the jivan mukta in advaita

[Guest guest]

simply speaking tamil does not make him a tamil. without answering karthik's question about baba, jndas is jumping to philosophy. thumbs down.

[Guest guest]

only a fool would say i understood everything of either sankara or vaishnava acharyas. is there any one here who understood either fully ? one who is in ignorance should not be arrogant in establishing his beliefs. one has to be humble and have the attitude of a student. being foolish students, we should have the humility displayed by thotakacharya - the "foolish" disciple of sankara. that is what i meant when i said i try to sankara by reading thotakashtakam. this does not mean we dont read his works but it means read his works praying for his mercy to understand him. many "vaishnavas" think that they can call sankara a word juggler and still understand what he says. would they be able to understand even their own acharyas if they maintain such an attitude ? no.

 

 

shvu, you said i am wrong in my understanding about sankara in the sense that there is no eternality of personalities. many scholars overlook sankara's statements about sadguna brahman - which includes the lord, his expansions and devotees which are non-different from one another because their Self is the same. that does not mean sankara Himself was unaware of existence of eternal entitites.

 

Commentary 2.11

 

as'ocyAnn ithyAdhi| na s'ocyA as'ocyA: bhIshmadronAdaya: savrutatvAth paramArtha rUpEna nithyatvAth tAn as'OchyAnn anvasocah:

 

bhisma, drona and others are not to be grieved for, because they are of noble character and are eternal in their real nature. please note the words paramArtha rUpEna nithyatvAth. this is just one evidence that sankara talks about eternal personalities. this is obvious if one understands his description of sadguna brahman prayerfully and not mix it up with modern day advaitin conceptions that are devoid of devotion.

 

 

shvu, i think your point is right that you have to quote only when asked to. but the debate that your are having with jndas is worthless because jndas says he does not know if he is at all debating sankara : 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.

 

 

 

 

[muralidhar 0]

<center>

SRIMAD BHAGAVATAM, FIRST CANTO, CHAPTER 3,

(TRANSLATION BY SRILA A.C. BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI PRABHUPADA)

 

TEXT 31

 

yatha nabhasi meghaugho

renur va parthivo 'nile

evam drastari drsyatvam

aropitam abuddhibhih

 

yatha--as it is; nabhasi--in the sky; megha-oghah--a mass of clouds;

renuh--dust; va--as well as; parthivah--muddiness; anile--in the air;

evam--thus; drastari--to the seer; drsyatvam--for the purpose of seeing;

aropitam--is implied; abuddhibhih--by the less intelligent persons.

 

TRANSLATION

 

Clouds and dust are carried by the air, but less intelligent persons say

that the sky is cloudy and the air is dirty. Similarly, they also implant

material bodily conceptions on the spirit self.

 

 

TEXT 32

 

atah param yad avyaktam

avyudha-guna-brmhitam

adrstasruta-vastutvat

sa jivo yat punar-bhavah

 

atah--this; param--beyond; yat--which; avyaktam--unmanifested;

avyudha--without formal shape; guna-brmhitam--affected by the qualities;

adrsta--unseen; asruta--unheard; vastutvat--being like that; sah--that;

jivah--living being; yat--that which; punah-bhavah--takes birth repeatedly.

 

TRANSLATION

 

Beyond this gross conception of form is another, subtle conception of

form which is without formal shape and is unseen, unheard and unmanifest. The

living being has his form beyond this subtlety, otherwise he could not have

repeated births.

 

 

TEXT 33

 

yatreme sad-asad-rupe

pratisiddhe sva-samvida

avidyayatmani krte

iti tad brahma-darsanam

 

yatra--whenever; ime--in all these; sat-asat--gross and subtle; rupe--in the

forms of; pratisiddhe--on being nullified; sva-samvida--by self-realization;

avidyaya--by ignorance; atmani--in the self; krte--having been imposed;

iti--thus; tat--that is; brahma-darsanam--the process of seeing the Absolute.

