[Advaita-l] GunAtIta and jIvanmukta

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Chandramouliji,

On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 4:28 PM, H S Chandramouli <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> You are always welcome to join the discussions any time you feel like. All
> the participants benefit since we take it as a discussion and not as a
> match.
>
Surely not a match, thanks.


>
>
> Reg  << Here, the mind rooted in brahman need not mean vRtti that comes
> with the jnAtR-jnAna-bheda/ tripUTi, as in SS. It is the resolution of the
> mind (and therefore also the jnAtR) into the object of the vRtti, which is
> mahAvAkya, leading to NS.>>,
>
>
>
> Quite so. It is termed akhandAkAra vritti. mahAvAkya is instrumental in
> generating this vritti. Meaning of the mahAvakya is the “object” which the
> vritti takes on. I would avoid the word “resolution of the mind” in the
> context of the current discussion.
>

As I explained to Sujalji, I didn't mean destruction by resolution, but I
see how that can go off in meaning. I am not sure if I should used Ramana
Maharshi's term here with the ongoing debate, but he called it manolayA.


>
> Reg  << The steady maintained vRtti is SS (specifically
> शब्दानुविद्धसविकल्पसमाधि as per Drigdrishyaviveka), which culminates into
> NS.  >>,
>
>
>
> My understanding is somewhat different. True nature of the vastu is
> nirvikalpa. Any change from this true nature is savikalpa. If the steadily
> maintained vritti is on any form other than the true nature of Brahman, it
> is SS. If the steadily maintained vritti is of Brahman, then it is NS.
>

I have a little trouble understanding this description. What do you
specifically mean when you say maintaining the "vRtti of brahman"? Is it
vichArarUpa as aham brahmAsmi or did you mean brahman as itself an object
of vRtti. Although you indicated the latter in an earlier mail, I was
assuming it was in a manner of phrasing alone and you didn't mean it, since
brahman can never be an object vide Kenamantra यदि मन्यसे सुवेदेति, where
Bhashyakara says that only a knowable thing can be सुवेद, not ब्रह्म।
ब्रह्म is विदितादविदाद् अन्यः। If you meant the former, then it is indeed
akhaNDAkAra vRtti, which as I understand removes avidyA and then removes
this vRtti itself. Then there would be no vRtti.

The only other possibility may be that I misunderstood and you are calling
NS that state of effortless being in brahman without maintaining a vRtti
per se, but vRtti w.r.t. to any object, which would be as Drigdrishyaviveka
puts it: यत्र यत्र मनो याति तत्र तत्र समाधयः, in which case my
understanding is the same.


> It is possible that prima facie  Drigdrishyaviveka may lead to the type
> of understanding you have mentioned. Infact probably that is how it is
> mostly presented. I would only refer you to the bhashya on VC  verse 362
> covered in my other post.
>

I did read it due to which I started my reply on this thread.


> I prefer to understand the terms in Drigdrishyaviveka consistent with
> this. I think it is more in line with the bhashya of Sri Bhagavatpada.  Change
> of the vastu in the steady mind is the transition from SS to NS, not
> absence of the vritti in NS as compared to SS..
>
Did you have a particular shAnkarabhAshya in mind that you could refer me
to?



>
>
> Reg  << vRtti is a modification of the mind and when it is without
> modification, it is merged into brahman as brahman. >>,
>
>
>
> You need to add the last term  “and is purely the residual Brahman”  after
> “ is without any modification” to arrive at the meaning  of “merges in
> Brahman”.
>
I don't think I understand the significance of residual brahman here. If I
add the words you suggest, then the vRtti will stop being a vRtti, since it
will not have any modification. The mind will be merged (laya) in brahman.


> If it is to be purely the Brahman vritti has to be present.
>
The having merged into brahman, being purely brahman alone, there cannot be
a vRtti. What am I missing? This statement is unclear to me.


> I would request you to have a relook at the bhashya.
>
 I already asked a reference above unless you meant commentary on VC.


>
> Reg  << The coming out of NS indicates the resolution of tripuTi in
> bIjarUpa. Just like one comes out of suShupti but still will have
> experienced happiness, so too during NS. >>,
>
>
>
> I agree with one very important observation. This bIjarUpa avidya is
> दग्धरूप (dagdharUpa, burnt seeds)  unlike in sushupti where it is अदग्धरूप
> adagdharUpa, raw/unburnt seeds). That makes all the difference.
>
>
>
True.

Kind rgds,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */