[Advaita-l] RE:self-realization/moksha

[ramesh badisa]

Namaste:
   
  “there is nothing limited about jnana in the saguna context and thus nothing limited about mukti as a result of that jnana” 

Badisa: Earlier you have said that, “The krama mukti is the result of jnana where Ishvara or saguna Brahman is the object. By placing limits on Brahman the jiva is also placing limits on his jnana on. Concepts such as time (pralaya) and space (Brahmaloka) still apply”  

Check the mail of Mon, 24 Jul 2006 for the above.

Since the saguna Brahman worshipper reaches BL by devyan marg, from your above previous answer, it means that this soul has placed limits on Brahman and thus it in turn has placed limits on its jnana. This is what it implies from the above reply.

Based on this, I asked you to show some scriptural references for your argument. Now, in your last reply (of Thu, 27 Jul 2006), you did not quote any references. Rather, you have said that my question was improperly phrased and then, you said, 
  “In so far as the atma considers itself to be at Brahmaloka, there is nothing limited about its jnana” 

If you match your previous and last replies, you will find for yourself that you are placing ‘limits’ in one answer and placing ‘no limits’ in another reply. Both are contradicting. How do you explain this?
  “What is this pralaya? To answer my question, pralaya is when maya stops and the apparent difference between saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman is erased”
   
  Badisa: If you define ‘pralaya’ as when maya is stopped (that is, influence of maya is gone), then, in that case, saguna Brahman, (who imparts the bahma gyan to the liberated soul) should be said that he had attained his pralaya. Similarly, the liberated soul at BL, after experiencing his self should be said that he has also attained his pralaya. It means that saguna Brahman got his pralaya first and then much later the liberated soul got his pralaya. It means that we see two pralayas here at BL taking place at different times. But, sutra 4.3.10 disagrees with your definition. Why? Because, as per this sutra, both saguna Brahman and the liberated soul at BL are merged in nirgun Brahman at the same time at pralaya. If your definition of pralaya is right, then in that case merging of saguna Brahman and the liberated soul in nirgun Brahman should happen at the same time. But as per your definition they are happening at different times. So, your definition of pralaya clashes
 with the above sutra, and thus incorrect.     
   
  “However there is a being that is avyakta and akshara according to 8.20 who is not bound by time. And 8.21 says exectly what the Vedanta sutras say:  those who reach the avyakta and akshara, never return"
   
  Badisa: But, who is this avyakta and akshara? Is it saguna Brahman or the nirguna Brahman? All along you are saying that attaining of saguna Brahman is moksha, and so “no return to samsar”. No return to samsar is correct. But is it because of attainment of saguna Brahman at BL by the liberated soul? Or is it because of merging of the liberated soul at BL along with saguna Brahman in nirgun Brahman at pralaya? See, attaining of nirgun Brahman by sagun Brahman itself is a clear proof that the saguna Brahman unfortunately is also bound by time. When you say that attaining of avyakta and akshara will not return to samsar, then can you tell me whom you are referring to? Is is saguna Brahman or nirgun Brahman? You have answered this question at the end of your reply. You said that, “Only nirguna brahman is avyakta _and_ akshara” It means that there is something that is avyakta and akshara, and attaining of which there will be no return to the samsar. Correct. Do you think that
 the liberated soul at BL had already attained this avyakta and akshara before pralaya? I do not know what your answer would be for this question. But, my answer is’no’. Why? Because, this attainment will only take place at the time of pralaya. Since this is not happening before pralaya, I am saying that the state of liberated soul at BL is not moksha. Kindly let me know your answer. 
   
  “Self-experience is the cause of attainment of Brahmaloka”
   
  Badisa: Incorrect please. A self-experienced person will not attain BL. Please check Br. Up. 3.2.11 for details.
   
  “Why would jnanis need Prajapati to give them the 
  final liberation teaching"?
   
  Badisa: You have missed the point here. You are mixing two different situations. The gyani’s soul won’t go anywhere at the time of death of gyani. Check Br. Up. 3.2.11 for this. I never said that the “gyani’s” soul would go to BL. You are saying that. When I have mentioned the ‘qualified soul’ in my earlier answer, I am ‘not’ referring to gyani’s soul, but it is the virtuous soul, which worshipped saguna Brahman, and takes journey by devyan marg, and finally halts at BL till pralaya. This is the one I am referring to. Anyhow, this soul, now gets the final liberation teaching about its true nature, by Lord Brahma, and then experiences its true nature. Such soul/s, along with the president of BL, would attain the nirgun Brahman at the time of pralaya (BS 4.3.10). This is the soul, which needs the gyan, and that I was referring in my earlier answer.     
   
  “Why so?  Gunas are not imperishable. What can be ended must have begun and there must have been a cause to begin it. Only nirguna brahman is avyakta _and_ akshara.
   
  Badisa: At what context the gunas are imperishable? In absolute sense? Can’t be.  Only nirgun Brahman is avyakta and akshara, and attaining of which it requires gunatita state (Gita 14/26). So what I am saying all along is that attaining of ‘it’ is called moksha. What do you say now? Please let me know.
   
  Namaste
  Badisa

 				
---------------------------------
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on  Yahoo! Small Business.