[Advaita-l] MOKSHA or MUKTI

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sri Bhaskar Ji,

Reg  << one camp (the ‘is’ camp)  was saying during the post jnana period
(after samyak jnana / absolute realization) there is continuity of
identification with bhautika shareera by the jnAni and due to avidyA lesha
/ prArabdha karma he is prone to get rAga-dvesha but survival of these
vrutti-s are very short (in time span) and his jnana would mitigate against
these bhAvana >>,

While my understanding is generally in line with this, it is different in
respect of the succeeding part

<<  If you want to have the absolute ‘freedom’ from these vrutti-s he has
to shed his mortal coil thence there is a gap between paramArtha jnana &
absolute mOksha >>.

 It is not so. The jnAni can attain such “ freedom “ with the current body
itself. In fact in my understanding of the Bhashya, Brahmavidya culminates
ONLY on attainment of such a status and not with the attainment of jnAna
alone. That part of the sAdhana is temed vidvat sanyAsa. This state is in
the primary sense what is termed mOksha or kaivalya or vAishNavapada in
advaita sidhanta.

Reg  << In short mind inert state samAdhi experience is mandatory to
‘practically’ enjoy the ONENESS of Atman >>,

Mind is not inert while enjoying ONENESS with the Atman. Rather it is more
appropriate to say scintillating rather than inert. I am inclined to
believe that the outpourings of the Shrutis themselves  were  perhaps when
the mantradrashtAs were in such a state only.

Regards

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 12:29 PM Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> praNAms Sri Venkatraghavan prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
>
>
>   *   I think one decade back we had debated ( not a friendly discussion
> at any stretch of imagination 😊  ) this topic viciously in both advaitin
> and Advaita-L group.  I doubt you were there at that time.  Though I dare
> not to say I have completely understood your explanation with regard to
> “is” and “no” in this context, it would be nice to see some fresh air to
> clear the dirt. Anyway, here is my thoughts if at all it is worthy :
>
> I think the argument between the two camps is because of a
> misunderstanding of the meaning of the words "is" and "no" in the above
> sentence.  Does the existence denoted by the verb "is", pAramArthika sat?
> Does the negation referred to by "no", a pAramArthika niShedha, or a
> vyAvahArika niShedha? As I see it, if both sides see what is meant, there
> is no room for argument at all.
>
> The right meaning of the sentence "there is only jnAna", is as an
> akhaNDArtha vAkya, and thus "is" and "jnAna" refer to the svArUpa mAtra of
> That, and not to the samsarga between "jnAna" and "is". So the meaning of
> the sentence is just like satyam jnAnam anantam of taittiriya.
>
>
>
> Ø     To make a short summary of ‘is’ & ‘no’ in that discussion:  one camp
> (the ‘is’ camp)  was saying during the post jnana period (after samyak
> jnana / absolute realization) there is continuity of identification with
> bhautika shareera by the jnAni and due to avidyA lesha / prArabdha karma he
> is prone to get rAga-dvesha but survival of these vrutti-s are very short
> (in time span) and his jnana would mitigate against these bhAvana.  If you
> want to have the absolute ‘freedom’ from these vrutti-s he has to shed his
> mortal coil thence there is a gap between paramArtha jnana & absolute
> mOksha.  The another camp (the ‘no’ camp) clarifying their stand that jnAni
> is ashareeri only since ashareeratvaM is his svarUpa jnana as he is brahman
> here in this very life though he is looking like dehavAn : vidvAn sa ehaiva
> brahma yadyapi dehavaaniva lakshyate sa brahmaiva san brahmApyeti.  So
> during the post jnana period though he is looking like sashareeri he is not
> dehavAn hence no question of avidyA lesha,  no question of rAga-dvesha in
> him.  If at all it appears that he is engaging himself in questionable
> action, the socalled action and interpretation of it is only by  the
> ajnAni-s who donot think beyond BMI.  In short a strict NO NO to jnAni’s
> rAga-dvesha / avidyA lesha.  And linking continuation of shareera due to
> avidyAlesha and linking it with prArabdha karma and treating both
> avidyAlesha and prArabdha karma  as synonyms is quite untenable as there is
> no direct link that can be established between jnAni’s action and his
> remnants  of avidyA.
>
> I agree. Any exhortation to do nothing but remain in samAdhi all the time
> is born out of a misunderstanding - for samAdhi is as much vyavahAra, as
> any other laukika activity.
>
>
> Ø     However, some stalwarts of Advaita sampradaya categorically declared
> that shravaNAdi shAstra jnana is like an instruction manual helping the
> aspirant  to  understand the intricacies  of ‘swimming’ if you want to
> really experience the ‘joy’ of swimming you have to dive in the pool and
> swim.  In short mind inert state samAdhi experience is mandatory to
> ‘practically’ enjoy the ONENESS of Atman.  Hence shAstra vAkya janita jnana
> is vrutti rUpa jnana and samAdhi is ‘phala rUpa jnAna’.
>
>
>   *   Hope I am not opening the can of worms once again here.
>
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>