 

TRANSLATION

 

Whenever a person experiences, by self-realization, that both the gross

and subtle bodies have nothing to do with the pure self, at that time he sees

himself as well as the Lord.

 

TEXT 34

 

yady esoparata devi

maya vaisaradi matih

sampanna eveti vidur

mahimni sve mahiyate

 

yadi--if, however; esa--they; uparata--subsided; devi maya--illusory energy;

vaisaradi--full of knowledge; matih--enlightenment; sampannah--enriched with;

eva--certainly; iti--thus; viduh--being cognizant of; mahimni--in the glories;

sve--of the self; mahiyate--being situated in.

 

TRANSLATION

 

If the illusory energy subsides and the living entity becomes fully

enriched with knowledge by the grace of the Lord, then he becomes at once

enlightened with self-realization and thus becomes situated in his own glory.

</center>

<hr>

 

Note the Sanskrit words given in verse 32. The word jiva is used. Verses 32/33 clearly state that the jiva's real identity is that "he" is Brahman.

 

He(sah) is the unseen, unheard and unmanifest ("Brahma", in the next verse, verse 33).

 

But "he" enters into material existance again and again (punah-bhavah).

 

When one realizes that avidya (illusion) is a superimposition upon the self (atma), he experiences Brahman (brahma-darsanam).

 

Verse 34 continues, saying:

"If the illusory energy subsides and the living entity becomes fully

enriched with knowledge by the grace of the Lord, then he becomes at once

enlightened with self-realization and thus becomes situated in his own glory."

 

Srila Prabhupada has added the additional words "by the grace of the Lord" in his translation of verse 34.

 

In verse 33, Srila Prabhupada says, "at that time he sees

himself as well as the Lord." The Sanskrit is "avidyayatmani krte iti tad brahma-darsanam". That is to say, the liberated being experiences brahma-darshana - direct experience of Brahma(n).

 

Murali

 

[theist 1]

I'm not sure if this was the verse I was looking for as I remember it a little differently.The mind plays tricks, that's why I need to look it up.Anyway it relates.I included the sanskrit for those that can understand it.It follows nicely on those that Murali posted.

 

_________

 

TRANSLATION SB 3.28.28

The body of such a liberated yogi, along with the senses, is taken charge of by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and it functions until its destined activities are finished. The liberated devotee, being awake to his constitutional position and thus situated in samädhi, the highest perfectional stage of yoga, does not accept the by-products of the material body as his own. Thus he considers his bodily activities to be like the activities of a body in a dream.

 

PURPORT

The following questions may be posed. As long as the liberated soul is in contact with the body, why don't the bodily activities affect him? Doesn't he actually become contaminated by the action and reaction of material activities? In answer to such questions, this verse explains that the material body of a liberated soul is taken charge of by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is not acting due to the living force of the living entity; it is simply acting as a reaction to past activities. Even after being switched off, an electric fan moves for some time. That movement is not due to the electric current, but is a continuation of the last movement; similarly, although a liberated soul appears to be acting just like an ordinary man, his actions are to be accepted as the continuation of past activities. In a dream one may see himself expanded through many bodies, but when awake he can understand that those bodies were all false. Similarly, although a liberated soul has the by-products of the body children, wife, house, etc.he does not identify himself with those bodily expansions. He knows that they are all products of the material dream. The gross body is made of the gross elements of matter, and the subtle body is made of mind, intelligence, ego and contaminated consciousness. If one can accept the subtle body of a dream as false and not identify oneself with that body, then certainly an awake person need not identify with the gross body. As one who is awake has no connection with the activities of the body in a dream, an awakened, liberated soul has no connection with the activities of the present body. In other words, because he is acquainted with his constitutional position, he never accepts the bodily concept of life.

 

______

 

I edited it and took out the transliterations due to so many bugs.sorry.

