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

KAMESWARARAO MULA kamesh_ccmb at yahoo.co.in
Wed Mar 13 07:54:51 EDT 2019

Dear Sir,
Why should he attribute his actions to the fact that the guru's words "should" be followed? Why "should" Prahlada be *instructed* to rule the underworld.
  The possible interpretations can be like this:
Whensome one realizes the Self, one no longer has any sankalpas. That is tosay, one can no longer choose or decide what one should or should not do. People with minds who identify with bodiesassume that they have ‘free-will’(In reality it is not the case), that they can choose or decide what theydo or don’t do. Jnanis who know that they are the Self and the Selfalone have no such choices or options. When they speak, it is the Self that isspeaking, and when they move, it is the Self that is animating them to performa particular action. There is no intermediary mind that considers courses ofaction and then executes one of them. He  did not have a ‘choice’ to return home sincethe ‘chooser’ in him no longer existed. (From the blogspot of Ramana Maharshi)

If the guru can't instruct the 'sishya', then how the body is assimilated, then one keeps on moving from one yoni to another yoni  i.e endless cycle.
some people with minds may have the capability of moving from one body to another with their skills to show their highness, there is no use or purpose for such kind of skills as they can never get transmigrated due to the fear from the loss of the body. Learned members pls put your views
Sri Guru Padaravindarpana MastuKameswara

    On Thursday, 7 February 2019 12:20 PM, Akilesh Ayyar via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

 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

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,
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list