[Advaita-l] The Four kinds of 'Mukti' compared with the 'Kaivalya' of Vedanta

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
>
>
> 23. The Gita teaches that all loka-s upto and including Brahmaloka are
>    temporary.  VishNuloka and Shiva loka are no exceptions.
>
> >  Which verse/chapter in geeta talks about these loka-s & their temporary
> nature?? kindly let me know.
>
> आब्रह्मभुवनाल्लोकाः पुनरावर्तिनोऽर्जुन ।
मामुपेत्य तु कौन्तेय पुनर्जन्म न विद्यते  ॥ 8.16

In this shloka it is said that all loka-s upto and including Brahmaloka are
subject to transmigration: return to earth.  The Bhashyam says: a 'bhuvana'
is a loka where beings, bhUta-s reside/exist.

VyAkhyAta-s have clarified that there are two categories of people who reach
Brahmaloka: 1. by doing 'panchAgni vidyaa' upaasanaa when a jiva reaches
Brahmaloka, after experiencing the special bhogas there, this jiva
definitely returns to earth.  2. When a jiva has performed Ishwaropasana and
reaches Brahmaloka, there, after attaining the Nirguna BrahmasAkShAtkAra ,
one attains moksha, along with Brahma, at the end of that kalpa, and never
returns to earth.  This is what is popularly known as 'krama mukti'.  It is
to be noted that the jiva which goes to Brahmaloka from earth, after death,
is still a jiva, an upAsaka, NOT yet MUKTA.  It does not have the aparoksha
Atma Jnanam that is avidya nivartaka yet.  Only on going to Brahmaloka,
being taught by Brahma, this jiva gets this liberating jnana.



> 27. Going to another loka for mukti is against the Shruti: न तस्य
> प्राणा
>   उत्क्रामन्ति Brihadaranyaka Up. 4.4.6 which teaches the
> Jnani's subtle body
>   does not leave the physical body at all upon death.
>
> >  sorry, could not get it!!  what happens to sUkshma shareera when
> jnAni's stUla shareera burnt or buried??  what exactly is the 'death'of
> the jnAni then if subtle body is intact in a jnAni??  what would be the
> intention of the shruti when it says 'the procedure' of death is same for
> both jnAni & ajnAni if jnAni's sUkshma shareera does not want to leave the
> physical body...
>
>
There is another Brihadaranyaka shruti, reference not getting immediately,
which says: 'अत्रैव समवनीयन्ते’. The sUkshma shareera of the Jnani, upon
death of the sthUla shareera, dissolves 'here itself', that is, it merges in
the pancha bhUtas, their kAraNam.  In (Advaita) Vedanta, the sUkshma
shareera is also a kaarya of pancha bhuta, (sattva guNa samaShTi of the
pancha bhUta-s).  It is not that the sukshma shareera does not want to leave
the physical body, it is implication of the subtle body too merging in the
pancha bhuta-s.


> So, there is no question of his traveling to some other loka for moksha.
>

This is not contradicted.

>
> >  Yes, for the samyak jnAni there is no lokAntara/janmAntara/kAlAntara
> mOksha...but shankara clarifies there is a krama mukti for saguNOpAsaka-s
> and after mahApraLaya they would get the ultimate Atma jnAna in brahma
> lOka.  So, in some cases, lokAntara mukti in shankara vedAnta cannot be
> completely ruled out.
>

This has been explained above; the upAsaka travelling to lokAntara, here
Brahmaloka, is NOT a jnAni yet.  He is just a jiva, an exalted one at that.
So going to another loka, only for the purpose of great bhoga there and
attaining BrahmAtma aikya jnana there does not amount to lokAntara mukti.
It is only a case of attaining jnana in some place.  Instead of attaining it
here, this jiva attains it there.  That is all the difference.  Only the
desha and kala are different.  Also, it is to be noted that this jiva, after
attaining the moksha daayaka jnana in Brahma loka, DOES not stay there for
ever.  When pralaya takes place there will be no more brahma loka and all
the occupants will be mukta-s.

>
> There is no partial realization of Brahman possible.
>
> >  Interesting...could you elaborate this little more prabhuji in the
> light of different types of brahma jnAni-s like vara, vareeya, varishTa
> etc.
>

These distinctions are not based on fullness or partness of Jnana; it is
only based on the strength of the antahkaraNa.  All these 'types' have the
SAME brahmajnana; there is absolutely no difference in that.  But, their
antahkaraNa paripaaka is bound to differ just like all jnanis do not weigh
the same, they do not have the same complexion.  The sthUla deha taaratamya
is definitely there in the sukshma deha too.  This cannot be denied or
wished away.  This is what forms the basis for the above 'classification'.

