[Advaita-l] Desire, Jnana and Moksha
lalitaalaalitah at lalitaalaalitah.com
Sat Dec 7 15:31:18 CST 2013
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Sujal Upadhyay <sujal.u at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ramana Maharshi says mind is nothing but continous flow of thoughts.
So, as none of us has 'continuous flow of thought'(cessation in suShupti
and samAdhi is accepted!), so none of us has mind !!??
> Sri Ramana Maharshi
> says, mind of Jnani is Brahman.
This can't be supported.
See, according to him existence of mind in us is not yet proved.
Again, if mind is 'thoughts', even then knower's mind will be of form of
'thoughts of brahman and others', nothing more.
According to gauDa-brahmAnanda :
*tAni ca sUkShmANi apa.NncIkR^itAni pa.Nnca mahAbhUtAni amUrttAkhyAni
kAraNaikyAt sattvarajastamoguNAtmakAni sattvAMshaprAdhAnyena
j.NnAnakriyAshaktyAtmakam ekaM svacchadravyaM citrarUpam iva militvA
janayanti | tasya j.NnAnashaktipradhAnAMshaH antaHkaraNam | tacca buddhiH
mana iti dvidhA ucyate | *
antaHkaraNa is the base of thought, and is made of bhUta-s. When it is
taking form of specific modifications, it is termed as manaH. The use of
bhagavatpAda(in vivekachUDAmaNiH) is to be understood in this light only.
> I remember that in Vivek chudAmani it is said, destruction of desires
> is nothing but liberation.
This also can't be supported literally.
'destruction of desires' may be 'liberation from desires', but not
'liberation from aGYAna' and hence not 'liberation from birth-death-cycle'.
So, take this as eulogy.
> Mano laya = Jnani (e.g. Totapuri) - You enter into samadhi, but cannot
> abide for ever
Not quite true.
GYAnI = knower of brahman
> mano nASa = Jivan Mukta /
As you equated mano-laya to occasional samAdhi, so definitely mano-nAsha
means ever-observed in samAdhi(according to you).
Such definition is not supported by sAmpradAyika-AchArya-s, because
jIvanmukti is possible in those who are not absorbed in samAdhi - is first
to be noted.
Again, such a person who abides in brahman through samAdhi till his body
falls, is called brahmavidvariShTha and is highest level of jIvanmukti.
But, jIvanmukti is accepted in lower level also. That's why janaka, shuka,
avadhUta, etc. which were not in that type of samAdhi, are also accepted as
> Moksha - Sahaj Samadhi - no need ot meditate in
> order to abide in Self
Now, as jIvanmukta has moxa, so I accept the equation between them.
But, this sahaja-samAdhi thing which doesn't need meditation can't be
equated. The needed type of samAdhI for brahmavidvariShTha needs meditation
as it is just intense and elongated meditation.
Now, the sahaja-samAdhi which is supposed to be independent of meditation
is technically not samAdhi. Although, this condition is just of 'stabilized
knowledge'. A man possessing such mind is accepted as jIvanmukta, but not
essentially as eulozised brahmavidvariShTha.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list