[Advaita-l] Isn't Bhakthi, Dyana & Karma sufficient for attaining Moksha ?

[Mahadevan Iyer]

Pranams Raghav Ji,

Thank you so much for your elaborate explanation Raghav ji. I read it many
times & filed it for future reference. I got my answer. Thank you.

*Hari Om Tat Sat,*
Mahadevan Iyer



On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 at 14:09, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula <
raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Mahadevan ji
>
> On Fri, 8 Jan, 2021, 6:55 pm Mahadevan Iyer via Advaita-l, <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Pranams,
>>
>> Thank you very much for your reply Raghav ji.
>>
>> But, I wanted to know, What makes GYAnam more significant than other
>> approaches like Dhyanam, Bhakthi etc.
>
>
> ....
>
>> Bhakthi, Dhyanam etc.. just give the
>
> experience of being in the state of Advaita. This experience depends
>> upon the act of doing it. Hence such approaches cannot give Moksha.
>>
>
> Apart from the fact (which you rightly mentioned) that such states are
> "produced" by effort and hence temporary (nAstyakRtah kRtena), there is
> also another important fact.
>
>   The "states of advaita" fostered by dhyAnam and high emotional states of
> bhakti are not regarded as directly effective in the removal of avidyA.
> Because, when the root cause of suffering is understood to be *avidyA* ,
> the solution has to be *vidyA* (I.e., GYAnam). Not elimination of
> thoughts and some fine emotional states.
>
> Vidya is the opposite of avidyA therefore it removes it.  Any advaitic
> "state" or sAttvika bhakti experience is not opposed to avidyA, and can
> co-exist with avidyA. These experiences help purify the mind.
>
> But GYAnam is necessarily *shAbdam*. (i.e., Words of shruti are used as a
> mirror to see oneself transcending the direct meanings of those words. Like
> transcending the glassy surface of the mirror and looking *in to* the depth
> of the mirror to see one's reflection in it.) The popular criticism that
> advaita is verbal/intellectual does not hold water because the words are
> used to transcend the words. In the mirror analogy, We are not asked to
> keep looking at the mirror (frame, surface glass etc) but we look in to the
> depth of the mirror.
>
> Just as, to remove darkness, requires switching on the light. No amount of
> sweeping or brooming the room will remove darkness. Why does sweeping or
> cleaning a room not remove the darkness in the room? Because of lack of
> connexion between sweeping a room and removing darkness in the room.
> Similarly if a person without the benefit of shravaNam and advaita
> guru-upadesha, undergoes certain peak experiences of dhyAnam and bhakti, he
> will 'come out' of those states refreshed and joyful saying "I practised
> certain sadhanas and experienced the bliss of oneness" ;  but doership and
> enjoyership continue for him, i.e., avidyA is not thereby removed. Whereas
> if an aspirant with sufficient prior advaita clarity experiences those very
> peak states, he would come out with greater conviction saying "I am
> brahman", and experience greater freedom from his mind's habitual dualistic
> thinking and emoting habits. He will not say, "I 'experienced' advaita".
> One advaitic acharya used to say, "All experience by itself is dumb. It is
> only as useful as your understanding of it, which comes from teaching by a
> Guru".
>
> Please note that no one entirely lacks the "experience" of advaita. Deep
> sleep (advaita+tamas), intense anger (advaita+rajas), deep bhakti/dhyAnam
> (advaita+sattva) etc., are all immersive advaitic experiences with
> different predominant guNas according to Patanjali's principles. (Patanjali
> tradition says that samAdhi is chittasya-*sArvabhauma*-laxaNa). But these
> advaita states too come and go. The mind temporarily resolves in such
> states. But that does not attend to the root cause - avidyA.
>
>  Like I said we should first focus on the root cause of human suffering
> and then it becomes clear why vidyA alone destroys avidyA. Bhakti-based
> Emotions, Thought-free states etc., do not by themselves destroy avidyA -
