[Advaita-l] On the need for the jivanmukta to "act"

Akilesh Ayyar ayyar at akilesh.com
Thu Feb 7 01:50:07 EST 2019


I'm trying to understand an interesting scriptural point. The question is
what is the best interpretation of the rationale given for *why* the
jivanmukta acts or should act in the world.

In the Bhagavad Gita (3:22-24), Bhagavan states that if He did not do
anything, the three worlds would fall apart. And so he does do, despite not
needing anything Himself.

The question is, given the immutability of the Self, so what if the worlds
fall apart? What is the scriptural argument against such destruction? Why
would this matter at all?

And we, see, too, in the Yoga Vasistha, two instances of the same idea.

When Prahlada gains self-realization, he falls into a deep nirvikalpa
samadhi. As a result of his own peace, it is said that the the demons stop
warring, and then therefore the gods stop warring, and then therefore
literally the entire universe grinds to a halt. And this is seen as
undesirable because the universe supposedly needs to keep going a while
longer.

So Vishnu wakes Prahlada up and bids him to live as a jivanmukta while
ruling the underworld. Vishnu tells him he will live and act, though in
waking, as if in deep sleep, or "half asleep." Prahlada is not to worry
about what is or is not to be done, but simply to do what is "natural."

All these because of the mysterious destiny that dictates the universe has
to keep operating.

And similarly at the end of Yoga Vasistha, Rama, having perceived truth,
also falls into samadhi. But yet again there is work to be done. So
Vasistha enters his sushumna-nadi and wakes him up, telling him he has to
get on with his tasks. Rama then says something like -- it doesn't matter
what one should do or not do, but one should follow the words of the guru
(a bit of a contradiction!). And so off he goes.

The real question is what the meaning of the "should" in these cases is.
Perhaps it is simply this: that the jivanmukta *should* be active in the
sense that his/her vasanas dictate that they *will* be active. The "laws"
of the universe simply compel them into this. It is not a question of
morality. They are the robots of BG 18:61.

But if that is so, Rama's words are odd -- why should he attribute his
actions to the fact that the guru's words "should" be followed? Why
"should" Prahlada be *instructed* by Vishnu to rule the underworld if he is
effectively in a waking state of deep sleep? Does the concept of "obeying
an instruction" apply to one who is in that state?

And compare, too, to the idea in Ashtavakra Gita 14:1, when Janaka says
that the enlightened one acts "accidentally" or "motivelessly" (pramadad).
So how does this square with listening to instructions, or wanting to
prevent the destruction of the three worlds by one's inaction? Are these
not motives?

So what's going on here? What are the interpretations of this issue?

Hari Om,
Akilesh


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list