[Advaita-l] The Four kinds of 'Mukti' compared with the 'Kaivalya' of Vedanta
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Fri Jun 11 05:17:32 CDT 2010
Here are some more points worth noting about the impossibility of 'svarUpa
naasha' in the Vedaamtic Kaivalya characterized by Brahman alone existing:
The Bhagavadgita 2.16 teaches: न अभावो विद्यते सतः [ Existence
(Atman/Brahman) will never go out of existence.] That assures that Atman
will never become non-existent, destroyed, in any circumstance whatsoever.
It would be interesting to note that the Chandogya Upanishad Chapter 6
teaches the Self-knowledge, sad-vidyA. Here, the word 'Brahman' is not used
and instead the word 'Sat' is used. Sat is Brahman, Satyam. The Upanishad
begins by presenting Sat as the cause of the universe. After a long
deliberation on the non-difference of the effect from the cause, the
Upanishad concludes by teaching 'That Self of the universe is Satyam, you
are That, Shvetaketu'. The Upanishadic teaching is: Atman the Self of the
body-mind complex is none other than the Sat that is the self of the whole
universe which includes the body-mind complex as well. This is because the
body-mind apparatus is also made of the same elements that go into making
the entire universe. These elements are themselves effects of the Sat. On
the basis of the three illustrations: clay-clay-products, gold-ornaments and
iron-implements the Upanishad had taught that all effects being
transformations, vikAra, are unreal as transformations (name/form) but real
only as their material cause. mRttiketyeva satyam. sadeva satyam.
Since the Upanishad itself has taught that the Atma is non-different from
Sat, there is no question of Atman losing its svarUpa in the
kaivalya/liberated state where Brahman alone remains. It is further
interesting to note that the Lord in Gita 2.16 had taught the Atman as Sat,
the one that never goes out of existence (as contrasted with 'anAtma',
'asat' that has no existence at all]. The Upanishad teaches Sat as Brahman,
the cause of the universe. Thus, the Gita 'Sat' Atma is the Upanishadic
Sat, Brahman. 'Atmaa cha Brahma' is the pithy sentence of the Sutra
Thus, on the authority of the Gita and the Upanishad we conclude that there
can never be the possibility of the Atman losing its svarUpa, 'svarUpa
nAsha', in the state of Kaivalya.
We have seen other scriptural passages in this connection in the earlier
posts on this topic. Also, svarUpa naasha could be spoken of only in the
case of any 'merger'. The case of the Atman attaining Kaivalya is not a
case of merger. Merger presupposes more than one entity that could come
together to form a merger. Here we have only one Consciousness that alone
appears (appeared) as the Atman in the body-mind apparatus (upAdhi) and as
the sarva-vyApi Brahman, Sat, in the jagat-upAdhi. What happens in kaivalya
is only the extinguishing, through viveka, knowledge, of the upAdhi-s. In
the absence of the upAdhi-s, what remains over is just the One Chaitanya,
Consciousness called Brahman, Sat.
Om Tat Sat
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 5:22 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 3:40 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:
>> श्रीगुरुभ्यो नमः
>> 1. Only that mukti taught as the supreme one in the Vedanta that is
>> nothing other than realizing that one is nitya mukta svabhaava is the
>> ever-lasting one
>> 2. In this, one is already ever-free, never-bound; only not realizing
>> this owing to ajnAna. And thinking that one is bound.
>> 3. When owing to the Guru-ShAstra upadesha and sadhana one realizes
>> this, the ajnAna is dispelled and one comes to know that one has ever been
>> free and that it is one's true nature
>> 4. This 'coming to know' is not to be mistaken as any 'beginning of a
>> state' and its end feared; it is only a figurative expression to denote the
>> dispelling of avidya
>> 5. The dispelled avidya will not return as there is no power that can
>> cause its return.
>> 6. There is no going to any other loka, taking any other form or being
>> with any other different entity
>> 7. Thus, there is no finittude of any kind in this moksha and
>> therefore this alone is the real one.
> With reference to the above, it would be beneficial to learn what the
> Chandogya Upanishad Chapter 3 says:
> // 2. "As people who do not know the spot where a treasure of gold has been
> hidden somewhere in the earth, walk over it again and again without finding
> it, so all these creatures day after day go into the World of Brahman and
> yet do not find it, because they are carried away by untruth. *
> 3. "That Self abides in the heart. The etymological explanation of *heart*is this: This one (ayam) is in the heart (hridi); therefore It is called the
> heart (hridayam). He who knows this goes every day in deep sleep to Heaven
> (i.e. Brahman, dwelling in the heart).
> 4. "Now, this serene being, after rising from this physical body and
> attaining the Highest Light, reaches his own true form. This is the Self."
> Thus he (i.e. the teacher, questioned by his pupils) spoke. Continuing, he
> said: "This is the immortal, the fearless. This is Brahman. And of this
> Brahman the name is Satyam, the True."//
> Shankaracharya comments on this last mantra: 'rising up from this body',
> giving up this body, i e. giving up the idea of identity of the Self with
> the body ....Before the attainment of this true nature, he had accepted
> through ignorance the body, which is other than his own nature, s his own
> Self. As distinguished from that, it is being said, 'in his true nature.'
> Another point to be remembered regarding the (im)possibility of 'losing
> one's nature', 'svarUpa nAsha' in the state of kaivalya is that - even if
> one wishes to destroy/lose one's nature, svarUpa, it is impossible to do so
> as the Bhagavadgita has taught: The Self cannot be destroyed by burning,
> cutting, .....killing, etc. अच्छेद्योऽयं, अदाह्योऽयं.....न हन्यते हन्यमाने
> शरीरे. There is no way one can bring about the destruction of the Self.
> So, in the state of Kaivalya, the Self alone remains. The loss of
> individuality is not tolerable to some poeple and thus they raise this
> objection to the Vedantic Kaivalya.
> Om Tat Sat
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list