[Advaita-l] The Four kinds of 'Mukti' compared with the 'Kaivalya' of Vedanta

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
>
> Brihadaranyaka Up. 4.4.6 which teaches the Jnani's subtle body does not
> leave the physical body at all upon death.
>
> The sUkshma shareera of the Jnani, upon death of the sthUla shareera,
> dissolves 'here itself', that is, it merges in
> the pancha bhUtas, their kAraNam.  In (Advaita) Vedanta, the sUkshma
> shareera is also a kaarya of pancha bhuta, (sattva guNa samaShTi of the
> pancha bhUta-s).  It is not that the sukshma shareera does not want to
> leave
> the physical body, it is implication of the subtle body too merging in the
> pancha bhuta-s.
>
> >  again, please tell me what exactly the death of sthUla shareera here??
> without disassociation of sUkshma shareera from the stUla shareera can we
> perceive the 'death' of sthUla shareera??  For example there is an
> explanation of death in bruhadAraNyaka 4.4.1 & 2 & prashNa & sUtra bhAshya
> fourth adhyAya..But these references donot mention anything about stUla
> shareera's continued association with sUkshma shareera upon death.  OTOH,
> it is said that karmendriya-s (like vAgindriya ) will be merged in manas &
> chakshurAdi jnAnedriya-s too alongwith their tejOrUpa will be merged in
> mana with the complete disassociation from the sthUla shareera. and this
> mana will enter into the region of hrudaya and after getting the vrutti
> for the next janma it would merge in prANa..So, IMO, disassociation of
> subtle body from gross body is quite clear during the death
> procedure...Kindly let me know which maNtra in bruhadAraNyaka says us
> jnAni's subtle body does not leave the physical body 'at all' upon death.
>

I have already stated this:  Brihadaranyaka 4.4.6.  न तस्य प्राणा
उत्क्रामन्ति, ब्रह्मैव
सन् ब्रह्माप्येति ।  The Bhashya for this line is:  तस्य एवं अकामयमानस्य
कर्माभावे गमनकारण-
अभावात्प्राणा वागादयो न उत्क्रामन्ति न ऊर्ध्वं क्रामन्ति देहात् ।

The meaning is very clear:  For such a Jnani, as there is no desire to be
fulfilled,  and as
there is no karma to give another body, there is no reason for
transmigration.  Therefore
his prANaa =  vaak, etc. do not depart from the sthUla deha.


> But, their antahkaraNa paripaaka is bound to differ just like all jnanis
> do not weigh the same, they do not have the same complexion.
>
> >  this is bit confusing, here you are implying that there is a
> possibility that even before getting paripUrNa paripakvate in antaHkaraNa
> the SAME brahma jnAna can be realized by the jnAni-s who have different
> level of antaHkaraNa paripakvate!!?? and you are also implying here
> aparichiina Atma jnAna would 'fit' differently in different compartments
> of antaHkaraNa in jnAni-s!! Are you sure this is what your stand is??
>

There is no fixed quantum as - so much paripaakvata is required for brahma
jnanam to arise.
There is no fixed norms for shama dama, etc.  So, each aspirant gains these
as much as he
can and goes about the Atma vichara process.  When the right conditions are
there the jnanam
arises.  The question of varying grades of purity of mind arises with regard
to the Jnanis' reaction to the world where they will have to live the rest
of their lives.

No one has implied that the aparichinna Atma jnana will 'fit' differently as
you have imagined.  This is not the stand of any Acharya.  Nor is it my
stand.

>
> The sthUla deha taaratamya is definitely there in the sukshma deha too.
> This cannot be denied or wished away.  This is what forms the basis for the
> above 'classification'.
>
> >  In that case those who have difference paripakvate of antaHkaraNa do
> have different level of jnAna & it cannot be same in that case. A 75
> percent paripakva antaHkarana cannot hold/ have saMpUrNa (cent percent)
> Atma jnAna..Kindly let me know, which is the yardstick we are using here
> to say despite having different level of paripakvate in antahkaraNa they
> are having ONE & SAME jnAna??
>

No. You are mistaken again.  There is no such implication made by me.  The
yardstick
you are asking for is this:  avidya nivrtti.  And as Vidyaranya has pointed
out and as the Vivekachudamani says this is known only as a pratyaksha to
the person concerned.  For others it is only anumana.  Ignorance, Knowledge,
hunger, fulfillment, etc. are known directly for the
person concerned.  If Avidya nivRtti has taken place, then there is
'sampUrNa' jnanam.

