[Advaita-l] MOKSHA or MUKTI

[H S Chandramouli]

  << This state is in the primary sense what is termed mOksha or kaivalya
or vAishNavapada in advaita sidhanta  >>,

In addition, the more familiar terms like jIvanmukta/sthitaprajna etc could
be included.

Regards

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:12 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>