> although they may facilitate the arising of vidyA through the advaita
> upadesha from acharyas (a cognitive input).
>
>
>
>
>> But as GYAnam is self-evident. First, it removes the ignorance, then it
>> removes itself, leaving only the Truth.
>>
>
> For context, we can say, GYAna vRtti arises in the duality of Guru student
> etc. It arises and removes avidyA and is itself dissolved like a stick used
> to kindle a flame which itself is finally consumed in the flame, as they
> say. GYAnam does not go away.  It was, is, and will be. But GYAna vRtti
> arises, does its job, and goes away.
>
>>
>> The self knowledge acts on the false knowledge which is in the MIND of
>> the JIVA is it not ?
>>
>
> AvidyA is cause of the mind itself, and is also in a sense encapsulated in
> it.
>
>>
>> ❓ My doubt is that, GYAnam can remove the ignorance only when one is
>> (appears to be) in the state of duality. When one reached the pinnacle
>> of Bhakthi, Dyanam etc, there is no such duality as the mind does not
>> indulge in any kind of discrimination. We may call it "spiritual
>> experience" or "meditative state". The purpose of GYAnam is to remove
>> the veil of Ignorance. But in such a state GYAnam cannot remove the veil
>> of ignorance because the person don't have any false knowledge in the
>> first place.
>>
>
> That is why it is asserted that GYAnam removal does not take place in such
> advaitic states. It needs guru and instruction. Where there is total
> absence of duality like in sleep/samadhi, no GYAna-vRtti can take place for
> removal of avidyA.
>
>>
> And we also note that while there is no duality in deep sleep, the mere
> absence of *duality* is not the same as removal of avidyA ( the seed of the
> dvaita buddhi, the sense of being a doer and enjoyer - all are termed
> dvaita buddhi). Even if a person were to sleep or unfortunately slip in to
> a coma, there is no duality for him, but the avidyA together with the
> infinite number of unfructified sanchita karmas will lead to future janmas
> and consequent suffering.
>
>>
>> Now, suppose a person is so refined that he can indulge in such a
>> Bhakthi, Dyanam etc... for every moment rest of his life, and die a
>> natural death depleting all his karmas.
>>
>
> Sri Shankara in taittiriya presents a somewhat similar vedic ritualistic
> (mImAmsaka view) as follows. " If a person does the necessary nitya karmas
> to prevent new papa arising and also he exhausts the current life prArabdha
> depleting his karmas which have already fructified, will he not get
> mukti/eternal svarga upon death?" The answer given there which applies to
> your question too, is that the dormant sanchita karmas do not get exhausted
> in one lifetime. And as long as the *kartRtva-buddhi* (I am a doer)
> continues (caused by avidyA), it will create continued embodiment to work
> out those sanchita karmas. So Videha Mukthi does not happen.
>
> Also, the refined bhakti and dhyAnam states you mentioned are
> characterized by absence of duality of thinker, thought and thinking. So by
> definition such refined states are displaced by the arising of tripuTi
> triads of thinker, thought, thinking, as is wont to happen in a normal
> lifestyle.
>
> Please note that such refined bhakti and dhyAnam states can still not rule
> put subsequent arising of dvaita buddhi and raga dveShas w.r.t the forms of
> Ishvara etc., as in the case of key figures in dualistic theological
> systems. Or Patanjali's error in insistence on multiple jeevatmans and
> absolute reality of the world etc.
>
> Sri Shankara in mANDUkya says, for that matter, the cessation of thought
> forms is not even possible without GYAnam. So Patanjali's
> chitta-vRtti-nirodha is still one step short of GYAnam and the absolute
> cessation of human suffering.
>
> They (thought-free and bhakti type meditative practices) can only
> asymptotically approach the ideal. On the other hand, GYAnam can accomplish
> chitta-vRtti nirodhah by removing the root cause of mental oscillation.
>
> Although, really speaking, Advaita is the truth of oneself in spite of the
> experience of duality and thoughts.
>
> Apologies that my post went longer than intended.
>
> Om
>
> Raghav
>
>
>>