>
> From the above two bhashyam passages it becomes cleqar that: There is a
> mind, mental state, that is affected, that is, a vikAra takes place, anger
> arises, when beaten or scolded.
>
> There is another mind, another mental state, where even the vikAra does
> not
> arise, no anger arises, when beaten or scolded.  Both these states are in
> daivee sampat.
>
> >  These verses are about two category of people who have daivi sampat &
> asuri sampat not different levels of jnAni-s..


'Davi sampat vimokshaaya' says the Gita.  So, it is quire reasonable to
expect that these are
in the Jnani.  I took that example so that it is easy to demonstrate the
types of a Jnani's own mental reactions at different occasions and across
different Jnanis too.


> if you say 'suppression' is
> also jnAni lakshaNa, then this jnAni is definitely 'entertaining' duality
> but due to unavoidable circumstances he is 'suppressing' his emotions..


It is not a case of 'entertaining duality'.  There is pramANa in the Bhashya
for 'occasional arising of past samskaras and the Jnani encountering a
situation like this'.  By this much, samskAravashaat, his Jnana does not
face danger.  The Br.Up.1.4.10 bhashyam says this very explicity.  Here is
one more bhashya vaakya, apart from the already well known 4.1.15:

For the mantra 12 of the Mandukya Upanishad, while explaining the meaning,
the bhashyam says:  परमार्थदर्शिनां ब्रह्मविदां तृतियं बीजभावं दग्ध्वा
आत्मानं प्रविष्ट इति न पुनर्जायते, तुरीयस्य अबीजत्वात् ।  न हि
रज्जुसर्पयोःविवेके रज्ज्वां प्रविष्टः सर्पो *बुद्धिसंस्कारात् *पुन: पूर्ववत्
विवेकिनां उत्पास्यति ।
//The Knower of Brahman, who has realized the highest Truth, has entered
into the Self by burning away the third state of latency (avidyaa beeja,
moola), and hence he is not born again, since Turiya has no beeja for
creation.  For when a snake superimposed on a rope has merged in the rope on
the discrimination of the rope and the snake, it does not appear again to
those discriminating people, just as before,* from the impressions (of past
persisting) in the intellect.*//

>From this bhashyam passage we get these conclusions:

   1. Jnana destroys avidya, beejataH, moolataH.
   2. There is no punarjanma for the Jnani
   3. However, there will be the 'impressions' of the past perception of
   duality.
   4. This is *required *for the body/mind apparatus to continue in the
   world
   5. Impressions require a locus and thus the mind is definitely
   continuing.
   6. The body is required to support the mind and the body cannot be wished
   away.
   7. This is what is meant by, in Shankara's own words, to explain His own
   words in BSB 4.1.15:  Brahma bhaavanam AND deha dhaaraNam.  Sva HRdaya
   pratyaya requires the hrdaya, intellect.  'samskaaravashaat' is the word He
   used there; here He uses 'buddhisamskaaraat'.
   8. Here, He guarantees, by the rajju sarpa example: that the viveka once
   gained WILL not go away despite the samskaara persisting.
   9. In the 4.1.15 the 'taimirika' example was used.
   10. In  Br.Up. Bhashya 1.4.10 the 'digbhramaa' example was used.
   11. In all the three bhashyams the word 'samskaara' is prominently used.
   12. There is no rule that such samskaara has to be the 'same' in every
   Jnani
   13.  Since each person comes with his own unique antahkaraNa saamagri,
   the manifestation of samskaras, post Jnanam, is bound to be different.
   14. And that decides the gradations in Jnanis.

