[Advaita-l] Eternal Loka

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am sure Ramnuja, Madhwa etc. also knew what is mimamsa, what is
> adhyAropa apavAda, what are first principles, what is mukti. No scholars
> worth his name will say they were naive. It is another thing to disagree
> with them.
>
> When the Upanishad say that mukti involves singing, dancing, laughing etc.
> together with Brahman / Lord, it is a fair question in my view to ask why
> Sankara says a mukta does not act.
>

As I had mentioned in this forum before, according to the Madhwa system the
jiva is 'nitya baddha' or 'ever bound'.  According to Ramanuja the jiva is
'nitya paratantra' or 'ever dependent in servitude.'  This is the way these
two systems portray the jiva to be.  I had even cited the 'authority' on
which I mentioned this before.

In Advaita the jiva is verily Brahman, Infinite Pure Consciousness and
nitya mukta.  jiva brahmaiva na aparaH.  So, in moksha, the other two
systems will have Ishwara and all the mukta jivas as living in a particular
loka, Vaikunta, etc. along with other muktas, engaged in serving the Lord
in various ways such a singing His praise, etc. or enjoying with the Lord
the various bhogas that the Lord is having.

In Advaita the jiva is none other than Brahman.  When he realizes his true
nature, there is no place he has to go to to be a mukta.  He is the
Infinite Brahman Pure Consciousness. Brahman, being Infinite, has no
kriyA.  A kriya can really take place only with finite beings.  For
instance, I can wave my finite hand in space only where there is no other
obstruction. A person can go to another place only where there is a place
that is other than where he is at present stay put.  But for the Infinite
Brahman there is no other place where It can go to or move to.  It has no
parts like limbs with which It can act.  The mukta jiva being Brahman, has
no actions, therefore.

In Brahman the Infinite, ananta, there is no way there is an 'other' as
this 'other' would contradict the anantatva of Brahman.  Brahman is
sarvavyApi and if there is an other than Brahman that is not Brahman, it
means 'Brahman is not in that thing/place.'  That is why Shankara while
explaining the 'anantam' of Taittiriya Up. 'satyam, jnanam, anantam brahma'
gives 'vastu pariccheda rahitam' too as the meaning.  A table is not a
chair, they mutually exclude/limit themselves 'paricchidyati'. If any other
thing/person different from Brahman is admitted, that thing will 'restrict'
Brahman. And Brahman will not qualify to be called 'anantam'.

regards
subrahmanian.v