[Advaita-l] brahma satyaM, jaganmithyA
anbesivam2 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 24 06:38:58 CDT 2006
In my understanding Iswara is Saguna Brahman and not Nirguna Brahman. It is
not right to say that Maya is dependent on Nirguna Brahman for that would
contradict the fact that Maya is anirvachaniya. Also it would contradict
Nirguna Brahman as being Absolute.
A Videha Mukta merges with Nirguna Brahman and not Saguna Brahman. A Mukta
never comes back, that is the assertion of our Vedas. All jeevas are
subject to the Maya of Easwara and if Videha Mukta should reincarnate then
Mukthi and liberation will have no meaning. A Mukta is not parallel to
Easwara as Mukta is one without a second.
A Jeevan Mukta has no identity with the body and no interest in the body. So
he neither wishes to stay in Samadhi nor otherwise. What the body of Jeevan
Muktha undergoes is of the predestination of a karmic body and Jeevan Muktha
has nothing to do with it.
On 8/23/06, Annapureddy Siddhartha Reddy <annapureddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> praNAM all,
> I have a few questions on the tenets of advaita vEdAnta vis-a-vis
> the tattva bOdha (attributed to shaN^karAchArya) and the vEdAnta sAra (of
> sadAnanda, translated by Hiriyanna). I will first present a brief overview
> of the theory presented in these two works (as per my understanding,
> feel free to correct me) to give the context, and then formulate my
> questions. Thanks a lot.
> The theory in these works is as follows. Ishvara is defined to be nirguNa
> brahma (the underlying spirit, consciousness) in combination with the
> triguNAtmika mAyA. mAyA is fully dependent on nirguNa brahma for its
> existence, while nirguNa brahma is fully independent (adhyArOpa apavAda).
> Hence is asserted the ontological superiority of nirguNa brahma and its
> The jIva is, by definition, the nirguNa brahma in combination of
> avidyA. avidyA is again triguNAtmika and hence, part of mAyA. Thus, the
> relationship between the jIva and Ishvara is a unique
> identity-cum-difference. For an unrealized jIva, the sattva component
> comprising his avidyA is dominated by the rajas.h and tamas.h components,
> while for a realized jIva, the sattva shines without being sullied by the
> rajas.h and tamas.h components (This is called sattva shudhdi).
> mAyA has two powers -- vikShEpa and AvaraNa. vikShEpa is what
> in the manifestation of variety, while AvaraNa results in the covering up
> the real nature of the Atma (hence, mAyA is called bhAva rUpa).
> Given this background, I have the following questions:
> -- Please let me know if the above understanding is correct, and let me
> of any corrections. Thanks.
> -- A curious comment in Hiriyanna's book is that Ishvara is very much
> of this vikShEpa, but being omniscient is obviously not affected by
> Is this admissible in advaita vEdAnta? Because if we were to extend this
> a jIvanmukta, he too gets past the AvaraNa, but presumably he should still
> see the vikShEpa. To extend this still further, a vidEhamukta should be
> to assume a body if he wills (by the vidEhamukta, I mean the avidyA which
> has undergone the sattva shudhdi). You might ask why would a vidEhamukta
> want to do that. It could be the same reason why Ishvara takes the form of
> shrI kR^iShNa -- out of compassion for the jIvas suffering in saMsAra. Are
> the above deductions acceptable to advaita vEdAnta?
> -- Is compassion the reason why Ishvara takes form on Earth to teach the
> jIvas, to set dharma right etc.? Can the same principle be extended to a
> jIvanmukta, i.e., the reason a jIvanmukta stays in the world. I have seen
> prArabdha karma being given as a reason, but a jIvanmukta could have as
> just stayed in samAdhi until his prArabdha is exhausted. What need does he
> feel to teach his disciples etc.? In fact, if the above vikShEpa theory is
> not to be believed, we cannot even say that the jIvanmukta can perceive
> anything different from him. The vivaraNa school seems to attribute it to
> trace of "I"-ness that is still left in a jIvanmukta. What is the accepted
> doctrine in the tradition on this issue?
> -- In general, on a bunch of issues, the bhAmati and the vivaraNa schools
> seem to have different positions, on the theory of what constitutes a
> what is the nature of a jIvanmukta etc. Is it the tradition that all these
> theories are acceptable in as far as they do not contradict the three
> fundamental tenets:
> brahma satyaM jaganmithyA
> jIvO brahmaiva nAparaH
> -- gauDapAdAchArya proposed the ajAti vAda where the only tenet would be
> "brahma satyaM", i.e., he does not even bother defining a jIva and its
> identity with brahma (I am not too familiar with this vAda. Please let me
> know if something's wrong). Is shaN^karAchArya's insistence on the
> vyAvahAra, for example, admitting multiple jIvas etc. supposed to be only
> for the sake of mandAdhikArIs? Or is he disagreeing with gauDapAdAchArya
> his metaphysics?
> -- Similarly, it seems like prakAShAnanda sarasvati in his vEdAnta
> muktAvaLi proposes the notion of ekajIva vAda, and dismisses the notion of
> jIvanmukta. I am not even sure what life/death means in this theory, and
> the notion of jIvanmukta even makes sense. Could someone clarify this
> vis-a-vis these issues? And btw, even in this case, is it supposed to be
> another attempt to reconcile our logic to what the shAstra is saying? In
> sense that these different theories are meant for different adhikArIs, the
> final word being that of the vEdas (interpreted "correctly" of course)?
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list