[Advaita-l] Re:self realization/moksha

[ramesh badisa]

Namaste:

“As far as the attainer of Brahmaloka is concerned, by 

knowing Ishvara he has known all that is to be known there are no 

limits for him.  It is only from the nirguna viewpoint that we can see that there is still a limit. 

 

Badisa: It means that you are saying that knowledge of nirgun Brahman is equal to the knowledge of saguna Brahman. This is incorrect please. What do you mean by ‘knowing Ishwara’? Is it that the attainer knows that he is Ishwara? Or is it that the attainer assumes that he is different from Ishwara due to his mode of worship? Which one is correct? The former leads to multiple Isawaras (which is wrong). In case of latter, due to mode of worship, the attainer distincts himself from the Ishwara. This is also wrong with respective to moksha’s perspective. On the other hand, a jeevan mukta realizes that ‘He’ is ‘Him’. Now, when you say that by knowing Ishwara, the attainer of BL has known all that is known, then in that case, can you explain how the self-experience of jeevan mukta state be equal to Knower of Isawara at BL. A jeevan mukta realizes his true identity, while the attainer of BL doesn’t have this self-experience, but assumes ‘he’ is distinct from ‘Him’. Since
 self-experience is a must for moksha, and since the attainer of BL is lack of it, then it means that the attainer is still short of something in complete knowledge, which is the self-experience. In such situation, how can you justify your statement that by knowing of Ishwara, the attainer of BL has known that all to be known? Can you please reply?            

 

“I'm saying literally when Maya (the multitude of names and forms.) stops, ceases to exist.  That is pralaya”

 

Badisa: Pralaya can be defined in several ways. In case of a jeevan mukta, death of body can be said to be pralaya. This is correct with respect to jeevan mukta. Another way is to define it as when maya ceases to exist. This is also correct in a different perspective. There are several such ways to define it. However, in case of attainer of BL, the term pralaya needs to be viewed from a different angle. This needs to be understood as attaining of nirgun Brahman at the time of dissolution of BL. *Also please compare it with the below answer.  

 

“”Or is it because of merging of the liberated soul at 

BL along with saguna Brahman in nirgun Brahman at pralaya?””

 

“*As the latter occurs inevitably after the former..”

 

Badisa: Exactly. *The latter occurs inevitably after the former. But when? At pralaya. Right? It means that you also accept in such a thing called pralaya. The saguna Brahman, along with attainer of BL merges in nirgun brahmn at pralaya. You have also agreed on merging, now. But how did you define the pralaya in a different way above than here when we both are discussing earlier on the same topic about of merging in nirgun Brahman at pralaya?       

 

 

“ 
 why even make this distinction?  Particularly because it rests on the false concept of time.

 

Badisa: This distinction is very significant. 

 

“This shruti just says that moksha is not a bodily resurrection but an 

identification of the atma with paramatma. So it does not directly 

relate to the topic we are discussing now”

 

Badisa: Earlier you said, “Self-experience is the cause of attainment of Brahmaloka” In view of Br. Up. 3.2.11 reference, I said your answer was incorrect. Because, the self-experienced person won’t go to any Lok. But you said above that he attains BL. In the present reply, you are saying that this reference does not relate to the topic of discussion. This is not correct. How? Let us see. In this reference, sri Artabhaga asks sri Yajnavalkya, “when the liberated man (that is, jeevan mukta) dies, do his pranas go up from him or do they not? Sri Yajnavalkya replies, “No. They merge in him only” 

 

Now, let us go back to your earlier statement, “self-experience is the cause of attainment of Brahmaloka”. By making this statement, you are clearly saying that a self-experienced man (that is, a jeevan mukta) will go to BL. This is wrong, because, it clashes with sruti declaration. The above sruti text did not say attainment of BL by a self-experienced person after death. That’s what I had said earlier, and even now also. How can you say that this particular reference is not concerned to the discussion of this particular issue? This is again incorrect.

  

“Again let me remind you that the definition of jnana is relative to the context” 

 

Badisa: There is only one gyana to be achieved by each and all persons. Then only, moksha will be same for all, as indicated by Lord Krishna in Gita 5/5. If the definition of gyana is related with the context, then achieving of such a gyana is not concerned with moksha. So, the bottom line is that gyana is not related with the context.  

 

“If Lord Brahma has this jnana then why does He have to wait till 

pralaya?” 

 

Badisa: Muktikopanishad 1.16, says, “
. That is why even ‘those’ in the BL, get “identity” with Brahman after listening to the Upanishads (Vedanta sravanadi krutvya 
) from his mouth”. Who is present in BL? Lord Brahma. Listens from whose mouth? Lord Brahma’s mouth. It means that Lord Brahma has the knowledge of Brahman. Now, who listens to Lord Brahma’s teachings? The attainer/s (see, the plural term ‘those’) of the BL. Who attains BL? The worshippers of saguna Brahman. What they listen from Lord Brahma’s mouth? Knowledge of upanishads. What is the result of such teaching? It helps to get the ‘identity’ of attainer of the BL with the supreme Brahman. Now, sutra 4.3.10 says that Lord Brahma and liberated soul/s at BL will attain the nirgun Brahman at pralaya. Did you get answers for your above doubts? On the same lines, let me ask you a similar type of question in a different way. Lord Yama also taught the knowledge of Brahman to Nachiketa (Katha Up.). Lord Yama stays at
 Yam Lok. Now, if a question is asked, “why Lord Yama has to wait till pralaya” then what would be the answer? Similarly, Lord Prajapati taught the knowledge of Brahman to Lord Indra (Ch. Up). Again, if a question is asked, “why Lord Prajapati has to wait till pralaya”, then what would be the answer? Please let me know your answers.

 

“Similiarly if all these jivas are learning jnana, do they all attain at exactly the same time just before the pralaya?”

 

Badisa: Please see the above Upanishad reference. They are listening to the Lord Brahma’s teachings. Such teaching needs to be translated in to experience of the self. Then only, identity with supreme Brahman is realized. In order to experience the self, they meditate at BL. Since there is only one supreme Brahman, everyone will have the same self-experience. At the time of pralaya, such souls will merge in nirgun Brahman along with Lord Brahman.   

 

“Krshna Bhagavan says we have to know Him to attain the avyakta and 

Akshara whether we know Him with gunas or without we still know Him.  

Jivanmukti is a more direct approach whereas kramamukti is more roundabout. But the latter is still a way of knowing Him”

 
  Badisa: Even though karma mukti is roundabout, still one has to become gunatita at BL by Lord Brahma’s teaching. Then only, it will lead to realize the avyakta and akshara nature of self. Then only moksha. Kramamukti does not convey the idea that one can attain supreme Brahman with gunas. If it does, then in that case there is no requirement for Lord Brahma’s teachings for the attainers of BL.
   
  Namaste
  Badisa

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