[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Re: Does the mukta/jnani see the world?

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Raghav ji. Jaldhar ji.


> ननु-अनादौ संसारे कस्यचित्तत्त्वज्ञानं मुक्तिश्चाभून्न वा, आद्य इदानीं
> संसारोपलब्धिर्न स्यात् । जीवस्यैकत्वात्, अन्त्ये संप्रदायासंभवेन
> तत्त्वज्ञानासंभव इति चेन्न; न ह्यसांप्रदायिकत्वमुत्पत्तिविरोधि;
> अपूर्वजातीयानुत्पत्तिप्रसङ्गात् , किंतु कारणासत्त्वं;
> तन्नेदानीमुपदेष्टृत्वादिकारणस्य कल्पनासुदृढस्य सत्त्वात् । #जीवैक्यस्य
> प्रमाणसिद्धत्वे संसारोपलम्भ एवातः पूर्वं तत्त्वज्ञानानुत्पत्तौ प्रमाणम्#
>

//He is saying (as I understand based on my limited Sanskrit) even if there
had been no jnAna sAmpradAya ever, still jnAna can still arise.
(अपूर्वजातीयानुत्पत्ति ie ज्ञानानुत्पति is not a consequence of
असाम्प्रदायिकत्वम् is what Sri MS is saying).//

These are the issues of unimaginable gravity and magnitude. Hence, we
should be very careful in understanding each and every word. I will present
a translation as per the DakshniNAmurtI Math book.



*Objection: In this beginning-less samsAra, whether anyone has got
tattva-jnAna and liberation or not? If yes, then now there would not be
perception of samsAra on account of there being only one jIva. [You hold
there is only one jIva. If he has got tattva-jnAna and moksha, then his
drishTi-rupA-srishTi would have vanished. Hence, there should be no
perception. However, since there is perception, it implies that there is no
tattva-jnAna and moksha to jIva].*



*If no, that is to say, if there is no tattva-jnAna and moksha to anyone,
then on account of impossiblity of sampradAya, there would be impossibility
of tattva-jnAna.Answer: We say that it is not so. [We accept the second
position i.e. none has ever attained tattva-jnAna and moksha].
non-sAmpradAyikatvam is not contradictory to utpatti. On account of the
occasion of non-utpatti of apUrva-jAtIya. It is only kAraNa-asattva which
is contradictory to utpatti.*

*[The vyApti by pUrvapakshI यत्र यत्र असाम्प्रदायिकत्वं तत्र तत्र
अनुत्पत्तिकत्वम् is not correct and यत्र यत्र कारणासत्त्वं तत्र तत्र
अनुत्पत्तिकत्वम् is the correct vyApti. The vyApti by pUrvapakshI is not
correct as MahabhArata, whose sajAtIya MahAbhArata were not there earlier
would have asAmpradAyikatvam and yet they were produced by VyAsa.]*

*Now, in the present case, it cannot be said that there is kAraNa-asattva.
Becuase kAraNa in the form of preacher etc (teacher, disciple etc) is
firmly put in place through imagination.  *

*The singularity of jIva is proved through pramANa. There is perception of
samsAra. Hence, this itself is pramANa in non-utpatti of tattva-jnAna
before.*

* न च-तत्त्ववित्त्वेन श्रुत्यादिसिद्धानां शुकवामदेवादीनां मुक्तिर्माभूत् ,
मम तु भविष्यतीति कथं श्रद्दध्यादिति वाच्यम् ; शास्त्रप्रामाण्यदार्ढ्यादिति
गृहाण । *

*It should not be argued that -- How can one have faith in one's own future
liberation when Shukadeva and VAmadeva, which are held as tattva-jnAnI by
Shruti, are held to have not attained liberation. Because, one will have
that faith on account of firmness of faith in shAstra-prAmANya.  *

Further, Advaita-siddhi holds:

