[Advaita-l] Re: Moksha (Badisa)

[Shyam Venkataraman]

*Mr Ramesh Badisa: *
*Here are my responses to your answers:
*
 On 8/26/05, ramesh badisa <badisa66 at yahoo.com> wrote: 
> 
> 
> Namaste.
> 
> At the outset, let me thank you for all your responses. Let us once again 
> remind ourselves that discussion, if taken place under harmonic atmosphere 
> without too much of rajogun, then it will be very good for spiritual 
> progress also. If my postings offended any of our list members feelings, 
> then I beg for forgiveness. That is never been the intension with these 
> postings.
> 
> 
> 
> "Not even Brahma, Vishnu and Siva are equal to a GYAnI."
> 
> - Ramana Maharshi.
> 
> 
> 
> Badisa: When you have indicated earlier that gyani does not feel the 
> presence of his own physical body, then how come in the above statement, 
> three different entities are recognized by the same gyani? He should not see 
> them as such. Right? Rather he should see them as his own self. Right? So, 
> it means that they all are equal. Then in that case, where is the question 
> that the trinity being unequal to gyani? Thus, the above quote does not 
> convey the meaning that you are thinking. It needs to be understood from a 
> different out look. Guna and gunatita states. In other words, the gunas of 
> above three entities are not equal to the guna rahita state of gyani and 
> vice versa.

  *Shyam: A Gyani knows that Brahma, Vishnu and Siva are all forms of Saguna 
Brahman. Anything that has form will be deformed in course of time. He also 
knows that the higher nature of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva is the formless 
Nirgunam Brahma.*

"Shankara also says something similar (in his
> 
> upadeshasaahasrii?), "To a GYAnI, even Brahma and Indra are
> 
> pitiable objects."
> 
> 
> 
> Badisa: Same as above.
> 
> 
> 
> "To ask if a GYAnI is able to create or destroy the universe is
> 
> like asking if a king can stitch clothes. Why would a king
> 
> bother to stitch clothes when he rules a kingdom with many
> 
> tailors, who are ready to do the work for him?"
> 
> 
> 
> Badisa: That means as per your understanding, gyani knows that there are 
> some entities who want to work for him. But when you indicated that nothing 
> is present apart from his existence, then how come gyani identifies other 
> entities to work for him? If it is like that then, does it not the sign 
> ignorance? Your analogy does not hold water here please.
> 
> 
> 
> "The GYAnI does not associate the Self with ANY action, even if
> 
> it be the actions of Brahma, Vishnu or Siva"
> 
> 
> 
> Badisa: Yes. But remember! gyani also does actions without any 
> identification. Therefore, I asked earlier, if gyani, without identification 
> of action, can show certain divine's lordly powers by his saguna Brahman 
> aspect.
> 
> 
> 
> " i think SrI Ramesh has wrongly equated a j~nAni with ISvara. it
> 
> guess it would suffice to note that A J~NANI DOES NOT
> 
> BECOME ISVARA AFTER REALIZATION"
> 
> 
> 
> Badisa: No. I did not. Gyani attains nirgun Brahman. I never said that 
> gyani becomes isvara after realization in any of my postings. You can check 
> them thoroughly. What all I asked was that if gyani is divine in absolute 
> sense before death, if so, then I asked if he can show the ability of 
> creation of the universe. Although, saguna Brahman does creation etc 
> activities, but where does the saguna Brahman manifest from? From nirgun 
> Brahman only. Although NB has the powers, but by his nirgun aspect he 
> chooses not to involve in creation. But the same divine with gunas is called 
> saguna Brahman. Similarly, when gyani attains niguna Brahman, it is not 
> possible to create the universe. Therefore, gyani, by his saguna aspect can 
> show that he is indeed divine before death by showing his lordly powers, 
> which means that the reference/s from Upanishads, or BS or Gita is 
> sufficient in this regard. So, with respect to this frame of mind, I put the 
> question. This does not convey the meaning that gyani
> is equated with Isvara directly.
> 
> 
> 
> "btw, it is incorrect to say that something is all-pervasive w.r.t. 
> nirguNa brahmam"
> 
> 
> 
> Badisa: Misunderstanding please. All pervasive is w.r.t NB only.
> 
> 
> 
> "All-pervasiveness is true only of ISvara (saguNa
> 
> Brahmam"
> 
> 
> 
> Badisa: Not so. Please refer to BS 4th chapter, where it mentioned about 
> coming of amanav purush from creator's place to the soul that is threading 
> on the path of 8/24 of Gita. This purush leads the soul to Brahma Lok 
> (creator). All these points, and also many other points, conclusively prove 
> that saguna Brahman is finite. I request you to go through the above text. 
> Or you can check my posting dated May 8, 05, vol. 25, issue 7 in this list 
> for some details.
> 
> 
> 
> " Asking whether a gyAnI can "create the universe" etc. is useless because 
> a gyAnI finds no need to do so, and in anycase, doing all this would just 
> mean playing with mAyA, since the created universe and such things are all 
> part of the illusion from which the gyAnI has risen"
> 
> 
> 
> Badisa: Gyani attains nirgun Brahman. For the sake of creation, saguna 
> Brahman is manifested from the nirgun Brahman. Do you think that SB will now 
> be reluctant to perform creation, based on the fact that all is illusion? 
> Your understanding is not correct. When gyani attains NB, and when SB 
> manifests from NB, then why can't gyani show the lordly powers while living 
> from SB aspect? Remember, when gyani does actions unattached, then the same 
> gyani can also show the lordly powers unattached too.
> 
> *Shyam:*

