[Advaita-l] [advaitin] What is Samadhi?

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Venkat Ji,

Is there not a contradiction between the following  statements  as between
laghuyogavAshiShTha and JMV ?

As per laghuyogavAshiShTha cited by you in connection with manonAsha,  //  The
formless death of the mind which was spoken of by me oh Raghava, is for the
videhamukta only, where no part of the mind remains //. Also  // In
jIvanmukti, the destruction is with form, whereas it is without form in the
bodiless mukti //.

And

As per JMV cited by you in connection with videhamukti, //  videhamukti is
not the mukti that takes place at the end of the jnAni's life - rather it
is a mukti that is contemporaneous with the rise of jnAna //.
Regards


On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 3:51 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Sadaji,
>
> Before I address these questions, I want to clarify in what sense Swami
> Vidyaranya uses the terms jIvanmukti and videhamukti.
>
> According to him, videhamukti is not the mukti that takes place at the end
> of the jnAni's life - rather it is a mukti that is contemporaneous with the
> rise of jnAna.
>
> In the JMV he says:
> सेयं विदेहमुक्तिर्ज्ञानोत्पत्तिसमकालीना ज्ञेया,
> ब्रह्मण्यविद्यारोपितानामेतेषां बन्धानां विद्यया विनाशे सति
> पुनरुत्पत्त्यसंभवादननुभवाच्च। तदेतद्विद्यया समकालीना मुक्तिः भाष्यकारः
> समन्वयसूत्रे प्रपंचयामासः (ब्र सू १.१.४), "तदधिगम
> उत्तरपूर्वाघयोरश्लेशविनाशौ तद्व्यपदेशात्" (ब्र सू ४.१.१३) ,‌ इत्यत्र च।
>
> This videhamukti must be understood to occur contemporaneous with the rise
> of jnAna, because when these bonds, which are sumperimposed on Brahman due
> to ignorance, are destroyed by knowledge, their reoccurrence is impossible,
> and goes against experience too. It is this liberation contemporaneous with
> knowledge, that the bhAShyakAra referred to in the commentary to the
> samanvaya sUtra and in the sUtra "When That is known, the prior and future
> sins are destroyed and unattached, for that has been declared".
>
> This raises a question - which is raised and answered thus.
>
> ननु वर्तमानदेहपातानन्तरं विदेहमुक्तिः बहवो वर्णयन्ति?
> Many hold that videhamukti only happens at the end of the current body of
> the jnAni.
>
> नायं दोषः । विवक्षावशेन मतद्वस्याविरोधात् । विदेहमुक्तिरित्यत्रत्यनेन
> देहशब्देन कृत्स्नं देहजातं विवक्षित्वा बहुभिर्वर्णितम् । अस्माभिस्तु
> भाविदेहमात्रविवक्षयोच्यते, तदनारम्भस्यैव ज्ञानसंपादनात् । अयं तु देहः
> पूर्वमेवारब्धः, अतो ज्ञानेनापि नास्यारम्भो वारयितुं शक्यते।
> एतद्देहनिवृत्तिरपि न ज्ञानफलम्,‌ अज्ञिनानामप्यारब्धकर्मक्षये तन्निवृत्तेः ।
> This is not a problem, because what is meant (by the word deha) is
> different in the two systems. In the word videhamukti, the term 'deha'
> refers to the entire gamut of bodies - this is the view held by many.
> Whereas we hold that it only refers to future bodies, and their
> non-occurrence is on account of knowledge. This body, however, has already
> had birth, therefore its occurrence cannot be prevented even by knowledge.
> Nor is the cessation of this body a result of knowledge, for that occurs
> even for the ignorant when their prArabdha ends.
>
> The opponent then asks
> तर्हि वर्तमानलिंगदेहनिवृत्तिर्ज्ञानफलमस्तु, ज्ञानमन्तरेण तदनिवृत्तिरिति
> चेत् -
> न, सत्यपि ज्ञाने जीवन्मुक्तेस्तन्निवृत्त्यभावात् ।
> If that is the case, let the cessation of the current subtle body be the
> result of knowledge, because without knowledge, the cessation of that is
> impossible.
>
> Swami Vidyaranya says - no, because even *when knowledge has arisen, in
> the case of the jIvanmukta, the current subtle body does not cease*.
>
> He later refutes the theory of a final dawn of knowledge, the
> charamasAkshAtkAra giving rise to videhamukti. He says:
> किंच क्षणिकत्वेन कालान्तरे स्वमविद्यमानं ज्ञानं कथं मुक्तिं दद्यात्?
> ज्ञानान्तरं चरमसाक्षात्कारलक्षणमुत्पत्सयत इति चेन्न ; साधनाभावात् ।
> प्रतिबन्ध प्रारब्धनिवृत्त्यैव सह
> गुरुशास्त्रदेहेन्द्रियाद्यशेषजगत्प्रतिभासनिवृत्तेः किं तत्साधनं स्यात्? ...
> ततो भवदभिमता वर्तमानदेहराहित्यलक्षणा विदेहमुक्तिः पश्चादस्तु
> देहपातानन्तरम्, अस्मदभिमता तु ‌ज्ञानसमकालीनैव ।
> Further, how can thought, which lasts for but a moment, and ceases to