 

[muralidhar 0]

According to Bhagavatam the absolute truth is realized in three phases, Brahman, Paramatma, Bhagavan. My reading of the verses I posted above of Srimad Bhagavatam (1.3.31-34) is that these verses of Bhagavatam are speaking about Brahman realization, as for example in the case of Sukadev or the Kumaras.

 

Theist, in the verses you presented it speaks about "The liberated devotee", but the verses I quoted speak about a jiva attaining realization of the "unseen, unheard and unmanifest" (brahma-darsana). This type of realization is the realization the followers of Shankara are aspiring to attain.

 

In that state of brahma-darsana there is no mood of bhakti. The soul is simply enjoying being "situated in his own glory".

[theist 1]

Murali,

 

But verse 33 says he sees himself as well as the Lord.Isn't that different than sayuja?I see it as a basic placement in santa-rasa.No?

[raga 0]

 

But verse 33 says he sees himself as well as the Lord.

 

 

The TRANSLATION says that.

[theist 1]

...then let me try to understand exactly what is meant by sayujya-mukti.

 

Is it possible that a living entity can realize himself as a separate individual as Brahman in constituiton and yet not realize the Personality of Godhead?

 

Would this be two different meanings existing simultaneously?

 

One as shvu describe it, with no sense of the self remaining,and another with a sense of one's individuality intact?

[muralidhar 0]

Madhava,

 

I came across these verses in Bhagavatam after we had that conversation regarding the nity-baddha status of the jiva.

 

I never got round to posting this information, but I found these verses quite interesting, especially:

 

yatreme sad-asad-rupe pratisiddhe sva-samvida

avidyayatmani krte iti tad brahma-darsanam

 

---

How do you take the meaning of this, in regard to the conversation we had before about the origin of the jiva

 

I said the jiva in his pristine state is a pure spiritual being and that the jiva is sat-chitananda. My reading of this verse is that Bhagavatam is saying that when a jiva attains (siddhi) to the state of "self-realization" (sva-samvida) he "becomes situated in his own glory".

[muralidhar 0]

Srila Sanatana Goswami has discussed this topic in detail in his book Brhad Bhagavatamrtam

 

You can find the book here

http://www.mandala.com.au/brhad/2_3.htm

 

Sayujya mukti is discussed in detail these three chapters:

Chapter Two: Jnana Nama (Knowledge)

Chapter Three: Bhajana Nama (Worship)

Chapter Four: Vaikuntha Nama (The Divine Abode)

 

Murali

[Guest guest]

Dear Ram Prabhu,

 

 

one has to be humble and have the attitude of a student. being foolish students, we should have the humility displayed by thotakacharya - the "foolish" disciple of sankara. that is what i meant when i said i try to sankara by reading thotakashtakam.

 

 

I know you will bombard me, calling me a haughty fool who doesn't realize he is one /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Yet, let me state a few points:

 

Sankara was first and foremost a logician. In fact, his approach was a departure from the Upanishadic seers, who were by and large analogical. I don't believe humility [rather the false sort] is a pre-condition for studying Advaita [or anything that can be put to test for that matter]. Sankara defines the goal of Bhakti as the perfection of knowledge, which is acquired by the effort of the individual. I think the only qualifications needed are sravana, manana and nidhidhyaasana.

 

It is my understanding that as per Sankara, avidya or maaya is caused by adhyaasa or super imposition of the self over that which is not self. It doesn't mean, by any stretch of imagination, that the Brahman is covered by maaya, as some argue. Such an argument arises only when duality, between Brahman and maaya, exists in the first place. I can only rephrase the example that Shvu had given. When "you" go to sleep and start dreaming, the "dreaming you" may perceive duality, because it experiences adhyaasa. But if you were to wake up, all that is left is the real "you". No duality.

 

So, the timeless Brahman of Sankara is only Nirguna. Only in its temporal mode does the Sadguna has any relevance. In other words, to put it bluntly, once you have attained realization, all that remains is the timeless Nirguna Brahman in a state of non-duality. There is no more Krishna, Rama or Shiva. No more jiva independent of Brahman either.

