Moksha and the ‘person’

Kratu Nanadan, a knowledgeable friend I met in Bangalore through another friend, has made some lucid comments in all aspects of Indian philosophy, including the Puranas, which he shared with me and others. The following is an example:

When a ‘person’ reaches mokṣa, there is no more that ‘person’; there was no person, to begin with. The whole thing, including reaching mokṣa was a story that never happened. It was not even a story, and it was nobody’s story. As the well-known analogy puts it, it is like picking up a handful of ocean water and finding that the ocean’s blueness is absent in it. There is no karma, and all that is is the nondual Ātman-Brahman.

The words of the Taittarīyopaniṣat echo such a realization in many ways, one of them being: “He is not agitated as ‘why did I not do good deeds; why did I do bad deeds. Having thus known (the Ātman), he elates/invigorates himself, and verily sees both (bad and good karma) as (Param) ātman. Thus, the upaniṣat.”—Taittarīyopaniṣat, Ānandavallī, VI, ii.

——Karma goes absent with the dawn of Ātman.

6 thoughts on “Moksha and the ‘person’

  1. Could you please check the reference, Martin – I couldn’t find it. I assume you mean ‘BrahmAnandavallI’ – the second ‘chapter’. In which case the 6th anuvaka, verse 2 is something about “Does anyone who knows not, on departing from this life, go to yonder world?” Or is your quotation from Shankara’s bhAShya?

    Your friend’s statement sounds a bit ‘neo-Advaitin’ to me! Of course there is no person from an as if pAramArthika viewpoint, but that is not very helpful to a seeker who is necessarily in vyavahAra.

    Best wishes,
    Dennis

  2. “He is not agitated as ‘why did I not do good deeds; why did I do bad deeds’.

    The prisons of this world are full of such people.

  3. RR Your last paragraph is quite right, referring itself to a majority of people, but the main point in the post refers itself to the FEW – the liberated ones (a very small minority).

  4. “RR Your last paragraph is quite right, referring itself to a majority of people, but the main point in the post refers itself to the FEW – the liberated ones (a very small minority).”

    Hello Martin,

    If the non-agitated prison population were itself not a very small minority we’d be in a helluva pickle. If you’re correct about the ‘liberated ones’, both groups are perhaps a few too many.

  5. Martin has clarified that the Taittiriya quotation is from 2.9 (not 6.2).

    This is saying that, once we are enlightened, we know that we are neither a doer nor an enjoyer. Consequently, it would make no sense to feel good about things done well or guitly about things done badly. Shankara comments:

    “The j~nAnI who has been described above, as he is very clear that omission and commission are mithyA, he is indeed not affected nor shaken nor irritated or made to feel guily by them.”

    And he goes on to say that both good and bad actions are non-separate from paramAtman and cannot affect him.

  6. That was a nice crisp Post, Martin. Thank you.
    The mantra 4.4.22, brihat also mentions the same point as that of 2.9, taittirIya about a kritakritya. It says:

    “(It is but proper) that the (Realized) Sage is never over taken by these two thoughts, ‘I did an evil act for this,’ and ‘I did a good act for this.’ He conquers both of them. Things done or not done do not trouble him.”

    Shankara explains further in great detail what is involved and adds, “Thus for a monk who has known Brahman, both kinds of action,
    whether done in the past or in the present life, are destroyed, and no new ones are undertaken. Also, things done, such as the regular rites, or those very things not done – the omission of them – do not trouble
    him.

Comments are closed.