* Gyani cannot show lordly powers because Gyani is essentially the 
reflection of the original consciousness in an inferior medium (body-mind 
complex), so the gyani's body-mind complex has inferior attributes, whereas 
Iswara is the reflection of the original consciousness in a macro medium 
(whole universe), so Iswara has superior attributes, so Iswara has the 
powers of creation, destruction etc.. but looking from the point of the 
originsl consciousness, both gyani and iswara are one and the same, but in a 
vyavaharika sense, there is a world of difference between them. So your idea 
that gyani can show lordly powers is wrong.*
 
"And this is the answer to the riddle. If it is all pervasive then it
> 
> includes the jivanmukta (JM). It includes Ishvara etc. There is no
> 
> difference between them. And therefore the jivanmukta includes parabrahman 
> (PB), includes Ishwara. etc. There is no difference between them"
> 
> 
> 
> Badisa: Right. But how about all of us? Are we are also included? Yes. 
> Right? Then, are we, as souls, also all pervasive as of now?
> 
> 
> 
> As per your above statement, JM=Ishwara=PB. No difference. It means that 
> the JM should also have the ability to create etc like Ishwara. If you say 
> 'yes', then it will clash with BS 4.4.17 for having more than one creator. 
> If you say 'no', then in that case, it means JM is not equal to Ishwara, and 
> so he is also not equal to PB. So you are contradicting your own statement. 
> In that case, how can you say that JM is all pervasive?
> 
> *Shyam: same as above, from the viewpoint of original consciousness, we 
> are all pervasive as of now. But from the standpoint of reflected 
> consciousness, we are very limited (compared to Iswara), due to the inferior 
> medium (the body).
> *
> I would like to give one example from sri Shankara's life in this regard. 
> He demonstrated the exit of his soul and then entered into the dead body of 
> a king. Since sri Shankara is jeevan mukta at that time, if his soul is all 
> pervasive at that time, then how did his soul exit his body and enter into 
> the body of dead king? If the soul is all pervasive, how this existing and 
> entering is possible? Then after its exit, sri Shankara's body should also 
> be as alive as before if the soul is all pervasive. But, sri Shankara asked 
> his disciples (sri Padmapada et al) to look after his body for some days. 
> What for? More over, if the soul is all pervasive at that time, then there 
> is no need to ask the disciples to protect the body. Also, the all pervasive 
> soul does not and cannot require to exit his body in order to get certain 
> required experiences through the body of the king. Since it is all 
> pervasive, the required experiences in the question can also be obtained 
> without exiting of the soul. In
> such event, there is no need to ask for about one month's time to resume 
> the debate with sri Mandana Misra's wife, because, during the time of great 
> debate, the required knowledge is already present, had the soul is all 
> pervasive. Can you explain the above objections? Now, do not say that 
> nothing such sort had happened from absolute point of view. If the soul is 
> all pervasive, then it is so from absolute point of view only. Right? So, 
> exit of soul from sri Shankara's body is also correct from absolute point of 
> view only. So, one cannot say here that no such action took place, or no 
> exit of soul took place, or all is illusion etc. Comment please?

