[Hindu-Advaita] Who attains Moksha?

[shivsomashekhar]

According to Advaita, who attains Moksha?

This is an inconsistency because - for the above to hold true - someone has to be able to tell oneself "I have attained Moksha". Such a statement of recognition can only be made in a post-moksha state. That is, the individual has to persist as an individual *after* Moksha for this to hold true.

This is not a problem with other forms of Vedanta. However, this becomes a question of interest in the case of Advaita as there is no dispute that all Advaitins accept that there is only the undivided Brahman after Moksha. So, who attains Moksha?

 

[George-ananda]

According to Advaita, who attains Moksha?

The jiva attains moksha. The jiva consists of a spark of the infinite confined and limited by matter. Eventually the jiva loses its limitations and merges with the paramatman/Brahman.

This is an inconsistency because - for the above to hold true - someone has to be able to tell oneself "I have attained Moksha". Such a statement of recognition can only be made in a post-moksha state. That is, the individual has to persist as an individual *after* Moksha for this to hold true.

While experiencing Moksha there is no longer an individualized 'I' but a 'we' so to even say 'I have attained Moksha' one can not be in the experience of Moksha.

 

[Vinayaka]

Firstly, moksha simply means release from the cycle. Shouldn't the question be, 'Who attains nirvikalpa samadhi?'

 

[Aupmanyav]

So, who attains Moksha?

'Moksha' may not be the correct word for an advaitist, since there is no heaven or hell for him/her or birth and death. it will be 'enlightenment' or 'jnana', tearing the veil of ignorance and understanding (things). The form comes to know the truth. Even if it does not understand the truth, it is still Brahman. Are not all living and non-living things Brahman, jagat is only an illusion - 'Brahma satyam jaganmithya ..'.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

The jiva attains moksha. The jiva consists of a spark of the infinite confined and limited by matter. Eventually the jiva loses its limitations and merges with the paramatman/Brahman.

So, would you say that there is a time when the Jiva is different from Brahman - that is, until the merger?

'I have attained Moksha' one can not be in the experience of Moksha.

I agree. But this does make it a little weird...that we strive for a goal, but we will not be around to know that we reached the goal.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

'Moksha' may not be the correct word for an advaitist, since there is no heaven or hell for him/her or birth and death. it will be 'enlightenment' or 'jnana', tearing the veil of ignorance and understanding (things). The form comes to know the truth. Even if it does not understand the truth, it is still Brahman. Are not all living and non-living things Brahman, jagat is only an illusion - 'Brahma satyam jaganmithya ..'.

If everything is Brahman, then to whom is the illusion?

Shouldn't the illusion be Brahman as well, in which case, there really is no illusion?

 

[George-ananda]

So, would you say that there is a time when the Jiva is different from Brahman - that is, until the merger?

Not different, but under the temporary spell of Maya (illusion).

I agree. But this does make it a little weird...that we strive for a goal, but we will not be around to know that we reached the goal.

I understand your point. It is hard for us to relate to, but there will come a time when we will see the 'I' was Maya (illusion) at play.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If everything is Brahman, then to whom is the illusion? Shouldn't the illusion be Brahman as well, in which case, there really is no illusion?

We are a particular arrangement of Brahman. Just as all the various atoms are constituted of the elementary particles (which essentially is nothing else but energy), we are the permutations, combinations in Brahman itself. And because of this difference, encounter illusion. But we can see that it is not true.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

We are a particular arrangement of Brahman. Just as all the various atoms are constituted of the elementary particles (which essentially is nothing else but energy), we are the permutations, combinations in Brahman itself. And because of this difference, encounter illusion. But we can see that it is not true.

So, we are all Brahman, but at the same time, we are also simultaneously different. That is, the differences between you and me (for example) are always real - regardless of whether one sees a common Brahman behind us or not. So, why is this difference between you and me an illusion?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I understand your point. It is hard for us to relate to, but there will come a time when we will see the 'I' was Maya (illusion) at play.

Could it be that this point has already happened? Consider the following -

It happened when you accepted the scriptural statements on one Brahman as truth. You have already accepted that everything is just Brahman - in spite of the perceived duality and that . There is nothing more to happen meaning, George-Advaita has pretty much attained Moksha (Jivan-mukti).

 

[George-ananda]

Could it be that this point has already happened? Consider the following -

It happened when you accepted the scriptural statements on one Brahman as truth. You have already accepted that everything is just Brahman - in spite of the perceived duality and that . There is nothing more to happen meaning, George-Advaita has pretty much attained Moksha (Jivan-mukti).

I like your thinking. However, there is a difference between intellectually understanding the concepts and those concepts being your experience. I do not yet experience as shivsomashekhar. Duality has not fallen away for me yet.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So, we are all Brahman, but at the same time, we are also simultaneously different. That is, the differences between you and me (for example) are always real - regardless of whether one sees a common Brahman behind us or not. So, why is this difference between you and me an illusion?

As I said, different permutations and combinations. As an 'advaitists', I have two realities, absolute and pragmatic (Paramarthika and Vyavaharika). In the first, there is no difference. In the second, there is.

Advaita has pretty much attained Moksha (Jivan-mukti).

