Concept of Mukti and Shankaracharya

[K. S. Arjunwadkar]

At 12:06 AM 12/31/98 -0500, you wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, K. S. Arjunwadkar wrote:
>
>> From
>> "K. S. Arjunwadkar" <panini at pn2.vsnl.net.in>
>> To
>> List members
>>
>> Dec 31, 98
>>
>> The concept of Mukti (liberation) as expounded in Vedanta texts cannot
>> logically co-exist with conscious worldly activities of a man; since the
>> former presumes total freedom from instincts and efforts towards a worldly
>> object, while the latter can proceed only from a worldly, howsoever noble,
>> motivation.
>
>I can't claim to be a learned scholar on this, but this is my take.
>The coexistence with worldly activities takes place, once you
>do acts for the sake of doing and for the sake of achieving.
>Achievements are external perceptions of your deeds, you not
>waiting on them. (beautifully said in Bhagavadgita).
>
>> Does Shankaracharya himself, with his persistent and admirable
>> intellectual and missionary work as vindicated by the record of his vast
>> literary and organisational achievements, fit in this concept as most of
>> his admirers and traditional biographers believe he does? In other words,
>> was he a liberated soul?
>>
>He himself defines the stages of liberation in vivekacuDamaNi.
>The aspiration of liberation is the last stage of a yogi's life.
>All activities indeed cease at that time.
>
>> If we choose to set apart his biographical details replete with miracles
>> and rely only on evidence from his scholarly works, we come across remarks
>> against his opponents which are in no way different from those of a total
>> worldly man. Thus, at times, he dubs his opponent who solely relies on
>> logic/reason as a bull without a tail and horns, ridicules him as speaking
>> with an unrestrained mouth, and so on. While concluding his criticism of
>> the philosophical doctrines of the Buddha, he remarks that the Buddha was
>> either insane or one who hated the mankind to the extent of taking pleasure
>> in misguiding it. I can, if required, quote from his works to support my
>> statements.
>
>>From his own definition, these are the sraddha stages and are
>induced by one's teacher.  These lead to samadhana when the
>arguments lose meaning and finally the mumuksuta, when one
>realizes one's "true nature" (not easy!)
>
>>
>> Shankaracharya was undoubtedly an intellectual giant and an able social
>> organiser whose influence on Indian people is as much alive today as it was
>> centuries ago. Personally, too, I owe him a great debt inasmuch as a
>> sustained study of his works moulded my thinking habit through several
>> decades. The issue I have raised should be taken as purely academic which,
>> strangely enough, has its roots in his effective teaching in the art of
>> logical thinking.
>>
>> I shall be thankful to learned list members for a feedback.
>
>A simple minded feedback..
>
>How does one categorize SriKrishna if he lived or
>Buddha, Jesus Christ  or Mahammed as part of history?
>
>Something to think in new year..
>
>- BM
>
Jan 9, 99
My approach is based not on popular belief but on the logic of the concept.
I can repeat what I wrote about RAmakRSna and RamaNa even in the cases of
personalities like the Buddha and others.
KSA