 

Shvu or someone may correct me, if I am wrong here.

 

One more thing: Most academic scholars consider only the following works to have been authored by Sankara:

 

- Brahma sutra bhasyas [some parts are interpolations...I will write on this later on]

- Commentaries on Brhadaaranyaka and Taittirya upanishads.

- Upadesha Sahari.

 

The academic opinion is divided on whether he really authored the commentary on the Gaudapada Kaarika to Mandukya upanishad and Bhagavad Gita.

 

All the other works are considered to be later day interpolations in the name of Sankara. So, going by Tottakacarya may not be the way to learn what Sankara taught.

 

In eternal bliss [arising out of ignorance, of course], lacking humility, your servant,

Karthik /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Guest guest]

Also, to the best of my knowledge, Sankara doesn't talk abut his personal experiences of realization. What is the basis for [iJeevan mukta, in that case? Is it something that Sankara talked about or is it a later day "invention" [i won't use the dreaded word "interpolation" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ]to sustain some Sankaracarya in his seat?

 

Karthik

[muralidhar 0]

I believe Kartik has properly represented Advaita-vada philosophy. But....

 

sutah uvaca

atmaramas ca munayo nirgrantha apy urukrame

kurvanty ahaitukim bhaktim ittham-bhuta-guno harih

 

sutah uvaca--Suta Gosvami said; atmaramah--those who take pleasure in atma

(generally, spirit self); ca--also; munayah--sages; nirgranthah--freed from

all bondage; api--in spite of; urukrame--unto the great adventurer;

kurvanti--do; ahaitukim--unalloyed; bhaktim--devotional service;

ittham-bhuta--such wonderful; gunah--qualities; harih--of the Lord.

 

TRANSLATION

 

All different varieties of atmaramas [those who take pleasure in the atma, or

spirit self], especially the sages, though freed from all kinds of material bondage,

feel an attraction for the Personality of Godhead. Vishnu (Urukrama) possesses

transcendental qualities and therefore He can attract everyone, including liberated souls.

[Guest guest]

karthik has not properly represented advaita. he is just confusing the audience by sophistry.

 

when i prove that eternality of personality is real in sankara's sariraka bhashya, he simply rejects it saying it is an interpolation. in other threads he argues that sankara wrote sariraka bhashya and only because of that gita became popular. but he has changed his stand for convenience. now, based on what works of sankara has he formed his mayavada conclusions ? unless we establish a basis for discussion there is no discussion.

 

it is possible to show from so many available works that sankara not only gave nirguna brahman realization but also sadguna realization. God and devotion are real as per sankara. but it is frustrating to see the lack of atleast scientific temper among the intellectuals. atleast one should have this if not humility and devotion.

[raga 0]

 

it is possible to show from so many available works that sankara not only gave nirguna brahman realization but also sadguna realization. God and devotion are real as per sankara.

 

 

Go ahead and present this. The only single text you've come up with frm his works is one quote from his gita bhasya subject to interpretation. It is interesting that you have understood the real doctrine of Sankara and the rest of the Advaitin tradition has not. Have you systematically studied the works of Sankara under a teacher to gain a comprehensive picture of his doctrine? Or, with or without a guru, have you read the entire gita bhasya and sariraka bhasya at least?

[shvu 1]

 

 

as'ocyAnn ithyAdhi| na s'ocyA as'ocyA: bhIshmadronAdaya: savrutatvAth paramArtha rUpEna nithyatvAth tAn as'OchyAnn anvasocah:

 

bhisma, drona and others are not to be grieved for, because they are of noble character and are eternal in their real nature. please note the words paramArtha rUpEna nithyatvAth

 

 

Bhiishma, Drona et al., are eternal in their true nature, for their real nature is NOT that of Bhiisma or Drona, but the one indivisible Atman, as are you and I. When Krishna tells Arjuna that there was never a time when Arjuna did not exist or there never will be a time when he will cease to exist, he means the Atman, and not the individual personality Arjuna. The second chapter mainly covers the important point that you are the eternal Atman and not the body which is born and dies. This does not prove the reality of eternal forms.

