[Advaita-l] jIvanmukti (liberation right in this life) - A State or Status

[H S Chandramouli]

Ramesam Ji,

Namaskarams.

Reg  << We may assume, Shankara talked of the *prArabdha *in his very brief
comment
on *muNDaka *mantra 2.2.9, just to conform with the
superimposition-sublation model followed by him in his *bhAShya-*s. In
*aparokShAnubhuUti*, he is free from this constraint and he expressed
clearly the position as confirmed by Swami Vidyaranya also >>,

Surprising comment indeed. Are you suggesting that Sri Bhagavatpada was
constrained to take one view in his Bhashyas merely to appear consistent,
and took a very different view, when not so constrained according to you,
in his PrakaraNa granthas. Why should he not have taken the same view in
the Bhashyas also if as you say they were his real understanding, and be
consistent both in Bhashyas and PrakaraNa granthas?
Regards

On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 5:01 AM Ramesam Vemuri via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Dear Shri Raghav Kumar Garu and Shri Subrahmanian Garu,
>
> Namaskarams
>
> Thank you for your kind inputs.
>
> I would also suppose, as you say, Shri Raghav Ji, that "seeking to live
> long enjoying the
> phala of *GYAnam* [is] an attitude [that] contradicts *GYAnam *and is
> usually a sign
> of inadequate preparedness such as vairagya."
>
> The instances like Shri Trailinga Swami that you referred to, IMHO, have to
> be treated separately, as I mentioned in the first post of mine. They are
> exceptions. Having attained liberation, they are virtually *brahman* except
> for the fact that they have to take care of a body also. But then, as Shri
> Subrahmanian Garu suggested, *brahman* Itself will look after those bodies
> (BG 9.22 and Shankara's commentary there on) without a sense of doership
> for the individual.
>
> Shankara discusses in detail at 3.3.32, BSB citing several examples of such
> divine individuals (*apAntaratama*-s; *adhikArika puruSha*-s) who
> continue to live in a corporeal body to complete a mission. They have
> achieved Identity with *brahman* Itself, and the world, after all, is a
> manifestation of *brahman*, non-different from them.
>
> Another argument in support of a long life for a *jIvanmukta* posed
> sometimes is that no source will be left for further transmission of the
> Knowledge of the Self if the "Realized" Guru does not last long. I am not
> sure that this is a very strong argument because, say, after a maha
> *pralaya
> *everything and everyone is absorbed back into *brahman*. That does not
> mean that the *parA vidyA* is irretrievably lost. Self-Knowledge Itself
> being *brahman*, It will always appear in some way again.
>
> Hence, we may perhaps conclude that the period of having to carry the
> burden of the body-mind as an *upAdhi *after liberation is generally,
> exceptions apart, is not too long - until the body falls. On the attainment
> of Self-Knowledge, as Shankara himself says at 3.3.32, all the actions of
> the seeker get dissipated (2.2.9, *muNDaka*), all the knots become untied
> (8.26.2, *chAndogya, *2.4.14 & 15*, kaTha*), BG 4.37 and so on.
>
> In addition, we have from *aparokShAnubhUti*:
>
>
> *“तत्त्वज्ञानोदयादूर्ध्वं प्रारब्धं नैव विद्यते ।**देहादीनामसत्यत्वात्तु
> यथा स्वप्नः प्रबोधतः ॥ *— 91.
>
> [After the origination of the Self-Knowledge, *prArabdha *verily ceases to
> exist, in as much as the body etc. become non-existent. Just as a dream
> does not exist on waking up.]
>
> Swami Vidyaranya, in his gloss “*dIpikA*” on *aparokShAnubhuUti *writes:
>
> “The very use of the plural “*karmANi*” clearly indicates that the shruti
> is negating the ‘*prArabdha*’ also; it would have used the dual number “
> *karmaNi*,” if it intended that only the *sancita* and* agAmi* were to be
> meant here.” The mantra by itself did not talk of just two of the three
> fruits of karma.
>
> And we can be sure that Swami Vidyaranya would NOT say anything that would
> be contrary to or that which would violate Shankara’s teaching.
> The earlier *shloka*s in *aparokShAnubhUti* make it abundantly clear that
> the concept of *prArabdha* was brought in the *shruti *commentaries only
> for the sake of the ignorant.
>
> We have to bear in mind that the model of “Superimposition – Sublation” was
> adopted in imparting the Advaitic message in the major Upanishads. So the
> shruti was explicated by Shankara in the context of “superimposing”
> creation. The concept of “creation” inevitably brings in its wake the
> downstream concepts of birth, rebirth, the  *kArmic *effects, *prArabdha
> *etc.
> We may assume, Shankara talked of the *prArabdha *in his very brief comment
> on *muNDaka *mantra 2.2.9, just to conform with the
> superimposition-sublation model followed by him in his *bhAShya-*s. In
> *aparokShAnubhuUti*, he is free from this constraint and he expressed
> clearly the position as confirmed by Swami Vidyaranya also.
>
> warm regards,
>
> [To Continue ...]
>
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 3:06 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > A small addendum -
> > The acharya says that the jivanmukta can live and teach even long after
> > GYAnam and in fact this is how the Advaita parampara survives to this
> day.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>