[Advaita-l] Vikalpa, Savikalpa, and Nirvikalpa

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://dooid.com/lalitaalaalitah>*



On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 8:08 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

> it is this aparokSha Atma jnAnam that
> automatically results in AtmasmRti santati and puts an end to all other
> chitta vRtti (nirodha).  This automatically results in jivanmukti, shAnti,
> etc.
>

Atyantika doesn't mean automatic.
Atyantika-nirodha means ultimate cessation of mind which is caused by
GYAna. And as GYAna doesn't destroy mind of a GYAnI, so this cessation has
to be of nature of mithyAtva-nishchaya.
If however, it literally means ultimate cessation of mind, then we have to
accept that he is talking of a GYAnI whose both bodies are destroyed due to
end of prArabdha, i.e. videha-mukta.
So, in either case he is not saying that GYAna is sAdhana of nirodha which
is practiced according to scriptures.


> But then we have another stream of thinking on this topic raised and
> handled elaborately in the Jivanmukti viveka by Vidyaranya.  There he
> supplies us instances of Jnanis like Yajnavalkya as an elaborate case
> study.  Yajnavalkya is an aparokSha jnani, a brahmavidyAchArya of the
> Upanishad and whose words are pramANa for AtmajnAna and therefore is not to
> be taken as a paroksha jnani.  So argues Vidyaranya.  Yet here is a case
> where  the shAnti, etc. were not present and as the various incidents in
> the Upanishad itself point out (like Y cursing shAkalya to death, heated
> debating, amassing wealth thru debates, etc.) Y finally decided to renounce
> and take to a state where he will be devoting all his time for mending the
> mind.  Vidyaranya also explicitly says in that work: there are people who
> come to AtmajnAna vichAra without going thru the preceding upAsana but
> still manage to get aparoksha jnanam which will surely give them moksha.
> But the fruit of shAnti, etc. will elude them as they have not practiced
> upAsana to the extent of getting manonasha and vasanakshaya.  Hence, for
> those jnanis there is still open the practice that leads to attain that and
> this involves dhyana, etc.
>
> So, there we have the one type of 'ideal' route that is what I strongly
> feel Shankara has in mind when the Br.Up.bhashyam passage is said.  We have
> also the other type not ideal but also not impossible where there is jnanam
> and the resultant atmasmrti santati is not there but needing a specific
> practice to attain that, rather set it in motion.
>
> Thus chitta vRtti nirodha that the Gita sixth chapter teaches as a
> precursor to aparoksha jnana is a practice available to the one who gets
> aparoksha jnana without that but in order to put in place the atma smRti
> santati.  If anAtmavRtti is not there there is AtmasmRti santati.  If this
> santati is not there, it is not that (moksha dAyaka) Atma jnanam itself is
> not there but only the shAnti, etc. fruit in jIvanmukti is not there.
>
> This is my understanding that arises by the study of the Acharya's
> bhashyas, the JMV of Vidyaranya, the sayings and writings of contemporary
> VedantaAcharyas who have been known to be adepts in samAdhi and are
> acclaimed as Jnanins.
>

Quite good.
I see it like this :

mahAvAkya with shrvaNa, etc. is sAdhana of GYAna and it results in lack of
future bodies, i.e called videha-mukti(remember such is possible while having
body and it is immediate to GYAna) by vidyAraNya. Here vAsanAxaya and
manonAsha are needed but only to the extent which enables one to do shravaNa,
etc. It doesn't expect ripen state of manonAsha and vAsanA-xaya.
While anyone who practices mano-nAsha and vAsanA-xaya till they ripe, will get
shAnti, etc.(which is called jIvanmukti by vidyAraNya).
Here videha-mukti occurs just after GYAna without any other practice while
jIvan-mukti needs extra practice of mano-nAsha and vAsanA-xaya.

Now, if someone says that GYAnI needs samAdhi for jIvan-mukti, I will never
oppose. I once hinted this in my previous post, I think. So, GYAna is
enough to generate videha-mukti in this light. I was talking of this moxa.
According to the previous definition, jIvanmukti is not direct result of
a-GYAna-nAsha and hence is not same as kaivalya-mukti supported by bhAShya,
etc.

In sha~Nkara's view, if one does mahAvAkya-artha-vichAra, then he gets
GYAna and that destroys a-GYAna. This lack of a-GYAna and karma-s(other
than prArabdha) is termed as jIvanmukti. And his state after death, which
is marked by end of  prArabdha-karma, avidyA-lesha and both bodies is
termed as videha-mukti(same as kaivalya). Here jIvanmukti occurs with GYAna
and videha-mukti is after death. No practices needed for any of them.

This is the difference of definitions.