in a purport, Prabhupada speaks about the Jiivanmukta. That is pretty much what Ramana said about Jiivanmukti too. To avoid confusion about the tenets of Advaita, which is often seen in people belonging to other schools, the Advaitic tradition differentiates between the Vyavahaarika level and the Paramaartika level. If the difference between the two is unclear, Advaita in general, will remain unclear.

 

Finally, Vidyaaranya [14th century], one of the pontiffs of the Sringeri Math, has authored Jiivanmuktiviveka, which is available in English. This work describes the advaitic conception of Jiivanmukti in detail.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

muralidhar, sankara says brahman (self/god) is satya. jagan mithya. mithya is not the same as non - existence or asatya. this is same as what srimad bhagavatham says tejo vAri mRtam yatA. is srimad bhagavatham wrong too ? it is madhva's statement vishvam satyam which seems contradictory to srimad bhagavatham. but even that is not really wrong as you chose to call sankara because vishvam is satyam when we are in it.

 

to give you a practical example, look at your watch. what is it made of - metal and glass ? what you perceive as watch is metal and glass. this in turn is a bunch of molecules which in turn is a set of sub atomic particles which in turn is in a a dual state of matter and energy (debroglie's principle). what are you looking at my dear - a watch, a bunch of molecules, energy ? what is energy ? who is looking ?

 

 

 

[karthik_v]

Dear Theist Prabhuji,

 

 

Herein lays the problem.This is like putting a stake in a vaisnavas heart.

 

 

A valid point, but bhakti doesn't depend on logical debate. It is beyond that. Azhwars and Caitanya Mahaprabhu [i assume], never debated anyone and show that their ways were alone correct. They were transcendental and experienced spiritual bliss, entirely through bhakti, without having the slightest necessity for scholarly debates. So, irrespective of what Advaita says, Vaishnavism is still very much valid. What is unnecessary is casting Vaishnavism in the moulds of Advaita and to debate that on false premises. As Rk veda says, Ekam sad viprah bahuddha vadati [The truth is One; the sages realize it many ways]. No matter what, you can always see me at the ISKCON temple on Sundays, because bhakti is what appeals to my heart.

 

Dear Muralidhar Prabhuji,

 

 

If people really believe this teaching of Adi Sankara then why do they want to engage in debate with other people? Entering into a debate implies entering into a duality

 

 

Because, they are not yet realized and for them duality still exists.

 

 

Shvu, can't you see the absurdity of this? How can something that doesn't exist cause some events to happen?

 

 

Events happen only in the eyes of the one who perceives duality. Let me try to give an anology. Let us say you are smitten by Simran or Aishwarya Rai. You go to sleep dreaming of her. In your dreams you win her hand or run around the trees, [indian filmi style /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif] romancing. Now, so long as you are dreaming, the "dreaming you" perceives interaction with her. She exists in reality, but the "dreaming you" doesn't. Yet, the perception of interaction exists in the mind of the "dreaming you". Once you wake up, reality dawns.

 

J N Das Prabhuji:

 

 

Something is either real or it isn't real.

 

 

What happens when I am fast asleep and dreaming and then just start to wake up? At that point, doesn't reality and dream tend to blur? I mean, for a brief moment, I can still be a part of the dream, yet I can also perceive the reality. This phase exists only for a while, before reality takes over.

[Guest guest]

what a bunch of gobbledygook.

 

you are not dreaming now,so comparing your present state to a dream in every way to make a point is ,useless.

 

The dream comparison is only able to take you so far,

our waking state is not really like a dream.

 

In a dream everything ends when you wake up,in your present state when you become jivan mukta you don't

all of a sudden wake up to find the world disappear.

 

You wake up in a different way,the 'dream' doesn't disappear,your perception of it changes.

 

You want to believe in advaita as a reality ,

why ?

 

In this world we are all at the mercy of the controller of our destiny,that controller is a conscious intelligent

being,we are not that being.

 

That being is not improved by your intention of becoming

a mindless drone, existing without any reason

or purpose.

 

Your purpose is to enhance it's experience,it's life,

if you lose your individual sense of self,what use are

you to God ?

 

What does God need you for if you do not exist as yourself ?

 

You only become a benefit to God if you are able to enhance God's pleasure,God has no need of you for any other purpose.

 

Why do you think you exist ?

 

For there to be a logical reason for your existence ,there has to be purpose to your existence,

if that purpose is to become a non individual, then what good are you ? What could you possibly contribute ?

[shvu]

 

 

what a bunch of gobbledygook.

 

 

Karthik,

 

Some people believe they have some kind of a prerogative to speak in a condescending manner about people who see things differently. A while back I posted an opinion by Rajan Parrikar about iskcon, based on his interactions with iskcon folks over a few years. In my opinion, he had someone like Srila Shiva in mind while writing that down.

 

Notice how Srila Shiva made a sweeping claim that he was amused that no Advaitin had attained Jiivanmukti till date. Yet when asked to come up with names of realized people outside the Advaita line, there was more hand waving, but alas ! no names came up. Here is a strikingly similar situation,

 

Someone (from iskcon) said about the BG as it is:

 

> Frankly, I have found that, almost without exception, other Gita

> commentaries introduce ideas that are dubiously supported by or even

> explicitly rejected by the text of Gita itself. It's therefore hard

> for me to recommend these commentaries as authoritative or

> authentic. I just thought I'd mention it.

 

 

Rajan Parrikar's reply,

 

I also just thought I'd mention that this sounds very similar

to the standard ISKCON blather I've often encountered. Over 3 years I

heard the same in their Boulder ashram and whenever I'd confront them

with "Which other version have YOU read," the response would be "Uhhh,

ahemmmmm, ohhhhh, Prabhu have some more halva please."

The halva was always top-notch, a solid A effort, although I could see

that a more modest use of ghee would significantly improve the health

benefits.

 

Cheers