* ननु तर्हि श्रुतिप्रामाण्यबलादेव तत्सिद्धो जीवभेदः; #पूर्वमपि
केषांचिन्मोक्षश्चाभ्युपेयताम्।# श्रूयते हि—'तद्यो यो देवानां प्रत्यबुध्यत स
एव तदभवत्तथर्षीणां तथा मनुष्याणाम्' ‘अजो ह्येको जुषमाणोऽनुशेते जहात्येनां
भुक्तभोगामजोऽन्यः' ‘नित्यो नित्यानां चेतनश्चेतनानाम्' इत्यादि । स्मर्यते च
'बहवो ज्ञानतपसा पूता मद्भावमाश्रिताः । इदं ज्ञानमुपाश्रित्य मम
साधर्म्यमागताः' ॥ इत्यादीति–*

*चेन्न; *

*उक्तवाक्यानां सार्वलौकिकभ्रमसिद्धभेदानुवादकत्वेन तत्परत्वाभावात् ,
जीवैक्यबोधकवाक्यानां च मानान्तराप्राप्तस्वार्थपरत्वात्, स्वप्नन्यायेन
भेदस्य कल्पितत्वोपपत्तेश्च । ज्ञानस्तुतिपराणि वाक्यानि नात्मभेदं प्रमातुं
शक्नुवन्ति; तात्पर्यवद्वाक्याविरोधेनातात्पर्यवद्वाक्यानां गुणवादत्वोपपत्तेः
। “अतीतानागताश्चैव यावन्तः सहिताः क्षणाः । ततोऽप्यनन्तगुणिता जीवानां राशयः
पृथक् ॥” इत्यादिस्मृतिरपि जीवोपाधिभेदानुवादकतया व्याख्येया ।
तस्मादविद्योपाधिको जीव एक एवेति सिद्धम् ॥*

*The opponent says that on account of Shruti and Smriti, we should accept
that many would have attained Moksha earlier. AchArya denies that and says
that these vAkyA are intended for stuti of jnAna.*

This is elaborated in greater detail in VedAnta SiddhAnta MuktAvali.

EJV i.e. DSV is a step ahead of SDV. SDV employs pratikarma-vyavasthA which
is for manda-adhikArI. MS says - प्रतिकर्मव्यवस्थायाः
संप्रयोगादिहेतुत्रयजन्यत्वरूपाध्यासतटस्थलक्षणस्य च मन्दाधिकारिविषयत्वात्.
In Samkshepa ShArIraka, it is said in even more detail.

Thus, jIvanmukti etc is valid only in SDV which is
manda-adhikArI-vishayaka. JIvanmukti is admissible in DSV as mere
arthavAda. In ajtivAda, the question itself is invalid.

Any reference to jIvanmukti by Bhagvan Krishna or any of the AchAryAs such
as MS Himself in 3.18 etc is to be understood in this manner only. As an
arthavAda. Or if one chooses to stick to SDV, wherein ajnAta-sattA is
accepted, one may accept it literally.

Regards.