> exist at a different time, give rise to liberation (videhamukti at the time
> of death)? If it is said that there is another thought, the final cognition
> of Brahman, that will arise and cause that to happen - no, because no means
> for its rise will exist at the time. When the obstacle of prArabdha has
> ceased to be, along with the appearance of the universe consisting of the
> guru, scripture, body and the senses, by what means will that (knowledge)
> arise?...Therefore, your idea of  videhamukti, ie being the absence of the
> current body, may perhaps occur after the fall of this body, but the
> videhamukti that we speak of, is coterminous with knowledge.
>
> Thus, according to JMV
> 1) videhamukti means the cessation of future bodies.
> 2) videhamukti is coterminous with brahmajnAna .
> 2) manonAsha does not mean the literal destruction of the mind, for
> jIvanmukti occurs upon manonAsha, but the mind continues to exist for a
> jIvanmukta.
>
> So what is this manonAsha that the scriptures speak of, where the mind
> continues to exist? Swami Vidyaranya quotes from the laghuyogavAshiShTha to
> explain:
>
> न च मनोनाशेन विदेहमुक्तिरेव न तु जीवन्मुक्तिरिति शंकनीयम्
> प्रश्नोत्तराभ्याम् तन्निर्णयात् -
> One cannot allege that the destruction of the mind must lead to
> videhamukti alone, and not jIvanmukti, for the following questions and
> answers explain what is meant. (This was your actual question, Sadaji).
>
> श्रीरामः -
> विवेकाभ्युदयाच्चित्तस्वरूपेऽन्तर्हिते मुने।
> मैत्र्यादयो गुणाः कुत्र जायन्ते योगिनां वद॥
> Lord Rama - oh sage, please tell me where do good qualities such as
> friendliness etc arise in, when the minds of yogis disappear with the rise
> of discrimination?
>
> वसिष्ठः -
> द्विविधाः चित्तनाशोऽस्ति सरूपोऽरूप एव च।
> जीवन्मुक्तौ सरूपः स्यादरूपोऽदेहमुक्तिगः॥
>
> VasiShTha - There are two types of destruction of mind, the destruction
> with form remaining and formless destruction. In jIvanmukti, the
> destruction is with form, whereas it is without form in the bodiless mukti.
>
> प्राकृतं गुणसंभारं ममेति बहुमन्यते।
> सुखदुःखाद्यवष्टभ्य विद्यमानं मनो विदुः॥
>
> The mind thinks of the qualities of the nature as 'mine' - hence, the wise
> ones consider being possessed of pleasure and pain to be the existence of
> the mind.
>
> चेतसः कथिता सत्ता‌ मया रघुकुलोद्वह।
> अस्य नाशमिदानीं त्वं श्रुणु प्रश्नविदां वर॥
> The existence of the mind has been explained by me, o scion of Raghu clan!
> Now, listen to what its destruction means, o best amongst the enquirers.
>
> सुखदुःखदशा धीरं साम्यान्न प्रोद्धरन्ति यम्।
> निःश्वासा इव शैलेन्द्रं तस्य चित्तं मृतं विदुः॥
> The wise call the mind of the intelligent one - which is unmoved in
> pleasure or pain from its state of equanimity like the Himalayas, which is
> unmoved by the flow of breath - as dead.
>
> आपत्कार्पण्यमुत्साहो मदो मान्द्यं महोत्सवः।
> यं नयन्ति न वैरूप्यं तस्य नष्टं मनो विदुः॥
> The wise know that the one whose mind stays unchanged when faced with
> adversity, pitiful circumstances, zeal, pride, dullness or a great
> festival, his mind is considered destroyed.
>
> चित्तमाशानिधानं हि यदा नश्यति राघव।
> मैत्र्यादिभिर्गुणैर्युक्तं तदा सत्त्वमुदेत्यलम्॥
> When the mind which is the house of desires is destroyed, Oh Raghava, the
> sattva endowed with good qualities such as friendliness etc., arises.
>
> भूयोजन्मविनिर्मुक्तं जीवन्मुक्तस्य तन्मनः।
> सरूपोऽसौ मनोनाशो जीवन्मुक्तस्य विद्यते ॥
> The jIvanmukta's mind which is free from birth, the mind that undergoes
> death with form, is the jIvanmukta's.
>
> अरूपस्तु मनोनाशो यो मयोक्तो रघूद्वह।
> विदेहमुक्तावेवासौ विद्यते निष्कलात्मकः॥
> The formless death of the mind which was spoken of by me oh Raghava, is
> for the videhamukta only, where no part of the mind remains.
>
> समग्राग्र्यगुणाधारमपि सत्त्वं प्रलीयते ।
> विदेहमुक्तावमले पदे पावने ॥
> The mind as the sattva, the locus of all auspicious qualities, completely
> dissolves in the holy state of videhamukti.
>
> Thus the manonAsha which is the means to jIvanmukti, is not the literal
> death of the mind, rather it is the immovability of the mind in the face of
> pleasure and pain.
>
> Kind regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
>
>
>