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

[H S Chandramouli]

Ramesam Ji,

Namaskarams.

The topic of prArabdha for a jnAni is also discussed elaborately by
Sringeri Jagadguru Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati MahaSwaminah in his bhashya
on Vivekachudamani, verses 452 to 461 (Verse numbers could be different by
1 or 2 points in different editions). Verse 454 is copied below.

<< प्रारब्धं बलवत्तरं खलु विदां भोगेन तस्य क्षयः
सम्यग्ज्ञानहुताशनेन विलयः प्राक्सञ्चितागामिनाम् ।
ब्रह्मात्मैक्यमवेक्ष्य तन्मयतया ये सर्वदा संस्थिता -
स्तेषां तत्त्रितयं न हि क्वचिदपि ब्रह्मैव ते निर्गुणम् ॥ ४५४ ॥ >>

<<  prArabdhaM balavattaraM khalu vidAM bhogena tasya kShayaH

samyagj~nAnahutAshanena vilayaH prAksa~nchitAgAminAm |

brahmAtmaikyamavekShya tanmayatayA ye sarvadA saMsthitA -

steShAM tattritayaM na hi kvachidapi brahmaiva te nirguNam || 454 || >>.

Bhashya of Sri HH for the same reads as below

<< ज्ञानस्यैकरूपत्वेपि समाधिप्रकर्षेण ब्रह्मवित्, ब्रह्मविद्वरः,
ब्रहमविद्वरीयान्, व्रह्मविद्वरिष्ठः इति
सत्वापत्त्यसंसक्ति-पदार्थाभावना-तुर्यगेति भूमिकानुसारेण
समुपाजातब्रह्मसाक्षात्काराः व्यवह्रियन्ते । तत्र तुर्यगाख्य-भूमिकांगतस्य
ब्रह्मविद्वरिष्ठस्य  केवलनिर्गणब्रह्मरूपत्वात् परकृतप्रबोधोपि नास्तीति
त्रिविधमपि कर्मम् नास्ति । >>

<< samupAjAtabrahmasAkShAtkArAH vyavahriyante | tatra
turyagAkhya-bhUmikAMgatasya brahmavidvariShThasya
kevalanirgaNabrahmarUpatvAt parakRRitaprabodhopi nAstIti trividhamapi
karmam nAsti | >>

It is clear from the above Bhashya that absence of prArabdha phala is
applicable only in respect of  ब्रह्मविद्वरिष्ठ (brahmavidvariShTha) only.
The term jIvanmukta is also applicable only for such a jnAni. In my
understanding, the verse from aparokShAnubhUti (verse 91) you have referred
to should also be understood accordingly only. Swami Vidyaranya also
expounds the same in JMV.

There is thus no contradiction in the stand of Sri Bhagavatpada as between
his Bhashyas and his PrakaraNa Granthas.
Regards

On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 3:38 PM H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Ramesam Ji,
>
> Namaskarams.
>
> Reg  << “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 >>,
>
> I have not seen the “*dIpikA*” on *aparokShAnubhuUti * of Swami Vidyaranya
> referred to. However Swami Sureswaracharya does indeed consider only two,
> namely sanchita and AgAmi, to be part of the avidya which is negated at the
> time of Realization.
>
> << यत्तु स्वात्माश्रयं कर्म ह्यानारब्ध फलं भवेत् ।
>
> उत्पित्सनागतं कृत्स्नम् ज्ञानं हन्ति तदेव नः ॥ >>  BUBV 1-4-1531
>
> << yattu svAtmAshrayaM karma hyAnArabdha phalaM bhavet |
>
> utpitsanAgataM kRRitsnam j~nAnaM hanti tadeva naH || >>  BUBV 1-4-1531
>
> Plural “*karmANi*” need not be with reference to the three types of karma,
> sanchita/AgAmi/prArabdha. The term could very well be understood as
> referring to the countless karmAs accumulated without reference to the
> three types as such. Thus plural form is quite in order even if only two of
> the three types are covered. That is exactly what Swami Sureswaracharya has
> done as above.
> 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
>>
>