>
> 41. The dispelled avidya will not return as there is no power that can
>   cause its return
>
> >  Again, little more elaboration requested in the light of 'jnAna (sorry
> ) jnAna pravrutti daurbalya in the saMyak jnAni & sadhAna-s required to
> counter the jnAna pravrutti daurbalya...if the dispelled avidyA does not
> have the 'return path' what exactly causes the jnAna pravrutti daurbalya
> in the Atma jnAni??
>

I think I have already said about this in the earlier section above.  There
is no question of dispelled avidya returning.  Bhagavatpada has already
touched upon this subject in the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya 1.4.10.  I had even
quoted this passage.  He gives the analogy of 'digbhrama' occurring, for
some reason, even for a person  who is quite well acquainted with the
directions.

It is only the work of samskaras.  Atma Jnanam does not destroy samskaras.
Also, for the Jnani who has acquired Jnanam only after cultivating pure
samskaras, the occasional appearance of a past samskara is not a fault; it
will not make him an ajnani and bring him rebirth.  As long as he lives, if
he chooses to be free of even those occasional appearances of samskaras, he
has a variety of sadhanas that the scripture offers.  Again, it is only
optional for him to take to these sadhanas or not; it will not make any
difference to his mukti/molksha.  It is purely jivan-mukti-specific.  These
sadhanas are no different from the further fine-tuning of the daivi sampat
and Atma guNa-s detailed in the Bhagavadgita.  The more and strong of these,
the greater and intense is the peace the Jnani enjoys.  The 'gradations' in
Jnanis is based on this only and NOT on atmajnana taaratamya; there cannot
be such a taratamya in Jnana.

We can think of an example, though somewhat crude:  Two well qualified
Engineers might offer two different solutions to a problem.  In practice,
there might be difference in the implementing and the working of these
different solutions.  One could cause a variety of unforeseen problems while
the other might not cause any or cause a different variety of side issues.
Both solutions might finally succeed in solving the problem.  But what
happens between the implementation and final solution stage could be
different, unpredictable.

Such a scenario could be thought of in respect of Jnanis of  'different'
grades.  Their fundamental/final Atmajnana-caused-mukti is same/similar.
But what happens between the time of sAkShAtkAra and the fall of the body at
death could, naturally, be varied.  This is because what lives is only the
body-mind apparatus.  And this is undoubtedly different, being an effect of
several pUrva janma samskaras.  This vaichitrya is quite reasonable;
undeniable.  So, the 'difference' in grades is quite reasonably acceptable.
radations

Here is just one indication of how the concept of  'gradations' in Jnanis is
realistic:

In the Bhagavadgita Bhashya for the 16th chapter we have this:

अहिम्सा सत्यमक्रोधः....16.2

For the word 'akrodhaH' above the Bhashyam says:  परैः आक्रुष्टस्य अभिहतस्य
वा *प्राप्तस्य क्रोधस्य* *उपशमनं अक्रोधः* ।   The meaning is:  *Suppression
of anger* *that has arisen *when beaten or reviled.

In the very next verse, there occurs a word: क्षमा for which the Bhashyam
is:

*आक्रुष्टस्य ताडितस्य वा अन्तर्विक्रिया अनुत्पत्तिः*, उत्पन्नायां
विक्रियायां उपशमनमक्रोध इत्यवोचाम ।

Forgiveness: *unaffectedness when beaten or reviled.*  We have explained
(above) 'absence of anger' (akrodhaH) to mean suppression of anger when IT
ARISES.  Thus forgiveness and absence of anger should be distinguished from
each other.

>From the above two bhashyam passages it becomes cleqar that: There is a
mind, mental state, that is affected, that is, a vikAra takes place, anger
arises, when beaten or scolded.

There is another mind, another mental state, where even the vikAra does not
arise, no anger arises, when beaten or scolded.  Both these states are in
daivee sampat.

There can be a Jnani who is in the first category and another Jnani in the
second category.  For the first Jnani, anger arises and thereafter he quells
it.  For the second Jnani there is no need to even quell anger as it does
not even arise in the first place.  The first one is a little disturbed; the
second is least disturbed.  This is one typical case where one can see the
real-life basis for the distinction between/across Jnanis.  And remember
both these states are WITHIN the daivee sampat.

The same can be said with desire, kAma, too.  There can be two mental
states, two minds, one where kAma arises and is quelled and another where
kAma does not even arise (when the stimulus is present).  Sjurely, the minds
are products of prakrti, they are the results of samskaras.  They can be
improved upon, with effort, if one desires.  So, in this typical case, Jnani
1 can put in efforts to have a state of mind that Jnani 2 enjoys.  However,
it is emphasised that there is no difference in their Atma Jnanam and the
mukti/moksha that they have attained even when Jnanam dawmed.  All these
differences in mental states are relevant only during the life time of the
Jnani.  It can be very well imagined that for the same Jnani the two mental
states can occur in different situations.  It is quite possible.  And only
this possibility opens the further possibility of one improving the
condition of the mind.  And that is what the crux of Jivanmukti viveka is.

Om Tat Sat
subbu



> _______________________________________________
>
>