On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 9:52 AM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> तत्त्वक्षति: प्रपञ्चसत्यत्वक्षतिकरी या विवर्तदृष्टि: सा मध्यमा,
> ब्रह्मविचाराद्यधीन विवर्तदृष्टेः विवेकादिमत् पुरुषाश्रायत्वात् परम्परया
> मोक्षोपयोगित्वात् आत्मविषयत्वात् च सा पूर्वदृष्ट्यपेक्षया उत्तमा, तावत्या
> #द्वैतोपशान्त्यसम्भवाद्# द्वैतोपशान्त्यपेक्षया जघन्या इति मध्यमा इति
> अर्थः।.....विवर्तदृष्टेरपि जीवैकत्व नानात्व विषयतया द्वैविध्यम् आह ...
>
>
>
> Namaste Sudhanshu Ji
> The above passage quoted by you does not directly mention that the
> प्रपञ्चसव्यत्वक्षतिकरीदृष्टिः ie विवर्तदृष्टिः is incapable of leading to
> mokSha and that *only द्वैतोपशान्ति: is the highest mokSha.*
>
> The idea of विवर्तदृष्टिः being merely madhyamA might well be either a
> praise (stuti) of the pursuit of the the द्वैतोपशान्ति (along the lines of
> how shrI vidyAraNya prizes/grades the higher bhumikAs over the lower
> bhumikAs amongst even the last three, without denying that jIvamukti is
> there even with the last three bhUmikas.
>
>  It seems rather incongruent with bhAShya to say that द्वैतोपशान्ति (
> literally understood as the total cessation of द्वैतानुभव) is a sine qua
> non for jIvanmukti.
>
> Might it be that the tIka by Sri MS is only his elaboration of the outlier
> view expressed in saMkShepa shAriraka rather than his own view per se, just
> as the tattvavaishAradI commentary on yoga sUtras by SrI vachaspati miSra
> need not imply his acquiescence in the yoga darshana view of
> prakRtinityatvaM etc.
>
> Om
> Raghav
>
>
>
>  Shekhar via Advaita-l, <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Namaste Chandramouli ji,
> >
> > The TIkA by MS on sankshepa shArIraka 2.82 to 2.85 may be perused. Here,
> > the text classifies three drishTi, pariNAma-drishTi, vivarta-drishTi and
> > antyA-drishTi. It says that one attains Moksha through antyA-drishTi by
> > sequentially sublimating the earlier drishTi.
> >
> > MS bifurcates vivarta-drishTi in two parts, nAnA-jIva and one-jIva which
> is
> > what SDV and DSV are respectively. He categorically states that
> > vivarta-drishTi is incapable of leading one to Moksha. I quote from 2.82
> -
> > तत्त्वक्षति: प्रपञ्चसत्यत्वक्षतिकरी या विवर्तदृष्टि: सा मध्यमा,
> > ब्रह्मविचाराद्यधीन विवर्तदृष्टेः विवेकादिमत् पुरुषाश्रायत्वात् परम्परया
> > मोक्षोपयोगित्वात् आत्मविषयत्वात् च सा पूर्वदृष्ट्यपेक्षया उत्तमा, तावत्या
> > #द्वैतोपशान्त्यसम्भवाद्# द्वैतोपशान्त्यपेक्षया जघन्या इति मध्यमा इति
> > अर्थः।.....विवर्तदृष्टेरपि जीवैकत्व नानात्व विषयतया द्वैविध्यम् आह ...
> >
> > //This implies that as per Sri MS,  all the prakriyAs lead to the same
> > Goal. There is no difference in the status of the sAdhaka who reaches the
> > Goal through whichever prakriyA. Your contention appears to imply that
> the
> > status is different depending upon whether SDV or DSV or AjAtivAda is
> > followed by the sAdhaka.//
> >
> > Whether it is pariNAma-vAda or vivarta-vAda (which includes SDV and DSV),
> > they are useful in so far as they sequentially take one to antyA-drishTi.
> >
> > antyA-drishTi is apavAda-drishTi. However, to reach there, one has to
> > necessarily sequentially pass through SDV and DSV. Since, DSV is just a
> > step short to antyA-drishTi, it is the most superior. In antyA-drishTi,
> > there is apavAda, basically ajAtivAda.
> >
> > My point is only this. Neither DSV nor SDV can take one to Moksha. For
> they
> > are within the vivarta-vAda which maintains the prapancha-bhramatva.
> >
> > It is only the antyA-drishTi, the ajAtivAda which is the truth. I would
> > request to kindly peruse 2.82 to 2.85 TIkA. I cannot find any soft copy.
> I
> > have the Hindi translation and reproducing the Sanskrit here will take
> > time.
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> >
> >
> > <
> >
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > >
> > > <#m_-3708647878556661999_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>


-- 
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com