[Advaita-l] RE:self-realization/moksha

Jaldhar H. Vyas jaldhar at braincells.com
Sat Jul 29 00:00:06 CDT 2006

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, ramesh badisa wrote:

> If you match your previous and last replies, you will find for yourself 
> that you are placing ‘limits’ in one answer and placing ‘no limits’ in 
> another reply. Both are contradicting. How do you explain this?

Because the observation of limits or otherwise depends on the viewpoint of 
the observer. As far as the attainer of Brahmaloka is concerned, by 
knowing Ishvara he has known all that is to be known there are no limits 
for him.  It is only from the nirguna viewpoint that we can see that there 
is still a limit. But unlike the limits of nama and rupa, this one takes 
no exertion to transcend, it goes away by itself at the appropriate time.

>  Badisa: If you define ‘pralaya’ as when maya is stopped (that is, 
> influence of maya is gone),

No that's not what I mean.  I'm saying literally when Maya (the 
multitude of names and forms.) stops, ceases to exist.  That is pralaya.

  then, in that case, saguna Brahman, (who 
> imparts the bahma gyan to the liberated soul) should be said that he had 
> attained his pralaya.

No Ishvara by definition is Brahman with the power of maya.  Maya only 
stops when Ishvara Himself stops.

The rest of your arguments on this topic have similiarly gone astray due 
to misunderstanding what I meant by pralaya.

>  Badisa: But, who is this avyakta and akshara? Is it saguna Brahman or 
> the nirguna Brahman? All along you are saying that attaining of saguna 
> Brahman is moksha, and so “no return to samsar”. No return to samsar is 
> correct. But is it because of attainment of saguna Brahman at BL by the 
> liberated soul? Or is it because of merging of the liberated soul at BL 
> along with saguna Brahman in nirgun Brahman at pralaya?

As the latter occurs inevitably after the former why even make this 
distinction?  Particularly because it rests on the false concept of time.

  See, saguna brahman becoming nirguna brahman is not an "attainment" in 
the same sense as a maya-bound jiva attaining brahman (of either variety.)
saguna and nirguna brahman are one and the same. It is only because of 
maya they appear to be two.  When maya goes, the oneness effertlessly 
shines forth.

>  “Self-experience is the cause of attainment of Brahmaloka”
>  Badisa: Incorrect please. A self-experienced person will not attain BL.
>  Please check Br. Up. 3.2.11 for details.

This shruti just says that moksha is not a bodily resurrection but an 
identification of the atma with paramatma.  So it does not directly relate 
to the topic we are discussing now.

Again let me remind you that the definition of jnana is relative to the 
context.  The ordinary egotists definition of self is no more than his own 
body.  Therefore his self-experience is equally limited and his attainment 
is equally limited.  the self, and the self-experience, and the attainment 
of the knower of gunas, and the knower of nirguna is progressively greater 
but each of them can honestly speak of themselves as 'jnani' and 'mukta' 
in their own context.

>   When I have mentioned the ‘qualified soul’ in my earlier answer, I am
>  ‘not’ referring to gyani’s soul, but it is the virtuous soul, which
>  worshipped saguna Brahman, and takes journey by devyan marg, and
>  finally halts at BL till pralaya. This is the one I am referring to.
>  Anyhow, this soul, now gets the final liberation teaching about its
>  true nature, by Lord Brahma, and then experiences its true nature. Such
>  soul/s, along with the president of BL, would attain the nirgun Brahman
>  at the time of pralaya (BS 4.3.10). This is the soul, which needs the
>  gyan, and that I was referring in my earlier answer.

If Lord Brahma has this jnana then why does He have to wait till pralaya? 
Similiarly if all these jivas are learning jnana, do they all attain at 
exactly the same time just before the pralaya?

Krshna Bhagavan says we have to know Him to attain the avyakta and akshara
whether we know Him with gunas or without we still know Him.  Jivanmukti 
is a more direct approach whereas kramamukti is more roundabout.  But the 
latter is still a way of knowing Him.

Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list