  *Shyam: Your understanding is incorrect here. When a person dies, the soul 
doesn't exit. Only the sukshma sarira(the subtle body) and the reflected 
consciousness exit the physical body or gross body. In the gross body, 
original consciousness is still there, since it is all pervasive. But the 
reflected consciousness which is reflected in the mind also exits, since the 
mind is located in the subtle body.*
 
"The purpose of the brahmasutra in question is to stop the sadhaka from
> 
> going off the track by trying to become Ishwara and collect powers like
> 
> creation, dissolution etc. instead of realizing Brahman"
> 
> 
> 
> Badisa: I never mentioned or indicated in my postings that we have to aim 
> specifically to become Ishwara or to earn the lordly powers. This has never 
> been the case. Why? Because, eventually that would be the case. However, the 
> point I am asking is that does JM have these lordly powers, before the death 
> of physical body? He may as well choose not to involve in creation etc if he 
> has the powers. But that is not the point. Does he really have the lordly 
> powers? Please quote any references from BS, Upanishads, or Gita. That's all 
> I am asking.
> 
> *Shyam: Same as above. all my answers are from Tattvabodha.
> *
> "The inhabitants of Brahmaloka are mukta in the sense that they have
> 
> escaped from the cycle of samsara. However they still identify with
> 
> gunas"
> 
> 
> 
> Badisa: My question was precisely concerned with liberated soul at BL 
> after having self experience there, before pralaya. I do not think that the 
> liberated soul at BL identify with gunas after self experience. If you say, 
> 'yes' they identify with gunas, then I say 'no. Why and how do we know this? 
> No gunas exist upon self experience. Right? Without self experience, there 
> is no salvation. Right? BS 4.3.10 says the attainment of higher place 
> (salvation) for liberated soul at pralaya. Thus, from this sutra, we are 
> sure that the liberated soul had self experience at BL, before pralaya, and 
> on account of this we can confidently say that no identification with gunas 
> on the part of liberated souls. Under these circumstances, the position of 
> gyani on the earth and the liberated soul in BL is same. When the sutra 
> 4.4.17 flatly denies lordly powers for self experienced and gunatita 
> liberated soul at BL, then how come we say that gyani, who is also self 
> experienced and gunatita on the earth,
> (like liberated soul) got sampurna mukti on the same grounds before his 
> pralaya? I know, you may still say all this is due to maya, or no such 
> things have taken place or taking place. Or you may also say that all BS are 
> talking from worldly point of view. In that case, can we say that attainment 
> of higher region (salvation) by liberated soul at pralaya, as declared by 
> sutra 4.3.10, is also not true in absolute sense? If you say yes, then in 
> that case, there is no requirement for this sutra to declare the attainment 
> of higher region at pralaya, when the liberated soul is already considered 
> as attained mukti? Why the sutra has to declare again? Also how come the 
> liberated soul is still finite before pralaya in spite of self expereince? 
> The finiteness is evidenced from the facts of sruri text, Ch. Up. 8.2.1.
> 
> 
> 
> "Who we are referring to as a jivanmukta is free from feelings of 
> attachment to all gunas. This is the key to mukti whether the atma is free 
> of attachment or not. Whether the location of that atma is
> 
> brahmaloka or a human body is arbitrary and irrelevant"
> 
> 
> 
> Badisa: Yes. Jivanmukta is free from feelings of attachment to all gunas. 
> Similarly, the self experienced liberated soul at BL is also free from 
> feelings of attachment to all gunas. When you say that the key for mukti is 
> free from attachment, then both JM and LS are free from all gunas. In that 
> case, both are said to be muktas in absolute sense. Right? But, JM is only 
> said to be the mukta while the self experienced liberated soul at BL is not, 
> as evidenced by lack of certain lordly power, finite location etc. I am sure 
> there is answer other than maya or worldy point of view answers for the 
> above type of questions. If you know, please let me know.
> 
> *Shyam: You are wrong here again with regard to creation etc..*
> 
> Namaste
> 
> Badisa
> 
> 
> *Shyam Venkataraman
> *
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> 
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> 
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>