 

I can furnish plenty of evidence to show the lack of support for 'eternal forms' in Advaita, if required. What do you think Shankara means when he refers to Krishna's form as maayaa ruupam?

 

Cheers

 

 

[shvu 1]

 

Murali,

 

 

All different varieties of atmaramas [those who take pleasure in the atma, or

spirit self], especially the sages, though freed from all kinds of material bondage,

feel an attraction for the Personality of Godhead. Vishnu (Urukrama) possesses

transcendental qualities and therefore He can attract everyone, including liberated souls.

 

 

If a liberated soul feels attractions, he is not liberated...not according to Advaita at least.

 

Perhaps such an idea is possible in a school of thought where a liberated soul can still perceive Vishnu et al. and is also capable of emotions such as attraction and repulsion. But according to Advaita, there in no more duality after liberation, which rules out the possibility of preceiving Vishnu or anything else. For this reason, Shukha getting 'attracted' to

stories of Krishna although he was liberated, is not Advaitic.

 

Some references from Shankara's works about Jiivanmukti are in order. I will post them as soon as possible.

 

Cheers

[shvu 1]

 

 

So, the timeless Brahman of Sankara is only Nirguna. Only in its temporal mode does the Sadguna has any relevance. In other words, to put it bluntly, once you have attained realization, all that remains is the timeless Nirguna Brahman in a state of non-duality. There is no more Krishna, Rama or Shiva. No more jiva independent of Brahman either.

 

Shvu or someone may correct me, if I am wrong here.

 

 

That is correct. In Shankara's words, brahmasatya jagatmithya jiivobrahmaiva na paraH

 

 

One more thing: Most academic scholars consider only the following works to have been authored by Sankara:

 

- Brahma sutra bhasyas [some parts are interpolations...I will write on this later on]

- Commentaries on Brhadaaranyaka and Taittirya upanishads.

- Upadesha Sahari.

 

The academic opinion is divided on whether he really authored the commentary on the Gaudapada Kaarika to Mandukya upanishad and Bhagavad Gita.

 

All the other works are considered to be later day interpolations in the name of Sankara. So, going by Tottakacarya may not be the way to learn what Sankara taught

 

 

I am interested to see evidence of interpolation in the BSB. Only some scholars based on an analysis of the writing style, have doubted the authenticity of the Giita Bhaashya, Viveka Chuudaamani, etc. The Advaita tradition itself attributes all these works to THE Shankara, which can be accepted as true, in the absence of concrete evidence to show otherwise. Even if these works were authored by later Shankaras, they are still valid, as their value depends not on the weight of Adi Shankara's authorship, but on the logic, consistency and scriptural support in the work itself.

 

Cheers

 

[theist 1]

shvu:"What do you think Shankara means when he refers to Krishna's form as maayaa ruupam?"

 

 

 

Prabhupada:"So the Mäyävädi rascals theory is that the Absolute Truth is impersonal, and when He comes to be present before us as person, He accepts a material body. This is their theory, mäyä, Mäyäväda, that Krsna's body is also bone and skin. That is their theory. They accept, Yes, Krsna is God, but He has accepted a body of flesh and bone. This is Mäyäväda theory..."SB lec 1.3.28

[Guest guest]

Shvu, you have not told me why my interpretation is false before offering your interpretation. how then can i accept yours ?

 

now, before going further, could you tell me if there is any work of sankara that you reject ?

[shvu 1]

 

This is orthogonal to this discussion, but I've got to know...

 

 

So the Mäyävädi rascals theory is that the Absolute Truth is impersonal, and when He comes to be present before us as person, He accepts a material body. This is their theory, mäyä, Mäyäväda, that Krsna's body is also bone and skin. That is their theory. They accept, Yes, Krsna is God, but He has accepted a body of flesh and bone. This is Mäyäväda theory...

