[Advaita-l] Dayanand Saraswathi interview - Very interesting stand taken by Swami

[Kripa Shankar]

Namaste, 

Any philosophy is built within a particular framework. For the philosophy to be valid, it has to satisfy all the required conditions, albeit within that framework. Hence, if there is ambiguity left even within a philosophical construct, there is no use pursuing it. No philosophy says - the outcome of this philosophy is doubtful. 

Even a child would know a ball rolls, fire burns etc. There is no philosophy required here to explain those things. However there are unknown aspects like what happens after death, how did this universe come to exist etc. We don't need an elaborate philosophy to tell us the same thing again - that all this is uncertain. 
‎
‎Now the Upanishads make a bold statement, that it can explain the unknown principle * with certainty *. If at the end of the instruction, the Upanishad seers were to say - we can't be sure though ; then there is no question of shraddha or Nishta. It becomes a mere fable. 

Hence it is indeed possible to determine whether a person is jivanmukta or not. It is not possible in the way we would determine a physical condition like myopia. ‎However if a person satisfies all the conditions laid out * within the philosophical framework *, we can determine if that person is jivanmukta or not. Within this philosophical construct, the parts of the equation are interdependent. 

Lets take an example of Vidyaranya. No one could prove if he merged with the paramatma or not. That was not my query in the first place, as it is given (that we can't determine such a thing if there is one). However, Vidyaranya satisfies all the conditions to arrive at a * conclusion * that he was indeed a jivanmukta. Hence within the framework of Vedanta, he is considered as jivanmukta. ‎

Now lets compare the case of RM. There are a lot of loose ends here :
1) he did not study the shastras (at least formally) 
2) in order to consider him as a Jivanmukta, we have to make an assumption (not inference) that he was already a jnAni. 

Jivanmukti is the fruit of aparoksha jnana. Aparoksha jnana has to satisfy the condition of paroksha jnana. Paroksha jnana is protected by the guru shishya parampara. Hence by adding this brand new clause of 'assumption' in the Vedantic school, the strength of Shastras as a necessary condition is diluted. In this case, it becomes nought. 

Regards 
Kripa ‎
‎
AchArya ghAtinAm lokA na santi kulapAmsana ~
There is NO region, O wretch of your race, for those who seek to slay an AchArya
  Original Message  
From: sreenivasa murthy
Sent: Sunday 15 January 2017 10:17 PM
To: Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta; Kripa Shankar; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Reply To: sreenivasa murthy
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Dayanand Saraswathi interview - Very interesting stand taken by Swami

Dear Sri Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan,

   Is it ever possible for a mumukshu to have sAkShAtkAra of Brahman as an object ? Does this concept not  contradict the Srutivakya "adRuShTam" , " yEnEdaM sarvaM vijAnIti taM kEna vijAniyAt, vijnAtAram arE kEna vijAnIyAt" etc. etc. Is Brahman available for sAkShAtkAra? What is brahmasAkShatkAra  itself? I will be grateful to you if you could explain and clarify it.

With respectful namaskarams,
Sreenivasa Murthy

 


From: Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>; Kripa Shankar <kripa.shankar.0294 at gmail.com> 
Sent: Sunday, 15 January 2017 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Dayanand Saraswathi interview - Very interesting stand taken by Swami

You seem have a few misconceptions. Yes, after brahma saakShaatkaara a
"fall" is possible. Sankara says that the person should take up sannyaasaa
and become a parivraajaka immediately AFTER saakShaatkaara to avoid this.
This has been discussed extensively in the list before. No you cannot
identify a person as a jiivanmukta or not, I.e., an "objective" test is not
available. That is indeed one of the ideas expressed by the dharmavyAdha
story or the R^ibhu story in the Vishnu purana.

Furthermore I suggest that you spend some time in introspection on the
anger you are displaying towards Ramana and his followers. Perhaps he
wasn't a jiivanmukta, so what part of their behavior is creating so much
agitation in you?

Rama

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 9:06 AM Kripa Shankar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Ok, let's assume so. Still he said - he may not have been a jiivanmuukta.
> Does that mean inspite of brahmatma saakshatkara, Jivanmukti is doubtful?
> This is why your arguments are far fetched. Because you already arrive at
> the conclusion first, then you try to reconcile with/justify it.
>
>
>
> If we cannot determine if a person is jivanmukta or not, is Jivanmukti a
> mere abstract idea? Is Moksha a speculation? Because otherwise, there is no
> proof if the jnani is reborn or not.
>
> ‎
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
>
>
> For assistance, contact:
>
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

>
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org