Yes, that is what have always been saying - I am 'enlightened', I am 'jnani', a 'tattvadarshi', a 'paccekabuddha', I am a 'jivan-mukta', there is no birth or death for me (except at the 'Vayavaharika' level), I have obtained 'nirvana', 'moksha', 'nivritti', 'deliverance'. I am a 'tathagata'. When I die (in Vyavaharika); Brahma, Indra and all other Gods will not be able to find me, because I will be 'gone, gone, gone beyond, gone altogether beyond' (Gate, gate, paragate, parasamgate). That is 'prajna'.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

As I said, different permutations and combinations. As an 'advaitists', I have two realities, absolute and pragmatic (Paramarthika and Vyavaharika). In the first, there is no difference. In the second, there is.

The difference between the views is one view has Brahman as everything and there is no Brahman in the other. But, you and I exist as individual entities in both views.

So, there is no illusion then - in either view.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I like your thinking. However, there is a difference between intellectually understanding the concepts and those concepts being your experience. I do not yet experience as shivsomashekhar. Duality has not fallen away for me yet.

This is where we enter the tricky concept of Jivan-mukti .

Duality did not fall away for Shankara and Ramana, though both are believed to have attained Advaita style Jivan-mukti. They continued to function as before. They recognized other people, conversed with them, etc., which would not be possible, if no duality is perceived. They were only able to do all of this because they saw the same differences that we see (which is necessary to function in this world). Even if they saw a common Brahman in everything, the duality part continued to be the same.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But, you and I exist as individual entities in both views.

No, 'I' do not exist in 'Paramarthika', only Brahman does - 'Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya ..', 'Ekamevādwitīyam', no deity, atheism. Yes, the two realities exist side-by-side and are in no conflict.

 

[George-ananda]

This is where we enter the tricky concept of Jivan-mukti .

Duality did not fall away for Shankara and Ramana, though both are believed to have attained Advaita style Jivan-mukti. They continued to function as before. They recognized other people, conversed with them, etc., which would not be possible, if no duality is perceived. They were only able to do all of this because they saw the same differences that we see (which is necessary to function in this world). Even if they saw a common Brahman in everything, the duality part continued to be the same.

Good points. Now, we must consider what is the difference between Jivan-mukti and mukti. I think jivan-mukti is what I also heard called Self-Realized Saints. Now I can believe someone like a Pramahansa Yogananda is such but not a George-ananda. Now, I must wonder and need to research, what happens after the death of the jivan-mukti's physical body? Is jivan-mukti a permanent entity? Or does it eventually merge in the absolute?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Now, I must wonder and need to research, what happens after the death of the jivan-mukti's physical body? Is jivan-mukti a permanent entity? Or does it eventually merge in the absolute?

That is no brainer, George-Ananda, realized or unrealized, you are it. 'Tat twam asi'. And since 'you are (already) it', merging cannot apply to you. Add or subtract anything from it, you still get the whole (purnasya purnamādāya purnameva avashishyate). Yeah, there is no coming back, for no one, ever. The physical body made up of elements gets decomposed in time or goes up in flames in an hour's time as the case may be. What will come back will be a million new combinations which will have what constituted you, chemical recycling. It is all so clearly given in our books. Once knowing it, there is no shackle to bind one. Understanding is 'mukti'. What is bound is our mind. What binds us is our own ignorance.

 

[George-ananda]

That is no brainer, George-Ananda, realized or unrealized, you are it. 'Tat twam asi'. And since 'you are (already) it', merging cannot apply to you. Add or subtract anything from it, you still get the whole (purnasya purnamādāya purnameva avashishyate). Yeah, there is no coming back, for no one, ever. The physical body made up of elements gets decomposed in time or goes up in flames in an hour's time as the case may be. What will come back will be a million new combinations which will have what constituted you, chemical recycling. It is all so clearly given in our books. Once knowing it, there is no shackle to bind one. Understanding is 'mukti'. What is bound is our mind. What binds us is our own ignorance.

Sorry, Aup, but an atheist-materialist interpretation has no standing with me.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I try but always fail.

 

[George-ananda]

Good points. Now, we must consider what is the difference between Jivan-mukti and mukti. I think jivan-mukti is what I also heard called Self-Realized Saints. Now I can believe someone like a Pramahansa Yogananda is such but not a George-ananda. Now, I must wonder and need to research, what happens after the death of the jivan-mukti's physical body? Is jivan-mukti a permanent entity? Or does it eventually merge in the absolute?

@shivsomashekhar I have looked into this more. Here is the best discussion I found so far. Jivanmukti

Here is an interesting passage:

The third explanation for the body's continuation after liberation is given great attention in the later Advaita scholastic tradition. It begins with the general rule that when Brahman is known, all ignorance (and thus karma) is destroyed, so how can the karma-based body continue? Later Advaitins assert that a remnant or trace of avidya can exist even after one gains release; this remnant is based on karma whose fruits have already commenced manifestation (prarabdha karma). Before one's final disembodiment, one must experience "enjoy," the fruits of those actions, which cannot be removed by knowledge. Put another way (following Sankara in Ch U bhasya VI. 14. 2), one can know Brahman without quite yet attaining Brahman.

It still seems like jivanmukti is a temporary state.