 

 

What is the Gaudiya conception of the Krishna who fought the war beside Arjuna and romanced with the ladies? Didn't he have flesh and bones in his body? Surely as a bare minimum, he must have had skin to look human. The SB says he ate rice, milk, butter, etc. What was happening to this food, if it was not getting assimilated into his body?

 

[shvu 1]

 

 

Shvu, you have not told me why my interpretation is false before offering your interpretation. how then can i accept yours ?

 

 

I offered no argument for we have already gone over this once before.

 

Your interpretation that Bhiishma, Drona are eternal individuals is false, according to Advaita for like I have already said umpteen times before, individuality makes sense only when there is diversity. This is the basic premise of Advaita, which you should answer for or against. If you want quotes, I will produce them whch will directly refute your concept of eternal individuals. Like I said before, your view seems to be Bheda-Abheda or Vishishtadvaita. Meanwhile, can you please explain how eternal individuals are supported in the last 3 verses of Brhadaaranyaka, chapter 2.4? Then we can see what Shankara has to say about these verses, which should hopefully put this matter to rest. I choose these verses because they explicitly address this issue.

 

 

now, before going further, could you tell me if there is any work of sankara that you reject ?

 

 

Probably nothing.

 

Cheers

 

[theist 1]

...to give you a full answer,so I will defer to others.

First I need to look up orthogonal to find out what it means /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gifOh, right angle in relation to..ok.

 

As I understand it Krsna's form is composed of eternity knowledge and bliss.He is all cognizant at every point of His form.Meaning His hair can see,He can taste through His eyes etc.

 

 

He was here playing human.So I imagine He displayed all human functions to the observer.Perhaps even leaving behind a form when shot in the heel by an arrow.

 

If one accepts He is God then of course there can be no problem.For instance it is said that God exhales universes and breathes them back into His form.Assimilation is no problem for universes, so why rice, milk and ghee should be a problem?

 

As I said I'll leave it to others for a better answer.

 

[karthik_v 0]

Dear Theist Prabhuji,

 

 

Prabhupada:"So the Mäyävädi rascals theory is that the Absolute Truth is impersonal, and when He comes to be present before us as person, He accepts a material body. This is their theory, mäyä, Mäyäväda, that Krsna's body is also bone and skin. That is their theory. They accept, Yes, Krsna is God, but He has accepted a body of flesh and bone. This is Mäyäväda theory..."SB lec 1.3.28

 

 

With due regards to Srila Prabhupada, I must state that he is certainly not referring to Advaita. This is what strengthens the accusation that ISKCON attacks Advaita, without understanding what it is, in the first place. According to Advaita, there is no question of the Supreme Truth coming down to be present amongst us. Such a question arises only if there is duality in the very first place. There is no duality, that is existence independent of the Brahman, in Advaita.

 

This statement of SP, for an Advaitin, is like saying that the "real you", appeared in flesh and bones amidst the characters in your dreams ["dreaming you"] and also participated in their activities. For an Advaitin, it just makes no sense, as the "dreaming you" is not real in the first place and the entire duality itself doesn't exist - independent of the "real you". All that exists is the "real you" and it becomes clear the moment you wake up from your dream.

 

P.S.: Sri Aurobindo considered all the puranas to be symbolic and not as actual events. He stated that they were written to help the masses understand the esoteric concepts of the shruti.

[karthik_v 0]

Anyway, before getting agitated with the Mayavadis [whoever they are and whatever their philosophy is /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ] and calling them rascals, Srila Prabhupad should first reconcile with Veda Vyasa himself, for the latter stated in Mahabharata that Lord Krishna couldn't remember the BG discourse he gave Arjuna in the battlefield, as the Brahman didn't vest him with the same powers again. Of course, we have discussed this before [Anu Gita, Anu Parvan]. Therein lies the answer to whether the Sadguna Brahman is eternal or not.