     Deliberate suppression indicates identity with

> indriya-s & shOka mOha...he cannot be a jnAni at all at least as per
> shruti siddhAnta.  AnandaM brahmaNo vidvAn a bibheti kutaschana..says
> taitireeya..if he suppresses his bheeti than that suppressed bheeti in one
> way or the other would definitely come out in one way or the other...This
> is applicable to all kAma krodhAdi arishadvarga-s...OTOH, shruti crying at
> its top voice for the jnAni : tatra kO mOhaH kaH shOkaH ekatvaM
> anupashyataH..
>
 i Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
>

I think you will have to orient yourself to look at the situation the way
Shankara, the Shastra, and the Advaita Acharyas, like Sri Vidyaranya, handle
it.  What has been stated by Shankara in the above Mandukya and other
Bhashyams is not disregarding the ': tatra kO mOhaH kaH shOkaH ekatvaM
anupashyataH..'.   On the other hand, it is* in spite of this* shruti
vaakya.  He is writing that bhashya for the Mandukya mantra which is about
the very jnana praapti and jnaana phalam.  He says:  'He who iknows the
'amaatra'  onkaara as the turiya Atma, his own self, he is the paramaartha
darshi.'  And it is immediately after saying this that He says:

परमार्थदर्शिनां ब्रह्मविदां तृतियं बीजभावं दग्ध्वा आत्मानं प्रविष्ट इति न
पुनर्जायते, तुरीयस्य अबीजत्वात् ।  न हि रज्जुसर्पयोःविवके रज्ज्वां प्रविष्टः
सर्पो बुद्धिसंस्कारात् पुनह् पूर्ववत् विवेकिनां उत्पास्यति ।
//The KNower of Brahman, who has realized the highest Truth, has entered
into the Self by burning away the third state of latency (avidyaa beeja,
moola), and hence he is not born again, since Turiya has no beeja for
creation.  For when a snake superimposed on a rope has merged in the rope on
the discrimination of the rope and the snake, it does not appear again to
those discriminating people, just as before,* from the impressions (of past
persisting) in the intellect.     *//

Now, why should He include/add this sentence?  He could have simply closed
the bhashyam on this mantra and proceeded to the next.  No. He finds the
need to clarify that 'even though the paramaartha darshana is had, even
though the beeja avidya has been dispelled, the world will continue to
appear to him and he will be interacting/reacting thru the mind-body
apparatus which will be driven / supported by samskara.'

It is very significant that Shankara talks about the samskara, in *all the
three instances cited *in the foregoing, in the *aparoksha Jnana praapti
prakaraNa*.  One only wonders at the consistency:  *every place the word
'samskara' is used, every place a dRShTAnta (yukti) is given.     *

In the Br.Up 1.4.10 bhashya we see  a very interesting aspect:  Shankara
takes up the question: Does a Jnani have 'vipareeta pratyaya' after Jnana?
He answers in the affirmative!! Does the Jnani have 'raagaadi dosha'?  Yes,
Shankara affirms!!  He gives the explanation:  This vipareeta pratyaya and
the raagaadi dosha is there for the Jnani ONLY so much as to enable him to
experience the praarabdha.

So, what happens to the Shruti declaration:   tatra kO mOhaH kaH shOkaH
ekatvaM
anupashyataH..?  For Shankara there is no contradiction of this jnana phalam
by the persisting of vipareeta pratyaya and raagaadi dosha for prarabdha
bhoga.  His sentence is this:

....यावत् शरीरपातः तावत् फलोपभोगाङ्गतया *विपरीतप्रत्ययं रागादिदोषं च
तावन्मात्रमाक्षिपत्येव* ।  It is again significant that He puts 'एव" at the
end showing that such is the case indeed.

And in the very next paragraph Shankara makes another statement:  ..न च
विपरीतप्रत्यय विद्यावत उत्पद्यते ।  This is to clarify that for a Jnani a *real
misperception,* that is a characteristic of an ajnani, will not be there. It
is just after this He says the 'samskaara-born' smriti could be there, owing
to the past practice of having had vipareeta pratyaya, and that this is
harmless.

Let me conclude this reply with a request/advice:  In case no clarification,
and satisfaction, is coming forth from the above, the best course would be
to take these passages to the scholars who are familiar to you (in Mathur or
other places) and seek their explanation.  This is because all these issues
have been discussed at length in the past.  There is no point in repeating
the same questions and the same replies.

Best regards,
subbu