[Advaita-l] Re: Moksha (Badisa) -2

ramesh badisa badisa66 at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 27 05:26:41 CDT 2005


This is the second part of my answers.


“And this is the answer to the riddle.  If it is all pervasive then it 

includes the jivanmukta (JM).  It includes Ishvara etc.  There is no 

difference between them.  And therefore the jivanmukta includes parabrahman (PB), includes Ishwara. etc.  There is no difference between them”


Badisa: Right. But how about all of us? Are we also included? Yes. Right? Then, we, as souls, also all pervasive, as of now? 


As per your above statement, JM=Ishwara=PB. No difference. It means that the JM should also have the ability to create etc like Ishwara. If you say ‘yes’, then it will clash with BS 4.4.17 for having more than one creator. If you say ‘no’, then in that case, it means JM is not equal to Ishwara, and so he is also not equal to PB. Thus you are contradicting your own statement. In that case, how can you claim that JM is all pervasive? 


I would like to give one example from sri Shankara’s life in this regard. Sri Shankara demonstrated the exit of his soul, and then entered into the dead body of a king. Since sri Shankara is jeevan mukta at that time, if his soul is all pervasive at that time, then how did his soul exit sri Shankara’s body and enter into the body of a dead king? If the soul is all pervasive, how this existing and entering is possible? Then, after its exit, sri Shankara’s body should also be as alive as before its exit, if the soul is all pervasive. But, sri Shankara asked his disciples (sri Padmapada et al) to look after his body for some days. What for? More over, if the soul is all pervasive at that time, then there is no need to ask the disciples to protect the body. Also, the all pervasive soul does not and cannot require to exit his body in order to get certain required experiences through the body of the king. Since it is all pervasive, the required experiences in the question can also be
 obtained without exiting of the soul. In such event, there is no need to ask for about one month’s time to resume the debate with sri Mandana Misra’s wife, because, during the time of great debate, the required knowledge is already available, had the soul is all pervasive. Can you explain the above objections? Now, please do not say that nothing such sort had happened from absolute point of view. If the soul is all pervasive, then it is so from absolute point of view only. Right? So, exit of soul from sri Shankara’s body is also correct from absolute point of view only. So, one cannot say here that no action took place, or no exit of soul took place, or all is illusion etc. Comment please?  


“The purpose of the brahmasutra in question is to stop the sadhaka from 

going off the track by trying to become Ishwara and collect powers like 

creation, dissolution etc. instead of realizing Brahman”


Badisa: I never mentioned or indicated in my postings that we have to aim specifically to become Ishwara or to earn the lordly powers. This has never been the case. Why? Because, eventually that would be the case and thus no need to attempt separately to acquire them. However, the point I am asking is that does JM have these lordly powers, before the death of physical body? He may as well choose not to involve in creation etc if he has the powers. But that is not the point. Does he really have the lordly powers? Please quote any references from BS, Upanishads, or Gita. That’s all I am asking.  


“The inhabitants of Brahmaloka are mukta in the sense that they have 

escaped from the cycle of samsara. However they still identify with 



Badisa: My question was precisely concerned with liberated soul at BL after having self experience there, before pralaya. I do not think that the liberated soul at BL identify with gunas after self experience. If you say, ‘yes’ they identify with gunas, then I say ‘no. Why and how do we know this? No gunas exist upon self experience. Right? Without self experience, there is no salvation. Right? BS 4.3.10 says the attainment of higher place (salvation) for liberated soul at pralaya. Thus, from this sutra, we are sure that the liberated soul had self experience at BL, before pralaya, and on account of this now we can confidently say that no identification with gunas on the part of liberated souls. Under these circumstances, the position of gyani on the earth and the liberated soul in BL is same. How? Because, both are self experienced, no identification with gunas and waiting for respective pralayas. When the sutra 4.4.17 flatly denies lordly powers for self experienced and gunatita
 liberated soul at BL, then how come we say that gyani, who is also self experienced and gunatita on the earth, (like liberated soul) got sampurna mukti on the same grounds before his pralaya? I know, you may still say all this is due to maya, or no such things have taken place or taking place. Or you may also say that all BS are talking from worldly point of view. Then, in that case, can we say that attainment of higher region (salvation) by liberated soul at pralaya, as declared by sutra 4.3.10, is also not true in absolute sense? If you say yes, then in that case, there is no requirement for this sutra to declare the attainment of higher region at pralaya, when the liberated soul is already considered as attained mukti? Why the sutra has to declare again? Also please state how come the liberated soul is still finite before pralaya in spite of self expereince? The finiteness is evidenced from the facts of sruri text, Ch. Up. 8.2.1. 


“Who we are referring to as a jivanmukta is free from feelings of attachment to all gunas.  This is the key to mukti whether the atma is free of attachment or not.  Whether the location of that atma is 

brahmaloka or a human body is arbitrary and irrelevant”


Badisa: Yes. Jivanmukta is free from feelings of attachment to all gunas. Similarly, the self experienced liberated soul at BL is also free from feelings of attachment to all gunas. When you say that the key for mukti is free from attachment, then both JM and LS are free from all gunas. In that case, both are said to be muktas in absolute sense. Right? But, JM is only said to be the mukta while the self experienced liberated soul at BL is not, as evidenced by lack of certain lordly power, finite location etc. I am sure there is an answer other than maya or worldy point of view answers for the above type of questions. If you know, please let me know.



Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list